A Dime's Worth Of Difference? (Liberal Republicans Say "NON!" To Tax Cuts)

OpinionJournal.com ^ | 7/11/04 | Pete Du Pont

[goldstategop]

An important and serious argument is going on in Washington about whether taxes on Americans' incomes should stay where they are or dramatically rise, and whether government spending should continue its accelerating growth. We know what Democrats think. They despise tax cuts and believe government spending should be higher. Washington Republicans, on the other hand, are unsure of themselves. They used to be for lower taxes and smaller government; now they seem to want bigger spending even if it means higher taxes, abandoning Reagan conservatism for '60s liberalism. In other words, this is a battle for the heart of the Republican Party; the outcome matters, and it seems to be in doubt. With the help of three liberal Republicans (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island), and one who should know better (John McCain of Arizona), the Senate, with 51 votes, adopted a rule that if passed in the House will end all the Bush tax cuts and ensure that no new ones are enacted.

[RockinRight]

But doesn't a gold standard make the economy a "zero-sum" game in the sense that we can't increase wealth as a nation like we can now?

[RockinRight]

That's what I mean. Can Owens and Santorum appeal to voters the way Reagan did?

[pageonetoo]

He'll take Big Government where it hasn't gone before.

...and how much has the gum't shrunk under W?

excerpted from W's Message about the Budget-2004   

Finally, this Budget addresses the needs of a great and compassionate Nation, whose values are strong, and whose institutions of hope are enduring. We are helping communities of faith pull the addicted out of dependency. We are lifting children out of a life of despair by making sure they have mentors, and we will continue to press for improvements in our schools, so that no child is left behind. We are extending hope and healing to millions suffering from the global epidemic of AIDS. We will begin to implement the benefits of our Medicare modernization and reform law, which will bring all our seniors coverage for prescription drugs. And we will make health care more affordable and extend the full benefits of our health care system to more Americans who currently have no health insurance.

-GEORGE W. BUSH (-Biggest Spender in History)     

February 2, 2004 

(or was that last line an echo from Shrillery?)

[novacation]

So since we are at war the borders get left nearly wide open? That's a poor excuse for not protecting our land from an invasion from the south.

[N3WBI3]

*Dripping Sarcasm*

shhh dont you dare say that real conservatives have the right to be upset, just shut up and vote for Bush or you're really voting for Kerry. After all why should a republic have to be fically conservative or shrik government to earn a conservative vote, hes a Republican dang nabbit why is that not enough for you!

[N3WBI3]

I'm half with you, I really like Bush as a person and as a Leader but not someone with a say in Federal spending or influencing the growth of government.

[South40]

Admittedly, I hadnt 'read the content of the site as apparently you have. I just typed GWB's spending into Google and that's what I found. My intent wasn't to slander or disparage Jim Robinson or Free Republic in any way.

I'll gladly consider any other information on GWB's spending should you provide the source.

[Tamzee]

I honestly like President Bush, as a person and as a leader.

Same here and a bravo to your beautifully stated assessment of his character above.

Many Americans also felt the same after 9/11 which is why the left had to set out to destroy his character. They couldn't just create minor scandals because people believed in his honesty, dedication to the country and his intelligence. They only way the left could claw back into power was by destroying the public's perception of Bush in those areas.

The never-ending vicious onslaught has successfully chiseled away at the support he had from average Democrats and we are back to a country passionately divided. That wouldn't worry me too greatly regarding the re-election, but some folks on the right add their fuel to the fire and become useful tools for the left aiming to replacing Bush with U.N. adoring, hate-America Kerry. Thanks for jumping and bringing your wisdom to the subject at hand :-)

[Uncle Jaque]

RE:

"Neither the CP nor the LP will ever become a major party in this country short of a revolution.",

So... what's it going to take for that to happen?

At some point, "revolution" is not going to be an option - especially after the 2nd A. is negated and "pacification" of the general population successfully enforced.

Thanks to the NEA, Hollyweed, Michael Moore et. al, I wonder if there is much will left in the younger generations to resist encroaching tyranny?

BTW; I have a letter from one of our two RINOS from Maine, of which we are so blooming proud, (COLLINS I think it was, as I don't even bother with SNOWE any more) stating that they intend to see to it that the AWB, promised to expire in September, will be extended indefinately.
After all, she says; that's what the President wants.

Wasn't it O'SNOWE who held the Federal Budget hostage in order to cut BUSH's tax-cut in half?

Neither one of them ever saw an abortion or a tax they didn't like, as near as I can tell. But woe to any "R" who tries to run against one of them in a primary!
Even the Senate Leader FRIST seems to be scared to death of them, nearly as much as he is of Hillary.

