Visit China

Question:

> The American Enterprise Institute’s Veronique de Rugy has calculated that > George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending > in his first term by 35.1 percent. > To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ–the Texas legend who created > the > Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War–only > boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What’s more, the gap between > Bush and LBJ will only grow.

Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor? Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn’t care about the poor? Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor… See ya, John

Response:

> Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor? > Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn’t care about the > poor? > Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor… > See ya, > John

excuse me – me???? Lefties Love LBJ? We are rewriting history these days aren’t we? "Hey Hey LBJ How many kids did you kill today?" http://members.tripod.com/~JeanneAnn/sixties.html That’s politics for ya!!!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The American Enterprise Institute’s Veronique de Rugy has calculated that > George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending > in his first term by 35.1 percent. > To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ–the Texas legend who created > the > Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War–only > boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What’s more, the gap between > Bush and LBJ will only grow. >Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor? >Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn’t care about the >poor? >Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor… >See ya, >John

Who said we all loved LBJ.  I was protesting America’s actions in Vietnam at the time.  I don’t think I’d call that loving LBJ. Although, I do think his Great Society was a better offering than anything Bush and his people have put on the plate. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The American Enterprise Institute’s Veronique de Rugy has calculated that > George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending > in his first term by 35.1 percent. > To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ–the Texas legend who created > the > Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War–only > boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What’s more, the gap between > Bush and LBJ will only grow. >Why is it that Lefties love LBJ and say that he cared about the poor? >Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn’t care about the >poor? >Bus has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor…

Horse puckey.  He hasn’t even funded the misbegotten "No Child Left Behind" initiative," the "Social Programs" centerpiece of his first campaign — it’s essentially an unfunded mandate.  Maybe you’re referring to "Social Programs" for political cronies and corporate welfare for the industries that funded his campaign. Then there’s the most costly of his "Social Programs," permanent tax breaks for the already-prosperous.  You’re correct, John, Dumber’nyuh is a hideously profligate spender on "Social Programs" — for those who don’t need them!  Meanwhile, poverty rates continue to rise and the middle class continues to "downsize."        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

>>Bush has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor… > Horse puckey.

This source will drive’n crazy, but try to refute the facts; "As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn’t even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2 percent of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush’s budget kicked 2 percent more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any president in history. What say you, Jesse and Howard? For a country that is often accused by left-wing loons of not caring about the poor, we are certainly putting up a good front. In 2006, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child-care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. The truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing the tightest safety net in history for the poor. And our private charitable donations rank first in the world as well. So the next time the poverty propagandists start with the "America ignores the poor" bull, simply walk away. These people are blatantly dishonest and could not care less that America does, indeed, help the less fortunate. The race and class baiters will always ignore the fact that some people simply cannot support themselves no matter what society does. The New Testament states it clearly: "the poor, they will always be with us." But America provides more opportunity for more people than anywhere else on the planet." http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=bor

Response:

Where did you get "love LBJ" from that post?  They blame him for Vietnam… Your myopic partisan prejudice is showing again… as usual.

Response:

He may be spending more, but the bucks are ending up in his crony’s pockets.  Poverty increased under Bush first term. The other difference is that Clinton actually had the money to pay for his programs… Bush just borrows from China.  You think it’s sound fiscal policy I guess.  No surprise there, Kool-aid drinker.

Response:

> Where did you get "love LBJ" from that post?  They blame him for > Vietnam… > Your myopic partisan prejudice is showing again… as usual.

You are one of the many Lefty Lemmings that has raved about LBJ’s Great Society program. Remember that was the second coming for you folks. That aside, my previous post compares Clinton & Bush’s spending on the poor. Again Bush is also the greatest spender in history where programs for the poor is concerned, both in raw dollars, and in percent of geovernment spending. I’m sure you guys will still bitch, why let facts influence your rants. See ya, John

Response:

> He may be spending more, but the bucks are ending up in his crony’s > pockets.

Bull shit. The money goes to indigent, but why consider facts! >Poverty increased under Bush first term.

That also neglects to include the Dot.Com bubble that Clinton rode, and the Dot.Com Burst that left Bush to inherit a collapsing economy, but why consider facts! That also neglects to include the millions of jobs that were lost after 9/11, remember the airlines alone laid-off close to a million, but why consider facts! > No surprise there, Kool-aid drinker.

Ah now that is a snappy retort to posting factual information. The "kool aid drinkers" are the Lefty Lemmings you MORON. Where did the term come from? Do you even know? It was Lefties Lemmings from San Francisco that were Jim Jones followers, but again, why let facts influence your posts! See ya, John

Response:

Excuse me, your lying asshole-ness.  Please quote any post where I "raved" about LBJ. In fact at the time I joined millions of other patriotic Americans to protest the Vietnam war.  We were correct on Vietnam being a colossal waste of lives and money, and history will show we are correct about Iraq too.

