Nope.  I'm voting for a democratic Senator!
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:51 PM
  To: CF-Community
  Subject: Re: Tax and Spend Liberal

  > On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  >
  >  You think Bush is spending a lot, wait and see what
  >  happens if Kerry wins.

  It doesn't matter what Mr. Kerry says he wants to do; his congress and
  senate will be Republican led.  A divided executive and legislative
  government can't pass law unless they agree - and since they will both
  keep the other in check the fiscal bleeding will immediately stop.

  The fastest spending growth (real federal outlays) occurred during:

  1.) Kennedy-Johnson, 4.8% annually, same party in congress.

  2.) Bush-Cheney, 4.4%, same party in congress.

  3.) Carter-Mondale, 3.7%, same party in congress.

  The slowest spending growth occurred:

  1.) 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years, other party controls
congress.

  2.) 0.9%, was in the Clinton era, opposite party congress.

  3.) Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, opposite congress.

  4.) Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%, opposite congress.

  If you exclude military spending and only include real domestic
  discretionary outlays then Mr. Bush looks even worse.  The largest
  spenders are then:

  1.) Bush-Cheney, 8.2% increases

  2.) Ford, 8%.

  3.) Nixon.

  The point is, historically, what keeps spending down is a split
  Presidency and Congress.  So fiscal conservatives really only have one
  choice in this debate: Mr. Kerry.

  If you don't believe me ask Douglas Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato
  Institute, former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a
  former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.  He's the guy who
  originated this argument.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to