🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Samuel <Stars@Stripes.USA> wrote in message news:<tVFgd.3584110$ic1.364728@news.easynews.com>...
[cut to the chase]:
> The administration�s budget shows a current year (fiscal year 2003) net 
> deficit of $304.2 billion and a net deficit of $307.4 billion in fiscal 
> year 2004. The budget shows continued deficits through at least 2008. 
> The deficits over this period will increase outstanding debt held by the 
> public from an estimated $3.9 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2003 to 
> an estimated $5.0 trillion in 2008. Measured as a percentage of GDP, 
> debt held by the public is expected to increase from 36.1 percent of GDP 
> at the end of fiscal year 2003 to 36.4 percent of GDP at the end of 
> fiscal year 2008.

Which is INSANITY-- except it will be worse next year, since Bush's
election promises have all been:  "I'll spend more money".

Bush has no fiscal control.

But then, why would he?  Congress spends the money, and he's not
likely to stop Republican spending.

from http://www.lewrockwell.com/ocregister/kerry-doherty.html :
A case for Kerry
In praise of gridlock: In the past, growth of federal spending has
slowed only when the national government was divided
By Brian Doherty

> Jon wrote:
> 
> > "The massive growth in the state during this presidency (faster than
> > under Bill Clinton, 
> 
> http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html