Expanding welfare and nation building, George W. Bush's legacy.

Sounds like a good old fashioned socialist to me.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a socialist, but...

Y'know, this is one point of Bush's tenure that I can't argue with you much on.

Even Rush and Hannity complain about the spending that's gone on in the last five years.

Not that it's all that different (in principle) from any other president (cough, Clinton, cough), just that as a "Conservative", we ought to be moving the budget the other way...

Of course, it's really Congress that holds the purse strings ever-so-loosely...

---

--------------------
Yes, I too now have a Blog. Don't laugh.

Which underlines the true hypocricy of the Bush base. They are a lot more concerned about stopping people from getting married than they are about massive and out of control debt which is rapidly becoming a national security issue.

This country is so freakin preoccupied with the goddamn Bible that we haveallowed ourselves to be robbed blind by Bushco and we have allowed them to out the security of this country at risk with their reckless spending and the bogus economy they have created based upon unrealistic housing prices.


If the Chinese government began cutting interest rates it would spark a massive recession in this country as Chinese investors pull out of our bond markets. They don't need to invade us, they already own us.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Yah, this has me concerned as well...

But I don't think we can lay the blame squarely on either side of the political fence. It's kindof like the levee situation (just to bring this back OT) ... it's not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It's a politician (and the sheep that elect them) problem. Folks in Washington (and in city halls across the country) have been outspending themselves for decades, if not centuries...

"Wake Up, 'Merica!" - Earl Pitts.

P.S. Isn't "g**d*** Bible" a bit of an oxymoron? I'm quite sure He is well pleased with His book - if not so happy with the way some folk have (mis)interpreted it...

---

--------------------
Yes, I too now have a Blog. Don't laugh.

I think we can blame one side for this mess. they control the White House, the Congress, the Senate and now the Supreme Court.

Iraq is a Bushco policy, tax cuts that we cant afford is a Bushco policy, failure to invest in infrastructure and education is a Bushco policy, these are the conrnerstones of the mess we currently find ourselves in.

Thye goddamn Bible is not an oxymoron, the God I believe in had nothing to do with writing that thing.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I think we can blame one side for this mess. they control the White House, the Congress, the Senate and now the Supreme Court.

Iraq is a Bushco policy, tax cuts that we cant afford is a Bushco policy, failure to invest in infrastructure and education is a Bushco policy, these are the conrnerstones of the mess we currently find ourselves in.

Thye goddamn Bible is not an oxymoron, the God I believe in had nothing to do with writing that thing.



You are a moron. I personally think our spending is way out of control. Most of it was in the vein of reaching out to libs like Ted Kennedy who the president allowed to write the Federal Education budget which was and is the largest in history. Again don't let facts get in your way. Prove that the tax cuts are a failure not just your wet dream.




Edited for matt so he doesn't think I don't have facts.



President Bush today unveiled his plans to build upon the success of the historic No Child Left Behind education reforms by submitting a budget request for 2006 that provides $56 billion in discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education. Since taking office, President Bush has increased education funding by $13.8 billion, or 33 percent.

You're blaming Ted Kennedy for the deficit....and you're calling me a moron.

Priceless.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

You're blaming Ted Kennedy for the deficit....and you're calling me a moron.

Priceless.




Nice try. I gave you a single example of why we have deficits. Now if you care to educate us minions on why deficits are a bad thing and how it directly and personally affects you we await with baited breath. Can't wait for this one.

You obviously think its a good idea that this country is over its overdraft limit, maxed out the credit cards, emptied the savings account, raided the 401K.... and the bank manager is the government of the People's Republic of China.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Which underlines the true hypocricy of the Bush base.

They aren't being hypocritical if their views are more socially conservative than fiscally conservative. This is the problem with labelling people as conservative or liberal. There are many that can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and every other combination.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the tax cuts. I think they're doing just fine for the economy...

And I'll just completely sidestep Iraq, thankyouverymuch... at worst it's one more in a long history of American involvement in "wars" stretching at least as far back as the Spanish American war. And at best it's precisely the right thing to do. And it's definitely a well-beaten horse around here.

As for the failure to invest in infrastructure and education... well, nobody can say Bush has "failed" to invest in either... in fact weren't we just saying he's OVERspending in these (and many other) areas? C.F. the two education bills, and the mammoth transportation bill, and specifically the *increased* spending on ACE projects in Louisiana during Bush's administration...

My point was that if our current federal debt situation is bad, it can't be blamed (just) on Bush. The blame spreads pretty evenly across the last half-century, plenty of presidents, both houses of Congresses, and both political parties at a minimum. And there is significant debate as to whether deficit spending really is a bad thing (personally I can see where it may be when/if large amounts of that debt are owed to countries like China...).

As for controlling Congress and the Supreme Court... Roberts' nomination will be a net zero change there (Rhenquist was a conservative), so no control there... and frankly a lot of conservatives wish the Congressional Repubs would grow a backbone... they may have a solid majority there, but they haven't been ACTING like it...

---

--------------------
Yes, I too now have a Blog. Don't laugh.

If the Chinese government began cutting interest rates it would spark a massive recession in this country as Chinese investors pull out of our bond markets.

The problem for the Chinese there is that if they force us into a big recession then their economy will falter also as we are the largest market for their goods.

Just wait until their own consumer economy kicks into high gear.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Just wait until their own consumer economy kicks into high gear.

But don't their consumers need to make more than like 50 cents a day for them to have any type of consumer economy?

How do you think Chinese banks are buying all our our bonds??? because the Chinese people are saving billions of dollars a year in savings accounts.

I guess all those "50 cent days" are adding up.

You're kidding yourself if you think China is an economic backwater full of old men in blue wool communist party suits riding bicycles.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Never ceases to amaze me the levels to which the board conservatives will contort logic in order to blame all the world's ills on Bill Clinton, and at the same time they use the same contortionist skills to absolve George W. Bush for any of his failed policies.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I guess all those "50 cent days" are adding up.

You're kidding yourself

You're right, I wasn't being serious with the last post. China is going to cause some major effects as they wrestle themselves into a major economic power. Just look at the oil market and you'll already see China pushing their way in a big way.

[reply]Never ceases to amaze me the levels to which the board conservatives will contort logic in order to blame all the world's ills on Bill Clinton, and at the same time they use the same contortionist skills to absolve George W. Bush for any of his failed policies.[/reply]

Never ceases to amaze me the levels to which the apparent board "Bush haters" will focus ALL the blame on Bush either.

I never said Bush was guilt-free. In fact, I've pretty consistenly in this thread said he's been spending like a drunken sailor. AND that such spending runs contrary to the basic premise of fiscal conservatism.

What I DID say is that so has basically every other politician in the last fifty years, so to put ALL the blame on Bush is a non-sequitor. He's just the latest in a long string of big spenders on both sides of the fence.

It seems that "fiscally responsible politician" is an oxymoron and has been for AT LEAST half a century.

---

--------------------
Yes, I too now have a Blog. Don't laugh.

   

I'm not focusing ALL the blame on Bush, the Republican Senate and Congress signed all his blank checks.

And to say George W. Bush is just one in a long line of big spenders is disingenuous. He is a FAR bigger spender than any of his predecessors AND he's the only one cutting taxes while he's spending like a drunken sailor. At least there's a little sanity behind liberal big government philosopy...you gotta pay for the programs you want the government to give you. Bush is giving everyone everything they want and is putting it all on the tab. You want a war??? sure I got a war for you. You want a bridge to nowhere? I got that too. I guess he really is still a bar stool frat boy at heart.

Clinton managed to balance the budget, create jobs, and foster a healthy economy.

(wait for it...wait.......uhhh none of that was his doing, it was all the Republican Congress, he was riding on Bush 1's coat tails, he was lucky, what balanced budget?, he didn't have a 9/11 to deal with, blah blah blah)

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I'll grant you that the Libs are at least consistent... spend a bunch of money to fund a bunch of programs...

As I said, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the taxes thing... to me, they're a pretty good, historically proven way of raising revenue...

Saying Bush is one of a long line of big spenders (more like a big crowd of them) is NOT disingenuous, because it recognizes that the probelm is more systematic than any one President or Congressman or party.

For example, the "Bridge to nowhere"... it was some Congressman's pet project, which all (or at least most) of the others agreed to because, hey, they're getting their own pet projects in there too... and then Bush signs it into law because... [insert pet theory here]... I don't even care which party the "bridge guy" belongs to... it doesn't matter. The way the system is currently working, there aren't enough folk who will stand up and say, "Hey! Where's this bridge going? And why wouldn't a cheaper ferry system work better for those folks?" ... because if they do, they'll get out-voted, the bill will pass anyway, but THEIR pet project will get cut, which will get them in trouble with the folks back home, and they'll be back doing pro-bono at a local law firm instead of sitting in Congress... and the wheel goes round and round.


I won't even take on your Clinton bait, because it will only serve to derail my point.

You DO realize that this back and forth between us sounds much like "The sky is blue!" "No! It's really kind of a Cerulean..." "No! Really! it's Navy..." "Actually I thought it was more of a Kentucky blue..."

Can't you at least concede that overspending by the guv'ment is a largely bipartisan problem that's been around for decades and will take serious changes all around (largely by the voting practices of the People) to fix - and I'm not saying simply "Vote Bush out!" I'm saying "Pick a whole bunch of somebodies who will think differently from the entire crowd in DC"

---

--------------------
Yes, I too now have a Blog. Don't laugh.

Not going to completely give in on that one. Clinton balanced the budget just fine, and this guy cannot be compared to the big spenders of the past....he is in a league all of his own.



BTW the congressman from Alaska who got the cash for that bridge to nowhere is a Republican and I think he chairs the Transportation Committee.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Clinton balanced the budget just fine

Not that I know the answer to this, but did Clinton spend the Social Security surplus or did he actually leave money in the trust fund?

[reply]
Not going to completely give in on that one. Clinton balanced the budget just fine, and this guy cannot be compared to the big spenders of the past....he is in a league all of his own.
[/reply]

Whether or not Clinton really did balance the budget, and how much of that "balancing" was based on SS revenues and inflated projections from overstated corporate earnings is subject to debate, but is also not entirely the point.

I will conceded that the spending during this Presidency has been particularly high, and even that a significant part of it is at the President's bidding... But it's kindof like saying "All the other serial killers only had 50 victims each... this guy's killed a hundred!" ...

[reply]
BTW the congressman from Alaska who got the cash for that bridge to nowhere is a Republican and I think he chairs the Transportation Committee.[/reply]

Actually only reinforces my point. I grew up in WV. You know, the home of the Honorable Robert C. "I've never seen a pork project that wouldn't go well with some BBQ sauce and a side of cole slaw..." Byrd. I'm quite sure that on perusal for every Republican "bridge" you'll find a similar Democratic project... The thing did pass the House 412/8 and the Senate 89/11, y'know. Hardly a partisan vote.

No question the projects that have gone through Congress and met with the Prez's approval in the past 5 years have made the deficit situation significantly worse. Don't even get me started on the Medicare mess (IMHO, *neither* party's proposal was a good idea...).

But in order for things to get "worse", they have to be "bad" to start with... and that (as is my point) is a decidely bipartisan issue with a LONG history. Pork (and the associated overspending) knows no political party lines.

And I find it hard to believe that either of Bush's Democratic opponents would have fared significantly better. The programs and their details might have been different, but I bet the purse strings would have been quite loose for them as well.

---

--------------------
Yes, I too now have a Blog. Don't laugh.

Some employees at the Houston Galleria said they saw storm victims using the debit cards to buy expensive gifts, like $250 bracelet, instead of on food or housing.

My first thought ... maybe they bought a gift for whomever took them in and gave them shelter. Seems reasonable (I'd do it). Maybe they overheard that person commenting on something they'd love to have, or remarked about seeing it in a newspaper ad or something. It could have been their way of "paying rent".

My second thought ... "they bought something of value to sell to the pawn shop". As much as I hate to say it or as little as it make sense ... the poor people I have known love to gamble. They get paid/check and they go straight to the casino or gas station to buy scratcher tickets. The more they lose, the more they try to win back. I worked at a gas station in KC, and saw this pattern repeat itself at the first of every month. Lose $200 to win $50.

... or perhaps they needed "cash" for other reasons ... to help pay rent where they were staying, to buy drugs, other reasons.

The Red Cross said it is aware of the problem but admitted that it cannot control where the money is spent.

In this situation w/o mailing addresses and/or permanent addreses, I'm not sure that there's any other option thatn to hand out "pre-paid cards" and wish for the best. You'd think that most people, after losing everything, wouldn't spend firvilously ... and most of the time you'd be right. I'd bet we only hear about the "crazy purchases" that are likely to create enough buzz and chatter to sell newspapers.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

While in this case I found the $2000 debit card thing an all around bad idea and something done as damage control for the public image...to insinuate that this administrations spending problems are because Bush has been trying to placate liberals is weak. This must be the new "I didn't want to spend that money but those pesky liberals made me do it" argument. Bush has a Republican controlled legislative branch, the White House, and very soon the Judicial Branch---he doesn't have to placate anyone. Bush has been a president who doesn't do ANYTHING he doesn't want to do, to say he would have saved that money except the Ted Kennedy's of the world made him spend it is really a down right silly idea and you should feel embarrassed for even saying it.

Often Bush gets blamed for the recession but I think he inherited a recession that was well into the making before he got into office. Despite being a liberal, I think the tax cuts did help us out of the recession and I think it was a good move on his part. The part I have a problem with is the continued tax cuts with continually increasing spending will eventually lead to the next president inheriting another economic disaster.