One Party "insider" told me that neither of them ever need one Maine Republican to vote for them in order to be re-elected for life, or as long as they want to run. You know - I think that he is right on about that.

So they surely won't be needing my nose-holding vote any more.
"Senate Majority" be dammned; the R's don't know what to do with a majority once they've got it anyway, do they?

Didn't "Ed" GILLESPIE tell the Manchester Union Leader (NH) some time ago that the era of "Regan Conservatism" was forever over (he seemed geuinely embarassed by the now late former President) and if conserviatives didn't like the new "moderate" Republican Party, so what? Who would we vote for, anyway; a Democrat?

Good luck trying to take "our Party" back by counter-infiltration or any other means; once the socialists infiltrate something and take it over, they slam those big ol' doors of "tolerance" and "inclusion" shut right in your face and hang on tight!

Just try to take American "Public Education" back for America, for instance.

Or all too many of the mainstream "Christian" Churches for that matter.
Most of them seem to be all about losing the WOT, advancing a secular one-world empire and homosexual "rights", and deposing BUSH; they could care less, I opine, if Christ ever comes back again or not!

I have already been thrown out of the local Republican Town Committee for being embarrassingly "conservative" - have you?
Although the County Committee still generously allows me in the door, "C's" are outnumbered about 2 to one.

We found that out in no uncertain terms the last time a motion was made and a vote was taken to express collective disaproval of one of our two RINO Senator's attacks on the President's tax reform, I think it was.
And their supporters are quite enthusiastic, if not passionately fervent, in their support for these flaming RINOS, BTW.

Try advancing the sentiments of Lincoln or Regan in their own Party now, and you are apt, like me, to find out just where the rear exit of the GOP "Big Tent" is!

You'll be fortunate if all they do is "marginalize" you.
Get used to fighting from those margins, if you're still able to put up any resistance at all. And get used to getting ignored and shunned a lot.

Come up with a viable 3rd Party, as unlikely as that is to ever happen, and the Commies will, in short order, infiltrate and take that over, too.
They are really good at it, aren't they?

[SheLion]

With the help of three liberal Republicans (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island), and one who should know better (John McCain of Arizona), the Senate, with 51 votes, adopted a rule that if passed in the House will end all the Bush tax cuts and ensure that no new ones are enacted.

Why do you think I believe in term limits!

I always HATE voting for Snowe and Collins, both RINO'S of the highest order, but I absolutely refust to vote DemocRAT. No way.

So, Maine is stuck with these two fence sitters. And I hate it. We voted them into office what seems like years ago, and now they have a leash around our necks.

I, for one, am sick and tired of it.

[Remember_Salamis]

McCain is the one who upsets me because he was once a true conservative. I think a lot of McCain's acts are to keep his name in the headlines and bolster his "Maverick" image in order to hold on for the 2008 primaries.

I think he's also realized that the party machinery abandonded him and he's trying to find a new way. I love his foreign policy (McCain's "Rouge State Rolback" = Axis of Evil/Bush Doctrine; Wolfowitz was behind McCain 100%), his por-life stance, and I believe at heart he's a tax-cutter.

I can't say the same for the other three RINOs. It should be 4, and I don't know why the article didn't mention Specter.

[Remember_Salamis]

I think Ed's comments were addressing the issue of a future "Coalition GOP": Country-clubbers, the Christian Coalition, Small Business owners, the investor class, and defense hawks (NeoCons).

Obviously, these factions won't always get along. Libertarian-leaning investors might be indefferent on abortion and gay marriage, but they sure would like a tax cut. Those same libertarians may oppose a massive increase in defense spending, which may be so strongly supported by the NeoCons that they're willing to raise taxes.

[Mister Baredog]

This, along with Bush's assault on the First Amendment,

????????????

If you don't think there's a difference btwn Bush and Kerry, then you missed what happened on 9/11/2001.

Do you honestly think Gore would be fighting terrorists. I contend he would be funneling billions to Unions for security and we would be hunkered down fending off attacks.

Does the sound of "President Kerry" bother you just a little bit?

[Mister Baredog]

I, for one, am sick and tired of it.

Being in CA with Boxer and Feinstein I can relate!

[Hank Rearden]

Does the sound of "President Kerry" bother you just a little bit?

Sure. But then it occurred to me that gridlock would likely be an improvement. Bush has accelerated the growth of government; that bothers me more than a little bit.

[SheLion]

Being in CA with Boxer and Feinstein I can relate!

Well, it's BS. They promise their constituents the moon until they get their butts in office, then it's to hell with us! That's another pet peeve of mine.

