Why doesn't Bush curtail the spending?

[Special K 0]

Okey Dokey, I am a social liberal economic conservative.

 

I voted for Kerry, though I REALLY didn't want to, since he was such a weak candidate. My justification for this was the slightly skewed reasoning that a tax and spend liberal would be curtailed by a conservative legilslature. Plus, again, I'm a social liberal.

 

Bush has now proved that whatever exorbinate spnding he desires, he can have. The legislature basically kowtows to him. What can be done? Can we have a Prez that doesn't have the sickest budget of all time? Cut the pork, George.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Because the media and interest groups will go apeshit if he cuts any program whatsoever.

[Guest Steel_Fury]

I would REALLY like to see government spend way less of our money than they do now. I doubt it's going to happen, but I am a little hopeful.

 

Bush promoted and campaigned on extra spending on education and prescription drugs for the elderly. And, along with the war on terror, our government has increased it's spending quite a bit.

 

Bush hasn't pushed hard for cuts in spending in other areas though. If he had, I don't think he would still be our president come January. If had tried to get any programs cut, we would have been bombarded with human intrest stories of how poor Sam/Sally cant survive if these cuts happen, and George Bush is just a mean ole man. I think the term compassionate conservative would have been rammed down his throat much like no new taxes was thrown at Bush 41. Regan's tax cuts were supposed to be met with by spending cuts in congress. But instead, Congress saw the wave of money coming in and spent, well like Congress.

 

If we are going to see them happen now, Congress will have to be an active partner in reducing governmental spending. I would support even more tax cuts and spending cuts.

 

Bush has campaigned this time on simplifying the tax code, which I am hopeful will replace the income tax with a national sales tax at the retail level. I don't really think this is the direction he is going with this, but I am still somewhat optomistic. Also, since Bush isnt running again, we are more likely to see a more conservative side this term. If the House of Representatives leads them way, maybe they can drag the Senate along towards cutting at least some of the pork out of government.

[Special K 0]

Agreed. The Johns campaign said that Bush had cut education when that clearly wasn't the case. (I think the money could be spent better but, hey) The point is, Bush shouldn't have to worry about shit like that now. He got elected, great. His first move was to spend more fucking money! That's why I loved McCain. If he had been elected, I think he wouldn't've spent so much damn money.

 

And hey, if you cut the budget somewhat, just FUCKING EXPLAIN it! I would think that any American given to watching politics and not just voting by gut instinct could understand the basic fucking concepts of economics. Damn.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Bush is a big gov't conservative. I know it's an oxymoron. It's just how he is. An attempt to cut spending is going to happen. Just don't get your hopes up it will be drastically.

[The Czech Republic 0]

There's gotta be stuff that can be cut. How about they stop subsidizing tobacco? I never got why the government spends tax money for PSAs to stop smoking, but spends tax moneys to encourage farmers to grow the product. I know it's hard, but the U.S. government should try not being merchants of murder just this once.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Back in the mid-90s, the REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION spearheaded by Newt and pals said they were going to be cutting BIG GOVERNMENT spending. Not only did they not cut anything, they gave organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts more money.

 

Now, if Congress can't whittle away some pissant program like the NEA, do you think anything will get done in terms of taxes, Medicare, Social Security, etc?...

[Guest Cerebus]

Yeah they jacked up taxes, that's why we had a surplus.

[Guest Loss]

This is why I never understood why so many Libertarians backed Bush. Most of them are financially conservative and socially liberal, while Bush is financially liberal and socially conservative.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well they certainly weren't going to back Kerry.

 

Agh. Bush and Kerry. This was a real "we gave up a perfectly good monarchy for this?!?" year, wasn't it.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I for one wouldn't mind seeing gov't shut down for a few days.

[BHK 0]

How about they stop subsidizing tobacco? I never got why the government spends tax money for PSAs to stop smoking, but spends tax moneys to encourage farmers to grow the product. I know it's hard, but the U.S. government should try not being merchants of murder just this once.

They did. there was a $9.8 billion buyout of tobacco farmers.

[Guest BDC]

How about they stop subsidizing tobacco? I never got why the government spends tax money for PSAs to stop smoking, but spends tax moneys to encourage farmers to grow the product. I know it's hard, but the U.S. government should try not being merchants of murder just this once.

They did. there was a $9.8 billion buyout of tobacco farmers.

Um, well, tobacco subsidies are supposed to help farmers turn to growing something else. Y'know, not tobacco? Problem is, it's not a bad crop since it makes you some decent money.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

This is why I never understood why so many Libertarians backed Bush. Most of them are financially conservative and socially liberal, while Bush is financially liberal and socially conservative.

Because Kerry's health care plan was going to eat up more money than Bush could ever hope to spend in another 4 years.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

They could stop giving Amtrak money. In 32 years they've gotten $27 Billion and they want $3 billion this year (or next..I dunno). Of course, they do that and millions of people would be without transportation in the Northeast...

 

Bush is actually supposed to be cutting their funding, but Amtrak keeps coming back saying its not enough and threatening closures and cutbacks in service.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The excise taxes collected from tobacco sales pay for those subsidies and then some.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

They won't stop giving Amtrak money because of the impact it would have on the Northeastern transportation system. You thought traffic on I-95 was bad between New York and Boston? Try it again without Amtrak.

 

Bush can't really, you know, cut all that much spending either, because it would look like he was diverting more and more of our resources towards the war in Iraq, which wouldn't exactly be, um, pleasing to the American public. Just one of those complications, I suppose.

 

--Ryan

...Please...spend...less...money that we don't HAVE...