MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Goldwater: Old line conservative...economically, socially and believing that we avoid committing to foreign relationships that obligate our treasure and lives be put at stake. (minimize-conservative) Never went beyond the senate, so we can't judge any executive legacy.
Lyndon Johnson: Liberal, social programs, expanded welfare and other programs like it in the 'War on Poverty.' Expanded social government spending. Expanded by 50% our commnittment in Viet Nam, that proved wrong, didn't run again when he could have. Signed the first Federal Civil Rights Act in 1965
Richard Nixon: Conservative in foreign affairs didn't know it at the time but really just opened up the Chinese communist gulag so Sam Walton could makes billions selling their toys, t-shirts abd 'tennis' shoes at Wal-Mart. Liberal on many social affairs. Created the EPA, reformed without cutting the new AFDC (aid to familes with dependant children) (unintendended consequences of disquailifying any assistance with an able-bodied man at home, an incentive for 'fatherless' families). Ended the military draft., reduced voting age to 18. Tried...and failed...with price controls. (YEEEAH RIGHT !)
Gerald Ford: Conservative: Vetoed every bill to hit his desk. Didn't or wouldn't change a thing. Pardoned Nixon (Watergate). Lost the election.
Jimmy Cater; Liberal in almost everyway while still a cold war hawk being a former naval nuclear-sub skipper (Captain). Suffered two oil embargoes...high inflation that resulted, led to a deep recession. Generally expanded government social programs and spending. Was as responsible for the beginning of the end of the cold war as anybody, including Reagen by convincing the Europeans, on our dime, to install (up to 40,000) medium range nukes to counter the Soviet advantage that didn't truly exist. Signed the document securing the release of our hostages in Iran only a week before Reagen basked almost as if it was he who accomplished that, at his inauguration.
Ronald Reagen: Social conservative, economic liberal like no other. Preached conservative government values (govt. IS the problem) only to expotentually expand government (cut tax revenue, not taxes) and set record after record of deficit spending under the justification of the the theory of 'supply-side' (sic) economics, using the theory of something called the 'Lauffer Curve' it worked and most economists laughed alright. Signed tax reform and welfare reform neither of which entirely stuck with a return to expanding welfare needs and the impending onslaught of futher specific changes in the tax code. Became known as the teflon president when he wasn't even touched by the Iran-Contra affair...selling missiles to Iran to secure the released of a kidnapped and a very valuble CIA Marine Col. in Lebenon.
George Bush I: Social conservative that continued the liberal big govt. deficit spending of Reagen but on less social programs. Pursued 'welfare' reform (people welfare, not corporate welfare) that failed to materialize. 'Had' to raise taxes after pledging...'No new taxes.' Lost to Clinton...and some believe only because Ross Perot ran and took votes from Bush.
Bill Clinton: Socially liberal and economic progressive which to me is defined as neither strick conservatism or liberalism...yes more centrist as exemplifyied by the most dramatic and actual reform of welfare and the end of AFDC as we knew it with more responsibility is placed on the states. Womanizer, Rhodes Scholar (Oxford Univ.) and sent the proper message to Wall Street and the speculators with first tax/spending bill (51-50 tie broken by Al Gore) and started interest rates down to historic lows. Actually reduced federal spending and its size by some 200,000 people. This all resulted in the greatest economic boom in the 20th century...and while creating the Federal governent revenue surplus in about 40 years.
George Bush II: Conservative socially, economic liberal with yet more big government, deficit spending the expansion of which on both counts...are setting records. No much of a man really, never had a real job, made money on investments with daddy while losing money on his own in the oil and gas business. Rode daddy's coattails to the white house, only to become an even more arrogant and incompetant punk. I most likely wouldn't feel comfortable in the same room with this man.
I personally have been describing this bunch in congress and the executive as neocons since back in the 90's. Nowhere in Goldwater's conservatism would we see anything like what is going on now. It is possible that if he was elected (1964) we wouldn't have any or near as much problem with Islam or government or taxes and the new ones coming, and as we seem to be up against now.
|
RE: Defeat looms for Bush and the Neo-cons - 
Profile
).
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread