Bush = Huge Government

[Leveller31]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so-called supporters of limiting government (i.e. gov't power, entitlement programs, gov't influence in schools, gov't departments etc.) can support George W. Bush with a straight face.

Bush, with a Republican Congress (up until the last election) has spearheaded the largest expansion of government since the socialist Great Society of LBJ. That should be an embarrassment to anyone who voted for him.

A big part of voting is supporting ideas, not parties or people. Unfortunately, this is ignored by too many and they get stuck voting for parties (ahem, TWO parties) that have little difference of position on any given issue. Either the republicans who voted for Bush were handcuffed to the party or republicans are really supporters of socialism.

Which one is it?

 

[Gunny]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so-called supporters of limiting government (i.e. gov't power, entitlement programs, gov't influence in schools, gov't departments etc.) can support George W. Bush with a straight face.

Bush, with a Republican Congress (up until the last election) has spearheaded the largest expansion of government since the socialist Great Society of LBJ. That should be an embarrassment to anyone who voted for him.

A big part of voting is supporting ideas, not parties or people. Unfortunately, this is ignored by too many and they get stuck voting for parties (ahem, TWO parties) that have little difference of position on any given issue. Either the republicans who voted for Bush were handcuffed to the party or republicans are really supporters of socialism.

Which one is it?

Why not? With Bush we at least get some of what we want. With Dems we get the bureaucracy and higher taxes to support it. Not a hard choice.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I've never understood it myself. Under Bush we've seen the single greatest expansion of Medicare since its inception, No Child which put the Dep. of Education on steriods, a tripling of pork spending in Congress since 1996, etc.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Why not? With Bush we at least get some of what we want. With Dems we get the bureaucracy and higher taxes to support it. Not a hard choice.

Why not? Because I'm going to have to fucking pay for it in 30 years along with all my kids and probably even grandkids. Why not do what you were elected to do and reduce government scope and power? This is bullshit.

 

[manu1959]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why so-called supporters of limiting government (i.e. gov't power, entitlement programs, gov't influence in schools, gov't departments etc.) can support George W. Bush with a straight face.

Bush, with a Republican Congress (up until the last election) has spearheaded the largest expansion of government since the socialist Great Society of LBJ. That should be an embarrassment to anyone who voted for him.

A big part of voting is supporting ideas, not parties or people. Unfortunately, this is ignored by too many and they get stuck voting for parties (ahem, TWO parties) that have little difference of position on any given issue. Either the republicans who voted for Bush were handcuffed to the party or republicans are really supporters of socialism.

Which one is it?

they don't support him.....

 

[Leveller31]

Why not? With Bush we at least get some of what we want. With Dems we get the bureaucracy and higher taxes to support it. Not a hard choice.

When government expands, you're paying taxes on it regardless of whether its through higher taxes or inflation. So, what is this "some of what we want" that we are getting?

 

[jasendorf]

The worst part is that the Republicans have expanded the government with IOUs and on the back of our children and grandchildren. They laughed like hyenas at Gore's "lockbox" idea... and now that they're no longer in full control of the purse strings.. they're reviving the idea (I guess they fed at the trough long enough to sate their desire for power and money and now suddenly want some fiscal responsibility now that they're not the ones who have to abide by it).