Posted on 07/20/2003 5:29:31 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
AT THEIR national convention three years ago, Republicans pointed with pride to the GOP's record of fiscal rectitude.
''In the four decades from 1954 to 1994,'' the Republican platform declared, ''government spending increased at an average annual rate of 7.9 percent, and the public's debt increased from $224 billion to $3.4 trillion.'' Those were the profligate years, when Democrats usually controlled both houses of Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
To be sure, Bush's budgets have had to account for Sept. 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even when defense spending is excluded, discretionary spending has soared by nearly 21 percent in Bush's first three years. In Clinton's first triennium, nondefense discretionary spending declined slightly. If their budgets were all you had to go by, you might peg Bush for the Democrat and Clinton for the Republican.
Yes, I am more and more thinking about sitting out 04.
911 puts the cabosh on all of it! (period!)
Bushes number One issue now and it will remain, is to protect us from terroist, and try to end any semblance of them.
I'm sorry, but that cost!
And while these increases are insignificant in terms of the total picture, they are highly symbolic of a budget process that isn't working.
...as you probably did in '92 also. I guess I can thank the likes of you for the first Clinton victory, then.
From what I've seen in many of your postings to FR, you appear to be a memeber of the perpetually malcontented, nominally conservative wing, which have a habit of making the good the victim of the perfect.
Amazing that you have survived the circular firing squad this long.
The typical silly comment....
No, you should guess you can thank GHWBush for the Clinton victory.
making the good the victim of the perfect.
You mean good such as
The gigantic prescription-drug entitlement making its way through the Capitol will force the budget even further into the red and the nation even deeper into debt.
Sorry, but these are the words, not of a 'malcontent' like me, but of a pretty reliably conservative writer.
I don't want to vote for the guy right now either. He hasn't vetoed a bill yet. The farm bill is the most bloated piece of trash ever to come down the pike. The prescription bill is a joke.
I don't even agree with my mother on a lot of things. Stop calling us names for disagreeing with Bush's spending spree.
YOU are responsible because not only do you allow it, but you ridicule and accuse conservatives (who have been around at least as long as you and paid the same dues) who speak out against it. I've said it a gazillion times and I'll say it again: if this were the Clinton administration you would be having a hissy fit the likes of which have not yet been seen. As long as it's our side, bend over and grab your ankles.
Even after RJCogburn excerpted the best part:
This congress is spending OUR money just like liberal democrats, and Bush is doing NOTHING to slow it down.
How can it be compassionate conservatism to perpetuate and grow government programs that have actually make things worse?
Unless Bush and congress change course soon, I will not be voting republican in the next election either.
However, the passing of the Ted Kennedy Education Bill in the face of a Republican Congress AND a Republican President was unconcionable. Furthermore, the lack of any coherent offensive to get the judiciary logjam untangled is extremely disappointing. The Pubbies, quite literally, don't want 'to lose any sleep' over the matter. Whimps and posers.
Also, the absence of ANY immigration policy and the continued flood of illegals over our southern border in the face of possible terrorism is a glaring inconsistency, IMHO.
Now.........Pork, pork, pork and more pork. THIS is disgusting!
The communists inhabiting the so-called Democratic party scare the crap out of me..........but I'm rapidly losing my patience.
You can't take, "Bush Basher!?"
Look if you don't like Bush get of the kitchen, maybe we'll get another Clinton in the WH because of your selfish, prude take on the Bush agenda.
For your info, I disagree with the spending too, but if you know anything about Bush, you know that isn't all there is to it!
No yours is the silly comment. I guess since GHWBush was not the "perfect conservative" in your eyes you packed up your toys and went home. There was nothing noble or principled about those who "sat it out" in 92. Now you want to do the same for GWBush. Just think, by you not voting for Bush (in 92) at the very least you didn't cancel out a Clinton vote. Too many doctronaire conservatives did this (or voted fpr Perot as a protest) and we got 8 years of a president who lied and tried to nationalize 1/7th of the economy. GW Bush may not be my kind of conservative but I'll vote for him in heart beat because as imperfect as he is, anyone form the jackass party scares me to death in these perilous times.
Besides if you want to something constuctive and try to help the country, work for real conservatives at the local level and especially in the primary process. Don't walk away like some pissed off brat who didn't get everything he wanted because GWB does fit your defination of a "real" conservative.
Un-friggin-belivable!
Go back, get a clue!
Please name another time in history where we had THREE commercial jetliners be taken over by terrorist, killing more than 3,000 people and destroying a center of commerce, and part of the pentagon?
You don't know what Bush's pre 9/11 plans were and you still have no clue what will happen in the future.
If you don't like Bush don't vote for him and go grab on to some Libert. who might get .000000001% of the vote and give the election to one of the now current plethra of Lib/Socialist!
Maybe Al Sharpton will float your boat!
Here, have some Kool-Aid.
Sir your post duplicates authentically my sentiments, and as it was exquisitely extrapolated, I say I am extremely honored to be associated with you on this unpopular thread of illcontempt.
Good luck.
Bring it on!
I don't have a problem with anyone critizing Bush for spending, but to outright give the election to the other side because of it is ridiculous and irresponsible.
Do you penny pinchers think for one second a Caroyl Mosley-Braun would be more up to your standards. Maybe Howard Dean, who loves Hillary's presciption for Healthcare....
HELLO!!!!
Go right ahead, see what YOU get!
I think the point is "we have met the other side...(and it is starting to look like) ...."he is us" The democraps want to drive the bus off the cliff at 100 mph and the repubs have decided to drive it off the cliff at 35 mph imo
On the farm bill: agreed. But don't forget the steel tariffs, either. The prescription drug bill is a disaster.
It used to be that the Dems were the tax and spend party. Where oh where is Reagan's spirit now?
Being overwhelmed by the "compassion."
That is a great point, but I think the Repubs and Bush will slam on the brakes before we get near the edge.
Eventhough Bush is spending like a pissin' drunk racehorse gambler, I don't think the plan is to continue.
He will cut the spending on other things that don't work at all.
Yes, people will make excuses for him, but that is what they are: excuses.
There is nothing "conservative" about the pork coming from D.C., "compassionate" or otherwise.
It is sad to realize, as the suthor...not I, I'm just posting and commenting...points out, the repubs are actually driving that bus faster than the dems.
Now that's unbelievable.
Can't name ONE, can you? You don't know what Bush's pre 9/11 plans were and you still have no clue what will happen in the future.
Pre 911 he was going to buy another term with liberal socialism. Post 911 he's trying buy another term with fear (looks like you might of got a little more than your share there) and the blood of our sons and daughters. Leaving a promissory note of slavery to be paid by our grandchildren.
Maybe Al Sharpton will float your boat!
In your search for truth you might consider that even Al Sharpton couldn't have done the damage I fear Bush is doing to this country, he is after all just a SMALLTIME crook. Hey! Do you know Al is black, I thought you might.
Bush has to grow the economy. He is trying to do that by stimulating. One stimulates by cutting taxes and increasing spending. There is little choice in the matter if you want to try to retain some semblance of morality in the WH and deny it to the Democrats.
Speaking of Reagan....
Reagan could not get rid of programs that he wished to, which is a comparison some of the Bush diehards like to point out in defense of Bush's failure to do the same.
One of the really great things about Reagan, though, was the way he changed the nature of the debate from 'what is the best way for government handle whatever' to 'should the government be involved in handling whatever'.
Bush has completed turning the debate back to the first question and in that way is arguably not just a big government, big spending President, but dangerous to the very ideaof small, limited, Constitutional government. That may in the long run be even worse than his big spending party.
Spoken like a true anti-Bushbutt.
Thanks....I'm up to it. See my #40 on this thread.
True. See my #40 for that subject.
Do not look forward with glee to Howard Dean. He is preferred by the Clintons. He will crash and burn as a left-wing extremist and then Hillary, if she survives Guilliani in 2006, will be poised to present herself to the DNC as a "DLC style centrist" and someone "who can win" and the nomination will be hers with no particular difficulty, and hers without her having to kowtow to the left in the primaries. She will appear to the independents and the moderates as . . . moderate.
Much better for us would be Gephardt, who can himself crash and burn, and leave Hillary in 2008 forced to present herself as more of a left winger because the extremist Dem base will take over entirely in the wake of a DLC centrist defeat.
LOL
Methinks you're quite irrational... President Bush has pushed more crap and winked at more pork than President Clinton ever did.
The people defending President Bush's record on spending do so only because they hated Clinton so much... get over it.
Yes, Clinton was a horrible president by any standard... with the glaring exception of fiscal policy because he had Republican House and Senate forcing one upon him. For President Bush, they same group has dropped trou over and over.
A LOT of people supported President Bush with money etc. because they thought it would get the spending problem in D.C. under control.
Not only has that not happened, but it's gotten substantially worse and for blackholes like the DOE.
Fiscal conservatives have no reason to turn out and support President Bush... and social conservatives have little more than lip service.
Given the record of the first term, the best President Bush can hope for from a lot of his previous supporters is that they vote 3rd party rather than for a democrat.
And spare me your screeds about DU and closet democrat, as I've pointed out previously, my voter registration and donation are public records.
If you have a problem, take it up with the RNC and President Bush.
Um, according to the Heritage Foundation, spending on 9/11 only ammounts to 25% of what has been spent since GWB took office. The Heritage Foundation also says that, when comparing the last time the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the Whitehouse versus the same for the Republicans, the 'Pubbies have outspent the Dims by a TWO TO ONE MARGIN!
Conservative it ain't.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.