Response:

"John Wheaton" asks the key question, and skewers the leftist whiners again: > Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn’t care about the > poor? Bush has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor…>

As of their fifth year in office, compared to Clinton, Bush has spent DOUBLE the amount of money Clinton did. Better yet, the so-called "poverty rate" in FAt Boy Billy Clinton’s fith year in office was 13.7%, In Bush’s it is 12.7%…stick it up your commie keesters, moonbats, Bush is beating you at your own "spend it" game.

Response:

Yo, bubble brain.  By the end of Clinton’s term (that would be the 8th year, in case you can’t do the math) povery was down to 11%. At any rate, with his usual skill, "Lying John" has tried to reframe the discussion away from discretionary non-military spending, to spending on poverty.  The original post wasn’t about that.  It was about total spending… ie pork.

Response:

>> He may be spending more, but the bucks are ending up in his crony’s > pockets. >Bull shit. The money goes to indigent, but why consider facts! >Poverty increased under Bush first term. >That also neglects to include the Dot.Com bubble that Clinton rode, and the >Dot.Com Burst that left Bush to inherit a collapsing economy, but why >consider facts!

That’s not Clinton’s fault. That’s brain dead investors putting their money in lots of vapour ware and virtual product. >That also neglects to include the millions of jobs that were lost after >9/11, remember the airlines alone laid-off close to a million, but why >consider facts! > No surprise there, Kool-aid drinker. >Ah now that is a snappy retort to posting factual information. The "kool aid >drinkers" are the Lefty Lemmings you MORON. Where did the term come from? Do >you even know? It was Lefties Lemmings from San Francisco that were Jim >Jones followers, but again, why let facts influence your posts!

They might if you had any facts to bring to the table.  Fucking apologist. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Response:

> At any rate, with his usual skill, "Lying John"

FUCK YOU. You regularly LIE in this ng and you have NEVER been seen me do it. Not once, not ever. The Lefty Lemming would be crowing for months if that ever happned. You need to worry about it, since IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. has tried to reframe > the discussion away from discretionary non-military spending,

Bull Shit on that too! I have posted a number of times that I have a problem with this free spending administration, but again, why let facts influence your posts! to > spending on poverty.

I put that out there because the Lefty Lemming are continualy railing about how Bush hates the poor, and he is going to add new programs on the backs of the poor, and that is like most Lefty rants, it is dishonest, and untrue. The original post wasn’t about that.  It was > about total spending… ie pork.

And again, I have frequently posted again the amount of spending that is going on. Once again, you have been dishonest, but at least you are consistant! See ya, John

Response:

courageously avow: >"John Wheaton" asks the key question, and skewers the leftist whiners again: > Why is it that Lefties hate Bush and say that he doesn’t care about the > poor? Bush has spent far more on Social Programs for the poor…> >As of their fifth year in office, compared to Clinton, Bush has spent DOUBLE >the amount of money Clinton did. Better yet, the so-called "poverty rate" in >FAt Boy Billy Clinton’s fith year in office was 13.7%, In Bush’s it is >12.7%…stick it up your commie keesters, moonbats, Bush is beating you at >your own "spend it" game.

You have a link to these numbers somewhere where they can be verified? Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas,  Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, pseudobacker, and the rest of the  Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE)  and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/

Response:

comparing percentages doesn’t mean much if you don’t also talke about the actual number. What’s 50% of 100,000? What’s 5% of 1,000,000,000? Which is more

Response:

OK liar, I noticed you were unable to post anything where I said I "loved" LBJ, as per your lying assertion.  So you get a big fat 0 for that rebuttal.  Liar.  And this particular thread was about total discretionary spending, not poverty programs.  I’m not talking about what you posted elswhere. Bush cares about poor folks?  And pigs have wings.  Check the poverty statistics in Texas over the course of the Bush tenure as governer. And the status of public education in Texas after his "policies" were applied.

Response:

Actually percentages are a more fair comparison, since we are dealing with 35 years of inflation and population increase, as well as an increase in the size of the economy.

Response:

>As of their fifth year in office, compared to Clinton, Bush has spent DOUBLE >the amount of money Clinton did. Better yet, the so-called "poverty rate" in >FAt Boy Billy Clinton’s fith year in office was 13.7%, In Bush’s it is >12.7%…stick it up your commie keesters, moonbats, Bush is beating you at >your own "spend it" game.