How these "lawmakers" stick it to us once they get into office. I just wish there could be something done about them.

I admire CA though, for getting that Davis out of office!

[Mister Baredog]

I admire CA though, for getting that Davis out of office!

Ah yes indeed. It was great fun to watch the "establishment" of the Demoncrat party rally against the recall with everything they had.

The LA Slimes went beserk daily.

We had every Natl Dem from Clintoon on down.

They had their lawyers all lined up to challenge the results.

Then the "unthinkable" happened.

It was a Blowout!!!!!!

Seriesly fun!! LOL!!

[Mister Baredog]

Bush has accelerated the growth of government; that bothers me more than a little bit.

Perhaps you never noticed that almost every complaint about Bush's agenda coming from Demoncrats is about how they're not spending enough on; fill in the blank?

Prez Kerry says govt controlled health care is a right.

Prez Kerry says we need to spend much more on Education.

Prez Kerry says the WOT is overblown.

Prez Kerry says we need to spend more on renewable energy.

Prez Kerry says we need to pay more in taxes.

Just don't complain if your grand plan for gridlock doesn't work out the way you had hoped, because with a Prez Kerry IT WON'T. Seriesly.

[familyop]

"I'll gladly consider any other information on GWB's spending should you provide the source."

The kind of information that needs to be known is spread all over the thomas.loc.gov site and througout US political history. It would be a huge task to gather the information about social program spending from congressional records. But here's a hasty synopsis of the greatest part of the problem.

All who speak in favor of continuing feminist and other anti-family social programs [working women, university instructors and students who do write-ins for them (AAUW, NOW and seemingly infinite other so-called "women's" organizations), "battered women's" shelters, police agencies (remember Clinton's "100,000" more municipal cops program?), Catholic organizations for "women," Protestant organizations for "women" (e.g. Focus on the Family), social workers, the congressmen who serve them,...] speak in unison for what they want through Congress. Extremely few speak through Congress against those programs.

We see from this that the President would not be in office for long if he refused to sign what Congress could pass without him. Most US political activists who are Republican or especially Democrat or otherwise are on the anti-fatherhood (i.e., anti-family) bandwagon and support the huge part of bureaucracy (without which, feminism cannot live in government) that receives our high social program spending. And always, it must go up (VAWA, Child Support Act, numerous programs to put more women in the job market, etc.), even according to the large, noisy groups of Republicans who scream for it.

Take so-called "affirmative action," for example. I have a long list of Fortune 500 companies that recently paid laywers to file briefs in favor of affirmative action in Michigan. And how about Title IX (feminist program to force equal expenditures on women's sports in universities,...)? Can you imagine any president opposing spending like that and trying to keep a large enough Republican base to get re-elected? It won't happen. Feminazis and their lecherous, effinate male sidekicks are in every institution, including the liberaltarian and Buchananite groups (along with "Outright Libertarians," who are homosexual activists, and all of that).

So what's the Libertarian and Buchananite answer? Their answer is to defame President Bush by implying that he alone keeps spending high on social programs. And being the socialist shills that they are, they would rather have a Democrat in the White House through the next term. so they continue to spread conspiracy stories.

What's our answer? Well, there's only one thing we can do and have any chance that our politicians will be in office long enough to get it done. Cut taxes, let the real spenders (congressmen and their social effete, anti-family constituents) spend, and eventually, the spending will have to go down in order to manage the deficits.

In other words, even if the Democrats get into office again, which they will, eventually, we don't want to leave them with a heck of a lot of money to destroy our country with. If the Democrats don't get in too soon, on the other hand, we'll have an excellent excuse to cut those social programs, even though our spoiled-rotten-to-the-core Baby Boomer majority wants their frenzy of illicit sex, drugs and "independence" from marriage responsibilities to go on forever. Then, our only choice will be to cut spending.

...got any better ideas to stop the US orgy of single life and huge social spending to support it, even though the majority of voters in our country want it to continue? Our US whorehouse is expensive, but everyone who is participating will object in many nasty ways (more feminazi lawsuits, etc.) against anyone who gets in their way.

I say cut taxes again and again, all the while, letting our bureaucrats (social workers, et al), man haters and family haters keep their attentions on their feeding frenzy. Their will come a day when we will close their office doors--a day when further funding for the choices will come to an abrupt and suprising halt.

[familyop]

"...a day when further funding for the choices..."

I meant to write, "...a day when further funding for their 'choices'..."

Their are a lot of Republicans, Libertarians and "paleo-cons" wanting to keep many of those social programs going for the "women" and the "children," and to make "males pay for their irresponsibility," when in fact, they are socialist programs that will eventually break most remaining families. And most singles vote socialist.