...but a report by the National Taxpayer's Union (http://www.ntu.org) indicates that Democrat candidates would spend much more.If the policy agenda of any one of the eight candidates were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $169.6 billion (Lieberman) and as much as $1.33 trillion (Sharpton). This would translate to a yearly budget hike of between 7.6% and 59.5%...

Although they may attempt to stress their policy differences, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark would both increase annual federal outlays by roughly the same amount ($222.9 billion vs. $220.7 billion, respectively). Among those candidates considered to be "competitive," Dick Gephardt posts the largest annual spending increase ($368.8 billion), far ahead of John Kerry ($265.11 billion). (Full text here (http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_name=NTUF )) Lack of solid answers by Democratic candidates about spending cuts by does throw my support to present administration’s spending practices. In fact, this piece (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200401211053.asp) by Jonah Goldberg, George W. Bush, Preservative, pretty well summarizes my sentiments.

:m: Peace.

I still support this president largely because of his foreign policy, which is, at the end of the day, a preservationist's approach. He's knocking down walls, draining swamps, fumigating hives, etc. — all in an effort to protect the West and fix up those parts of the world that pose the biggest threat to our quality of life.

now what a dipshit :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone could beat Bushes record, what around $500 billion or so increase in spending while decreasing taxes by around $1.2 trillion! The tax cut is so bad that Americans are feeling it's effects now, when it doesn't even come into full effect until 2012. With the democrats you would have most of the tax cut gone, and they would over time be able to afford those programs, consider:

Bill Clinton claimed the biggest yearly spending boost, in his 1999 speech ($305 billion).

and the US still had a budget surplus in 2000-01. The problem is not the spending it is the lack of revenue that is going to trickle into the US coffers over the next 8 years. I would opt now for little spending, but I would also opt for the tax cut to be stopped. This thread’s premises is a bit of a misrepresentation of the issue.

And that Jonah whoever it is loses all credibility when he says this:

pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will — according to every expert who studies the issue — go up a gazillion-bajillion dollars over the next decade;

Sorry, but I do not enjoying reading in the comic mode when dealing with serious issues. Unless of course that was supposed to be a parody of something serious?

[http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushroad.jpg