The funny thing is, he hates it when "liberals" spend money, but when Bush spends more, it’s cool and he brags about it??? Suck66, a man who stands by his principles…

Response:

The right-wing American Enterprise Institute takes a look at presidential spending, both discretionary and total, and determines determines that Reagan was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Par for the course for that organization. But in an unexplored corner of their numbers we find that — drum roll please — Bush is an LBJ-caliber spendthrift. http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table1_350.jpg http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table2.gif Thing is, that report is a few months ago and included incomplete data and guesses for Bush’s 2004 budget. Well, turns out that once the final numbers came in, Bush amazingly clocked in above LBJ. Reason’s Nick Gillespie got the updated numbers, and it looks like the 30.2 percent that AEI projected for Bush’s first term was, well, optimistic. (Reason is a libertarian magazine). The Bush apologists like to point to the War on Terror to justify Bush’s lack of budget control. But the graph above helpfully breaks out the non-defense discretionary spending, and it’s ugly. That’s a 25.3 percent increase over Clinton’s last budget. And that’s not even including the hundreds of billions of dollars pissed away in Iraq. His second term, with the hurricane reconstructions, doesn’t promise to fare much better. Congressional Republicans aren’t about to surrender their pork for the nation’s greater good. And Bush will continue to do nothing about the runaway spending, as he’s done for the last four years and counting Those figures come by way of the American Enterprise Institute’s Veronique de Rugy, who has calculated that George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending in his first term by 35.1 percent. To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ–the Texas legend who created the Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War–only boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What’s more, the gap between Bush and LBJ will only grow. De Rugy notes that the final outlays for fiscal year 2005 (the last budget signed in Bush’s first term) aren’t in yet. As a result, she has to use mid-session review numbers, which are invariably smaller than the final amounts. And, she says, the number for FY2005 "does not take under consideration the numerous supplemental passed this year, and the new spending triggered by the Katrina disaster." It’s a wonder that any fiscal conservatives still stick by Bush.

Response:

His numbers are right… but he takes the Clinton numbers from the first year of Clinton’s second term, rather than from the end of the term.  It’s a typically misleading righty talking point that he cribbed from somewhere.  He’s a parrot.

Response:

> comparing percentages doesn’t mean much if you don’t also talke about > the actual number. What’s 50% of 100,000? What’s 5% of 1,000,000,000? > Which is more

As Lincoln said," When you are considered a fool, you are wiserer to keep quiet, than speak up and remove all doubt." Read the post again. Bush has spent more in raw dollars, AND HE SPENDS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF government spending as well. Clinton spent 12%, Bush spent 2% MORE THAN CLINTON, so he spent 14% on Poverty, and Welfare Programs. Bye, John

Response:

> OK liar, I noticed you were unable to post anything where I said I > "loved" LBJ, as per your lying assertion.  So you get a big fat 0 for > that rebuttal.  Liar.

Once again, your ignorance is appalling. YOU are one of many that had trumpeted LBJ’s Great Society, so in that capacity, WHICH IS THE ONE that I referenced. I was VERY ACCURATE. You FUCKING MORON. Lying is what YOU do when you intentionally post something you KNOW to be UNTRUE. As usual what I posted was TRUE and ACCURATE. Check previous posts from YOU, and your Liberal Lemming Friends.  And this particular thread was about total > discretionary spending, not poverty programs.

Once again, you are being DISHONEST. I not only acknowledged that Bush is the biggest spender of ALL Time, I also have posted that NUMEROUS TIMES, and I have also POSTED NUMEROUS times that I do NOT LIKE his Spending, but why would you ever be truthful or accurate, especially when you are mentioning me. Unfortunate for you, I REMEMBER What I post, and I remember what YOU post, and EVERYONE that reads this ng remembers too . I’m not talking about > what you posted elswhere.

You don’t have to since I left no doubt that I think that he spends TOO FUCKING MUCH, and I made that clear in THIS THREAD you MORON. > Bush cares about poor folks?

He has spent MORE in raw dollars that Clinton, and more in percentage of government expendatures. > And pigs have wings

I posted the facts you MORON, but you don’t acknowledge that fact stuff. It might influence your rants and you wouldn’t be able to post the MORONIC things that you do. Bye, John

Response:

> His numbers are right…

BINGO you MORON. It’s easy since I am ALWAYS honest, and I stick to the FACTS. > He’s a parrot.

Yea, horrible thought. I repeat the FACTS you MORON, instead of making things up as I go along like YOU do. Time for you Lefty Lemmings to break out the Kool-Aid. Bye, John

Response:

Conveniently you apparently didn’t read my full post.  Making you a liar once again. His numbers were right, but he cut them off BEFORE the end of Clinton’s 2nd term. Here is the full deal: Historical Poverty Tables (4.00 / 2) Percent of families below poverty level 2004 11.0 2003 10.8 2002 10.4 2001 9.9 2000 9.6 1999 10.3 1998 11.2 1997 11.6 1996 12.2 1995 12.3 1994 13.1 1993 13.6 1992 13.3 1991 12.8 1990 12.0 Notice how after reaching a new low in 2000 the percentages go up again after Bush takes office. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html See ya, (wouldn’t wanna be ya)

Response: