Bush leads country on spending spree.

Detroit News ^ | 12/28/03 | Tony Snow

[jimkress]

When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can

[Sabertooth]

Reagan ran up the deficit more severely, as a percentage of GDP, than Bush is doing.

No, Reagan never had a GOP House, and had a GOP Senate for six of his eight years. He never had the davantage Bush does in the federal legislature.

He also awarded amnesty to illegals and bugged out of Lebananon at the first disaster.

He was wrong on both. I was wrong with him on Amnesty. Stupid me, I believed in a back-end promise from the political class. Won't happen again.

I opposed the Lebanon deployment in the first place, given that our troops weren't allowed to put bullets in their weapons, thanks to the Democrats.

In any event, President Reagan is retired and suffering from Alzheimer's, so I'm not sure what anyone should expect him to do out our current problems.

He raised taxes, too, which Bush has not done.

Taxes are one of this President's strong points; I haven't suggested otherwise.

Nobody's perfect, including presidents. It seems that there's a devoted cadre on FR who do nothing but carp on the negative, and wave the old "I'll never vote for him again" canard.

Yeah, that does get played overmuch. Folks ought to keep their powder dry.

I can conceive of circumstances under which I wouldn't vote for him again, but they haven't occurred, as of this writing.

I would also suggest that "malcontent," "unappeasable," "divisive," etc., are also played-out, rhetorical crutches, and nothing more.

I suspect half of the "my-way-or-the-highway" types didn't vote for him the first time, and are trying to get some kind of bandwagon going for Howie Phillips, or Harry Browne, or some other no-name.

It ain't workin', and it never does.

My guess, and it's just a guess, is that half is a bit high.

Agreed on the long-term uselessness of third parties, though. Wastes of time, overall, other than the occasional protest vote.

[sinkspur]

That's why I am here, sinkspur. My question is, why are you?

I've been here five years, frenchie. And I'll be here at least five more.

And I don't believe for a minute that your sudden appearance has anything to do with "Constitutional government."

[ServesURight]

Post #19 - Well said.

[FreeReign]

I see no sign of a coming reform of SS (at least not from Bush), and the vast majority of the Medicare bill was expansion of government with a little reform. Bush should have used his popularity to push for serious reform of Medicare, and instead threw away that opportunity (took it off the table).

Bush's PD Medicare bill is very expensive and the good privatization aspects of it are puny. However, when we hopefully have a more conservative senate in 2004 maybe at that point the president will turn to privatization.

After all, the president does have a track record of throwing a setup bone and then applying the hammer in his WOT. Maybe he will do the same with spending.

It's our only hope. A third party presidential vote will go nowhere in 2004.

[Gunslingr3]

There's no War on Terror in their small-minded worlds.

Pardon me for asking, but what does a 60% funding increase for the Dept. of Labor and a 70% increase in the Dept. of Education have to do with the War on Terror? Why should these recieve funding increases above and beyond what our military has in the midst of a war? When the federal government is spending roughly 400 billion dollars they we don't have, why are these departments getting funding increases? The GOP controls the Congress and the Presidency, what is the excuse?

[vto]

Not even then!

I'll keep looking for one to keep promises.

[FreeReign]

The question should be why did GW lie to invade Iraq in the first place?

- UN inspectors find Anthrax and other bio-WMD.
- UN tells Saddam to give these things up and to prove it when he does.
- Saddam shows no proof of destruction of these WMD.
- Saddam gets what he deserves.

Pretty complicated, huh?

[EGPWS]

That's part of the problem today, they don't give us any real alternatives, they just boil it down to two men who claim to be different but then one gets elected and does the opposite of his campaign promises. The desire to hold onto power makes them all want to please the other side.

TC, don't blame the politician for such problems, after all this country is still built upon the power of the public vote, and that being the case, perhaps you should focus your frustration on the "narrow minded" and not the political messenger?

[Defender2]

#80. WAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[arete]

The entire world didn't hype the threat of WMD nor did they find it necessary to invade another country. Kay can't find the WMD that GW loudly and repeadedly pointed to as a threat. When you get a president that is so far out of control in taking the country to war based on fabrications and lies, then it is time for him to go.

Richard W.

[MEG33]

Piffle

[ServesURight]

That's great. So you can't give any reason to vote FOR Bush, not his agenda, not his vision for the future, no, vote for Bush, because, uh, hmmm... uh, because he's not the worst possible option.

Unlike you and the majority of "FReepers", I don't have the time to sit here for hours on my ass debating every little minute detail of a thread.

There are plenty of reasons why I support the Bush administration - he's a huge step up from what's-his-face, he's a Christian, he's protecting our country from Muslim terrorists and he's generally a good guy.

Some of his domestic policies suck - yes I'll concede that - but still, what are you going to do besides bitch and threaten to cast your measly vote to some insignificant candidate?

[Defender2]

#92. If you want to side with our enemies, please do, I would much like to continuev fighting all our enemies on the battlefield!!!!

[TheCrusader]

"Keyes, or at least Keyes' POV would make a great president. However, if you remember back in November 2000, a majority of the people in the last election voted for either Gore or Nadar. What does that tell you about the current elect-ability of Keyes?"

I know. The media will never give this guy a real crack at showing what he's got. He's a true genius, and a great orator who's literally unbeatable in a debate. But what I like most about him is his unwavering faith and his honesty. His kind are hard to find.

blessed Christmas Season to you

[arete]

The bottom line is that he didn't have them and GW based taking the country to war on lies and fabrications. That's the bottom line. Not complicated at all.

Richard W.

[raptor29]

Wow, what twisted logic. If Limbaugh has no following, there is no movement. If the NRA has no active members, they'll accomplish little. How do you separate the impact all of us contribute to the leadership we support?

[ServesURight]

Bin Laden did not attack US soil after 93 (to 2001), because he had a deal with bill.

USS Cole bombing? Kenyan Embassy bombing? 1993 WTC bombing?

I assume these were bombed on Uruguayan soil/property, eh?