Here's why conservatives consider Bush a free spending moderate
Shrill attacks for excessive spending?
Many on here complain about how evil and especiall conservative Bush is regarding numerous issues. However when looking at the actual application of many of the policies. It is easy to see Bush has the broad middle ground and, for better or for worse, the sort of borrow and spend mentality that many an American lives under.
My questions are as follows. Given the intensity of attack about the heartlessness and lack of compassion regarding Bush, how could anyone else actually find it politically tolerable to attempt to spend significantly less than Bush who has lead a massive increase in spending? A prime example is No Child Left Behind which was actually a very large increase in educational spending.
Question two, the Medicare prescription benefit was heralded as pretty much pure evil by Democrats who even tossed aside and chastized the AARP for a, at conservative estimate, $400 billion dollar program. It is likely the real cost will be over a trillion dollars.
The point is that for all the claims and criticism, I don't see any fewer children on free lunch programs, any fewer not receiving unemployment, or well pretty much any spending cuts because this guy spends like mad.
So if Bush, who spends like mad, is a heartless, cruel and uncompassionate, what does it take to be the opposite of that?
Nick
Many on here complain about how evil and especiall conservative Bush is regarding numerous issues. However when looking at the actual application of many of the policies. It is easy to see Bush has the broad middle ground and, for better or for worse, the sort of borrow and spend mentality that many an American lives under.
My questions are as follows. Given the intensity of attack about the heartlessness and lack of compassion regarding Bush, how could anyone else actually find it politically tolerable to attempt to spend significantly less than Bush who has lead a massive increase in spending? A prime example is No Child Left Behind which was actually a very large increase in educational spending.
Question two, the Medicare prescription benefit was heralded as pretty much pure evil by Democrats who even tossed aside and chastized the AARP for a, at conservative estimate, $400 billion dollar program. It is likely the real cost will be over a trillion dollars.
The point is that for all the claims and criticism, I don't see any fewer children on free lunch programs, any fewer not receiving unemployment, or well pretty much any spending cuts because this guy spends like mad.
So if Bush, who spends like mad, is a heartless, cruel and uncompassionate, what does it take to be the opposite of that?
Nick
Comments
It seems to me that the Democrat and Republican parties fiscal policies have more or less "switched". Apple could only hope for such a change in peoples computer preferences.
whatever........ Randy
Originally posted by trumptman
It is easy to see Bush has the broad middle ground and, for better or for worse, the sort of borrow and spend mentality that many an American lives under.
Last I saw for his 'tax breaks' alone, Bush has borrowed an average of $52,000 from every tax payer in the country. That's what he's borrowed so he can send you $300 (or whatever.) That doesn't include his spending policies or the war.
$52,000. Enjoy.
What does it take? If he's going to give tax breaks, give them to people who need them not to people who can afford to live without them. But unfortunately Bush isn't interested in helping people who need the most help. If he were interested then I don't think you would have to ask what it takes because we would all know by his actions.
President Bush imposed steel tariffs, costing Americans higher prices for goods such as washing machines, cars, refrigerators and other items using steel. He also imposed tariffs on lumber, adding over a thousand dollars to the price for the purchaser of a new home.
Wow, over 1000 $ more money for a purchaser of a new home? Does the writer of that article have any idea how much a home in general costs, and how much can e.g. the property tax be?
Originally posted by bunge
Last I saw for his 'tax breaks' alone, Bush has borrowed an average of $52,000 from every tax payer in the country. That's what he's borrowed so he can send you $300 (or whatever.) That doesn't include his spending policies or the war.
$52,000. Enjoy.
What does it take? If he's going to give tax breaks, give them to people who need them not to people who can afford to live without them. But unfortunately Bush isn't interested in helping people who need the most help. If he were interested then I don't think you would have to ask what it takes because we would all know by his actions.
Could you list a source for that bunge. Last I read the government spends approximately $20,000 for every man woman and child in the United States. Your claim would seem to be that Bushes tax cut is equal to two and a half times the entire federal budget.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Last I saw for his 'tax breaks' alone, Bush has borrowed an average of $52,000 from every tax payer in the country. That's what he's borrowed so he can send you $300 (or whatever.) That doesn't include his spending policies or the war.
$52,000. Enjoy.
What does it take? If he's going to give tax breaks, give them to people who need them not to people who can afford to live without them. But unfortunately Bush isn't interested in helping people who need the most help. If he were interested then I don't think you would have to ask what it takes because we would all know by his actions.
Could you tell me how you come to this?
Borrowed an average of $52,000 from every tax payer in the country?
Please do tell.
Fellowship
1. It's per family, not per person (Dean says per family), so that's $13,000 per person if you're talking about a 4-person family.
2. $13,000 per person equal about $3.5 trillion.
3. The deficits are projected to total about 5 trillion over the next 10 years.
So it does make some sense, if we assume that a) the $52,000 per family is over many years, not just one year, and b) the tax cuts have contributed to the majority of the increase in the debt.
Originally posted by BRussell
That $52,000 is a line that Dean has been using. The best I can figure is that:
1. It's per family, not per person (Dean says per family), so that's $13,000 per person if you're talking about a 4-person family.
2. $13,000 per person equal about $3.5 trillion.
3. The deficits are projected to total about 5 trillion over the next 10 years.
So it does make some sense, if we assume that a) the $52,000 per family is over many years, not just one year, and b) the tax cuts have contributed to the majority of the increase in the debt.
Thanks BRussel, you're correct. I didn't mean to exaggerate the claim.
Former President Clinton enacted the AmeriCorps program, paying volunteers to volunteer. Bush not only retained the program, he expanded it.
Now someone out there may know more about this, but my understanding from former students trying to join americorps this past year has been that they are unable to do so because of massive cuts.
Is there something about this I'm unaware of?