(no subject)

[desh]

Um, so if the second Great Depression starts this week, does that help Obama or McCain?

Comments

[desh]

Some of the more panicked people in the news today are talking about "worst since the great depression". Just starting today, because of today's news. I think they're probably wrong, but I'm now taking it seriously, at least.

See, the difference is that your conservatives actually spend less than your liberals...

[fweebles.livejournal.com]

They try to, anyway. Our current liberals are being largely run by the enviro branch of the party, so they're all in favour of imposing taxes on polluters and on gas companies as their top election issue, and it's not playing well in our election campaign at all.

[nnaylime.livejournal.com]

I keep wondering when Republicans forgot what the party stands for (including being fiscally conservative). There are many ways in which, when looking at the 'classical' (pre-Regan) Republican platform, I identify with that party - sort of how Christine Todd Whitman's PAC wants to take the party back . . . but for their hawkishness, I'm actually right behind it.

[desh]

I'd vote for Eisenhower if he were running. (Well, maybe not this year, but certainly in 2004 and 2000.)

tax and spend "liberals" -- a myth

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

uh, no. the last set of liberal governments was very fiscally responsible, and gave us a huge surplus (forgot the exact numbers, ~12 billion C$?), which in a mere 2.5 years under the conservatives has shrunk to ~2 billion and is projected to drop to ~1 billion next year; the lowest in more than a decade.

now part of this is of course the economy slowing down, but part is the election pandering of tax cuts. the conservatives' lavish spending lies in different areas than that of the liberals; they're always happy to cut social programs but much more likely to engage in corporate welfare.