The last person to think that was Saddam Hussien. I'm willing to bet we'll see substantial spending cuts next year after Bush wins a landslide.
Right, insure the election of Howard Dean if you can't have exactly the politics you want.
A few generations under the Socialist whip will probably bring people around to your point of view. Of course, we will all be dead and our descendants will be powerless to do anything about it, but you will have stood on principle.
So9
Jimkress quoteFrom this point on I will publicly oppose your position as President. I will actively work against your re-election attempt - due primarily to your decision to impose an untouchable political aristocracy upon your constituents. I will do all in my power to assure that neither you nor your progeny will ever again subvert and corrupt the freedom given us by God and protected by the blood of our citizens.
You have earned the enmity of all who love liberty and resist tyranny. You have made it clear you represent the same evil that gave the world Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler. You have subverted liberty. You have imposed tyranny upon your constituents.
May God have mercy on your soul.
So full of it, it ought to be called the US Constipation Party. Take a laxative, you'll feel beter.
Reagan's discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP for his first three years in office was 10.1%, 10.1% and 10.3%. Bush's discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP was 6.5% in 2001 and 7.1% in 2002. The 2003 figure is still incomplete.
So, 10% of your paycheck was going toward federal discretionary spending during the first 3 years of Reagan. For Bush the figure is 7% of your paycheck going toward federal discretionary spending and that includes a very expensive WOT!
Freedom is truth!
ClickHappy New YearIt's going to be a long 2004 for the George W. Bush haters. To help them along in the months to come, we present New Year's resolutions for avid Bush detesters, and a few for his fans as well. Start with the foes:
- I resolve to examine at least one of the president's statements, acts, gestures or facial expressions without first insisting it proves that the man is a stupid chimp evil liar plastic-turkey-holding DRAFT DODGER MY GOD CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE HIM FOR WHAT HE IS?
- I resolve to consider that not everything Bush says is a lie. Example: If Bush says that ''two plus two equals four,'' I will not spit, ''Oh, that's Enron math,'' and spend the rest of the day rebalancing my checkbook in Base Eight.
- I resolve to grasp the absurdity of appearing on national talk shows to insist that our freedom of speech has disappeared.
- I resolve to be more precise in my language. When I am tempted to criticize the administration for being ''pre-emptive,'' I will recall that arresting all the hijackers on Sept. 10, 2001, would have been, well, pre-emptive, and that I might well have protested this indefensible act of ''profiling.''
- I resolve to let at least a minute pass before I accuse the administration of contemptuous high-handedness toward our allies. By which I mean France. I resolve to ask myself whether my attachment to French approval is analogous to a high school chess geek mooning after the lovely but haughty cheerleader who regards everyone with bemused contempt. She winked once. That was weeks ago. Was it all a tease?
- I resolve to accept the election returns, and not spend my precious mortal allotment in the humid chambers of the Internet message boards, insisting that BushCo obviously stole the election in 46 states. Perhaps Howard Dean will lose because he suggested that the governor of a toy-sized state knew more about the military and foreign policy than a man whose policies toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists of Iraq, and brought Libya to heel.
- Meanwhile, I resolve to admit I'd be delighted to impeach Bush for lying to a grand jury. Even about sex. Especially about sex.
Although Tony has my utmost respect, I disagree with his 3 year synopsis of Dubya'.
He has, without faltering, meant what he has said and put forth an agenda to achieve what he has said he will achieve, in order of concern.
After all, quote:(paraphrasing) "no terrorist or anyone who harbors them will be safe from our wrath".
Like Dubya's political agenda or not, one cannot say he hasn't been honest with this agenda.
After all, for the first time in decades, the Democratic party is lost for an agenda, their political call heard by few, and is in a total disarray because of it.
Dubya' has my utmost respect for obtaining such a political achievement, which can only be beneficial to the public as a whole.
Business cost's in achieving this? Yes, however much less expensive than continuing on with the status quo and allowing the Democratic party to continue to wield the political power they have in the past.
Bush II is spending $100 billion dollars (in constant 2003 dollars) less than both Reagan and Bush I, his budgetary expenditures, as a percentage of the GDP should come in at 20%, less than one half of one percent above Clinton's slash-the-military-to-shreds expenditures 19.7%. In contrast, Reagan and Bush I expenditures were about 22% of GDP.
Even his harshest critics predict the final number to be at 21% of GDP.
And neither Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton had to deal with the economical aftermath of an attack on the mainland of the magnitude of 9/11.
More money was found missing and unaccounted for in nearly all government departments, literally millions and the clinton/'gore books were cooked. Spending too much is never good, but don't let this author try to paint the Bush administration with the same sorry brush that clinton painted with for eight lying years! Even the “surplus” was tainted - history is being rewritten.
Unless I am mistaken, not one cent of spending can be authorized except by Congress.
Had this verbal hissy fit been written about Congress, I would have to agree 100%.
great name there; maybe the republican or democratic party can just get new leaders that believe in the constitution more than pork.