If I had a dime for every time you have been caught lying, misrepresenting another’s statements, or claiming facts of a statement that later turn out to be wrong I could buy the state of Texas by buy the land one parcel at a time.

Lowering federal spending is not a republican agenda as you try to suggest. It is a conservative agenda. Ignorance looks good on you only because you wrap yourself in it so well. Mr. Bush is not a conservative, neither was his father. This is the reason he is having so much trouble keeping the party under control.
You as a political hack should know and understand this but you either choose to be ignorant or refuse to learn the facts before posting an article like this one. Reducing spending, reducing federal control over business, reducing federal control over our lives, finding the perfect balance between government and citizen is simple to a conservative, for every 100k of population there should be one civilian federal employee. Moderates believe that the government should grow as necessary and liberals think that all citizens should be federal employees or in a union and stupid liberals believe that all citizens should be both a federal employee and in a union and preferably a member of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Bush is a moderate republican who has more in common with moderate democrats than conservative republicans or democrats.
You would know this if you spend a little time in research and less time trying to prove to yourself that Mr. Bush is like you.

Because the GOP is not controlled by the conservatives if it were then they would have own the elections in 2006. To show their displeasure they stayed away from the polls and let the Democrats win. Wars cost money when the nation choose to go to war it was with the idea of wining the war. Unlike the democrats the desire of the Republicans protect and defend the nation. It seems the desire of the Democrats is to win elections without a care of the ramifications. The same strategy used when Mr. Nixon was president causing 20 years of nations distrusting us, lost of respect around the world and the deaths of thousands of American servicemen in Vietnam and it looks like they are going to repeat the strategy again. For local politics this is fine but to play this game on the international stage is most dangerous. In every war money is spent to win. In every war this nation spent more money than it had to win. Only in Vietnam did we lose everything we had gained internationally and domestically over the past 50 years. It took Ronald Reagan to start rebuilding the trust of the world leaders. It was once believed that if America set its mind on achieving something it would reach that goal no matter what got in the way. we went to the moon, protected Europe in two world wars and the cold war against all odds. The world believed that we as a nation my by hard and cold when crossed but helpful when asked for any assistance. Since the Soviets took over Russia in the early 20th century they had failed to feed their people in any 3 consecutive years out of the 70 they were in control yet the US sold them grain every year no matter how bad relations were with them. While at the same time we battled them on every other front. We can do anything we set our minds to because we are America. The only thing we can’t do is win against ourselves. President Lincoln said that a nation divided against its self can not stand. Our petty political arguments of left and right is great domestically but internationally it hurts the nation not just the president which is why we have always had the policy of politics stopping at the waters edge. Except on two occasions the first in Vietnam and the second happening now. as I pointed out the first time we had serious and long ranging problems and the second is shaping up to do the same only worse. Thanks for thinking that winning in politics is better than keeping us safe at home. Shortsightedness has been the shortcoming of the democratic party You can’t win in the arena of ideas so you try to win by destroying the nation. You call the President an idiot, a dunce, a frat boy, a party guy. I understand the strategy behind the thinking is once your people are in charge you will fix it and make everything right again. The problem is that it doesn’t work. The last time it was tried the American people were demoralized and believed that we were losers, the military was ripped to pieces and useless when the Democrat President needed them. The CIA was destroyed and even now is unable to do what it was supposed to do, you know like stop the terrorist before they strike. The FBI was castrated and just as useless because everyone on your side wants to defend your rights that have not been bent on the chance that they might be. So it is proven that your way of doing things does not work and will only weaken our position around the world. While devastating the American people at home.
Spend the money and win then we can cut the deficit after like we did in every war we have ever had.



I and others have proven you wrong on almost every article you have written. You choose to ignore the facts when presented to you and failed to reesearch anything that was presented you just repeat your line over and over and when you can't refute the facts you just stop posting to that article and write another restating the same crap in the last one. That is proof that you print lies without having to dredge up all the articles you have written and the people that refuted them.

The American people have been bombarded by negative press for 4 years and it was not until 2006 did it start to take hold. Disloyal idiots who run around screaming that we are losing long before there was any evidence of the fact then pointing to every misstep as proof we are losing. The abu grab screw up was portrayed as systematic abuse from the top down in order to pin the problem on GWB. Funny how no one seems to remember that by the time the press discovered the problem the people involved had been arrested for three months and got their exclusive breaking news from the PAO in a press release. Funny how it was covered up according to the press. So yes, Americans are demoralized just as I explained in the last post how the Democrat party did the same thing in Vietnam and how successful that was for the nation.
I see you are proud of your part in helping America lose another war it was winning.




Then you need to learn to read. Republicans are not conservatives. Just like democrats are not liberal the moderate wing of the Republican Party is what is running the party and has been since GHWB took power. Since the democrats are leaning so far to the left that your party only has one conservative democrat it is hard to pass conservative legislation. That is the answer to your question. I figure I have to tell you so you won’t miss it again.

Paladiun77

As a Republican for over 40 years and as a member of the local Republican Committee there were several principals that Republicans were committed to. One was restraint on government spending. Second was a BALANCED BUDGET. Third was NO NATION BUILDING. The GOP during the past 6 years has turned its back on all three of these principals. I have copied the point of this Blog for you to understand:

Every time a Republican complains about increased federal spending they need to look in the mirror and say I am the cause of the increased spending over the past 6 years.

MasonM

The Republicans have been in control for the past 6 years and took a balanced budget given to them by Clinton and turned it into a huge deficit. You better read the two articles I posted from the Comptroller General and see what he has to say about BUSH!

Bush and the GOP controlled Congress added more spending then ANY Democrat in modern history! $150 Billion in Interest. $125 Billion for Iraq war. Record high PORK and Earmarks. HYPOCRISY - That is what Republicans complaining about the free spending liberals are!

Please name any group of Democrats that have ever advocated cutting spending.

You seem to forget that the balanced budget under the Clinton administration was accomplished by a Republican majority congress.

See, Col, when you make salient points like this I agree with you. We're agreed on not liking the course the GOP is taking, it is the solutions where we disagree.

I complain about big government Republicans, though, and advocate for smaller government. You complain about big government Republicans and advocate for bigger government. I honestly don't understand it.

Master stroke of titling. Nutshell if I ever saw one.

IslandDog

I am aware that there are shifting spending patterns. You sources have however not counted the interest on the debt paid to Medicare and Social security. There is little trick called NET interest. That only counts the interest paid to the debt held by the public and companies. However we also pay interest to the SS and Medicare Trust funds. If you count ALL the interest taxpayers are paying it MUCH higher then your graph. In fact the total interest is almost the same as defense spending. Thus if your graph used Total Interest the % paid to Interest would be about 17% compared with defense at 19%.

The second issue is Social Security. That is NOT a general Fund expense and is paid from the Social Security tax. Today the Social Security system is generating a surplus and in 2006 the Surplus from Social Security was almost $200 Billion and the Surplus from Medicare was about $26 Billion. Bush subtracts these two surpluses from that annual deficit to make the annual deficit appear much smaller. In 2006 Bush reported the annual deficit at $248 Billion but the Treasury shows the increase in the national Debt in 2006 as $574 Billion. That is the result of: $574 less the $226 Billion Surplus from SS and Medicare to arrive at the $248 billion. However we have issued IOU's to SS and Medicare upon which we pay interest and that distorts the deficit as reported by Bush the same as NET interest ignores all the debt held by SS and Medicare. As the Comptroller General said-- Smoke and Mirrors!

Regardless of col trying to twist things the fact is America is already turning into a welfare state.

The trustfunds have been abolished since the 60's too bad you don't bother to do any research, The money collected today does not go into a trust fund it goes to the treasury for disbursment with little left over. The funds that were in the trust fund were spent to pay for the Great Society and to pay for the Vietnam war. The congress issued IOU's that was supposed to be repaid after the vietnam war was over. The idea was to use the money saved from the war to repay the IOU's they used that money to pay for social programs. Congress never paid back the money, over the years the money hever found its way back into the no longer existing trust funds. Lots of fun pointing fingers at GWB but understand that the probelm started while democrats were in power both the house, senate and the white house. Only during Mr. Reagan had two years of slight control and that was it as far as control over all three branches of government. The rest of the time the republicans may have had the numbers but not the will to tell the other side that they were incharge. We missed our chance and the other side is in charge. FIx it!

Okay here is what I want you to do. Call the treasury and ask them how much money you have amassed in your social security account under your social security account number. Look at your card it says it is a social security account. The number is how they track your money. What they will tell you is how much money you will get per month and per year but not what was paid into the account. The reason why is because you will spend more than you have paid into the account if that is the case then the money paid you is not your money but someone else’s money. The trust fund still has the name trust fund but it is just a name not an actual fund where your money is kept.

What this means is the politicians have promised more money to you than you deserve in order to buy votes. They got the votes we get the shaft. At the same time the Congress years ago saw that the money paid into social security would not be enough to pay them they came up with the Thrift Savings Plan. I know becaue as a Government employee I am a member of the plan. Our President trying to fix the problem wants to offer the same program that Congress made for themselves and then offered to the rest of the government to the general public. It will stop the bleeding and because we have control over our money instead of the politicians that spent our savings on more social programs and a war they started then did not want to win, it would mean that money would be available for everyone. To do this all people age 50 an younger would be able to save enough money by age 65 to retire on. I know because that is what I am doing now. I can put up to 5000 extra a year. Great!