Right raises thunder over Bush spending

[chiburb]

Front page, today's Chicago Tribune (print):

Snip:

WASHINGTON -- While Democrats pound President Bush over the war in Iraq, conservatives are growing restless over Bush's support of costly programs such as a Medicare prescription drug plan, farm subsidy legislation and an AIDS-prevention package.

The thunder from the right is not loud enough yet to qualify as a revolt against the president, but conservatives are becoming sharper in criticizing Bush for failing to keep federal spending under control even as he pleases them with tax cuts.

Snip:

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a conservative who voted against the proposal to add a $400 billion drug benefit to Medicare, said bluntly that Bush's inability to hold the line on spending could hurt him politically as the federal deficit soars into record territory over the next two years.

"I've always felt that sooner or later voters, if they want big government, will return to the genuine article, and that's the Democrats," Flake said. "If were in charge, we wouldn't be allowing this kind of spending. We'd throw up roadblocks everywhere we could. I just can't imagine that we wouldn't be wreaking havoc."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0307210116jul21,1,729994.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[asjr]

1. right

Jeff has an appropriate last name. I will never understand why so many in our country do not want a sane government. Why are so many republicans so mean? They do not want to help their fellow man. Against Medicare, Social Security--against anything that would take bucks from their pockets. Evidently they don't consider all men are created equal.

[WyLoochka]

3. Jeff Flake Repug AZ

Is from an old time AZ Mormon family. Perhaps people don't know that the Mormon Church has it's own programs for taking care of Mormons - in good standing - when they hit hard times. Mormons pay to support a huge bureacracy in their church, which is just fine and dandy - for them. I don't hear the Flake family screaming about spending in their church. But like the Fundies, they use social spending as a recruitment tool to gain new converts for brainwashing.

Anyone who has hit hard times and not brainwashable into becoming members of the church is not entltled to any assistance from their fellow countrymen - whether or not their fellow countrymen want to help by chipping in and paying taxes for non-religion based assistance.

Yet the Mormons and the fundies are first in line with their hands out to fill their own coffers further with our tax dollars diverted from non-religious programs directly into their "faith-based" programs and schools which are aimed at recruiting new members for their churches. You won't hear them scream about that kind of federal spending. In fact, it is a top priority for them to pump it up.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. I wasn't aware of this.

It makes sense now why they want to put an end to government sponsored social programs and get on the dole directly for their church sponsored programs where they can brain-wash individuals.

[TahitiNut]

13. Never forget that such "tithing" is subsidized ...

... by other taxpayers. Deductions for "charitable contributions" shift the tax burden slightly to those without such deductions. Those are marginal tax dollars, subsidized at the taxpayer's marginal income tax rate.

[myomy]

25. An absolutely perfect Repug name isn’t it.

The Flake:+

[ixion]

2. funny how conservatives whine about stuff like this

and totally ignore miltary spending, which by far outweighs any of these.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. From 280B to 475B in 2 1/2 years.

Sheesh.

[SharonAnn]

16. That doesn't include Iraq invasion and occupation cost, does it?

eom

[chiburb]

18. From the article:

But researchers at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that is often aligned with conservatives, noted that federal spending--excluding military and entitlement programs such as Social Security--has risen 20.8 percent in Bush's years in office.

That rate far exceeds the growth in spending during the first three years of the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter, according to Cato analysts Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven.

Much of the higher spending stems from non-military support for the war in Iraq, as well as security requirements following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But Bush also has increased spending in other areas, such as the farm bill and education, that conservatives believe went too far.

[oneighty]

20. But military spending

keeps their precious paranoid white asses from being killed

by one-a them there "Other people" that hate their freedom.

So it is good!

180

[ima_sinnic]

4. wah mommy i'm tired of being selected, please make them stop

HAHA

poor widl bunnypants

[HawkerHurricane]

5. Heard an interesting idea on how to balance the budget

Without raising taxes.

Simple choice:
1. We can cut every spending program except the military to zero. And I mean EVERY, no FBI, no CIA, no Border Patrol, no Social Security, no Medicare, no nothing nohow.

OR

2. We can cut the entire military (same thing, no military at all).

If you don't like those choices, we'd have to raise taxes. (from the current level)

[zekeson]

9. I assume this is tongue in cheek

Neither plan, of course, would work. On either side those types of government programs are great jobs programs. Eliminate the military point blank and you would be placing, uh well, I guess, I, like Dean, don't know how many folks are in uniform, a whole lotta folks on unemployment. You would place all the folks who support the military, from off-post tailors and pawnshops and barbershops to the major defense contractors out of work. (I got no problem with booting defense contractors btw, but geez, all the mom and pops?)

It is ludicrous to eliminate the other programs as well.

Raise my taxes, lets get America back to where it was 3 short years ago. Oh, yeah, that means getting rid of *, too.

[HawkerHurricane]

14. Sort of Tongue in cheek, but...

That's what it would take given the current tax level.

Yes, it's ludicrous, but that's the kind of choice that the Replutocans want us to make it seems.

[Fovea]

22. I will go with choice 3

Which is Choice 2 + a total redesign of our society and economy.
No more Ultra rich. Ultra progressive taxation instead NOW!

[On the Road]

6. Regardless of His Misplaced Priorities

Mr. Flake is correct -- Bush's spending programs have been lavish and irresponsible. "Drunken saior" was John McCain's phrase.

