Conservatives simmer as spending mushrooms under Bush

AP ^

[billbears]

No, but $400 billion for a boondoggle of a healthcare plan and $15 billion wasted for AIDS in Africa don't have anything to do with 9/11 do they?

[theFIRMbss]

>Looks like he posted facts. You replied by totally ignoring the facts in the article.

Well, it's gonna be
Bush versus Hillary. If
you face the "facts" then

is your suggestion
people shouldn't vote for Bush
but for Hillary?

If you face the "facts"
should people stay home, not vote?
Come on, you're so brave

to face "facts" head on,
are you brave enough to say
where the "facts" take you?!

[sinkspur]

Spending increased dramatically under Reagan too, who never vetoed a Democrat budget. He also increased taxes, twice.

You make the good the enemy of the best.

[dead]

Apparently, you think 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq were Free of Charge.

I fail to see how Bush & Ted Kennedy’s multi-billion dollar education plan, or the 400 billion dollar expansion of Medicare, or the multi-billion dollar farm bill, etc. are going to help win the war on terror.

[Ahban]

http://www.constitutionparty.com

[billbears]

They HATE fiscal restraint. They are ONLY interested in telling conservatives to hate Bush, so a left wing BIG spender can get in.

You mean there would be someone that could spend more than President Bush? With full approval from the 'conservative' Congress? I don't see how. I've heard Bush's first three years compared to a lot of things but fiscal restraint isn't one of them

[Sir Gawain]

Sad to say, but fiscaly the country would be better off with a Dem in the White House if but to insure a check on the rampant spending.

Is this one of your "facts"? LOL!!!!!

I'm not surprised you would ignore the numbers in the article and attempt a strawman on me.

[Revel]

"He's a disrupter. And, I'm beginning to think you are too."

I would say that since you post way more often and without any facts at all- that you are more likely the disrupter.

[G. Chapman]

Perhaps a basic level in civics is in order. Congress passes spending bills last time I checked, the President signs them. Having a GOP led congress, at odds with a Dem spending plan would produce a budget battle of sorts that would at least keep massive spending in check. Even Clinton vetoed spending bills. Look at the numbers and compare Bush to Clinton, the results should be obvious.

And to the point that the war on terror/iraq has been costly, thats one thing to consider, but its not the entire budget, and the massive increases in all things other then military spending should be taken into account. A 400 billino medicare entitlement (which will baloon over time to probablby 4 times that) isn't free either, and its fiscal impact is far more detrimental to the saftey of the nation then knocking off a two bit tyrant in the ME.

I supported the war in Iraq, and still do, but it is by no means the sole reason for the massive spending increases in this administration. The GOP has its hand in the cookie jar, and no one is telling them to pull it out.

Turn a blind eye all you like, what good does an R by your name do if you act like a D?

[dead]

I think every single poster on this thread, including myself, is a disruptor, and probably a Nazi too.

[Sir Gawain]

Well, it's gonna be Bush versus Hillary. If you face the "facts" then is your suggestion people shouldn't vote for Bush but for Hillary?

Bush vs Hillary? That's the first I've heard of this. I think you scooped all the networks with that info.

[sinkspur]

I'm not surprised you would ignore the numbers in the article and attempt a strawman on me.

I don't give a damn about the numbers.

Does Bush spend too much? Yeah. Should he spend less? Yeah.

What's your alternative? A "blame-America-first" Libertarian like Ron Paul? A nobody like Howard Phillips?

A certifiable nutbag like Howard Dean or Wesley Clark?

[B Knotts]

Me, too!

[thesummerwind]

Conservatives simmer as spending mushrooms under Bush

Bush should spend some money on mushrooms!!!

[The_Eaglet]

Bump for later review

[B Knotts]

Well, you see...the reason al-Qaeda is angry with us is simple...they wanted higher dairy and wheat subsidies.

[Lance Romance]

Also, I must point out that the damage done to the economy by such terrorists acts.

Also, the deficit must be viewed as a % of GDP. Which, is not at an all time high.

If you guys can't follow this, I can give you a primer.

I'm sorry you ladies are pissed the GWB isn't running the country to your specifications. Want me to call Whine-1-1?

[G. Chapman]

Whose blaming America? Nice strawman sport.

[KantianBurke]

oh sweet Jesus, for the MILLIONTH time, thanks to the elder Bush pissing off his base, Pat Buchanan was given an opening to run. While Buch. would eventually lose, his tally in NH encouraged Perot to throw his hat into the ring. And the rest is history. If you want to cast blame for 92, give it to the elder Bush for being so weak on the domestic front that he had a primary challenger who destroyed the myth of Bush being invincible in 92.

Sinkspur, I know you and I have argued this ad nausuem so in the interests of fair game, give us your 2 cents :>

[G. Chapman]

Tax cuts without fiscal restraint are meaningless and have virtualy been removed by the massive addition to the defecit. At some point that money has to be paid back.

The govt is not the economy. GWB, for all his pluses when it comes to defense of the nation, has been an utter failure when it comes to fiscal matters. Stell tariffs, farm bills, NCLB, prescription drugs. This isn't LBJ or FDR in office, or is it?