The Language of Betrayal

[Seth Ackerman]

> ----------
> From: 	Nathan Newman[SMTP:nathan at newman.org]
> Reply To: 	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Sent: 	Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:35 PM
> To: 	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: 	Re: The Language of Betrayal
> 
> If nothing else, does Clinton get credit - as argued in THE AGENDA - for
> successfully ransoming lower interest rates in exchange for cutting the
> deficit?  To the extent that Dems care enough about working class folks to
> make that deal where a GOP Pres like Reagan would not negotiate for that
> outcome, doesn't that get Dems credit for lower unemployment?
> 
> -- Nathan Newman
> 
---

So when Clinton cuts the deficit, he shows a commitment to fight for working
people to get lower interest rates? But when George Bush raised taxes to cut
the deficit, he was just deferring to the miserly budget-balancing orthodoxy
of Republican bankers, right?

When Ronald Reagan said the EITC was his favorite anti-poverty program it
was a GOP scheme to screw the non-working poor, but when Clinton boosted the
EITC, he was a liberal fighting for the working poor.

When the Republican Congress overwhelmingly passed a minimum wage hike, they
only did it because they were forced to, but when Clinton signed it, it was
because he's passionate about the welfare of the little guy.

This is the way the world works, I gather.

Seth