Skip to comments.
The Republican spending orgy
Boston Globe ^
| 7/20/2003
| Jeff Jacoby
Posted on 07/20/2003 5:29:31 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281-286 next last
To: Hamilton2
Mr. Bush demands the Not-So-Free Drug Plan. Demands! He signs the infamous Farm Bill- I'll bet, without looking, the funds from the recent farm bill would nearly pay for a young war against a respectably sized nation!
No sir, it's about the President who acquiesces & fosters the ballooning of socialism-the attempt to buy re-election with direct purchase of votes from the Left.
To: GatekeeperBookman
Here here.
To: Lazamataz
If I say mean things are we still friends afterwards?Mean things verbally thrust at me will not lessen our friendship. However, if it causes Lieberman to get elected in the next election there might be just cause for me to have to taunt you without remorse.
To: Consort
And some people put party over ideology and country.
I hoped I wouldn't find people like that here.
To: Moonman62
Instead of twisting the arms of Democrats like Reagan didIronically ---after Reagan did that arm-twisting, his second election was a great landslide and he had a higher proportion of the minorities' votes than Bush will ever get.
85
posted on
07/20/2003 8:10:18 AM PDT
by
FITZ
To: sirchtruth
However, if it causes Lieberman to get elected in the next election Will Lieberman spend more money on useless programs than Bush is or send more jobs out of the country than Bush is doing? Lieberman might not be completely bad as president. Gore and Hillary of course would be awful.
86
posted on
07/20/2003 8:12:11 AM PDT
by
FITZ
To: HostileTerritory
Ditto!
87
posted on
07/20/2003 8:12:33 AM PDT
by
Ed_in_NJ
To: Owen
The imperative to stimulate economic growth trumps the desire to shrink government,Government spending doesn't stimulate economic growth. Jobs do.
88
posted on
07/20/2003 8:14:15 AM PDT
by
FITZ
To: Hamilton2
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? which liberal Presidents spent less? If you refer to the gross amount, they all spent less than has President Bush... LBJ included.
If you refer to the percentage increase etc., according to the article, the answer to that question is the same.
If it's the fault of Congress, then Presidents serve no purpose and it doesn't matter who occupies the office.
President Bush et al need to examine their tendency to spend our money.
To: sirchtruth
...and it's not even a question of spending. It is a question of what we are going to spend on. What programs are really going to benefit people instead of the money going down the sinkhole like most democrats plans.Okay, let me see if I've got this: You are okay with wealth-distributionist socialism, so long as it is "really going to benefit people" and not "[go] down the sinkhole".
Gotchya.
Now I understand your devotion to Dubya.
90
posted on
07/20/2003 8:17:35 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
To: Owen
Ronald Reagan signed spending bills, too. The deficit increased during his tenure, and those were relatively good economic times. Actually during Reagan's tenure the deficits were a greater % of GDP than they are now.
I wonder when the malcontnents will post the jpegs or gifs of Reagan being tarred and feathered.
91
posted on
07/20/2003 8:17:55 AM PDT
by
Dane
To: Cultural Jihad
Not-So-Flakey ideologues founded this nation-with their own brains, money & blood. Filthy, unscroupulous, mindless socialists destoy it! The publick skrools ( bastions of government propaganda & ignorance ) are an ambomination to all that is decent. Teachers have become as Union Thugs, or worse, fascist soldiers or leaches-whose votes are for sale. Our President, Mr. Bush the good & decent, bids at that auction.
What wonders what would private institutions & free, untaxed, homeschollers bring forth? We shall, thanks to the fools, thieves & hogs at the government feed trough, never know.
Dr. Thomas Sowell named a Texas Skrool of Education- UT Austin, as so dangerous as to require... well you would not understand the mere words of US Marine Pistol Instructor, child of the ghetto, Fellow at Stanford.
His aim is not yours. He thinks & acts in ways you may not comprehend.
To: Consort
You took the bait. Spare me... the ugly truth is that President Bush and Congress have been pissing money away at rates that would not have been achievable by a Republican House and Senate and a Democratic President.
If that is what is required, so be it. I may not be able to bring myself to vote for a Democrat, but I can vote 3rd party and will do so again.
To: sirchtruth
Your comment implies that 9/11 excuses the extra spending.
The only extra spending that is justified by 9/11 is in defense and intelligence. Bush should have urged congress to shift funds from social programs to cover these new spending priorities, rather than borrowing it.
What does the 80 billion dollar farm welfare bill have to do with 9/11?
What does 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa have to do with 9/11?
As conservatives, we have ZERO credibility if we excuse a republican for the same behavior that we would condemn in a democrat.
To: FITZ
Ironically ---after Reagan did that arm-twisting, What arm twisting? Reagan signed a tax increase in 82.
95
posted on
07/20/2003 8:22:43 AM PDT
by
Dane
To: All
I imagine you steadfast fiscal priggles, whose agenda is purely fiscal in nature, want to see one of the current crop of Dem contenders be elected as this country's next President. Along with a liberal/socialist congress whose agenda would be to increase YOUR taxes for the monstosity of Universal Healthcare.
By all means blast Bush for his economic meandering, then maybe he'll change his course toward your liking and you'll get the fiscal perfection you so desire, along with the biggest, most expensive Gov't program in history because you blokes are to nearsighted!
To: sirchtruth
I imagine you steadfast fiscal priggles, whose agenda is purely fiscal in nature, want to see one of the current crop of Dem contenders be elected as this country's next President. Along with a liberal/socialist congress whose agenda would be to increase YOUR taxes for the monstosity of Universal Healthcare. It's called "cutting off ones nose to spite ones face" and, IMO, the perpetually malcontnent are very proficient at it.
97
posted on
07/20/2003 8:28:28 AM PDT
by
Dane
To: Lazamataz
Okay, let me see if I've got this: You are okay with wealth-distributionist socialism, so long as it is "really going to benefit people" and not "[go] down the sinkhole".Ah, NO, you don't have it!
In your case are you implying that spending for a strong military that promotes the common defense of the nation would be socialism, wealth-distribution, for let's say things like Golden toilet seats?
Those aren't mean things!
To: sirchtruth
steadfast fiscal priggles Jeez...took a while before the personal attacks started. Let's see...by voting mindlessly for RINOs and other assorted Republicans, what will I stop (in your opinion)?
1. Bloated government
2. Frightening increase in socialist redistribution programs
3. A more intrusive government bureaucracy
What exactly is the difference between that boogeyman and the Bush administration?
To: Eternal_Bear
If there is a war going on, why not drastically reduce domestic spending? I don't get it. Where is the conservatism? Well said! If taxpayers and private businesses had to sacrifice after 9/11, then surely big government depts like Dept of Ed, Housing, and Commerce should have been abolished.
There is no justification for the farm bill, the education bill, and a homeland security dept. Bush is a big-government Republican, and I hope conservatives hold his feet to the fire in 2004.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281-286 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson