Dear Republicans: Please stop defending Bush... He was TERRIBLE

       I know that I'm probably going to get a ton of flack for this blog entry, but here goes. As a person who falls somewhere between libertarian and very conservative, I am not a fan of our former President. Like most conservatives, I was caught up in the landslide that supported Bush in 2004. He was, after all, the better choice...right? In a previous post, I defended him when it came to the horrible economy that he resided over here, but I can't completely defend him because if he was smart he would've seen that coming and repealed/replaced it with something better for the country.

       This man was a 21st century Republican. He was SOCIALLY conservative, but this man was FISCALLY liberal. His liberal spending theology, coupled with his conservative tax initiatives literally put us in a massive hole. He actually increased the size of our government MORE THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA. Thank God for the TEA party movement that has finally brought the majority of the republican party back to its conservative roots. So when, if ever, will this party ever get smart and throw this cat under the bus? We want voters to accept the reality that their 2008 vote for Obama was a mistake, yet we're unwilling as Republicans to call a spade a spade with Bush.

#1 THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT GROWN:
       Now, my argument could start by pointing out that the only reason that Obama's government growth/spending wasn't as much as Bush's was because of the congress that the respective men had. Bush had a very liberal congress the last four years, Obama has had a very conservative congress the last 2 years. (Little talked about fact, our economy does better under a republican congress and democrat president... why? GRIDLOCK. Government has no effect and the people flourish) Need proof?

OBAMA V. BUSH business insider link

“from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.”

“From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.  It has also now begun to decline.”

FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT? CNN link 

“By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance.”

“Government spending as a share of the economy has hovered around 24% during the Obama administration, several percentage points higher than under President Bush, according to Congressional Budget Office data. It's also elevated from the historical average of 20.7% over the past 40 years.”

“The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.”

“The federal payroll has been expanding since President Bush took office, after declining during the Clinton administration. But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992”

“The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions.”

“There were 75 major regulations adopted in Obama's first two years in office, compared to 120 during Bush's entire term, according to the Heritage Foundation, citing Government Accountability Office statistics. Fiscal 2010 saw a record 43 rules adopted."

So Bush increases the size of government to all time highs, yet the 1% of this man who is conservative fiscally decided it would be smart to cut taxes across the board. Half measures are always a mistake. He is the largest government President in history, prior to Obama, yet we've got the lowest taxes. His policies here have crippled us globally. Liberals loved the 99% of this guy. When you hear criticism from the left its on two things, the "Bush Tax Cuts" and this:

#2 UNNEEDED WAR THAT TAINTED THE NECESSARY ONE:
I think that most rational Americans would agree with this statement. That what we found about Iraq, although it made sense for us on a human rights front, made no sense on the "war on terror" front. If the reasons for going into Iraq were legitimate, then it would've made much more sense to go into Iran instead. What we've found is that we've been pressured financially now to end our occupation of Afghanistan, which is the sole reason we got Bin Laden, and that wouldn't have happened if we weren't in Iraq first. We've lost sight on the original reason that we're in the middle east to begin with. It is largely seen as a vendetta that the son finished what his dad couldn't.

#3 THE TEA PARTY AFFECT:
THANK GOD for the TEA party. They've done more for the argument in this country than any group in the last 30 years. The nation actually has a clear choice on the issues in their state government. I've been able to vote for the last 8 years and finally feel that it's not just the choice of the lesser of two evils. I finally can draw a stark contrast between not only my choices for President, but for state and local government as well. President Bush wouldn't have stood up to the scrutiny of the TEA party if it had been around in 2000. They understand the thought process that "half measures" don't work. A country constantly being moved into a socialist style, needs an aggressive counter-culture to bring it back from guaranteed failure. These people were unafraid to call Bush what he was, a liberal with conservative tendencies. Why won't the higher-ups do the same? I think that it would help! In fact, I think the award-winning line for the upcoming debates would be, "Mr. President, I am not George Bush, and you sir are not Bill Clinton."

I would really appreciate your opinion on this! Either on this blog or on the Facebook post.