Rick Perry says Bush was guilty of 'big government' overspending (Gag)

Dallas Morning News ^ | 11/9/10 | Todd Gilman

[pissant]

WASHINGTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry , promoting a new book about the dangers of federal bloat, said today that George W. Bush’s presidency was marred by the same sort of “big government” mentality that voters rejected in last week’s GOP landslide.

Perry predicted that history will judge Bush kindly “but it won’t be based on fiscal issues. It’ll be based on his keeping us free and keeping us safe....

“He may go down as more than a good president, even above that. But at the same time I think they missed some opportunities to send some good messages to the Congress that was spending too much money, frankly, on programs that we can’t afford and don’t need,” Perry said.

Bush is launching a book tour of his own today that amounts to his first effort since leaving office to directly reframe his image and shape his legacy.

[pissant]

This open borders, wannabe dictator, Charlie Crist in cowboy boots makes Bush look like a conservative.

And worse, he's setting his RINO a** up for a run for the WH.

[Mr. K]

He was.

Bush was not nearly as conservative as I would have liked.

But at least he was (a little) more so than his father- who RUINED the sucesses Reagan handed to him- by giving in to the democrats and giving them the biggest tax increase in history

[TheBigIf]

Of course the misconception of Rick Perry’s opinion is that myself and many in the TEA party would not in any way support major cuts in spending for our National Defense. Nor would I (and many conservatives) support a Ron Paul / Code Pink mentality in regards to our National Defense either. Much of what is considered ‘big spending’ under Bush was to create a stronger National Defense.

[ken21]

yes.

all 3 bushes, prescott, geo 1, and w,

are northeast liberal republican

big spenders.

[pissant]

It’s like an axe murderer calling a car thief a hardened criminal.

[antonico]

Perry is right. Bush never vetoed a budget with ever more spending. In fact his Prescription Drug Medicare “benefit” will cost taxpayer trillions over the next 10 years.

Like his bitch-boy Rove they are both Progressive Republican’s who don't see anything really wrong with Big Government, just as long as Republicans hold all the committee chairmanships. They're about expediency, not principle. Why do you think Bush could have uttered on his way out of office: “I had to abandon my Free Market Principles to ‘save’ the Free Market”. That's what he said about TARP - which was proven to the world (and understood by Conservatives then) to be an utter joke.

Had it not been for the wars he insisted to fight throughout his whole term, Bush 43’s domestic policies alone would have never gained him a second term.

[GeronL]

If he wants to run for President he will get no support from this Texan and he’ll be #33 on the primary ballot.

[DManA]

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

[Bob Buchholz]

I don’t think the prescription program, aids prevention in Africa or no child left behind qualify as defense spending. I really liked him as a man and a leader but Bush was a big spender whether we like it or not.

[GeronL]

Rick is right about W but then again Perry isn’t any improvement.

[Palter]

Just a OBL Republican attacking another OBL Republican.

[JimRed]

No President of the United States can spend a single penny. But W did lose his veto pen and signed a lot of big government stuff he shouldn’t have.

[K-oneTexas]

I agree with you.

I am disappointed with some of former President Bush’s actions and inaction’s. One main one being not exercising the VETO as he should have.

[pt17]

I don’t think the prescription program, aids prevention in Africa or no child left behind qualify as defense spending. I really liked him as a man and a leader but Bush was a big spender whether we like it or not.

I would have to say GWB was a big government/big spender type of non-conservative politician. Seems like a good guy, but not so good as a president, IMHO.

[csmusaret]

Bush's spending with a little context.....

[MNDude]

so Perry isn’t very good? I kind of thought he’d might be a good GOP choice for 2012, based solely on the jobs Texas added last year.

[Mikey_1962]

He was.

Yes he was a big spender.

He and the Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors.

Except drunken sailors spend their own money.

Further when drunken sailors' money runs out they don't whip out their grandchildren's Visa card and start charging drinks they won't have to pay for.

[Carley]

What’s a little thing like keeping America safe.

After all, there have been only a few attempted terror attacks on our soil since Obamao arrived in the oval office.

[ZULU]

Uhhh - YES. Together with his incestuous relationship with Vicente Fox and his successor and their illegal invaders.

[Nat Turner]

In the big picture sense, one could hold Bush responsible for all this spending. However it is Congress (specifically the House) that holds the power of the purse. The go-along-to-get-along rinos broke the budget and Bush did not man-up and whip out the veto pen. You best believe that the ONE will veto the new conservative majorities attempts to roll back obamanomic socialism!!

I think that Bush was too comfortable and used to the way things worked back in the Texas state house in Austin. If he had decided that elections mean what they mean and pushed a conservative economic agenda instead of seeking bi-partisan compromise (I.e. bend over and let them take what they want)things would not have deteriorated so badly in 2007.

His failure to draw the line emboldened both libtards and big government rinos so much so that the conservative electorate got pissed and stayed home in 2006 and 2008.

He also permitted such foolishness as "powersharing" (thanks Trent Lott, you scumbag) that allowed Jumping Jim to flip and gave the rats more power in the Senate than they ever needed or deserved!

On the national security front, I would have brought the libtards on charges (I.e. Jamie Gorelick)not permitted them to give Clinton cover from charges and create the abomination known as the TSA (every-time you take of your shoes in the airport you can thank them!)

And speaking of Gorelick, Dodd and Frank would have been censured at a minimum for allowing the housing market to go south. While home ownership is an admirable goal, permitting the feds to bank roll this con game was totally the wrong call.

His final failure was his worst in both permitting TARP and allowing the dems to escape accountability for their actions (Think CRA to strong arming the banks to blackmailing and bankrolling the financial sectors. The lesson here boys and girls is that trying to be friends with libtards is both stupid and futile. If you cave and give them what they want like Bush did you only make your self a sucker and a bigger target for more demands. The electorate is slowly waking up to this shell game and I think the trend will continue for at least 3-4 election cycles (unless the economy totally collapses or we have an outright libtard dictatorship).