Isn't the answer somewhere in the middle?

Question

Liberal. Raise taxes and increase government power to push for social progress. Government oversight of large corporations and the rich.


Pro: In times of economic struggle IE great depression, or social change, IE civil rights movement, the government sometimes can step in and help.


Con: This tends to increase government spending and overall power, much of it is wasteful, and also takes away much power and money from the individual.


Conservative. Lower taxes and decrease government power, leaving social progress in the hands of the people. Less government oversight of large corporations and the rich.


Pro: This allows faster economic growth in times of prosperity, and gives the individual the freedom to do what he/she wants with their own money, and generally decreases unnecessary government interference in our everyday lives. It also decreases gov't spending.


Con: It allows corporations to get away with more, and it makes things more difficult for the poor.

BTW if you haven't noticed, the problem with Bush is that he's not conservative ENOUGH.

Answer 1

I agree with the additional detail 100%! The rest sounds as if you have been reading about Keynesian Economics. Problem is that social programs are easier to add and grow, than to subtract and decrease, thus an economy that spends like a drug addict.

Many of the problems started in the New Deal, but it just took a while to catch up with us. FDR himself fore-casted that giving a man something for nothing would break his spirit. The economy has to based on actual goods, services or commodities. But as generations become accustomed to entitlements, the family disintegrates, crime and welfare costs grow disproportionately.

In fact, 50 years ago defense spending was 60% of the budget and payments for social programs (welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid) was 22% of the budget. In 2006 defense spending dropped to 20% and social programs increased to 60%.

Answer 2

moderate extremist!