Posted on 04/30/2007 9:14:44 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
We published an analysis on “Dollar Myths” in which we criticized spending habits in Washington:
"Interestingly, nobody seemed to focus on the fact that there is an unconventional solution to foreigners holding too much of our debt: live within your means and do not issue debt. Such an old fashioned concept would indeed strengthen the dollar. Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates at either side of the aisle seem to have heard of this notion."
We missed that there is indeed a presidential candidate who believes in the old fashioned view to “live within your means.” Our apologies go to Congressman Ron Paul, who threw his hat in the ring on March 12, 2007, announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Ron Paul is the one member of Congress who is a true fiscal conservative. As a member of the House Committee of Financial Services, he does not hesitate to speak out against inflationary policies. On his campaign website, Ron Paul 2008, he writes:
“Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation… If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
(Excerpt) Read more at fxstreet.com ...
Well it might just be because the man he appointed USAG supports it also? Well Duh. I'm gonna point something out to you. The GOP is just as bad a shill for Big Government as the DEMs. For example up till 1953 we did not have federal management as such of education, welfare, and health. Now you want too guess which party gave us that and set precedent for LBJ's later to come Great Society? It was the GOP. GOP had both houses and the White House in 1953.
As for the rest I gave you examples and you and everyone else on the thread knows it. The Republican Party since winning in 1994 has been the DEM's useful idiots as far as passing legislation a minority pre-1994 GOP would never have let pass. Ted Kennedy from 1995 on was and still is The Senate Majority Leader. He couldn't have done it better himself because before they came to power the GOP would not have let him. The GOP has given him and the other liberals most of everything they want.
Better a Don Knotts than a El Duce clone (Giuliani) or someone who looks like Col Jack Ripper (McCain).
On second thought, Paul looks much more like one of my childhood heroes, Ron Rogers.
That’s Roy not Ron.
Horse Hillary. Frist took the Medicare reform plan straight from Hillary Clintons Tenn Care fiasco. Tell me then why doesn't the GOP simply turn Medicare and Social Security back over to the people? All they did was give a choice of which Hey Moe gets your money. Better yet why did Bush 2000 campaign praise former governor Don Sundquist-R-TN for his efforts in Universal Health Care? I can not link that one but I have the text.
August 17, 1999
Tennessee Governor Becomes 22nd To Endorse George W. Bush
AUSTIN – Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist today endorsed Governor George W. Bush for President.
"I am pleased to join Governor Bush’s campaign and will work hard in Tennessee to help him win the nomination and the Presidency," said Governor Sundquist at a Nashville news conference. "I have known Governor Bush and his family for many years, and I know how important public service is to them."
"As a colleague of Governor Bush’s, I have watched him become one of the strongest governors in the country. His record in Texas is outstanding, and many of his innovative programs have served as models for the nation. Governor Bush is a proven leader who has the unique ability to unite people and accomplish success. I look forward to working with him and his team, as we gain support from Memphis to Mountain City for this dynamic leader," added Governor Sundquist.
"Governor Sundquist is a valued colleague and a good, close friend, and I am honored to have his support" said Governor Bush. "Don is devoted to welfare reform and better education for the people of Tennessee. His help will be important to my campaign in the Volunteer State. I intend to wage a vigorous, winning effort in Tennessee, not only in the primary, but the general election as well."
Re-elected to a second term last year with a record 69 percent of the vote, Governor Sundquist has initiated unprecedented reforms in Tennessee in the areas of welfare, government and crime, while placing a special emphasis on Tennessee children. Under his watch, the growth of government spending has been cut by more than half; the number of employable adults on welfare has been reduced by 60 percent; and Tennessee became the first state in the nation to connect every public school and library to the Internet and to offer universal health care coverage to all children.
Now you find me one Tennessee Freeper who has any kind words for Taxquist. That RINO nearly bankrupted the state with Hillary Care. Sad as it is a DEM governor has managed the state considerably better and considerably more conservative actually.
Not in the slightest - they establish no religion in any way - let alone in the very specific way indicated by the US Constitution.
and they effectively prohibit free exercise by taking from from practitioners of one religion and giving to other religious organizations.
You are arguing that one cannot freely practice his religion unless his church receives transfer payments from the federal government.
Surely you realize how preposterous this claim is.
They usurp the religious activities of the states and the people.
Not at all. The people and the states retain the right to fund faith-based initatives to whatever extent they wish - no matter how much money the federal government contributes or does not contribute.
