As you like to engage in selective accusations, and ignore the other points, a little comprehension might be required in those selective points you assail. The point being that the debt as a percentage of GDP is declining after 2004. Shall we discuss why it rose after Bush was elected ? Try unfunded mandates left over from the previous administration (i.e. the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996), shall we also talk about having to rebuild the military and intelligence capacity of this country which was cut and on whose back the debt was lowered ? Shall we add the dotcom bubble bursting and the ensuing recession ? Add to that 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq ?
If you want to play silly economic games, I suggest you arm yourself with more than talking points.
Would I prefer that Bush was more fiscally assertive ? Certainly. His proposed 2006 budget has finally shown some fiscal restraint. I would prefer him in the White House over any democrat out there.
You also ignored the points made about social security reform (social security reform), personal medical savings accounts (instead of government run healthcare) and tax code reform (personally I prefer the national sales tax to the flat tax). Are you saying the republican controlled Congress is not responsible for the failure to act ? Aren't those conservative issues Bush has put forth ? Unless this republican led Congress has the backbone to push these issues through, you are not going to reign in mandatory government spending on entitlement programs to any significant degree. Bush cannot sign them unless Congress passes them.
Are you saying it actually has declined, or that it's "projected" to decline?
Shall we discuss why it rose after Bush was elected ? Try unfunded mandates left over from the previous administration (i.e. the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996), shall we also talk about having to rebuild the military and intelligence capacity of this country which was cut and on whose back the debt was lowered ? Shall we add the dotcom bubble bursting and the ensuing recession ? Add to that 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq ?
As for the '96 law, that was in effect during the time the debt percentage was decreasing during the '90s, the dot-com recession is over, at least according to the administration, and as I've said, the increased spending is above and beyond 9/11-related matters. Compare non-defense discretionary spending in Bush's presidency to the same in Clinton's, and it's been going up faster in Bush's. Excuse it, rationalize it, justify it however you like, but you can't claim it's conservative, even by a broad definition of the word.
Would I prefer that Bush was more fiscally assertive ? Certainly. His proposed 2006 budget has finally shown some fiscal restraint.
And then what happens when Congress adds on all the grease that it wants, and Bush signs it without registering any protest at all? I judge him by his results, not by what he's proposed. If his results fall short of his proposals, then I should be satisfied that it's not for lack of trying on his part. As it is, I'm hardly satisfied of that with him, because he never plays hardball with Congress when they screw things up.
Likewise, that answers your questions in your last paragraph about his other proposals. He's very good at proposing. Getting in there and fighting for what he's proposing is a different matter.