Rumbling on the Hard-Right

The Washington Times ^ | December 30, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[GunsareOK]

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.

[american spirit]

Call it what you want but where I live in Texas we've seen a marked increase in illegal immigration over the last three years and along with it increases in crime, hospitals overwhelmed and extra taxes to pay for all their "needs". Sorry, many out here do not have one ounce of compassion for them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You may have "seen" an increase in Texas, but the figures say otherwise.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

OK. I found it. But it includes Social Security, so when you present that, it is misleading. That is a mandatory spending.

But it was mandatory spending for all the past presidents also. The data is consistent from one budget to the next.

Education spending was given a 25% + boost by Bush (and Kennedy) when Reagan held the line at 2-3% or inflation. That was Bush's choice and that is included in "Human Resources".

The two charts show a tremendous slashing of military % of outlays and a huge increase in HR % of outlays. Much of this increase under Bush is there because he wanted it to be there.

The other chart showed how FDR almost eliminated social spending (HR) during WW II. Almost half the budget was taken down to only 2% of budget. So, it can be cut if a president wants it to be cut.

[FairOpinion]

"But it (Social Security) was mandatory spending for all the past presidents also. "

==

The population of the US has been growing, people have been living longer, so the number of SS recipients have been exploding, that's why SS is projected to go bankrupts soon.

[FairOpinion]

[Badray]

I didn't think it would take over 400 replies for someone to come to Guns' defence, but you just said it all. And said it well. I don't know him as well as you, but each time I've been to DC for a Freep, Guns was there too. The only 'fault' that I may have found is that he didn't tell these particular a$$#0!e$ to GFT, because that is exactly what I would have done.

"W" has very little chance of earning my vote right now, but for God's sake people, even if you are a die hard bot, pledging your undying support to any politician is guaranteeing your irrelevance. Besides your money, the only thing that a pol cares about is your vote. If he doesn't think he has to worry about it, then he doesn't have to worry about your or your concerns.

I'll be at CPAC. I look forward to seeing you again.

[american spirit]

Don't think those figures would reflect what's going on in Cal, AZ, NM and TX. If it's any kind of gov't entity producing those figures it might be good enough for birdcage liner.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

The population of the US has been growing, people have been living longer, so the number of SS recipients have been exploding.

OK. But you can only divide up 100% of the revenue so many ways--1% slot increments. That is why % of outlays is a great way to show this since % makes it consistent from year to year, where dollars are meaningless due to inflation.

The chart shows that HR spending was 33.5% under LBJ, 54.5% under Ford, Reagan cut it to 50.4%, Bush I had it at 54.0%, Clinton at 62% and now GWB at 66%.

Under your reasoning, the rate will keep climbibng to 70%, 90%, then what, 100%? Absolutely nothing for Defense and discretionary spending?

Also, the one chart shows that military % of outlays has been cut from JFK's 45% down to Reagan's 26% and now GWB's 16%!

People think that Defense spending is rising, but that is in dollars! As a % of outlays, it has been crashing since JFK!

I think we all should really study these numbers because our future is at stake. Just like when you jumped and said "there is no HR" and later found out there is, I think too many of us do not have the facts when we state an opinion. We all owe it to ourselves to get up to speed on this because we are in for a very serious financial crushing because of this runaway spending.

[King Prout]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1048858/posts?page=1

Dean courts the Muslim vote.
and they're responding favorably.

That just about totally scuppers any thought I might have been harboring about not voting for Bush.
I might hold my nose a bit (depends on AWB and Amnesty), but Dubya'll be getting my vote... the alternative is simply TOO horrible to contemplate.

[King Prout]

are the rest of the usual suspects in the shower, or what? this thread is hugh and series.

[FairOpinion]

You just don't understand it, Luis, Bush is responsible for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the world, especially in the US. ;)

I am surprised they haven't blamed him for the CA earthquake yet.

The so-called conservatives have a great deal in common with the leftist Dems: both groups hate Bush and want to defeat him.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" We stopped over a million people from entering the country illegally in 2002."

This thread is posted tonight:
The Fred Kay File
From the Tucson Citizen,12/30/2003

" Because of tighter security along the border, Tucson's federal court has one of the highest prosecution rates in the nation for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers." What ??? How can this be,as President Bush has done nothing to control the borders !!

Nineteen men and one woman filed into a federal courtroom in shackles earlier this month, hoping their admissions of guilt would bring leniency so - as many admitted - they could commit their crimes again. These 20 people were among 2,600 accused of illegal entry into the United States who were represented in fiscal 2003 by a team of 13 immigration attorneys in Tucson's federal Public Defender's Office, said Fred Kay, the lead defense attorney in the office.

Hundreds of additional cases were parceled out to contract attorneys.

With prosecutions of illegal entry at an all-time high because of stepped up enforcement along the international border, the federal court in Tucson is among the busiest in the country, Kay said."

Prosecutions at an all time high .Hmmm...

[Sabertooth]

NO real conservative would help a Democrat get elected.

Voting for some 3rd party is taking a vote away from Bush.

You and people like you are exactly the ones who gave us 8 years of Clinton.

If all the conservatives had voted for Bush I, instead of Perot or some other third party candidate, Bush I had beaten Clinton.

I voted for Bush 41, but you are talking nonsense here.

Bush 41 lost because he took votes for granted, and pissed a lot of people off. No one owes a politician or party their votes, not even the Bushes, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise, and if you think most voters care what you think. If they get pissed off enough at a politician, then they won't vote for him. That's good, in the long run, because it engenders accountability.

Stinks that we got Clinton in the deal, but the responsibility for losing that election lies squarely with the politician who lost it:

President George H.W. Bush.

You can protest all you want, but it's the truth, and if politicians ignore the truth, they will lose elections too.

[Sabertooth]

I'd imagine you're probably just another one of the national socialist populist union and "middle class" supporting types that lurk around here. Don't kid yourself. You're not a conservative. Conservatives only have one choice in 2004 and the overwhelming majority of them will make that choice happily.

Irony is sweet.

You call others national socialists with one breath,
and proudly advocate groupthink and goose-stepping in the next.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Anyone not voting for Bush is helping the Dean/Dems win. Anyone helping the Dems win is no conservative.

Bush is helping Dean and the Rats win on the domestic side anyway because their socialist programs and unconstitutional federal bureaucracies will be fully funded under Bush's 2nd term. So roll that up in your Zig-Zag and smoke it.

Bush had a golden opportunity to cut the size of gov't shortly after 9/11. Everybody else sacrificed, why couldn't Bush order bean-counters in HUD or EPA for example to take a hike and find work in the private sector?

Look, nobody around here wants to see Dean or Hillary get elected. I do pray that Bush outlines a hard, conservative agenda in his January SOTU address.

[Hoverbug]

We stopped over one million people from entering the country illegally in 2002.

Luis,

We didn't stop anybody. We turned them loose to try again, until they made it north.

Hb

[Luis Gonzalez]

"We didn't stop anybody. We turned them loose to try again, until they made it north."

Oh, that's right, we should have shot them so they wouldn't try again.

Ridiculous.

[Hoverbug]

Your comment was that we "stopped over 1 million people from entering the country illegally in 2002"

I take it from your reply, quote " Oh, that's right, we should have shot them so they wouldn't try again" that your first comment was absolute B$ and YOU KNOW IT. You know they eventually made it.

When we turn them loose over and over and over again until they make it, WE"VE STOPPED NO ONE!!

You go B$ somebody else. I spent too many years at the border.

Hb

[Once-Ler]

You can't look at the last four years as a liberal and be all that unhappy.

One need only peruse DU for a few minutes to see that your statement has no basis in reality.
It is too easy to refute the right fringe pseudo-cons.

[Once-Ler]

Incidentally, Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.

Tell that to the burned children in Waco...the tortured soldiers in Mogadeshu...and the 3,000 crushed in New York City.
It is too easy to refute the right fringe pseudo-cons