Missile defense, the farm bill, the AIDS intiative, foreign "aid" for supporting the war in Iraq (Turkey was slated to receive $32B).

Regardless of the merit of any program, these are unecessarily huge about being thrown around at a time when any sensible politican of either party would be frantic about ways to close the gap.

And it shows no signs of stopping.

[Sushi_lover]

7. But we don't want to look weak on terror, do we?

Repubs wouldn't vote against a Star Wars defense, would they?
Or more prisons for drug users?
Or mini-nukes for a new nuclear arms race with 3rd world dictators?

"Spending is OK, as long as it's for insane things," Republicans say.

[young_at_heart]

12. And we want to collect as much as possible

for re-election....millions and millions and millions!

[aquart]

17. We look weak on everything.

Bush has cracked us like a nut so his corporate pals can scoop up the meaty pieces.

[leesa]

36. As if bombing isn't about the weakest and most ineffective response to

terrorism you could ever have. It proliferates terrorism many times over. Greedy Fools.

[TahitiNut]

10. "While Democrats pound President Bush over the war in Iraq"???

The presstitutes are constantly peddling the partisan meme, tacitly ascribing such partisanship to Democrats. This can be seen more clearly if we regard the following alternative prose:"While Americans, except for partisan Republicans, pound President Bush over the war in Iraq ..."
This insidious ascription of partisanship to one side, ignoring the fact that Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, and Independents are also voicing legitimate criticisms at this madministration for the same failings, betrays the corporatist media's bigotry.

[leftyandproud]

15. I know several pukes...

Who are voting libertarian in the next election because of this.

[mefoolonhill]

19. $$

If I am not mistaken, the US Government has $105 Billion earmarked for military aid to the government of Columbia. Yet Flake can't stand the idea of US citizens getting decent health care....

[mvd]

21. Really scary

That there are some Republicans in government even more conservative than Bush!

[Tracer]

23. Although the Republican Congress is passing these spending bills ...

... Bush has yet to make use of the veto. Therefore, he can truthfully be branded as a big (very big) spender.

[damnraddem]

24. The genuine article indeed.

When the voters realize they had it better with government more responsive to their wants and needs.

[sam sarrha]

26. so this is just a set up to make george look compassionate...

when the cancel all the "good" things he tried to do... but had arrannged to not happen. they always approperate the money but never spend it on the social programs, so it goes back into the general fund. in the past it seems they used this kind of stuff to finance israel and the contras

[joeunderdog]

29. Bingo. Let's not fall for this one.

Are we suggesting that Georgie was upping the cash anywhere aside from the military? Bullshit. States have been dramatically underfunded, education (remember the No Millionaire Left Behind Program?), veterans, Boys Clubs--just name it.

This is a ploy to now withdraw even more from social problems. It's called starving the Left--overspend on military, undertax the rich and then tell the schmucks that we can't afford to run programs or help the average Joe on his taxes.

Mr. Generosity? No fucken way.

[jeanmarc]

27. Don't the Repubs control all 3 branches?

Dude sounds like he doesn't have a clue.

Face it, this is what you get when you give a party that sort of power. Is there any coincidence that Bush can raise so much money? It's payback for his spending and for the regressive design of his tax cuts.

[snippy]

31. Maybe it is Tenet's fault.

[Robbien]

28. Seems as if this is a true story

based on reading the freeper site. They are angry and arguing with each other. The Bushbots are saying, just wait till the economy turns and the deficit will take care of itself. But the saner freepers are saying no, it is Bush* spending. They analyzed the spending and even if you take out the military budget, the spending spree is 12% higher than the Democratic spending. They are furious.

[snippy]

30. Since Kennedy, republican presidents have always had higher deficits

than democratic presidents, except for 1968. http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/sheets/hist01z3.xls
(The estimates for 2000 forward are wrong of course, but the actual numbers make the difference even larger. Also, the deficit for the first year of a president's first term is from the budget of the preceding president.)

This fact surprises most people and actually angers kreepers and shittoheads.

I think this fact is related to the fact that, since Harding, the annual rate of job creation is much lower when a republican is president than when a democrat is president.



This fact also angers kreepers and shittoheads.

I think both of these facts are part of the reason that the stock market does better when a democrat is president compared to when a republican is president. http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/Politics.pdf

[stlsaxman]

32. "Flake" is right!

That last quote makes absolutely NO sence whatsoever.

"If were in charge, we wouldn't be allowing this kind of spending. We'd throw up roadblocks everywhere we could. I just can't imagine that we wouldn't be wreaking havoc."

oh ok i got it- it should read "If they were in charge..." I had read it "If WE were in charge..."

So he's only a pig. Not an insane pig. ok maybe he IS insane... nevermind.

[Q]

33. Notice that the Neocons never complain about spending billions...

...on an ILLEGAL war?

[Dulcinea]

34. No, because they're profiting handsomely from it.

Defense contractors, corporate CEOs, assorted idiots...

[leesa]

35. How much are we spending on Bush's phony wars??

These people are so predictably hypocritical....huge government spending by the Repukes and they don't notice it. Massive amounts of corporate welfare goes unnoticed. And the little Pukes will vigorously nod their foolish little heads in agreement with these con artists.