Posted on 02/09/2004 9:00:20 AM PST by truthandlife
Republicans are swiftly forfeiting the perception that they are especially responsible stewards of government finances. It is surreal for a Republican president to submit a budget to a Republican-controlled Congress and have Republican legislators vow to remove the "waste" that he has included and that they have hitherto funded.The president does indeed propose killing 65 programs and substantially curtailing 63. But even if Congress fully complies, which it won't, the savings would be just $4.9 billion -- a rounding error in a $2.4 trillion budget. That $4.9 billion would pay less than six days' interest on the national debt.
Sorry. No sale.
First, we stop the growth in discretionary spending. Then, we attack the baseline, and then we go after real cuts. But we first have to get more Americans to be true believers in limited govenrment as opposed to believing that government exists to shovel money their direction.
Every kind? Yet the excuse I have seen, even on these pages, is to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' in describing a vote for the Republican party. If I am to avoid 'every kind of evil' how can I vote for a candidate if all they are is the lesser of two evils? This does not mean I don't vote for Republicans, I do. However I look to what the person believes and acts upon instead of what letter is by their name. The fact that the Holy Spirit working could not use someone of the 'correct' party is offensive, as if the only way to stem evil from its continued rise is to vote by the alphabet instead of what a candidate believes
In an article in Newsweek, December 29, 2003, President Bush was quoted as saying to the Muslim leader "Dr. al-Rubaie, I want you to convey this message to Mr. Sistani. Tell him that I pray to the same god he prays to…Tell Sistani I have nothing but praise for your religion."
Sorry but I hold my faith and belief in the one true God of Israel and his son Christ over even my political stance. The votes, the offices, the positions, the things of this world are temporal. God is not. I vote by my belief and not by the letter beside a candidate's name.
Amen. I pray God will send us a man of conviction and not a man that should be convicted ;o)
I'm sorry, but I just don't believe this. For one, I don't get why we should wait. There is no good reason to wait. If we are at war, why can't we Americans tighten our belts and sacrifice other spending? And why offer new gubmint entitlements? I am sorry, but this is like the cheating husband saying he'll never do it again. Baloney.
But we first have to get more Americans to be true believers in limited govenrment as opposed to believing that government exists to shovel money their direction.
You don't have to believe in limited gubmint, just fiscally sound gubmint. I am sorry, but this Administration is doing nothing to curb spending or deficits. Nothing.
I'll never understand why dim deficits are bad, and 'pubbie deficits are good. Deficits are taxes on us and our children.
That's easy. Because if a GOP deficit is X, it is assumed the Dim deficit would have been X*Y. So in reality, deficit X represents a substantial savings, and, don't forget, shrewd politics. LOL. GWB has led the party away from fiscal conservatism once and for all. Nice legacy.
And Amen--and I pray I use spellcjeck so "labourers" won't become "labourrses."
I can understand the costs of improving the military and the war. The billions to Africa and other countries is specious garbage, as is funding the NEA and NPR. But don't forget those old guvmint accounting tricks - budget for unconstitutional program is X billions of dollars, with annual increase of 20%. Any politician limiting increase to anything < 20% will claim that as a reduction in spending.
We have a history of nice legacies.
I am living proof that spellchecks don't work. Of course, I tend to use the 'ou' in 2 syllable words ending in 'or', just as I favour single quotes around quotable material.
Because the electorate insist upon them.
It's just no use pretending they don't. They always have. Pretending otherwise is escapism.
Besides, believing otherwise hides the true problem which might be solved- that they should expect the entitlement programs from their states and not the feds.
That's how I always see it, too.
If people don't agree with Bush's policies, they should write to the WH, write to their congressman, etc., and try to change them.
But all too often the "advice" in these anti-Bush pieces is that one (a) vote for a Dem or (b) go off and join a splinter party or (c) not vote at all.
And who does that benefit? Not conservatives, that's for sure.
That is hardly the issue for most people. Most people do not seek jobs in Government--either elected or appointed. Most people, even those most interested in their Nation or community's affairs, are interested in truth; in the perpetuation of their folk, their culture, their lines of descent and the heritage that accompanies them.
The correct course for most people, then, is to speak out for what is true; to stand up for what they believe; to try to influence those who do go into Government, to do what is right; and that is not going to be accomplished by making excuses for politicians who betray their oaths of office. Our best chance of reclaiming America, is in taking as tough as possible a tack with those in public office, regardless of their party.
Your advice may be well and good for the would be office seeker--although I do not think that the Karl Rove directed Republican strategy will bring anything but disaster. But, be that as it may; it offers nothing for the non office seeker who cares about preserving his or her heritage and way of life.
And I would also gently suggest to you, that even in other areas of concern, what you suggest can have very negative consequences. In taking a cynical approach to politics, you make it all the harder for society to deal effectively with the agendas of groups that once appeared to be totally off the wall--such as those suggesting that there could be such a thing as Homosexual marriage.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I'm sick of these cargo-cult conservatives who want to run away from the real political process and whimper amongst themselves how great the country would be if some strong jack-booted Leader would force the people to respect the Constitution.
Thank you for shedding some light on why professing "conservatives" continue to vote Republican and ignore true conservative candidates. You apparently believe - along with your liberal counterparts in the Democratic Party - that a constitutional conservative is the same thing as a fascist.
The problem with your reasoning is that we are not looking to elect someone that will "force the people to respect the Constitution." We are merely looking for leaders who respect the Constitution. George W. Bush has been in the White House for the last three years and has managed to grow government and spend more money than Bill Clinton did in eight.
All we need to do is look at the results. This isn't rocket science, people.
First of all, most people nowadays care primarily about what goodies the government can toss in their direction. As to truth, many folks are more concerned with maintaining their personal illusions than in seeking truth. Culture and heritage are fading notions to the mushy middle, a rootless realm where what a neighbor does with his yard that might affect property values is more important than the moral values carried within one's own home.
But just as Sandra Day O'Connor, through an accident of history, is now the deciding vote in most SCOTUS decisions, so has this mushy middle become kingmaker in presidential elections. The positions on left and right have hardened - we have our reality about Bill Clinton (correct, of course) and the left has their delusions about Bill and Hill. And whereas the left demonizes Bush for everything under the sun, we are annoyed primarily for his spendthrift ways. Under these circumstances, where the GOP and the Dems have similar registrations, the middle is the battleground, until such time that we can convert enough people into limited-government conservatives that we don't need the dang middle any more, because we'll have absorbed some of it and pushed the rest aside.
The whole notion of using Christ as a reason for opposing Bush is offensive to me.
Were you just as offended when Christ was used as a reason for supporting Bush?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.