If not Bush, then who?

12-28-2003 | agitate

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Welcome to FR, Bess.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

All data from the official US Budget and the OMB (Office of Management and Budget): A. "The average outlays spent on HR as a % of total outlays of the US budget averaged 61.26% 1993-2000 during Clinton's corrupt regime." 1993 to 2000--58.7, 59.5, 60.9, 61.4, 62.6, 62.5, 62.1, 62.4 B. "George Bush, who would be titled a "flaming socialist" by Republicans if his letter was a "D" not a "R", has averaged 65.53% (including estimates for 2003 and 2004)." 2001 to 2004--64.1, 65.5, 66.3, 66.2 C. "The average increase in total US spending outlays during Clinton's regime was 3.28% year over year. In the crucial category of HR, the largest hog in the US budget, the year over year increase in outlays averaged 4.71%." 3.28% averaged from (Trillions) --1.409489, 1.461877, 1.515802, 1.560535, 1.601250, 1.652585, 1.701891, 1.788773 and % -- 2.01, 3.71, 3.68, 2.95, 2.60, 3.20, 2.98, 5.10 4.71% averaged from (Trillions) -- .827533, .869410, .923765, .958232, 1.002336, 1.033426, 1.057717, 1.115481 and % -- 7.13, 5.06, 6.25, 3.73, 4.60, 3.10, 2.35, 5.46 D. "The average increase in total US spending during Bush's term (including estimates for 2003 and 2004) has been 5.67% year over year. In the HR category, Bush has slopped the hog at HR to the tune of 7.26% year over year increases." 5.67% averaged from (Trillions) -- 1.863895, 2.010975, 2.140377, 2.229425 and % -- 4.19, 7.89, 6.43, 4.16 7.26% averaged from (Trillions) -- 1.194409, 1.317852, 1.419648, 1.475076 and % -- 7.07, 10.33, 7.72, 3.90 E. "Human Resource spending (socialism) now consumes a whopping 66.2% of all government spending in the 2004 budget." Note in the chart that in 1993, HR spending was less than 59% of total outlays. Considering this ugly and frightening rate of increase to 66 +%, and taking into account that we are just starting to feel the impact of the illegal alien welfare demands and the soaring birth rates of non-taxpayers, one has to wonder exactly how much the rate will be in ten years for HR.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

All data from the official US Budget and the OMB (Office of Management and Budget):

A. "The average outlays spent on HR as a % of total outlays of the US budget averaged 61.26% 1993-2000 during Clinton's corrupt regime." 1993 to 2000--58.7, 59.5, 60.9, 61.4, 62.6, 62.5, 62.1, 62.4

B. "George Bush, who would be titled a "flaming socialist" by Republicans if his letter was a "D" not a "R", has averaged 65.53% (including estimates for 2003 and 2004)." 2001 to 2004--64.1, 65.5, 66.3, 66.2

C. "The average increase in total US spending outlays during Clinton's regime was 3.28% year over year. In the crucial category of HR, the largest hog in the US budget, the year over year increase in outlays averaged 4.71%." 3.28% averaged from (Trillions) --1.409489, 1.461877, 1.515802, 1.560535, 1.601250, 1.652585, 1.701891, 1.788773 and % -- 2.01, 3.71, 3.68, 2.95, 2.60, 3.20, 2.98, 5.10 4.71% averaged from (Trillions) -- .827533, .869410, .923765, .958232, 1.002336, 1.033426, 1.057717, 1.115481 and % -- 7.13, 5.06, 6.25, 3.73, 4.60, 3.10, 2.35, 5.46


D. "The average increase in total US spending during Bush's term (including estimates for 2003 and 2004) has been 5.67% year over year. In the HR category, Bush has slopped the hog at HR to the tune of 7.26% year over year increases." 5.67% averaged from (Trillions) -- 1.863895, 2.010975, 2.140377, 2.229425 and % -- 4.19, 7.89, 6.43, 4.16 7.26% averaged from (Trillions) -- 1.194409, 1.317852, 1.419648, 1.475076 and % -- 7.07, 10.33, 7.72, 3.90

E. "Human Resource spending (socialism) now consumes a whopping 66.2% of all government spending in the 2004 budget." Note in the chart that in 1993, HR spending was less than 59% of total outlays. Considering this ugly and frightening rate of increase to 66 +%, and taking into account that we are just starting to feel the impact of the illegal alien welfare demands and the soaring birth rates of non-taxpayers, one has to wonder exactly how much the rate will be in ten years for HR.

[dcwusmc]

All things considered, I have to say that Bush IS treading all over our rights. Were he not, he would have not done 90 percent of what he HAS done. Sure, the war on terror is necessary, BUT it has brought us that abominable USA-PATRIOT act which is utterly unnecessary. It has NOT closed our borders (and my brother who lives in AZ plus a retired Marine friend who is a deputy sheriff in AZ tell me that it's common knowledge that middle easterners abound in Mexico who have been offering LOTS of money to be escorted through the border to someplace beyond the checkpoints. How many have GOTTEN here is anyone's guess.) It has NOT gotten rid of 20,000-PLUS victim disarmament laws which are ALL unconstitutional. All in all, we are burdened with more and more government and yet we have less and less safety. Hmmmm, what do YOU think?

[Agitate]

I may buy you a t'shirt: "If You Agree With Me, You Must Be My Friend."

LOL..thanks, great minds think alike you know

[The Mayor]

Bush will have my vote although reluctently.

I do not care for alot that he has done but what he has done outweighs the bad.
The thought of a demonrat running this country again is a scarry thought and must be stopped especially if Hillary is in the running.

The problem is we have no choice and that is happening everywhere nationally and locally.
We have a choice of better or worse, most of the candidates these days don't represent "We The People" anylonger.

