VANITY: Will We Need to Vote Democrat to Reduce the Growth of Goverment Spending?

12/29/04 | Skyman

[skyman]

O.K. I not really serious...I don't think ...but who would have thought that someday we might have to vote democrat to reduce the growth of government? (notice I didn't say cut government because certainly they wouldn't) It pains me to even think this but it's hard to imagine even a dem president spending more money than Pres. Bush is proposing.

Does Pres. Bush think we are stupid? That we will vote for him no matter what? Even those of use who would probably never vote Democrat might have a hard time getting excited about voting at all this Nov since there is getting to be less and less difference between Pres Bush and the dems on domestic issues.

Being tough on the war on terror will only take him so far if he keeps this up and bankrupts the country.

If he turns enough of us off who really want to vote for him because of his massive health care spending and increases for programs like the the NEA, he's going to be in for a big surprise when he finds his base doesn't turn out in big numbers to vote in Nov.

[xrp]

There aren't many Democrats who are more liberal on spending than President Bush is.

[hole_n_one]

Does Pres. Bush think we are stupid?

Ask me if I think you are stupid.

[Toddsterpatriot]

There aren't many Democrats who are more liberal on spending than President Bush is.

So, name one program that a Democrat would reduce spending on. Besides defending the country.

[COEXERJ145]

Answer your question after answering this one. Do you really think FrankenKerry or Dr. Demento will cut spending or will they spend far more than Bush and spend it on things such as abortions and nationalized health care?

[Torie]

There is a case to be made that spending would be lower with a Dem president and a GOP congress. But the world does not revolve solely around spending. Regarding spending, the problem is that there is both a majority constituency for more spending and tax cuts. Folks want a free lunch. Shocking.

[JRandomFreeper]

It's a troll. Look at it's sign-up date. I smell troll.

/john

[skyman]

Brillant response, hole_n_one

[inquest]

Does Pres. Bush think we are stupid?

I'd say he's banking (*ahem*) on it.

[Torie]

The guy asked a legitimate question. Just debate it. For myself, I don't think many voters will vote on the spending issue per se (it depends upon what; look at the brouhaha about the measley little extra 5 million Bush proposed to spend on the NEA), and even then few votes will turn on it as long as the economy is ticking.

[inquest]

Someone who's been here 10 months is a troll because he doesn't like Bush? You're going to need an awful long suspect list then.

[Texas2step]

According to this article, the growth of government this past year was only 3%. Granted, that's about 3% more than it should be allowed to grow, but much less than what I recall in previous administrations, including RR.

The article goes on to say that the Budget President Bush just submitted to congress holds growth at less than 1% for the coming year.

Put a DIM in the whitehouse, and watch that number grow to 5, or even 8%. IMHO.

[hole_n_one]

Brillant response, hole_n_one

Stop that!.....you're going to give others here the wrong idea.

[explodingspleen]

More likely, if the Republicans alienate their conservative backbone, we will line up with some third party.

[JRandomFreeper]

It's a long list. It dates back to around the beginning of 2002.

I never voted for President Bush for in a presidential election. I voted for Keyes in the primary, and Browne in the election. Just to give you an idea of what my politics are.

I don't agree with President Bush on several issues. But congress controls spending, not the president. It's written in the Constitution that way. Spending issues fall to congress. Period.

Blaming the president for the budget is like blamining a pencil for speeling misteaks.

/john

[Torie]

Bush held discretionary spending to a 3% increase. That is about 15% of the budget. The presciption drug thingie is not within that category, nor is defense spending for this exercise I don't think. How could it, given the costs of Iraq?

[JRandomFreeper]

if the Republicans alienate their conservative backbone, we will line up with some third party.

Unlike demoncraps, we learned that lesson with Perot, and won't repeat it. We'll just slowly force the leadership to a more conservative position. There is no viable conservative third party candidate. We have to work the coffee meet-and-greets to get more conservative folks in at the ground floor.

I'm sure that you are booked with those until the election? Lord knows that I am.

/john

[skyman]

Hey I asked the question tongue-in-cheek ...

I'm a strong Bush supporter and the truth is hell would have to freeze over before I vote for a dim for president.

But I'm getting a little frustrated, aren't you?

Let's see what we've had from Pres Bush lately, illegal alien program, huge health care plan, increase funding for NEA...what's next more gun control?

If being registered ONLY 10 months and questioning the leader of the party I believe in makes me a troll then so be it.

[inquest]

But congress controls spending, not the president.

Much of the spending increases have been at his behest, and none have been condemned by him. He most definitely shares the blame.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Of course, other presidents have vetoed bills that they thought were bad. Clearly This President doesn't disapprove of anything passed so far.