“There is a difference between calling the bailouts a mistake and calling them one example of socialism. I did both.” I agree, kinda. True she called them all a mistake and made reference to all the bailouts being socialism, but she still sells it a little short. To fully appreciate Bush’s bailouts, and correct me if I’m wrong here, it takes someone extremely intelligent to understand the fallouts of Bush’s inaction. For Obama and his spending proposals (World Poverty Act and domestic spending) no such distinction is made. No need to understand the implications of inaction, Obama’s just a socialist because he wants to spend money.
But event that’s not my point exactly. I’m not calling for Lisa to call Bush a socialist, even though I believe she has and that she did it in her first post, my point is that the MSM isn’t. There is a complete double standard in the media that’s applied to Obama on economic matters. I’ve already lost count of how many right wing op-eds I’ve read calling Obama a socialist. Not to mention how many times Republicans have been on television with GOP talking points yelling Obama is a socialist or has socialist tendencies. Despite Bush actually taking over private business with government money, increasing the size of government exponentially, running up the largest deficit in American history, creating two huge new bureaucracies DHS and NCLB, and using tax payer money to build roads, bridges, schools and other infrastructure in a foreign country the socialist outcry from the MSM is rather silent. Maybe now after Bush’s latest socialist bailout pundits will begin to see the GOP for what it really is but it still has a long way to go to be comparable.
I think Lisa does call them both socialists, even though I think she sells Bush's a little short but that is probably more of a personal qualm on my part than anything else.
Yet, I can’t leave this without mentioning some other points in Lisa’s reply.
Let’s review– Barack wants to spend money on some domestic programs, ending world poverty, AND continuing to leave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Explain why his plans are so different from those of the Bush administration. (Well…other than the raising taxes on “rich” people part of Barack’s agenda.)Obama wants to deploy troops out of Iraq and redeploy troops to Afghanistan within 15 months of taking office. That has been his policy for almost a year. It is George Bush and John McSame who have changed their policy in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan to a more pro-Obama stance. Until a few weeks ago John McCain said we could stay in Iraq forever as long as our troops weren’t dying, but if they are still dying we can’t leave. He said it numerous times. George Bush has said since launching his war that he will not set a timetable for withdrawal and that he would only send more troops to Afghanistan if the generals called for it. In the last few weeks Bush has totally reversed his policy by agreeing to a framework with the Iraqi government for a timetable for withdrawal and has readily announced more troop deployments to Afghanistan, of which now John McSame supports. Bush and McCain are playing catch up to Obama’s foreign policy.
With all that said, every one of Obama’s domestic spending proposals could be paid for 10 times over with the money we’ve already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. And according to Republicans our economy is the best and strongest it’s ever been, so the rush to call Obama a socialist for spending proposals that are minuscule compared to the GOP’s endless wars is a scare tactic that’s a disgrace and completely hypocritical. If we can spend nearly a trillion dollars on war without end, plans that call for way less money to be spent here at home is not socialism.