Locally a worthwhile candidate doesn't even get looked at by the parties in control, I speak from experience.
They are afraid of someone that speaks his mind, like me....

[Agitate]

Then you really need to convince BUSH to change his ways. Tell him to start reading the Constitution and shrinking FedGov to fit it. If he even made a START at it, he'd lock up my vote. But FedGov has grown more under Bush than under ANY president, with the possible exception of socialist FDR. I cannot vote for ANYONE with that sort of track record. Whether his name is Bush or Dean.

I agree that Bush has done things that make you go "HUH?" If he goes through with this amnesty for immigrants thing I will be pissed. I agree with the sentiment of this thread:
Bush to Propose Broad AmnestyTell Congress to Say No!
and will be writing the pres and my reps about it.

However, I have to ask myself what would happen if we were under the rule of people who think we should defer to popular European and UN opinion in matters of our own national defense?

I personally do not want to emulate Europeans or submit to the UN. The other problems can be worked out, but threats to our national sovereignty threaten our very nation and the culture it is founded on.

It's unfortunate, but sometimes one must choose the imperfect to avoid disaster. I think the dems as they are today will destroy the great nation America is now.

[Agitate]

If you are not voting for Bush, you ARE voting for the Dem.

That's the way I see it too. And right now, the stakes are too high to acquiesce to the dems.

[inPhase]

Do you think that Bush will not "submit" to the UN? What is going on in Afghanastan or to what extent? Anyway I hope you are right.

[inPhase]

Hoping that some of the campaigners here will address these numbers from their point of view.

The federal spending is rampant.

[EGPWS]

I don't understand how a person could not vote for Bush even if he does some things that are inexplicable from a conservative point of view.

Through frustration, a liberal trait.

[Tim Osman]

Anyone, please feel free to use any of the reasons and excuses I have compiled on this list. I notice many of you already have been using them.

Reasons to Vote for Bush:

• Who else are you going to vote for?
• If you don't, HILLARY will get elected. Is that what you want???
• He's the lesser of two evils!
• Bush is the only thing standing between us and complete socialism!
• There are slightly less abortions now!
• They (Europeans, Muslims, the UN, etc) HATE Bush, so he MUST be good!
• What are you, some kind of DU troll?

Excuses for Bush:

• Clinton was worse!
• He's stealing Democrat issues!
• All this spending is just to get Bush re-elected, and then he'll follow the constitution!
• What rights have you personally lost?
• He's protecting us from terrorists!
• That latest law is actually good! (patriot act, medicare)
• Don't worry, we'll find a way around it! (CFR)
• It's all the Democrats fault!
• He's turning America socialist at a slower rate than Democrats would!
• The Supreme Court will overturn that! (ha!)

Actually if you think about it, you can pretty substitute "Bush" for "Any Republican" - for with precious few exceptions, they've become pretty much the same.

I signed up on Dec 28, 2003.

[inPhase]

Can I then substitute democrat for "your "republican" and only have a difference in the rate of change towards socialism?

[Defender2]

#62. I_AM_AT_WAR_AGAINST_TERRORISTS!!!! BUSH 2004!!!!:-)

[JoeSchem]

My belief is nothing could be worse than a democrat in office in 2004. I know that is the lesser of two evils vote, but it is true.

We have a Democrat in office, boys and girls. Spending is higher than under Clinton and so are deficits. We have prescription drugs about to become the biggest entitlement in the history of this country. We are giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. Clinton's CIA Director, the man responsible for the intelligence failure for 911, still holds his job. RU-486 is legal and we're expected to vote for pro-abortion federal court judges because they're Hispanic.

We have a Democrat in office, and it's time to run a Republican against him. Look at the electoral trends thanks to illegal immigration, and you'll realize that 2004 may be our last chance to elect a Republican who'll do something about it. Is your loyalty to Bush or to America?

[Agitate]

I will vote for President Bush, but as a member of a Republican Women club, plus as a precinct committeeman, I don't know how hard I will be motivated to work for his re-election if he grants amnesty to illegals.

In Tucson, we had to close a trauma center. I see so many people not speaking English in the hospital where I work. The fact that we treat so many non-citizens for FREE drives up costs for everyone. PLUS as citizens we are treated with something less than dignity at the airports, while our borders are wide open.

I understand and agree with what you say here. I am digusted by the immigration situation in this country. IMHO, we should close the borders completely right now, except maybe for family members of LEGAL immigrants who want to become citizens.

I agree that's its a crucial issue and I'm a frequent visitor to the Federation for American Immigration Reform site.

However I feel powerless as I watch groups like A.N.S.W.E.R.(spit) demand tax money for illegals, but that's another rant.

[Tim Osman]

Tthe conventional wisdom says that a Democrat will get us from here to socialism at a faster rate. The past few years have really illustrated otherwise - At _War_With_Liberals's chart illustrates that very well, but that is by no means near all the proof we have of this.

[Defender2]

If the United States were turned into a smoking hole, would you ALL be still crying over money!!!! It's WARTIME people and unless you know something different, history shows that spending tends to go up in WarTime!!!! You ALL can cry over spent money, I just want to defeat Our Beloved United States enemies, period!!!! And I don't care how much it costs either!!!! So I will continue to fight our enemies while you all continue to cry over money!!!!

[Agitate]

I said:
"...sell us our sovereignty out"

Preview didn't help me that time, but I'm glad you understood I meant Sell our sovereignty out.

I'll be very angry if Bush grants amnesty to illegals, but we can fix that easier than we can fix submission to Kofi, Chirac(spit) and the like.

[inPhase]

yeah I know. One reason I post here and have been a fan of Jim Rob's since he started thise site,
is that the internet is the only and a clear cut chance to change things away the big S.