dude or dudette, you are totally exagerating this issue and have blown it way out of proportion.......I mean I hated Bush's spending but really....Karl Marx......good lord, we all hate it when the other side compares Bush to Hitler and now you go and compare him to Marx.......I don't see the parallels if you are being serious........
For some reason, when a relative newbie compares Dubya to Marx, I start getting a whiff of ozone...
In Reagan's time, we saw various programs and agencies be funded at 1-3% below inflation or 1-3% above inflation, except for Defense that was (rightfully so) increased greater.
Guess how much Bush has increased funding for MANY social welfare programs above inflation?
1-3% like Reagan?
5-10%?
25%?
50%?
Do you know that many programs have been funded at 100 to 300% above inflation?
Take Education. I know how much Bush increased it since taking office. Do you? Inflation has been running 2.00-3.25% in his first four years. How much did Educaton spending go up?
I am stating facts. Bush has been the biggest social welfare spender in the history of man. That is just domestic. What do you think he has done globally? What Democrat as president initiated a $15 billion program for aid to Africa?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bush did. Since entering office, Bush has been so Marxist in his spending that Marx and Engels are partying in their granves. It is a fact. I voted for Bush twice, but the FACT is, he is a Marxist when it comes to social spending.
Take a look at his new 2006 Budget, in times of a half trillion deficit and nearly 10 trillion in debt, and while military programs are being scaled back due to "lack of funds":
• $74 billion over 10 years for health-insurance tax credits for low-income individuals and families that
will ultimately help 15 million families purchase affordable health insurance.
• $4 billion in grants to States to establish health insurance purchasing pools, through which people who
qualify for the tax credit and others can obtain coverage.
• $28.5 billion over 10 years for tax deductions for premiums for high deductible insurance, which will
ultimately help six million Americans save for their health care costs in tax-free accounts.
• $19.2 billion over 10 years for tax rebates for small businesses that contribute to their employees’ health
savings accounts, encouraging more small employers to offer health benefits.
• $2.0 billion for Health Centers in medically underserved areas, a $304 million increase, fulfilling the
President’s commitment to create or expand 1,200 center sites by 2006 and begin the commitment to
establish a health center in every high-poverty county that can support one.
• $1 billion in grants over two years for Cover the Kids, a new campaign to enroll millions more
low-income children in Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
• $125 million for Health Information Technology to help achieve the President’s goal that most
Americans have electronic health records by 2014.
• $3.2 billion, an increase of $382 million, to continue to expand the President’s Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief.
• $1.2 billion for international food aid, including a new initiative to provide $300 million as cash
assistance, allowing emergency food aid to be provided more quickly to address the most urgent
needs.
• $4 billion, an increase of 8.5 percent, for Federal housing and social programs for the homeless,
including $1.4 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants.
• $100 million to fund competitive grants for States to develop innovative approaches to promote healthy
marriages.
• $3.1 billion over 10 years in tax incentives to promote donations to charitable organizations from
individual retirement accounts.
I say this is a Marxist Budget. We can't afford $1 billion to save the Hubble Space Telescope but we can spend all this on social programs?
The proof of my claim is in the rate increases in the FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004 and and FY 2005 budgets compared to Bill Clinton's budgets. Study these rate increases in social welfare and you will see that George Bush is a Marxist when it comes to social welfare spending.