RateItAll: The Opinion Network

What do you expect from a man who is economically challenged.

Those white-sticky streams of fluid on dubya's face are jets of love-streams sent by every big-business interest that has had a mad orgy since this spending slut took office. . .the complete breakdown of conservative principals (fiscal, foreign policy, 'less gov't', et.al.) should be cause for total alarm amongst Americans who would rather bury their heads in the sand and send their kids to the desert to die for a war whose explanation has been a moving target for such a long time as to be a running joke. . .where's the fiscal responsiblity? where's the sense of danger involving privacy? where's the alleged conservative sense of 'consequences and responsibility' when your leader lies or fails? Oh well, throw money at the problem. . .could you imagine the howls ('socialist' 'liberal') if this had been anyone but a republican president? This drug-addict puppet will never, ever, get my kid for his failed enterprises. . .

This guy has a blank check, no, endless blank checks. It's hard to imagine what the deficit will look like by 2008.

It doesn't surprise me that George Bush has been a bigger spender than even Lyndon Johnson himself. Indeed, I don't think Bush has met a spending program he didn't like. Some of the higher spending can be attributed to higher Homeland Security costs. However, the money for that cause hasn't been appropriated right--rather than invest more in port security, border guards, and first responders in big cities like Washington and New York which are vulnerable to attack, the money has gone into pork barrel spending in rural areas like Wyoming that aren't going to be experiencing a terrorist attack anytime soon! Congress is responsible for the appropriations process, but Bush clearly hasn't even bothered to confront them and lead on this issue. Most of the higher spending can be attributed to corporate and industrial subsidies for companies that can't compete in the global market. The focus in my view ought to be in reducing the costs of doing business: for instance, take care of high health insurance costs, provide more targeted tax cuts. Politics operates in an almost alternate reality to the real world; likewise, critical priorities aren't met and interest groups with almost no popular standing get their way above the interest of the vast majority of the people. There is no difference really between big government liberalism and conservatism in the final analysis: the free market is the most efficient way of appropriating funds.

No George, you've won. And you've invented big government conservatism in the process. And the problem with big government conservatism... is that it's still big government. It means that you are betting that the government can invest money more efficiently than private enterprise. And that's dead wrong. Anybody who has ever been to the DMV or post office can probably attest to that.

Very contradictory. I thought republicans were supposed to stand for small government. Like Bush, Reagan never vetoed a spending bill either. The republicans don't want to vetoe, because they want to get democratic support.