Increase the size of government, elect a Rupublican

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
By ALAN FRAM

(AP) President Bush points to reporters as he leaves a prayer service at St. Johns Church on Sunday,...
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Conservatives wait warily as President Bush makes final decisions about his election-year budget, three years into an administration on whose watch spending has mushroomed by 23.7 percent, the fastest pace in a decade.

While Bush has emphasized repeatedly the need to rein in spending, overall federal expenditures have grown to an estimated $2.31 trillion for the budget year that started Oct. 1. That is up from $1.86 trillion in President Clinton's final year, a rate of growth not seen for any three-year period since 1989 to 1991.


Linky

If you are really serious about increasing the size of the Federal Government, elect a Conservative Republican as President. Highest rate of government spending growth since 1989-1991, hummmm, who was President then? Oh, another Conservative Republican. Too bad these folks don't have the guts to tax the amount they spend. I guess it is easier to Borrow and Spend, as most Conservative Republicans do.

Vote Bush in 2004 if you believe that the Federal Government is too small and you would like to see its size increased.

If you don't think that is what you want you probably would do better looking elsewhere.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If you don't think that is what you want you probably would do better looking elsewhere.
Looking at the Libertarian Party would be a good start.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Increase the size of government, elect a Rupublican or Democrat

There I fixed the thread title :D
With the current crop of politicians wanting to be elected/re-elected, the gov't will increase in size and scope.

CkG
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Increase the size of government, elect a Rupublican or Democrat

There I fixed the thread title :D
With the current crop of politicians wanting to be elected/re-elected, the gov't will increase in size and scope.

CkG
Yup, as long as half of the population is not paying taxes, they are going to continue to vote to pick the pockets of others.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Increase the size of government, elect a Rupublican or Democrat

There I fixed the thread title :D
With the current crop of politicians wanting to be elected/re-elected, the gov't will increase in size and scope.

CkG
Yup, as long as half of the population is not paying taxes, they are going to continue to vote to pick the pockets of others.
Unless you're acknowledging that the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes, I'd say the half not paying taxes mostly didn't vote for the "conservative" Republicans who keep increasing spending. The sterotype of "tax and spend" Democrats is as accurate as "borrow and spend" Republicans. I wouldn't brag about either party's spending habits, but at least the Democrats have shown a willingness to pay for their spending. The last three Republican administrations (at least) were not.
 

CryHavoc

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,023
3
76
Ah mine eyes tell me that this forum is replete with Liberal democrats who spend alot of their time listening to NPR and watching CNN. Of course those two bastions of information, that being supposedly unbiased news, are completely liberal in scope and don't really try to hide thier bias.

If memory serves, the highest economic growth modern day man has achieved was under the 8 year tenure of the gipper.

The most scandalous tenure was with the last democrate to hold the title.

Hello Mr. President....going down??
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Increase the size of government, elect a Rupublican or Democrat

There I fixed the thread title :D
With the current crop of politicians wanting to be elected/re-elected, the gov't will increase in size and scope.

CkG
Yup, as long as half of the population is not paying taxes, they are going to continue to vote to pick the pockets of others.
Unless you're acknowledging that the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes, I'd say the half not paying taxes mostly didn't vote for the "conservative" Republicans who keep increasing spending. The sterotype of "tax and spend" Democrats is as accurate as "borrow and spend" Republicans. I wouldn't brag about either party's spending habits, but at least the Democrats have shown a willingness to pay for their spending. The last three Republican administrations (at least) were not.
The wealthy pay most of the taxes.

And those that dont pay taxes are voting for more goverment services. The fact that 50% of the people dont pay taxes is leading to move goverment and more expensive goverment.

 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Increase the size of government, elect a Rupublican or Democrat

There I fixed the thread title :D
With the current crop of politicians wanting to be elected/re-elected, the gov't will increase in size and scope.

CkG
Yup, as long as half of the population is not paying taxes, they are going to continue to vote to pick the pockets of others.
Unless you're acknowledging that the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes, I'd say the half not paying taxes mostly didn't vote for the "conservative" Republicans who keep increasing spending. The sterotype of "tax and spend" Democrats is as accurate as "borrow and spend" Republicans. I wouldn't brag about either party's spending habits, but at least the Democrats have shown a willingness to pay for their spending. The last three Republican administrations (at least) were not.

