[Blogger]

Clinton didn't have 9/11, widescale war, or Katrina/Rita either. Bush is getting more of a bad rap than he should on this. Not that he's perfect, but he has had some heavier things happen than Clinton did.

[MikefromOhio]

I love how WND resorts to using the Bush I and Bush II monikers just like DU'ers would to prove their points.

[spinestein]

Lets make sure we blame the proper people for excessive federal spending. The majority among the American voting public LOVES government spending, and the more the better. Until that changes, we're going to continue to have a choice between Republicans' excessive spending increases and Democrats' excessive, extreme and out of control spending increases.

[Small-L]

And Congressional Republicans wonder why their base is turning against them!

My Congessmen are home for the next few weeks and having town meetings--you can bet they're going to get blasted for abandoning their campaign promises of smaller government and fiscal constraint.

On November 8th there's going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth and fast talking trying to explain why the base didn't come out to vote--maybe they should look at their record.

[safeasthebanks]

Go back to civics class. Last time I checked, Congress, namely the house, creates and passes the budget, not the President, although, yes, he does sign off.

Also, as much as I loved Reagan, I find it comically ironic for someone from his admin. to criticize others for spending!

[American_Centurion]

I would like to point out that the crop of Pubbies under Clinton were fired up to control spending, this current batch are drunken sailors with the Skipper's wallet.

Bush has some faults, not all the fiscal irresponsibility falls on him though. In fact not even most of it.

I credit the small growth under Clinton, 100% to Newt Gingrich.

[detsaoT]

Frontpagenews, I'm disappointed in you. You ought to know better:—CONGRESS spends money, NOT the Administration. And for the moment, Congress is CLEARLY more liberal now than it was in 1998, (R) to (D) ratio notwithstanding.

[LurkLongley]

Our prescription of increased democracy in the political process ie:

direct election of senators,
no more closed committee sessions,
campaign finance "reform",
gutting of both political parties,
increased access to congress,

and more are what have ended any hope of actually reducing the size of government. Just look at what the freshman class of '94 was actually able to accomplish riding the wave of popularity after their induction in '95; virtually nothing. Of the 300 or so odd programs that they intended to cut or eliminate, they were left with just under twenty after all was said and done. It's easy to blame Bush, but the real culprits are...(drum roll please)the American Sheeple! We are the ones who consistantly allow the rollback of our republic into something approaching direct democracy, and this is the result.

The only real solution is to put the budget and tax process into the hands of a body that would send both bills to congress for an up or down vote, no amendments; something like the base closing commissions. Otherwise, no rep or senator is going to stick their neck out, and risk re-election with the number of powerful lobbies out there.

[freekitty]

No you can blame the war spending on Clinton too. He and his co-president Hitlary helped bring it into reality.

[Sgt_Schultze]

When clinton was president, the Republicans were an opposing force. It's always easier to scuttle your opponent's spending priorities than your own guy's. It's sad to watch the Republicans in Congress settling into a comfortable level of spending increases. Our guys blocked Hillarycare but instituted a new program of prescription drug coverage destined to escalate federal spending.

Is the bogeyman democrat I don't know any worse than my current representative. Why exactly do we need a Republican Congress again?

[WhiteGuy]

"If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is,"


Gridlock, the last hope for the US taxpayer.

[RightWhale]

The budget is 5X or the increase is 5X? It makes a difference how much currency to order from the S Kor printer.

[paddles]

Good, relatively civil debate on this thread. Let's remember not to let the uber-conservatives depress the vote because of their angst.

[AmericaUnited]

Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration

WHAT'S THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE?! Federal spending always goes WAY UP during economic slowdowns and wars, and goes DOWN during boom times.

[soccer_maniac]

The reckless spending is a real tragedy.

See my write-up on pork
http://capitalistpundit.blogspot.com/

[DoughtyOne]

Yeah, but Clinton had a Republican House and Senate... oh wait... LOL

Bush does have the war effort, sadly that's not the only increased spending. We've been spending like a drunken sailor, and the Congress... well the Congress. Bush has executed one veto. One!

Our 'Conservative' leaders should be ashamed.

[Moonman62]

Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.

W did send back to Congress some of his own budget for reconsideration as a political stunt. He made a very big deal about it at the time. I don't know whatever became of that money, whether it got reauthorized or not.

[spinestein]

To the authors of that snot-rag, WND who believe that Republicans can outspend Democrats, I offer these recent quotes from a John Kerry speech (linked to Kerry's website) on what the Democratic Party's priorities center on. This is what we're in for if a Democrat is president or if the Democrats control congress.






[...I would remind my fellow Democrats that our party will be hollow in purpose, expedient and short-sighted until we renew — and finally win — the battle to make health care a right and not a privilege for every American....

Every American, and I mean everybody, must have health coverage by 2012. ....

To get there, we start with kids first. They’re born, they’re enrolled in health care. They go to child care, they’re enrolled. They go to school, they’re enrolled. No “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts,” every child gets health care – automatically, immediately, every child in America gets health care now. ....

and finally, instead of telling tens of millions to wait until they are sick enough to go to an emergency room, we must and will assure high quality and preventive care for every American....

Meanwhile, there are some in my own party who say we don’t have the power to pass legislation anyway and don’t have the platform to out-shout the special interests. They propose baby steps to solve a giant crisis. Or they fear to take up the cause because they know the political risks. Well I don’t believe we have to choose between doing too little, downplaying the issue—or fighting for a complex plan that would discard wholesale both the good and the bad of today’s health care system. I know we are smart enough to fix health care if we are brave enough to try.

The Democratic Party must stand for health care for all Americans—or we don’t stand for anything at all....

The first bill I introduced when I returned to the Senate after the Presidential campaign was called Kids First: it calls for a federal-state partnership to mandate health coverage to every child in America. The proposal makes the states an offer they can’t refuse....

The federal government will pay for the most expensive part: enrolling all low-income children in Medicaid, automatically. The states will pay to expand coverage to higher income children. ...

We must be determined as a nation to invest in this vision – and our investment must be real. Unfortunately, President Bush’s $116 million for Health Information Technology is a mere token, a tiny down payment on what is needed–...

So that brings us to the last question: How will we pay to transform our health care system? Well, you can’t play games with this one. Here’s the best way: It is time to roll back this President’s unaffordable tax cuts...

Who wouldn’t trade the economy we have today for the growth and progress of the 1990’s? Instead, believe me, if we don’t get a handle on health care and energy costs, we are headed straight back to the “stagflation” of the seventies, with its skyrocketing prices and interest rates, and ultimately, double-digit unemployment. And our businesses will lose their ability to compete internationally, precisely when globalization has made the competitive challenge a matter of national resources and economic preeminence....

What I put forward in 2004 works. It was a good plan then, and it’s a good plan now. I’m not willing to give up that fight. What we need is a new Congress this year and a new president in 2008 to make sure we finish the job. Let’s stand together to cure what ails this country – to give America back its future and the truth – and to secure the basic right of health coverage for every American....]


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_07_31.html#more



If you aren't concerned about the thought of the out of control spending that would be necessary to institute this monstrosity of an idea, then consider that the crappy economy of the 70's that Kerry referred to was a direct result of the Democrats spending their (and our) asses off when Carter was president, and it WILL happen again if Democrats get back into power.

[ladyinred]

WE ARE AT WAR! Things cost more as well! Just what we need, a supposed republican trashing the President. There are enough leftist trash books out there right now. Eat your own you moron, and perhaps Hitlery will be President!