16 Comments

• 1. Almiranta  |  November 12th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

  So what is the surprise? As I have often said, if Bush were to come out in favor of gravity, the Dems would start denouncing it and supporting the idea that we should all float about three inches above the ground.

  The problem with the Dems is their shortsightedness. (Well, one of the problems, anyway.) They jumped on Bush’s spending because they thought they could gain some traction—after all, anything that could possibly be used against him HAD to be used against him—without considering that this was one of their own sacred cows, and that if they got their way THEY would be the ones opening up the pocketbook.

  But then consistency has never been a requirement of membership in the Left.

• 2. Retired Spook  |  November 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

  The GOP’s road to recovery needs to start with but a single step. Maybe this is it.

• 3. Ricorun  |  November 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

  As it was in 1995/96, this budget fight is a fight for a lot of marbles. The difference as I see it is that back then the GOP had far more “fiscally responsible” credentials than they do now. And yet Clinton managed to kick butt that time around. He managed to portray the GOP as the obstructionists.

  This time around Bush has to accomplish the same despite dismal approval ratings and a very expensive war. Interestingly, the Dems already took the war off the table — or at least the Defense appropriations bill. So now the Reps have to explain why it was good that the Dems let them have everything they wanted in the Defense appropriations bill while attempting to tow the line on domestic spending (which if Dasein is accurate amounts to a difference of about 23 billion) — while at the same time trying to defend another 70 billion or so in the form of another emergency appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be hard enough if the Reps had some credibility on the domestic spending front. But they don’t. Not any more. So it will be an even tougher sell.

  I guess you could say that the GOP is between Iraq and a hard place — even if the situation in Iraq continues to improve on the security front it will remain expensive.

• 4. Keith  |  November 12th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

  Welcome to the blogosphere, B4V!!! May I still be the attack dog?

  keefer

  P.S. Spook, I tried to forward you some spicy gossip about Slick Hillie, and the e-mail was returned to me “undeliverable.” Do you have a new e-mail address? If so, send me a message so’s I can update my address book. Cheerio!!!

• 5. Beth  |  November 12th, 2007 at 9:20 pm

  Ah, another day in the world of Democratic Dementia, the No Agenda Party.

  Nice new site, Matt! :D

• 6. The Decidenator  |  November 12th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

  Will you be offering another post to express your shock that W, after 6+ years of spending on absolutely everything, is now not spending?

  I’ll just assume that you will, and when you do, don’t hesitate to weigh the cost/benifit of the war in Iraq vs. the postential cost/benefit of medical insurance for poor children.

  Thanks in advance!

• 7. Retired Spook  |  November 12th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

  Yeah, keefer, my email address changed several months ago, but they stopped forwarding from the old address after Oct. 31st. It’s the same email except @embarqmail.com instead of @earthlink.net

  Sorry, I thought I gave you a heads up back when it changed.

• 8. DougH  |  November 13th, 2007 at 1:16 am

  The Decidenator

  Bush has no problems with providing medical insurance to the poor. It’s all the other people the Democrats want to provide insurance for that Bush doesn’t agree with.

  “Bush and many Republicans contend the program’s original intent would be changed under the current bill. The program gives coverage to parents who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance for their children. They have said their concern is that parents might be prompted to drop private coverage for their children to get cheaper coverage under the bill.

  Though children in a family of four making 250 percent of the poverty level — or up to $52,000 per year — would be eligible under the bill, that kind of salary “doesn’t go very far in New York,” Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, said last week.

  “If the president vetoes this bill, he will be vetoing health care for almost 4 million children, and he will be putting ideology — not children — first,” she added.

  But Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, wasn’t buying that argument.

  “This is a perfect example of the type of partisan politics that goes on in Washington all the time,” he told CNN. “It’s not about trying to take care of the children; it’s about how can we get a political advantage.”

  Maybe the Democrats should have raised the limit to $75,000 to cover the cost of living in the most expensive city to live in the USA.. Boston but then again that 75,000 cost of living includes the cost of health care

• 9. LewWaters  |  November 13th, 2007 at 1:25 am

  “Democrats were blasting Republicans over spending too much, and they tried to portray themselves as the fiscally conservative party.”

  Now thay have the power of the purse, they return to their habits of reckless spending and buying all the votes they can. No big surprise there.

• 10. AgentFear  |  November 13th, 2007 at 5:49 am

  I like this quote from the article:

  “Some Republicans acknowledge much of Bush’s budget is unrealistic — with cuts to health research, education and popular water and sewer projects just for starters — and they’re almost as eager to see negotiations as Democrats are.”

  Let’s see, he got his money for defense appropriations through, and will get his “emergency” spending through too.

  There is plenty of money for the Iraqi quagmire.

  Too much money allocated for homeland affairs.

  Darn those heath research, education, water and sewer projects.

  Theres the global war on terror!

  EEEEEE! Hide under your beds.

• 11. french student  |  November 13th, 2007 at 5:51 am

  http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

  A graph of the debt evolution divided by the party of the president is the first thing you will see.

  As will be painfully apparent, the “fiscal responsibility” of the republicans is but a myth, in the sense of “a story not supported by facts”.

  In my opinion, it is but a pretext to cut funds to whatever the republicans do not like.

  Which begs the question : if the social programs are cut but more money is spent, where does it go?

• 12. Keith  |  November 13th, 2007 at 5:56 am

  In my opinion, it is but a pretext to cut funds to whatever the republicans do not like.

  Well, dumba**, is it not but a pretext to cut funds to whatever the Donkaroaches do not like? Military, intel come to mind.

  If you paid attention, frog student, you would realize that Mark, and many others on this blog, have blasted the GOP over the past several years for becoming lib-lite when it comes to big government. You just don’t pay attention; all your energy is focused on “gotcha…”

• 13. french student  |  November 13th, 2007 at 6:15 am

  with the difference, keith, that as the graph shows, democrats actually manage to reduce the foreign debt of the USA. They are, in fact, more fiscally responsible than the republicans.
  So I guess it is more than a pretext for them.

  So when the GOP spends too much (as they have done consistently since 1980), they are not becoming dem-like. Democrats are fiscally responsible, republicans are not.

  And I would appreciate it if you spent more of your time reading the facts I provide instead of calling me names. It makes you look childish and uninformed.

• 14. AgentFear  |  November 13th, 2007 at 6:28 am

  “Welcome to the blogosphere, B4V!!! May I still be the attack dog?

  keefer”

  He he he. Bwahhhaaa haaaaaa haaaa

  attack dogs are named spike, or gus, or mack.

  An attack dog named Keith?

• 15. brian  |  November 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  The issue here is Bush is okay for spending for the military, but not on social programs. It has nothing to do with the costs. He approved all kinds of earmarks the first six years and is now crying foul. He just approved $40 Billion more for the pentagon.

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311219,00.html

• 16. InDaVa  |  November 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

  go lay down and lick yourself keith…..