You have, apparently, forgotten which party has controlled the purse strings (ie Congress) for the PAST THREE FRICKIN YEARS. Hint: it ain't the party of Bush. It IS, however, the party of "Bush's fault".
Which party do you represent? Really?
XenaLee: “Which party do you represent? Really?”
I don’t represent a party. I only represent myself and the truth as I see it. President Bush was a good president in some ways. In many other ways, he was a bad president. He wasn’t nearly as bad as Obama, of course, but he certainly didn’t turn back the era of big government.
I found his compassionate conservatism to be just another form of liberalism. He didn’t want to reduce government so much as make it more efficient (a fool’s errand) and more citizen friendly. Rather than eliminate government charity, he sought to expand it further with his faith-based initiatives.
Using other people’s money for favored charities, such as billions for AIDS in Africa, is little different than what the leftists do. Had he used his power as president to ask for voluntary donations to a private fund to help Africans, I would have been inclined to support him. But he didn’t ask. He took, just like the left.
I could go on about how much government expanded under President Bush’s and a Republican majority in Congress, but why bother. If you can’t see the Republicans haven’t delivered on smaller government in any significant way, then there’s no explaining it to you.
It’s not that I’m a purist, BTW. That’s a common accusation. No. I just want Republicans to actually deliver smaller government like they promise. It doesn’t all have to be rolled back at once, but certainly it isn’t too much to expect them to cut or eliminate a few programs? I mean, really, they couldn’t even eliminate funding for NPR. And I reiterate that tax cuts with INCREASED spending are as irresponsible (if not more so) than tax increases with increased spending.