it matters if after you read the data you still think the guy is the bomb. I would expect people who read the data would have to seriously consider the facts. My questions was meant to have people tell us, as the post suggests, if they would still vote for Bush even though he's put the Nation is a ditch. . . The numbers may not tell the whole story, but they are very important indicators of the heath of the nation, to dismiss this would be illogical. . .
Couple more facts,
Home ownership is lower that at any time since 1964
405,000 houses foreclosed in 2007 up %75 percent from 2006, and the highest in modern history. . .
Earmarks are a joke, they are less than 1/10th of 1% of the spending, while they are mostly bad for us, they are not worth the discussion (in fact, even if you eliminate the earmarks you do not change for one second or affect one penny of spending) when GW continues to ignore SS, healthcare, building bigger government, the war supplemental that by the way also do NOT get debated. . . and so on. . .
An earmark is NOT additional spending, it is not in the appropriations bill, it is specific language in a bill that directs spending but it does not appropriate more. . . So, even if the feds dont spend money on earmarks, the money will still be spent, period. . .
So, it's total red herring and a very stupid waist of congresses time when compared to all the real spending problems we as a country face.
So, lets hear from all you guys that have actually put time into developing a federal budget or working on appropriations. . .