The constitution did not authorize the federal government to fund religious organizations.
The constitution permits the federal government to spend money however it pleases to promote the general welfare, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of the states or the people.
And funding faith-based initiatives does interfere with any state or person's free decision to fund or not fund faith-based initiatives out of their own pockets.
The general welfare eh? What the heck is that? I want to build a picturesque bridge to nowhere. Does that qualify?
No, I am not. The Constitution does not authorize transfer payments from the federal government.
Go back and read the First Amendment. It does not say "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion." It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The constitution permits the federal government to spend money however it pleases to promote the general welfare, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of the states or the people.
Redistribution of income to religious organizations does not promote the general welfare. It promotes the welfare of the religious organizations at the expense of taxpayers in a manner prohibited by the First Amendment. The Constitution did not grant Congress to legislate for religious organizations; therefore, this power is reserved to the states and the people. Exercise of such power by Congress is a usurpation of these reserved powers.
You claim that a majority of Congressional Republicans support fully socialized medicine.
You have not proven this by referencing a state governor's programs - especially since Sundquist's program does not include fully socialized medicine. I'm not sure you understand what the term means.
Fully socialized medicine is this: the government owns or directly supervises all hospitals, all healthcare professionals are direct employees of the government, all medical insurance for every citizen is provided by the government and all medical decisions for every citizen must be approved by the government.
If more than half the GOP supported such measures, a bill providing for them would already have been passed by the House with a veto-overriding 70%.
Why hasn't it?
I think you should have qualified that as Republicans in Washington, D.C., not Republican voters in general.
You are right. That rationale needs to be employed MUCH more frequently by members of Congress. President Bush did the right thing by vetoing it.
Of course it does.
Every time tax revenue is spent it is a transfer payment from the general fund to some specific purpose.
It does not say "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion." It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Semantic games. Funding faith-based initiatives neither establishes a religion nor respects an establishment of religion.
Redistribution of income to religious organizations does not promote the general welfare.
That's your opinion. The Constitution certainly says nothing of the kind.
It promotes the welfare of the religious organizations at the expense of taxpayers in a manner prohibited by the First Amendment.
The funding goes specifically for initiatives that benefit the larger community: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, helping the addicted, etc.
If you believe these charitable activities do not promote the general welfare, then nothing can meet your mythical, self-imposed test.
The Constitution did not grant Congress to legislate for religious organizations
The law does not legislate for religious organizations - they are free to make their own internal rules and regulations as they see fit without Congress' knowledge, assistance or approval.
Quit making stuff up - it is dishonest.
True the government can not give that money away. Second it can not dictate to the church it's mission or message which is what government faith based programs require. But if First Church of Sometown takes the funds say to run an alcoholic rehab ministry then government can put the entire First Church of Sometown under all federal regulations. It was a bad idea from the get go and should have never seen the light of day. As I said before if POTUS and congress wants to help the church {which it doesn't} then why not drop the restrictions placed upon it? FB programs are nothing more than a foot in the door to control church pulpits. What's worse the congress and POTUS knew this and did it anyway.
What the heck is the Preamble to the US Constitution talking about, you ask?
My advice to you: consult the Federalist for some perspective.
Of course it does.
Granted. I meant to say "The Constitution does not authorize transfer payments from the federal government to churches."
Bookmark my post. Within 10 years likely sooner churches will be forced to hire gays and even satanic followers as their preachers if they take one cent of that money. The next election may decide it. But my point is this wasn't a problem till the GOP created the conditions for it to become one.
I should have and you're right. The GOP voters in general are not the problem.
How many votes is the USAG entitled to cast in the Senate?
The President cannot prevent his employees from advocating stupid legislation as they try to suck up to Congressional Democrats calling for their ouster.
And yes, you will say that the President should simply fire him for his advocacy of stupidity.
However, the very reason why the USAG and the President are under fire from Congress over the USAG is because the USAG exercised his privilege of firing employees - which Congress now claims is overreaching.
Congress would love to see the President fire the USAG over legislation he can't even influence - it would give them even more political capital.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The coerced redistribution of wealth does not promote the general welfare.
The law does not legislate for religious organizations - they are free to make their own internal rules and regulations as they see fit without Congress' knowledge, assistance or approval.
Oh, was faith-based initiatives for the San Diego Padres?
"Quit making stuff up - it is dishonest."
You need to take your own advice.
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.