To: Triple Word Score
but the list you've presented should darn well trump the areas of disagreementMaybe. Maybe not. But as long as Southack is going to spam threads, I guess I can counter-spam.
Source
In his nomination acceptance speech in 2000 Bush said, "Big government is not the answer." It reminded me of when Ronald Reagan said that government is not the solution and then presided over a 67% increase in federal spending during his 8-year tenure. Republicans campaign like libertarians but govern like socialists. They increase government spending, drown business in new regulations, create and expand government programs, impose economic sanctions on other countries and meddle in their internal affairs, instigate wars, and curtail freedom. They're willing to pander to virtually any special interest group which throws money in their direction. They even enact gun-control. Republicans have no incentive to reduce government because they can always count on their rank-and-file supporters to vote party-line. If you want to reduce government and get it out of your life then you must stop supporting the people who are making government bigger. Supporting the "lesser of two evils" isn't going to reduce government.Since taking office George W. Bush has increased the national debt by $895.7 billion. [source]
George W. Bush has spent more time campaigning while in office than any of his predecessors. [source]
Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. [source]
With GOP Congress behind him, Bush has yet to use veto [source] — Aided by a Republican-controlled Congress, President Bush is on track to become the first chief executive since John Quincy Adams in the 1820s to complete a full term without vetoing one bill.
Do Republicans really support smaller government? Here are some interesting facts:
- Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion (about $100 billion annually). [source]
- Since Republicans took control of the House in 1995, federal discretionary spending has grown by a rate of about 7% annually. The number of earmarks lawmakers have put in the spending bills to steer federal funds to their districts has also grown. By one estimate, between fiscal years 2001 and 2002, they increased from about 6,300 to 8,300, or 32%. [source]
- Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, the budget has grown by 50%. [source]
- Even though we now have GOP control of the White House, the Senate and the House, the bloated $2.25 trillion federal government has grown more rapidly on President Bush's watch than it did under Clinton. [source]
- Social welfare programs under George W. Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton, according to economist Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. [source]
- Pork-barrel spending rose by 21.6% from 2001 to 2003 according to CAGW President Tom Schatz. [source]
- When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981 the federal budget was $680 billion. When he left office in 1989 the federal budget was $1.14 trillion -- an increase of 67%. [source]
- The last Republican presidents to preside over a decrease in federal spending were Warren G. Harding (who served from 1921 until his death in 1923) and Calvin Coolidge (who served from 1923 until 1929). During that time federal spending decreased 44% from $5 billion to $2.85 billion. However, spending began increasing again in 1928 before Calvin Coolidge left office. [source]
- Also be sure to read Bush and the Republican Gun Grabbers
SOCIALIST WELFARE PROGRAMS & POLITICAL BOONDOGGLES
20 posted on
02/02/2004 2:39:49 PM PST by
Sir Gawain
(loads of robot monkey fun)
To: Sir Gawain
"Since taking office George W. Bush has increased the national debt by $895.7 billion"
Bush must be king, spending all of that money all by himself...
Grin!
Yes, Bush has allowed Congress to spend too much. I'll grant you that criticism.
Fortunately, that spending has at least purchased us some conservative victories such as increased defense spending (including our national missile defense system deployment this year), homeland security, as well as positioned us to be able (politically) to kill our involvement in the International Criminal Court, the anti-2nd Amendment UN Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty, the Kytoto Global Warming nonsense, etc.
Such over-spending isn't desired, of course, but it's tough to push through conservative proposal after conservative proposal without such overt bribes when Democrats can shut down the Senate with ease.
But if spending is your be all and end all, then you may as well bark at the moon.
On the other hand, if what you "get" from all of that spending matters to you even in the least, then you have to put Bush light years ahead of his closest opposition.
28 posted on
02/02/2004 2:48:37 PM PST by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Sir Gawain
So...everything with you boils down to DOLLARS??? Those dollars won't matter squat if a nuclear bomb or highly infectious disease kills multitudes of Americans. Priorities must be considered.
To: Sir Gawain
FOREIGN-AID
Wow! Lots of transfers from poor people in a rich country to rich people in poor countries.
36 posted on
02/02/2004 2:52:32 PM PST by
labolarueda
(It used to be that 50% of all married people were wives.)
To: Sir Gawain; Alan Chapman
I see you you are doing Uber Libertarian Alan Chapman's bidding. This is the guy on FR who basically wanted firemen to get a check first before they put it out.
39 posted on
02/02/2004 2:53:22 PM PST by
Dane
To: Sir Gawain
I just love an underdog. Bring it on. Tell me again how wonderful it will be with a rat in the WH.
W'04
51 posted on
02/02/2004 3:02:16 PM PST by
Liberty Valance
(In Honor and memory of Pfc Cody Orr, Kerrville Texas)
To: Sir Gawain
You keep posting that garbage from a DISCREDITED source. No one's impressed by it and no one even reads it anymore. Stop spamming that tripe to threads.
To: Sir Gawain
Thanks for posting that. I've copied it to my hard drive just in case it gets zotted.
80 posted on
02/02/2004 3:20:35 PM PST by
Badray
(Make sure that the socialist in the White House has to fight a conservative Congress.)
To: Sir Gawain
What does your tagline mean?
20 posted on 02/02/2004 2:39:49 PM PST by Sir Gawain (loads of robot monkey fun)
I'm sure you will have an innocent reply, but to a poster who has been called a Bushbot before..I'm just curious.
81 posted on
02/02/2004 3:21:06 PM PST by
Krodg
(...when you no-show for a decade, you ain't the base anymore!)
To: Sir Gawain
This list must come from a libertarian, because as a CONSERVATIVE, there are a number of things on the list that are not a problem at all. This is a general rant against Republicans in general. It seems to me that if you're just going to accuse George W. Bush of being a Republican...so what? This is a reason not to re-elect him?
You start off attacking Ronald Reagan who is/was without a doubt a conservative.
I'm going to say something you're going to hate. Not all government spending is evil. Yes, government does have to spend money sometimes. Do they spend far more than they should? The conservative position is yes, they do. Do I disagree with the way they get the money (income tax, death tax, etc.)? Yes.
But if your entire argument is "Look, the government spends money under Republicans" than I'm just not outraged. Yes, they spend money on defense (and yes, that includes the Coast Guard), "anti-terror" programs, the US Geological Survey Center, and other things. What's wrong with any of that? What is it with libertarians that they don't understand things like defense?
And social conservatives see little wrong with conserving society via "faith-based initiatives", the war on drugs, and the like. Some may disagree with them ideologically, but they are conservatives.
Quite frankly, the more I look at this list the more I wonder if you actually read it. Railing against teaching English in schools, the Amber Alert system, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, etc.? What's the point of this?
Not to mention that it is Congress that creates and maintains a lot of these expenditures.
88 posted on
02/02/2004 3:27:58 PM PST by
DameAutour
(It's not Bush, it's the Congress.)
To: Sir Gawain
Why don't you go through each line item and tell us who proposed the item and if it was buried in another law that was needed. The pork barrel expenditures plus having to revamp everything including our defense department (thanks to BC spending all his time with his liasons), AS WELL AS 911, have led to this deficit. Do you know any elderly people who cannot afford to buy medicine after they go to the doctor? I would much rather pay for medication for our
seniors and disabled than the frivolous pork barrel deals to buy votes. Do you know a better way to handle the illegal immigrants? Please, don't tell me any of demos running around bashing Bush have the answer to these problems.
112 posted on
02/02/2004 4:28:57 PM PST by
PROUDAMREP
(UNITE FOR BUSH IN '04)
To: Sir Gawain
bump for later (thanks!)
117 posted on
02/02/2004 4:54:22 PM PST by
PistolPaknMama
(pro gun Mother's Day 2004! www.2asisters.org)
To: Sir Gawain
Um, what's your source for that?...
To: Sir Gawain
So, who you voting for, France?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson