The Republican spending orgy

Boston Globe ^ | 7/20/2003 | Jeff Jacoby

[sirchtruth]

To vote for someone who has basically betrayed me, my cause and my side of this battle because someone worse might get elected is ridiculous.

And yes, I think W has more morals in his pinky than Hillary or Bill.

First of all W hasn't betrayed anyone. It's just that he isn't up to YOUR standards. Secondly, how can you absolve your statement. On one hand you intonate Bush has betrayed you, but if someone comes along who worse it's ridiculous NOT to vote for them. What the hell does that mean?

Then WHO would you vote for that could get elected?

The problem here is there is no one out there with the "extreme" conservatives views you have that's electable.

Where have you been the past Twelve years? Do you mean to tell me that "Compassionate Conservative" didn't give you the slightest clue as to what type of ideology you were voting for?

Bush HAS given us tax cuts, he told you he would, and did!!!

[Sandy]

the government will end the current fiscal year with a budget deficit of $455 billion. Over the next five years, the public debt is expected to rise by $1.9 trillion. The administration projects next year's federal outlays at $2.27 trillion, more than $400 billion higher than when the president took office.

Holy crap. I had no idea the numbers were this bad. I'm speechless.

[Sandy]

your little chart shows nothing about the changes in the Defense budget

No kidding. Defense spending isn't considered discretionary.

[DoctorMichael]

Read your Post (#78) as I suppose you read mine (#16)..........

I watched Dennis Hastert try to explain this hubris to Russert this morning. He said, "We've been in a recession and we're trying to stimulate the economy. Besides, the deficit is a small percentage of the total US economy". {/paraphrase}

While I understand this strategy of running a deficit (ie. the opposite of the tight money policies taken back in 1929, which led to outright depression) I disagree with the methodology used to get the money into the economy.

Don't they trust us anymore?

Whatever happened to letting the marketplace decide the allocation of capital and the correct goods and services produced?

Is this country that far gone that Bush has to engage in the 'vote-buying' scam utilized by the Democrats for the past 70 years?

Doesn't he realize that they're never going to like him, no matter what he does?

Fat, gluttonous pigs like Kennedy, Shillary, Boxer, Byrd, Gephardt, and Pelosi will belly up to the trough, sink their snouts deep in the garbage, eat their fill, lift their snouts out, belch, fart and then waddle over and defecate on your shoes.

To quote the Beatles........"Money can't buy me love".

[ninenot]

To be honest with you, I was never all that excited about Bork's philosophy, which is FAR different from Scalia and Thomas'.

Regardless--the BushBoyzz on the Court will not be a big improvement.

[ninenot]

Ah--the cost of Gummint has gone up by about 9% since you checked first-class mail. It's not 34 cents--it's 37.

[ninenot]

Well--it's a mixed bag on 'one vote.'

The 'one vote' actually makes a difference on local and on many State elections--but statistically, that's no surprise.

Unfortunately in the National elections, the Democrats are able to resurrect so many dead bodies, and double-vote so many students (once at college, once at home) and registr so many people who live at addresses occupied by Dumptsters--that in Wisconsin, e.g., Bush "lost" the State by 5,000 votes. Same-o for Iowa.

It is simply not true that Bush lost--if the voting was accurate. We simply didn't have the necessary dead-body power.

[ninenot]

Well, the time for pulling a rabbit out of the hat is getting REALLY near...

Frankly, this thread and Jacoby's column should be good for old GWB. One of his WH political stiffs will be reading this and getting an earful--which is just fine by me.

[ninenot]

then waddle over and defecate on your shoes

...while screwing your daughter.

[WOSG]

Frankly, this thread and Jacoby's column should be good for old GWB. One of his WH political stiffs will be reading this and getting an earful--which is just fine by me.

'xactly ... Let Rove & Co. know the natives are getting restless, and GWB wont be hankering to spend more of our money to be 'compassionate' for the '04 campaign! He has my vote already, but how hard I bother to work myself up over it adn put heat on my LibDem/indep pals depends on him doing *my* frugal/conservative/smallGovt bidding and not the bidding of the RINO/moderate constituencies.

[WOSG]

First of all W hasn't betrayed anyone. It's just that he isn't up to YOUR standards.

This is true. Anyone who expected a Phil Gramm-type budget-cutter just didnt read the fine print on the label "compassionate conservative". Everything he is doing, on education, prescription drug benefit, etc. is consistent with what he said and did in his 2000 campaign. He has faults, but GWB has kept promises and delivered on his intended goals.

[Zack Nguyen]

Anyone who expected Bush to be a fiscal conservative was doing so because of their own preconceived expectations of hi. His record in Texas, which was staggeringly free-spending, and his rhetoric during the campaign said it all.

People who are waiting for Bush to "get more conservative once he is safely past the election" are waiting for something that will never come. He is what he is and, to his credit, has created a political image very close to his private reality. His believes that massive government spending is necessary and appropriate for a compassionate society. I and other conservatives could not disagree more. Bush in not being unprincipled here - he is being who he is.

[nonliberal]

Sticking younger people with a (supposed) $400 billion tax bill is not conducive to attracting votes.

[ModernDayCato]

First of all W hasn't betrayed anyone. It's just that he isn't up to YOUR standards.

Winner of the most incongruous statement this evening. Uh, my STANDARDS are all about his keeping his word. Yep, he didn't live up to my standards.

And honestly, this one is getting stale: Then WHO would you vote for that could get elected?
The fact that there's no one better doesn't change the fact that he sucks.

The problem here is there is no one out there with the "extreme" conservatives views. Yep, those "extreme" conservative views, like smaller government, personal responsibility, and GASP keeping the promises you make.

You are part of the mounting proof of how far to the left our party has lurched.

[David Isaac]

It is hard to pick a winner in a horse-race where all the horses seem to be short of stature and have exceptionally long ears.

Your views are very refreshing.

[Lazamataz]

I am supposing now that to you spending = Liberal?

Worse. This kind of spending is Socialist.

[Lazamataz]

I know you are but what am I? Is this the way you debate?

I am geniunely convinced that "Dane" is still in high-school.

Maybe even middle-school.

[Lazamataz]

Touche! How clever.

LOL!

The sad thing is, middle-school child Dane will not recognize the sarcasm, and will walk from this post thinking: "Ha! I *AM* clever, aren't I?"

LOL!

[sirchtruth]

Worse. This kind of spending is Socialist.

You couldn't just leave it alone could ya? Ya had to go and conjure up some minilla nasties and muck up a perfectly good ending to an argument! Now, I'm gonna have to bring out the Super Industrial Strength can of Whoop Ass!

Socialist!!! Look, Tazzzzz, I realize Bush has been spending like a mayor's cheap hooker, but I don't believe his plan is complete! There are other things I think he is going to put into place to offset this modern disbursal. Argue all you want that this is socialist spending, but you can't come up with another person who is electable, that would be better.

psssssssssssssss! (can of WA spraying all over you!)

[Lazamataz]

I refuse to be subjected to the "Stay on the plantation" mentality you are exhibiting. I'm not black and you are not the DNC.