Replies

Wow, you're using an argument I use against Clinton. However, since you appreciate facts I'll lay a couple on you.

1) According to the document you qouted the President can propose a budget and Congress approves it or denies and creates their own.

2) Bush has proposed over $200,000,000,000.00 for disaster recovery on the Gulf Coast. That was before Rita. I don't know where the proposed limits are now.

3) Since Bush has taken office the federal budget has increased by over 20%.

4) Try and show me a spending increase veto by Bush and I'll show about ten times that many he should have vetoed.

5) Look at his spending track record here in Texas when he was governor. Same MO, spend your problems away. It's all about the compassionate side of conservatism you know. I prefer real conservatives.

6) Do a search about Bush's spending here on Free Republic. There are more than a few here who are mad about the spending issue.

7) Even if he didn't spend it (yet) he still proposed spending it. Implies he would spend it if he had it too spend.

8) Last time I checked he was the leader of the Republican Party. The GOP controls Congress. The leader of the party is responsible for what their party does. If he came out against the spending the GOP would most likely do it. Care to look up how many times this GOP congress has overridden a Bush veto?

9) I am in favor of small government and limited spending by that government. I think the amout of money that is going to New Orleans is actually obscene and the most of the problems could be solved by spending far less money-- probably less than half. However, I think a major amount of money needs to be spent that the locals and the state can't handle.

I'll stick by calling Bush a big spender. That's what you call someone who spends a lot. Or do you have another name for it, SIR?