Special K 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Story Well, it's a good thing we kept that tax-and-spend liberal out of the white house. Now we have a spend-and-spender. Everyone poo-pooed me saying that Bush is going to get whatever he wants out of the Senate and just spend and spend and spend. This is fucking ridiculous. Why can't the Republicans in congress stand up to him? Oh that's right. Disagree with the W and you're fired. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Hmm, don't raise the debt ceiling and the gov't shuts down. And, as we learned in 1995, that apparently is the next best thing to a holocaust. And, you know, House deals with spending, not the Senate. And Bush cannot fire a Congressman. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Eh, $800 billion really isn't that much. And the government isn't a business. They aren't supposed to make money. I don't like the increased spending but Kerry's National Health Care plan was going to create a national debt bigger than anything Bush could ever hope to achieve. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Actually, from reading the whole article...this sounds like something even Kerry would have had to do now. The Treasury urged this to avoid cutting into social and other areas. Pretty much damned if we do-damned if we don't now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Goddamit, Of course I know that Bush can't fire a congressperson I was exaggerating, but the administration will certainly let their displeasure be known. And I'm sure plenty of congressmen want Bush to back them up in the future, as he did for many people. They SHOULD curtail some social spending. That's the economic conservative way. Bush's new philosophy of tons of tax cuts and tons of new spending (not just on the war, but on social programs as well) is conterintuitive, especially since it seems we'll be supporting a war for a good long while. He doesn't have to get reelected. I understand if you cut a little money, everyone starts bitching and moaning, but he doesn't have to worry about that now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Kerry may have had to do it anyways, but hey, who was in the White House the last four years? Whose fault is this? Great thing we re-elected him! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Hooray. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Republicans are for small government, sans military, right?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted November 19, 2004 They're supposed to be. I'd vote Republican more often if we had some serious small government advocates. EDIT: I have to say, being a 'youth voter' at the time, and living in very left-wing Washington; during 2000 almost everyone I knew was pumped for McCain. Too bad WA primaries aren't worth dick. Also too bad that now you have to be registered in either party to vote for that party's primary in WA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 19, 2004 We do, but there's not enough of them, sadly... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 19, 2004 Well, it's a good thing we kept that tax-and-spend liberal out of the white house. Now we have a spend-and-spender. Silly boy. We didn't need a Massachusetts liberal. What we needed is a Massachusetts conservative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
