Again: 100.0% of spending power belongs to Congress. The President does not have a dime of his own to spend.

But because he says "strategery" and "nukeyoolar", it is more fun to pretend that he does than find out what Congress is doing.

He can advocate whatever he likes. Congress has the responsibility for funding.

Rad -- That is true about Congress having the power of the purse strings. However, Republicans had a right to expect, at least, that Bush would have at least made it more difficult for Congress to spend us into bankruptcy, particularly on pure waste. His veto on a lot of this stuff would have forced moderate Republicans to vote to override, as well as dozens of blue-dog Democrats who would have had to go back to conservative districts and answer to attacks on their votes. And, I betcha that if he had, and had cogently explained his reasoning, his approval ratings would be well north of where they are now. But the vetoes were never made.

Our system of checks and balances can be exquisitely effective if used properly. Bush chose not to avail himself of it. He failed us on that count.

Umm, Radwaste, that's not one hundred percent. Last time I checked, mister prez has a veto power. Besides which, even if congress did have absolute budgetary authority, it doesn't make the republicans any less culpable. Government was ballooning out of control when the republicans held absolute power.

That's because in 1996, the Republicans kicked all the conservatives out that we sent to Congress in 1994. Seems they'd rather get invited to the really good parties in Georgetown, which kinda requires hating conservatives.

Conservatives cut government. Republicans? Not so much.

Yes, Bush and the Republicans have been a disappointment. The situation has gotten worse since the Democrats took control in Congress.

Neither party actually wants to rein in spending, but let's just keep cheering for our team while the distinctions without differences spend our children into poverty.

> Don't tell me the Republican party
> is the party of small government
> and fiscal conservatism.

And don't tell us that you know a whole lot of thoughtful conservatives who thought Bush was representing their beliefs, anyway.

The issue of our government's fiscal policy is probably the one that will have the greatest effect on me over the course of my life. I'm pro-choice, believe in ending the drug war, and have views on a number of other issues. But the government spending one is by far the biggest and most important to me.

The government simply has to stop racking up debt on these bailouts, wars, subsidy programs, and entitlements. And I get the idea that most other people, who may or may not agree with me on other issues, tend to agree with me on this one. Wasn't 80% of the populace against the Big 3 bailout? Wasn't the vast majority against the financial bailouts, too? And this was in the face of fearmongering and baseless warnings that we would all face economic doom in the absence of these ripoffs. No one was convinced, yet the pinheads in power voted yes on all of it anyway. It's bad enough when the government enacts bad programs that the majority of people want. It's unthinkable when they enact bad programs that no one wants.

DuWayne, just read the Constitution.

And realize that a veto - which can be overridden - is not spending.

Unless we understand the Constitution and insist on observing it, we get our ass handed to us by the same mechanisms we use to get around it for our own ends.

Bush is not a conservative by any definition of the word. That he happened to run on the R ticket ad not D is odd, but he was following his dad. Doesn't make all republicans that way, depressing current signs to the contrary.

Radwaste -

I am well aware that vetoing is not spending, just as I am aware that a veto can be overridden. But one, it takes more than a simple majority to override a veto and two, if the prez doesn't like the budget, he can veto.

Finally, doesn't change the fact that the republican congress was just as fucking bad as our current dem one. When they had the golden opportunity to actually cut government to shreds, they chose to inflate it worse than ever.

And the fact of the matter is, bush has gotten every fucking dime he's asked for and hasn't said a fucking word about money being spent that he didn't. Not sure why the hell you feel the need to defend him here, but its absolutely silly.

And BTW, one of the first things I download whenever I get a new computer, is a copy of the constitution for handy reference. I've read it and when I come across portions I don't understand, I ask people who do. The wonderful thing about the internet, is that it grants us access to all sorts of people who understand a host of different things. Many of them are happy to share their area of expertise (including myself).

"They just want people against abortion."

Amy, this thinking is kind of narrow. The only reason Republicans wave the abortion banner is the same reasons the Democrats do: it gets voters out. Similarly, its unproductive to lament on how we should have limited our foreign intrusion to Afghanistan. Like it or not, Iraq is home to significant resources which are at risk to undue influence from Quada, China, Iran, and Russia. We'd be foolish to abandon our position there in the here and now.

All that said, you won't get any argument from me that Bush's welfare state dismount is just plain ugly.