Title: This Day In History. Al Gore Loses His 2000 Bid For President. Bush Wins His First Term. Source:
storyballoon URL Source:http://storyballoon.org/videos/this ... dent-bush-wins-his-first-term/ Published:Dec 13, 2009 Author:storyballoon Post Date:2009-12-13 11:37:39 by rotgut Keywords:bushmtrushmore, bushnationalmonument, bushairport, obamacommiecoon Views:467 Comments:42
The rest is history. He is still my President. The current chimp in charge can go eat bananas.
Why don't you like George W. Obama? He's continuing and expanding nearly every single program of your messiah. You are a partisan hypocrite and no different than the Democans who bitched and moaned about William Jefferson Bush, even though William Jefferson Bush grew the size of government more than any president since LBJ. William Jefferson Bush grew the size of government in ways that George H.W. Clinton could only dream of. All with your complete backing comrade.
If you or the Democans had any moral convictions whatsoever, you would be singing the praises of George W. Obama and the Democans would have sang the praises of William Jefferson Bush before him. Instead, you partisan shills show the world your moral degeneracy.
If you think Bablack Obama is the same as Bush, you are truly as delusional as the idiots who think "he is just trying to clean up Bush's mess," with measures such as his health care and environmental proposals.
If you think Bablack Obama is the same as Bush, you are truly as delusional as the idiots who think "he is just trying to clean up Bush's mess," with measures such as his health care and environmental proposals.
LOL! Healthcare. Can you say prescription drugs for geezers? So that's what you have to sink to? Environmental laws and health care? LOL! The only difference between the spending of George W. Obama and William Jefferson Bush is where they are spending their money and expanding the governments reach into our lives.
Once again, you are a partisan shill whose only complaint about big spending and government expansion is that the money isn't being spent where you want it and that he's expanding government in places you don't like. You want the warfare state without the welfare state and George W. Obama is giving you both.
And you equate that with a complete take over of the health care system by the government.
delusional
The only difference between the spending of George W. Obama and William Jefferson Bush is where they are spending their money and expanding the governments reach into our lives.
Bush introduced a few governmental programs, as he pretty much campaigned to do. The HNIC is attempting a complete takeover of private industry by the government. A shame you can't see the difference.
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.
One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.
Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.
President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.
Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true
You're using a source that doesn't even know "whether this is true"?
You're using a source that doesn't even know "whether this is true"?
lol...Your sources would use "weather" intstead of whether.
The paragraph discusses what "some argue" are the reasons for Bush spending like a flaming liberal, expanding big government ad nauseum, and leaving this nation in a stinking pile of debt. I'm sure Bush butt kissers like yourself would defend his spending, expansion of government and huge pile of debt, hence the arguement as to "whether this is true" or not.
Bush was always for no child left behind and prescription drugs and had been campaigning on such things all the way back to Texas. The wild card was 911 and the resulting measures afterward.
Keep thinking your new HNIC is no different if you want. There's no getting through to people with terminal BDS.
Bush was always for no child left behind and prescription drugs and had been campaigning on such things all the way back to Texas. The wild card was 911 and the resulting measures afterward.
There is much more to the story than this. The so-called conservative talking heads such as Limpballs, as well as some so-called conservative forums like Friek Repugnant were telling everyone that Bush was "out democrating" the democrats and that his liberalism was a sham to get the moderate vote. Dozens and dozens of folks were booted off of Friek Repugnant for calling bullshit on this, while the overwhelming majority bought into it - the same way that the majority bought into the bullshit that Obama = change.
But then as a partisan of the two party fraud, you already know this and as always are being disingenuous.
Bush was always for no child left behind and prescription drugs and had been campaigning on such things all the way back to Texas.
Even this statement is disingenuous. Here is a more truthful turn of phrasing:
Bush was always for concentrated FEDERAL power, especially in the executive, and BIG PHARMA whom he whored for tirelessly from Texas to the WH and back to Texas again.
Even this statement is disingenuous. Here is a more truthful turn of phrasing:
Bush was always for concentrated FEDERAL power, especially in the executive, and BIG PHARMA whom he whored for tirelessly from Texas to the WH and back to Texas again.
That about sums it up. Both parties are central planning collectivists who abhor the idea of spontaneous order because they cannot control the outcome for themselves or the money men who bankroll them.