Posted on 07/15/2003 4:05:20 AM PDT by LonePalm
Edited on 07/15/2003 11:46:35 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
First, I would like to ask you something. Are you a Libertarian?
Addressing issues that need to be addressed for the sake of the American people is not PERMENANTLY growing Gov't, or would you like the Dems to be in charge of this???
People have this unrealistic picture of how to reduce the size of Gov't. You can't take something that has been given to people for 30 years and just YANK it away from them in the blink of an eye. That's not only cruel, it is devestating in some cases.
Have you ever heard of the phrase, "Cause and effect."
This idea that conservatives have of everything in Gov't needing to be reduced is at best, a pipe dream. The problem is the things that Gov't does do need to work efficiently, steamlined, and be cost effective.
We are in the midst of one of the greatest president / administrations in the history of this republic.
Unfortunately greatest is not synonymous with best. Greatest just means most effective with the biggest plans and actions. W may well be that, though he still has to top the pulling down of the Soviet Empire.
But that doesn't matter to Neal as he puts out his red meat, it's the # of pages, not the nitty gritty substance of the pages.
On the surface, you are correct. I have a theory about this though. I have been trying to formulate it and get facts to back it up, but I'm going to throw it out there and let the sharks rip it up.
My theory is that GW is trying to pander to the more moderate liberals (traditional democrats). Remember, he barely won the election in 2000. He needs all the numbers he can get. I think that GW is going to pull in enough people to get elected in 2004, then you will see him reduce the size of government. Reagan did this. He cut taxes in his first term, then cut government spending in his second term and came out smelling like a rose.
GW would be stupid to cut spending now and risk alienating the moderates that he has been grooming. I also think he throws them a political bone once in awhile. I am thinking about things like Medicare, etc.
I don't know. What do you think of the theory? Maybe it's just wishful thinking. I hope not.
A statement like that, and you feel at home on a Conservative Site? Nothing like arguing from a leftist position.
SFR
The deficits have more to do with the slowing economy than increased spending. Once the economy turns back on, and it is doing just that, the deficits will lessen.
Geo MUST win in '04, so he can implement responsible government policies (reduce spending).
The dems (Domestic Enemies) are desperately flailing at the gates of the castle, and their efforts will be in vain - backfire if we're lucky.
Americans want security (we've saved two countries from Islamic fanaticism - Iran, North Korea, and Cuba to follow) and economic recovery (Geo providing tax relief, the market is raising, jobs will come back soon).
Geo's cool, calm, collected style is quite calculated and focused - we are lucky to have such a man of steel at the helm at times such as these.
I am amazed how many pinko leftleftleft America haters there are out there. Let's hope they are a very small vocal minority.
Let's just pray that enough true Americans wake up from their TV induced coma and vote for freedom in '04.
Reagan provided the impetious to tip over a toppling empire, Geo has to stare down the rising tide of Islamic fanaticism.
Both are imperative - the later will be harder to accomplish.
No one will ever be able to satisfy a "true conservative" since every "true conservative" has their own standards they will measure the candidate by.
There are many things I would like to see President Bush do, it is not going to happen. We live in a Republic, not a dictatorship (which I am happy for).
The President can guide and push, but there are limits to his powers. If the President came out for all of the things that would make "true conservatives" happy, he would be crucified by big media, and the American people would turn against him.
Like it our not, "true conservatives" are a minority in this country, meaning they do not have enough votes to give a true conservative President the support he would need in Congress, and the protection he would need in public opinion.
I belive that the nation at this time is just a little right of center, moving to the right, but the majority of voters fall in the middle. Presidents must play to the middle, or they will not win. Democrats move to the right, and Republicans move to the left.
"True conservatives" have only two options, support the President, or support the Democrats (and any vote for third party candidates, or staying home on election day is support for the Democrats). I don't make the rules, just pointing them out.
I do not like everything President Bush has done, but I do like a lot of what he has done. At some point in my life I realized I will never get everything I wanted, that is true in my personal life, and in my polictical life.
But then again, I am not a "true conservative"
There are no true conservatives; only a bunch of WHINOs who mischaracterize themselves. People who think they are true conservatives seriously harmed this country in '92. Such misguided troublemakers are as Ideologically Correct as those on the Left are Politically Correct and both groups put their interests ahead of the country, party, and everything else — except themselves.
People have this unrealistic picture of how to reduce the size of Gov't. You can't take something that has been given to people for 30 years and just YANK it away from them in the blink of an eye. That's not only cruel, it is devestating in some cases.
What would be a realistic way to reduce the size of gov't? And addressing your charge that any growth of gov't is not permanent, what was the last gov't program to be cut out? What are they phasing out?
Although I support GW Bush in his foreign policy, and think he is a good man, I am worried about the size of the gov't increasing. One day, someone else will be in power, and who knows how they will use the powers being put into place.
Great article, LonePalm. I love your black ice analogy!
It is if you stop for a moment and realize that the greatest terrorist threat to this nation is the Democrat Party. The President is neutralizing this threat in order to defeat the enemy within.
Bush Ended Funding For Gun Buyback Program
In 2002, President Bush eliminated funding for UNFPA because the program was involved with coercive abortion in China.
The 2002 Bush budget called for zeroed out the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
White House ends environmental research funding
Bush administration shut down Everglades restoration office
46 Education Programs Eliminated in the President ’s 2004 Budget
Bush in his first budget proposed a $248 mil. cut to the Health Professions Program and complete elimination of the Community Access Program. Both cuts were reversed by Congress and the programs received funding increases.
Bush cut funds for the Justice Department's lawsuit against the tobacco industry.
Just four weeks after the President signed the education bill into law, the Administration's budget cuts funding for it," Kennedy said.[Kennedy Press Release, 2/12/02]
President Bush proposed a 2.8 percent increase, roughly $1.4 billion, in education funding, the smallest increase in seven years. [House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Democratic staff, The Bush Budget: Shortchanging School Reform, 2/12/02]
In their FY 2003 budget resolution, Senate Democrats proposed larger increases in education funding than Bush and restored funding for the programs Bush cut in the education reform law. [Chairman's Mark — FY 20003 Senate Budget Resolution, 3/20/02]
That's just what I found under a simple search, there are 346,000 more entries out there if you just care to look. And as you can see, it is a little hard to cut spending if the Dems keep restoring funding.
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.