And those that dont pay taxes are voting for more goverment services. The fact that 50% of the people dont pay taxes is leading to move goverment and more expensive goverment.

Ummmm.....hello Bush is in office not Clinton ! Who has lead us into deficit spending ? Who has bank-rolled the biggest expansion in the federal goverment and in social services since FDR ? Here's a clue it was not Clinton or any dem politician ( they were all contianed to a degree ) !! No one has done more damage to this nation and increased the size and scope of the federal goverment then Bush Jr. and his administration ! No president has attacked our Consitution or Bill of Rights like Bush Jr. and the gang has. For crying out loud can someone point out a real conservative for me because I can't find one in the White House ! Don't even let me get into the nation building crap'o' la this adminstration has turned into ! How about we start nation building at home for once !?!
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Yup, as long as half of the population is not paying taxes, they are going to continue to vote to pick the pockets of others.
Unless you're acknowledging that the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes, I'd say the half not paying taxes mostly didn't vote for the "conservative" Republicans who keep increasing spending. The sterotype of "tax and spend" Democrats is as accurate as "borrow and spend" Republicans. I wouldn't brag about either party's spending habits, but at least the Democrats have shown a willingness to pay for their spending. The last three Republican administrations (at least) were not.
The wealthy pay most of the taxes.

And those that dont pay taxes are voting for more goverment services. The fact that 50% of the people dont pay taxes is leading to move goverment and more expensive goverment.
With all due respect, you are evading my point. Bush is running a $500 billion deficit this year. I don't recall that any significant portion of that increased spending was for programs for the poor. While the poor may ask for more, they largely aren't the people who voted for Bush, nor did Bush increase spending for their requests. Bush's "more government and more expensive government" has nothing to do with the poor.


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Yup, as long as half of the population is not paying taxes, they are going to continue to vote to pick the pockets of others.
Unless you're acknowledging that the wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes, I'd say the half not paying taxes mostly didn't vote for the "conservative" Republicans who keep increasing spending. The sterotype of "tax and spend" Democrats is as accurate as "borrow and spend" Republicans. I wouldn't brag about either party's spending habits, but at least the Democrats have shown a willingness to pay for their spending. The last three Republican administrations (at least) were not.
The wealthy pay most of the taxes.

And those that dont pay taxes are voting for more goverment services. The fact that 50% of the people dont pay taxes is leading to move goverment and more expensive goverment.
With all due respect, you are evading my point. Bush is running a $500 billion deficit this year. I don't recall that any significant portion of that increased spending was for programs for the poor. While the poor may ask for more, they largely aren't the people who voted for Bush, nor did Bush increase spending for their requests. Bush's "more government and more expensive government" has nothing to do with the poor.
Yes, and congress let him. ANd he let congress.

And the last time the debt actually contracted was almost 40 years ago.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,090
5,283
126
Yes, and congress let him. ANd he let congress.

Congress is Republican too.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, and congress let him. ANd he let congress.

Congress is Republican too.
yes...and people are getting the goverment they voted for.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
The wealthy pay most of the taxes.

And those that dont pay taxes are voting for more goverment services. The fact that 50% of the people dont pay taxes is leading to move goverment and more expensive goverment.
Oooooh! We get to directly VOTE for government services and whether government expands or contracts? Wow, news to me. And here I was thinking that our participation was restricted to electing some moron who goes on his merry way spending like a twinkie-addled teenager in the home entertainment section of Wal-Mart with Daddy Bush's gold AMEX.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
The wealthy pay most of the taxes.

And those that dont pay taxes are voting for more goverment services. The fact that 50% of the people dont pay taxes is leading to move goverment and more expensive goverment.
Oooooh! We get to directly VOTE for government services and whether government expands or contracts? Wow, news to me. And here I was thinking that our participation was restricted to electing some moron who goes on his merry way spending like a twinkie-addled teenager in the home entertainment section of Wal-Mart with Daddy Bush's gold AMEX.
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.
You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.
You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.
Well most of my reps have done a decent job voting against excessive spending.


While the republicans are spending too much, the democrats cant make up their mind if they want to slame them for not spending enough(this seems to happen more often), or spending too much.

edit:
The democrats have yet to filibuster a spending bill.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
If you don't think that is what you want you probably would do better looking elsewhere.
Looking at the Libertarian Party would be a good start.
Here here!

You don't want to rustle the feathers of the herd now, don't you, glenn?

To speak of such is preposterous!
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The wealthy pay most of the taxes.
Pure BS . . . unless "wealthy" means anyone earning more than 50K.

Yup, as long as half of the population is not paying taxes, they are going to continue to vote to pick the pockets of others
Unless half the population is unemployed . . . I do believe they are paying FICA. Considering the tax cuts advocated by Bushies have gone disproportionately to higher income brackets (yes they do pay more income tax) . . . while the government runs a $400B annual deficit . . . I would say the pockets being picked belong to younger working Americans (me) and our progeny.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I would say the pockets being picked belong to younger working Americans (me) and our progeny.
I'd agree with that. The "golden" folks seem to want to continue and grow this entitlement attitude they bought into. I can only hope that enough of us younger folks can change that tide of thinking before it's too late to make changes without having to make drastic changes.

CkG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I'd agree with that. The "golden" folks seem to want to continue and grow this entitlement attitude they bought into. I can only hope that enough of us younger folks can change that tide of thinking before it's too late to make changes without having to make drastic changes.
I think plenty of the "golden" folks would cut us some slack if the pols were honest. Personally, I think Gen X and Y deserve some of our future pain since we are apparently too damn dumb (or lazy) to vote. Personally, I vow to vote against virtually all incumbents . . . curiously the national ones are all Republican while most of the state offices (NC) are Democrats . . . nothing like killing two birds with one shot.
 

Bitdog

Member
Dec 3, 2003
143
0
0
I would like to vote Libertarian or Green party maybe,
but when I did that in the past, the president I DIDN'T want in office got elected.
So then I switched from voting for a president, to voting against a president.
I would look over the candidates, and if a bad choice had a good chance of winning,
I would vote for the candidate most likely to defeat him.
No matter what party the candidate was from or what his view were on anything.
At that point my vote started counting. People I voted for got elected quite often.
But mostly, the people I didn't want in office, were not elected.

I suspose one does need a bit of caution doing this,
I mean, one should at least look into who they are voting for.

But right now, I believe some real bad stuff is going to happen starting November 2004
if Bush gets re_elected.
Every country on his "axis of evil" list is going to be accused of having WMD.
As if he already knows that every country has an army, and that army has weapons.
It's kinda a safty accusation that didn't pan out for him in Iraq.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.
You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.
Well most of my reps have done a decent job voting against excessive spending.


While the republicans are spending too much, the democrats cant make up their mind if they want to slame them for not spending enough(this seems to happen more often), or spending too much.

edit:
The democrats have yet to filibuster a spending bill.
Bush has YET to veto a single spending increase by Congress. He has that ability, but has yet to use it. So don't pass it off on Congress like they're the only ones responsible. If Bush was concerned about spending, he'd be stopping bills left and right. He's clearly not concerned.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.

Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.
You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.
Well most of my reps have done a decent job voting against excessive spending.


While the republicans are spending too much, the democrats cant make up their mind if they want to slame them for not spending enough(this seems to happen more often), or spending too much.

edit:
The democrats have yet to filibuster a spending bill.
Bush has YET to veto a single spending increase by Congress. He has that ability, but has yet to use it. So don't pass it off on Congress like they're the only ones responsible. If Bush was concerned about spending, he'd be stopping bills left and right. He's clearly not concerned.
That still doesn't absolve Congress - which I believe was his point. The democrats seem to think that filibustering well qualified judges is warranted but yet they don't do the same with spending. So yes - they ALL suck. But then again if Bush did veto spending - holy shnikes would you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the left about funding. Meh - it's politics so blame whoever you wish.

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY