Bush: Biggest Taxer and Spender In Human History

[KG4JYD]

Bush: The Biggest Taxer and Spender In Human History

"It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever," says David Boaz of the Cato Institute.

Boaz, writing in Cato's blog, notes that federal revenues reached the incomprehensibly huge amount of $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007.

That is, quite simply, the largest amount any government in all of human history has ever seized from taxpayers.

And yet, incredibly, Bush and Congress managed to spend even more than that. Spending was $2.27 trillion for the same ten months.

The war in Iraq, while a contributor, is not the root problem. Government spending is simply running amok, Boaz notes, "on everything from earmarks to entitlements to war."

(Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007....history (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/08/12/bush-the-biggest-taxer-in-world-history/) )

[kc0ukk]

Bush never claimed to be a fiscal conservative, in fact, he campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' which I always understood to be a Hubert Humphrey Democrat. For the most part, he has fulfilled my expectations.

Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 07 2007,18:25)]Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate.
Pat Buchanan?

[ka5piu]

Hello.

John Kerry was nothing I could sink my teeth into, no meat and potatos but a mush.
Kerry's wife did an excellent job of getting her point across.
The Gore-Lieberman ticket was not ready for prime time, right after the Clinton scandal.
So, in this case, yes, it was part no dorks in office.
The other trouble was hanging chads ans lost votes, thousands of them, and not just one or 2 places but what now appears to be hundreds of places.
The Democrats backed some dark horses.
Politics as usual, just this time it was the Republicans for a change.
And, the most important of all, apathy, most eligible voters simply want no part of the political party system.
Most Americans feel the "The government is going to do whatever, no matter what I do".
Arabs, who for years supported the Democratic party, backed the Republican, nearly 90% across the board, due to the insanity that people call the Democratic party.
Arabs, as a rule, do what the leaders want them to do.

[KG6LFR]

Just another example of how both parties are really the same, when will we wake up? Hopefully before we become the USSR version II.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 07 2007,19:28)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 07 2007,18:25)]Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate.
Pat Buchanan?
Buchanan was the uber isolationist. He may have been a smart guy, but he was a populist. Populism is the death of modern democracy.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 07 2007,20:15)]Populism is the death of modern democracy.
You do realize we don't live in a democracy, right?

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 08 2007,09:16)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 07 2007,20:15)]Populism is the death of modern democracy.
You do realize we don't live in a democracy, right?
There are many types of vehicles; trucks, planes, trains and ships to mention a few. There are many types of democracies; representative, parlimentarian, liberal, socialist, and direct democracies.

The US has a form of a representative/liberal democracy known as a republic. Just as submarines, trucks and airplanes are vehicles, so the US is organized as a democracy.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 08 2007,09:40)]The US has a form of a representative/liberal democracy known as a republic.
Actually the US is a constitutional republic in which our representatives are democratically elected.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 06 2007,19:25)]Bush never claimed to be a fiscal conservative, in fact, he campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' which I always understood to be a Hubert Humphrey Democrat. For the most part, he has fulfilled my expectations.

Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.
In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,18:18)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 06 2007,19:25)]Bush never claimed to be a fiscal conservative, in fact, he campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' which I always understood to be a Hubert Humphrey Democrat. #For the most part, he has fulfilled my expectations.

Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. #For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. #I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.
In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?
On the contrary, that is precisely what he had in mind. So, too, did I, and for many of those same reasons.

That I have been extremely disappointed in Bush, who is anything BUT a conservative, least of all fiscally, is beyond any dispute. But, faced again with Gore or Kerry, I am not sure what I would do.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,17:10)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,18:18)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 06 2007,19:25)]Bush never claimed to be a fiscal conservative, in fact, he campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' which I always understood to be a Hubert Humphrey Democrat. For the most part, he has fulfilled my expectations.

Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.
In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?
On the contrary, that is precisely what he had in mind. So, too, did I, and for many of those same reasons.

That I have been extremely disappointed in Bush, who is anything BUT a conservative, least of all fiscally, is beyond any dispute. But, faced again with Gore or Kerry, I am not sure what I would do.
Well, 'ukk only spoke of ideology with no reference to the other things....

And, Albert, as intelligent and well thought out as you words here are, how come you didn't know that w was gonna be a disaster? Were you hoodwinked like a lot of other voters?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,19:58)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,17:10)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,18:18)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 06 2007,19:25)]Bush never claimed to be a fiscal conservative, in fact, he campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' which I always understood to be a Hubert Humphrey Democrat. #For the most part, he has fulfilled my expectations.

Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. #For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. #I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.
In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?
On the contrary, that is precisely what he had in mind. So, too, did I, and for many of those same reasons.

That I have been extremely disappointed in Bush, who is anything BUT a conservative, least of all fiscally, is beyond any dispute. But, faced again with Gore or Kerry, I am not sure what I would do.
Well, 'ukk only spoke of ideology with no reference to the other things....

And, Albert, as intelligent and well thought out as you words here are, how come you didn't know that w was gonna be a disaster? #Were you hoodwinked like a lot of other voters?
I am many things, but clairvoyant is not among the list.

[KB9YCO]

Anyone that thinks that the current administration (or it's like minded politicians) are conservative, or that the modern Democratic party politicians are liberal in the true dictionary definition of the words just hasn't been paying attention to what is really going on.

[W1GUH]

As usual, Doonesbury gets it exactly right.....


The debt... (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070902)

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,16:58)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 07 2007,17:10)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,18:18)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 06 2007,19:25)]Bush never claimed to be a fiscal conservative, in fact, he campaigned as a 'compassionate conservative' which I always understood to be a Hubert Humphrey Democrat. #For the most part, he has fulfilled my expectations.

Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. #For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. #I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.
In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?
On the contrary, that is precisely what he had in mind. So, too, did I, and for many of those same reasons.

That I have been extremely disappointed in Bush, who is anything BUT a conservative, least of all fiscally, is beyond any dispute. But, faced again with Gore or Kerry, I am not sure what I would do.
Well, 'ukk only spoke of ideology with no reference to the other things....

And, Albert, as intelligent and well thought out as you words here are, how come you didn't know that w was gonna be a disaster? #Were you hoodwinked like a lot of other voters?
Which ideology might that be? I mentioned, Gore (invented the Internet, inspired Jonathan Seagull) and Kerry (Winter Soldier Investigation, gigolo) and Bush (Alcohol, baseball owner).

Sorry lot to say the least; they are, however, a distinct improvement over the current aspirants with the notable exception of Fred Thompson.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] ]Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.

You said it, you were looking for "a non-isolationist conservative." You never used the word "qualified."


So if it wasn't ideology, what your knock on Gore or Kerry? Incompetence? Stupidity? Out of touch?

[N8UZE]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 07 2007,21:14)]Bush: The Biggest Taxer and Spender In Human History

"It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever," says David Boaz of the Cato Institute.

Boaz, writing in Cato's blog, notes that federal revenues reached the incomprehensibly huge amount of $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007.

That is, quite simply, the largest amount any government in all of human history has ever seized from taxpayers.
Sarcasm mode on:
How can this possibly be? Afterall tax rates were CUT. As every liberal knows it is a zero sum game. Therefore either the tax cut was a lie or the tax revenues are a lie. Take your pick.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,17:46)]Quote[/b] ]Never would I have voted for Bush had a non-isolationist conservative been a viable candidate. #For me, it was an effort to defeat Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. #I suspect that was true of most voters in both elections.

You said it, you were looking for "a non-isolationist conservative." #You never used the word "qualified."


So if it wasn't ideology, what your knock on Gore or Kerry? #Incompetence? #Stupidity? #Out of touch?
I stand educated.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KG6LFR @ Sep. 07 2007,20:14)]Just another example of how both parties are really the same, when will we wake up? Hopefully before we become the USSR version II.
That's why I'm voting Libertarian or Constitutionalist with the exception of Ron Paul

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,16:03)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 08 2007,19:58)]And, Albert, as intelligent and well thought out as you words here are, how come you didn't know that w was gonna be a disaster? Were you hoodwinked like a lot of other voters?
I am many things, but clairvoyant is not among the list.
TU Albert. I needed that dodge, as I also voted for Bush.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,23:10)]Quote[/b] ]In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?

On the contrary, that is precisely what he had in mind. So, too, did I, and for many of those same reasons.

That I have been extremely disappointed in Bush, who is anything BUT a conservative, least of all fiscally, is beyond any dispute.
Not only that, but Bush is anything BUT basically competent, intelligent or capable.

[K6UEY]

The title of this topic in as much as accuses President Bush #of bypassing the Constitution and spending money that the Congress was obviously not aware of.Paying the bills is the work of Congress unless the Democrats have changed the Constitution. How did President Bush pull it off with out congress being aware.Maybe he did it when Pelosi was playing self appointed State Department and Telling all the Arab leaders if they attack we will surrender.
The last election changed the balance of power in the House and in the Senate. #I am still waiting for these new leaders to do what they promised they would do.What good did it do to change the balance of power if they just go on vacation and sit around on their new found assets??
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
POST EDIT:
One member of Congress is acting on the spending bills, Senator Diane Fienstien of California,tacked on a rider in the new Veterans Spending bill that will cost the VA Billions of dollars that will go to supply a park for her Beverly Hills campaign donors.Now instead of treating the wounded Vets in the hospital they can just wheel them out for a day in the park,that is until the Beverly Hills residents complain .They have considered naming it after the cartoon character Porky Pig Park, since it came out of the Senators, Pork Barrel. Yes please do tell us how the President is getting away with spending money and he is not even a member of congress !!

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Sep. 09 2007,06:32)]The title of this topic in as much as accuses President Bush #of bypassing the Constitution and spending money that the Congress was obviously not aware of.Paying the bills is the work of Congress unless the Democrats have changed the Constitution. How did President Bush pull it off with out congress being aware.Maybe he did it when Pelosi was playing self appointed State Department and Telling all the Arab leaders if they attack we will surrender.
The last election changed the balance of power in the House and in the Senate. #I am still waiting for these new leaders to do what they promised they would do.What good did it do to change the balance of power if they just go on vacation and sit around on their new found assets??
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
POST EDIT:
One member of Congress is acting on the spending bills, Senator Diane Fienstien of California,tacked on a rider in the new Veterans Spending bill that will cost the VA Billions of dollars that will go to supply a park for her Beverly Hills campaign donors.Now instead of treating the wounded Vets in the hospital they can just wheel them out for a day in the park,that is until the Beverly Hills residents complain .They have considered naming it after the cartoon character Porky Pig Park, since it came out of the Senators, Pork Barrel. Yes please do tell us how the President is getting away with spending money and he is not even a member of congress !!
Orv, your post is so rediculous it's not worth the time to tell you how ignorat you seem...

kxq

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Sep. 09 2007,01:24)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,23:10)]Quote[/b] ]In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?

On the contrary, that is precisely what he had in mind. So, too, did I, and for many of those same reasons.

That I have been extremely disappointed in Bush, who is anything BUT a conservative, least of all fiscally, is beyond any dispute.
Not only that, but Bush is anything BUT basically competent, intelligent or capable.
You are wrong on all three counts. It is one thing to adamantly oppose a politician for just reasons, but to resort to what amount to no more than childish falsehoods is another thing entirely. There are a host of reasons to deprecate Bush's performance without resorting to invalidity or exaggeration.

Bush has shown himself to be a disaster precisely because he is competent, but chooses to pursue poor policy choices. He is intelligent, indeed he is very bright, but has he exercised bad judgment, especially with regard decisions that would better have been left to the military. That he is capable is testified to amply by the solitary policy that has been shown to be a success, which is that of the "No Child Left Behind," although he has permitted that program to be unevenly applied and many of its benefits squandered through shallow political tilts.

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 09 2007,08:58)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Sep. 09 2007,01:24)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 08 2007,23:10)]Quote[/b] ]In other words, basic competence, intelligence, and capability never entered your mind?

On the contrary, that is precisely what he had in mind. So, too, did I, and for many of those same reasons.

That I have been extremely disappointed in Bush, who is anything BUT a conservative, least of all fiscally, is beyond any dispute.
Not only that, but Bush is anything BUT basically competent, intelligent or capable.
You are wrong on all three counts. It is one thing to adamantly oppose a politician for just reasons, but to resort to what amount to no more than childish falsehoods is another thing entirely. There are a host of reasons to deprecate Bush's performance without resorting to invalidity or exaggeration.

Bush has shown himself to be a disaster precisely because he is competent, but chooses to pursue poor policy choices. He is intelligent, indeed he is very bright, but has he exercised bad judgment, especially with regard decisions that would better have been left to the military. That he is capable is testified to amply by the solitary policy that has been shown to be a success, which is that of the "No Child Left Behind," although he has permitted that program to be unevenly applied and many of its benefits squandered through shallow political tilts.
Albert, your statement is BS, how can he be competent and a disaster at the same time.

Intelligent you say, I don't think so, he is an idiot with too much power, he makes decisions with out regard to the consequences, he has made a fool of himself time and time again...

Albert, I have respect for you and read the majority of your posts, but this one is questionable OM...

kxq

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ Sep. 09 2007,10:19)]Albert, your statement is BS, how can he be competent and a disaster at the same time.

Intelligent you say, I don't think so, he is an idiot with too much power, he makes decisions with out regard to the consequences, he has made a fool of himself time and time again...

Albert, I have respect for you and read the majority of your posts, but this one is questionable OM...

kxq
Competency merely means that one is capable intellectually of making the right choice. One may still make bad decisions.

Money will buy your way into Harvard (just as the lack of money will not keep you out of Harvard) but it will not buy you a graduate degree. The worst screw-ups in the world can get through four years, as many on these threads clearly demonstrate; graduate school, however, is usually a bit different; at Harvard, it is substantially so.

That he has made a fool of himself is no bar to intellect; remember Timothy Leary? Think of Oscar Wilde. A moth seeks the flame because it is genetically driven to do so. Men seek it because of hubris, not stupidity.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 09 2007,06:58)]"No Child Left Behind,"
That is unconstitutional. No where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is the federal government permitted to be involved with education.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 09 2007,12:44)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 09 2007,06:58)]"No Child Left Behind,"
That is unconstitutional. No where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is the federal government permitted to be involved with education.
You are a bit late. Do a bit of research and take a look at just when the Department of Education was founded and by whom. As with many, indeed a plethora, of other issues of Constitutional dubiety, that founding law is bent and warped as desired by an activist court.

I agree with you in principle, and I consider that the intrusion of the federal government into any and all education, but most especially into primary education, is an invitation to tyranny.

Jimmy Carter, however, did not see it that way. The only function of any arm of government is to grasp and to grow. And, once established, no arm of the government is ever amputated.

My citation of the "No Child" act is not made by my desire to boast of it, but to make obeisance to the reports of independent critics that I have read. While the record may be spotty, most of these reports give it higher marks than lower. Only time will tell, however, and there has never been any consistently good record of government involvement in education above the local level in the entire history of the nation.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 09 2007,09:58)]Do a bit of research and take a look at just when the Department of Education was founded and by whom.
1980 Jimmy Carter

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 08 2007,13:38)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 09 2007,09:58)]Do a bit of research and take a look at just when the Department of Education was founded and by whom.
1980 Jimmy Carter
Yea, spun off of Health, Education, and welfare. It preceeds Carter by many years. Learn you American History. The real version.

[W1GUH]

For those of you who couldn't, or wouldn't follow the earlier link, here's the information presented there.

70% of the national debt is attributed to ronnie, bush, and the FM.

[K9STH]

According to the Constitution any revenue collected and any monies spent have to be authorized by bills that MUST start in the House of Representatives and then be approved by the Senate. Only then can the President approve or veto the bill. Then, Congress has the ability to overturn a veto.

As such, the President has no power to spend anything until it is approved by Congress. To blame the President (any President regardless of party) for expenditures is absurd. The authorization for these expenditures has to come from Congress and the President has no authority what-so-ever to expend any monies without the approval of Congress.

Glen, K9STH

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ Sep. 09 2007,19:10)]Only then can the President approve or veto the bill.

To blame the President (any President regardless of party) for expenditures is absurd.
But Bush didn't even try to veto expansive budgets (neither did anyone else for that matter).

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 09 2007,17:30)]70% of the national debt is attributed to ronnie, bush, and the FM.
FM?

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Sep. 07 2007,21:13)]Hello.
Arabs, as a rule, do what the leaders want them to do.
Or they get their heads handed to them in the village square!

[kc2orw]

Yeah he is a big spender but I don't see the tax part though this state, NY, is beginning to tax the heck out of everyone.

I bet the next President tops ole GW by miles, SS failing, Universal Healthcare promise, Global Warming initiatives, pay for Iraq, etc...

Sure I must have missed something I wonder if anyone will be able to buy a car five years from now http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KI4PJW]

He said so.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Sep. 08 2007,03:13)]John Kerry was nothing I could sink my teeth into, no meat and potatos but a mush.

Kerry's wife did an excellent job of getting her point across.
The Gore-Lieberman ticket was not ready for prime time, right after the Clinton scandal.
If the 11SE01 attacks had happened on Gore's watch, he may not have handled it any better than Bush did, but it is highly unlikely that Gore would have got the country sidetracked into a perpetual, no-win boondoggle in Iraq.

The 2000 election was so close, "hanging chads" and Diebold notwithstanding, that even the slightest change in the series of events leading up to the election would have tipped the results into the other direction.

Americans' pathological hang-up about sex is a significant enough factor that, if the Monica Lowinski affair hadn't taken place, the election would have gone the other way. The absence of Ralph Nader on the ballot would have been enough to tip the scales (just as the absence of Ross Perot in 1992 would have likely tipped the scales in favour of Bush I).

All else being equal, nearly 4000 dead Americans and 100,000 dead Iraqis would still be alive to-day.

A total of fewer than 1000 non-extraordinary people were able to drastically change the course of US and world history for ever: fewer than 600 voters in Florida, Monica and the woman who tattled on her, Ralph Nader, and 19 people who boarded aeroplanes in September of 2001.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 07 2007,18:14)]Bush: The Biggest Taxer and Spender In Human History
That's true of every past President since 1950 and will be true of every future President. Inflation is automatically built into the budget process.

[kc2orw]

I read the link and confirms my opinion under Bush we have spent a lot and for some reason he collected more tax revenues without raising the rate. Not too bad now if he and congress had not been such big spenders.... We would likely have squandered, yes squandered, the money some other way.
I think this tells us that wasting money is truly the American way http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Sep. 22 2007,14:55)]I bet the next President tops ole GW by miles, SS failing, Universal Healthcare promise, Global Warming initiatives, pay for Iraq, etc...
Not if it's Ron Paul. Taxes and inflation will go down under RP.

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 22 2007,23:12)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Sep. 22 2007,14:55)]I bet the next President tops ole GW by miles, SS failing, Universal Healthcare promise, Global Warming initiatives, pay for Iraq, etc...
Not if it's Ron Paul. Taxes and inflation will go down under RP.
Sure http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KI4PJW]

What bothers me is that the majority of people are willing to just take more of what they dish out.
Welcome to the Union of North America, UN Regional Governance partition.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Sep. 09 2007,20:30)]For those of you who couldn't, or wouldn't follow the earlier link, here's the information presented there.

70% of the national debt is attributed to ronnie, bush, and the FM.
You've definitively proven that he's eminently competent.

To spend Other People's Money!

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Sep. 22 2007,20:15)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 22 2007,23:12)]
if it's Ron Paul. Taxes and inflation will go down under RP.
Sure http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Check out his voting record. He's a hardliner based on sound philosophy of smaller less intrusive government.

[W3WTF]

President Bush has lived up to his promises and positions, including his lack of action with regards to the U.S.-Mexico border. Those who checked his record, and listened to what he actually said while campaigning, are not at all surprised.

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 24 2007,22:02)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Sep. 22 2007,20:15)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 22 2007,23:12)]
if it's Ron Paul. Taxes and inflation will go down under RP.
Sure http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Check out his voting record. He's a hardliner based on sound philosophy of smaller less intrusive government.
Sure doesn't mean I think he wouldn't, sure means not worth my breath saying he won't be on the ballots as a Republican in 08...

So Sure... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

PS: It is my contention that most people want big government as they like their entitlements, this goes even for so called conservatives. The spending is not the real issue it is more about how the money is spent.
See it's just more rhetoric covering up peoples real agendas

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (W3WTF @ Sep. 27 2007,09:22)]President Bush has lived up to his promises and positions, including his lack of action with regards to the U.S.-Mexico border. Those who checked his record, and listened to what he actually said while campaigning, are not at all surprised.
Just an observation but since the new congress took charge GW was finally enabled to submit the amnesty bill. Just something to consider should you blame GW or blame GW and Congress which is now Democrat dominated?

[ZD7X]

The fiscal numbers that I have seen involving "the war" are between 250 billion & 300 billion. .........'Cmon Geroge, just a little more and you will top one trillion bucks.


Tom ZD7X

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Sep. 27 2007,09:32)]PS: It is my contention that most people want big government as they like their entitlements, this goes even for so called conservatives. The spending is not the real issue it is more about how the money is spent.
See it's just more rhetoric covering up peoples real agendas

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Sep. 27 2007,06:32)]sure means not worth my breath saying he won't be on the ballots as a Republican in 08...
Well Ron Paul has more money than McCain at the moment. And of the Rudy, Romney, Fred crowd Ron Paul is the most conservative based upon his record.

[n0ov]

Bush -- biggest tax and spender? #Hey, not that I'm above "beating the Bush's for a good cause", is this just a general statement or did you compare the numbers against what we spent supporting other war efforts (in adjusted dollars to allow for inflation of course)

I find it hard to believe the money being spent now is more than what was spent in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam or the 1st Gulf War

Facts please .... just the facts

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Sep. 27 2007,11:37)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Sep. 27 2007,06:32)]sure means not worth my breath saying he won't be on the ballots as a Republican in 08...
Well Ron Paul has more money than McCain at the moment. And of the Rudy, Romney, Fred crowd Ron Paul is the most conservative based upon his record.
So what the back room people didn't select him for us http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif