Conservatives grumbling at Bush

Reuters ^ | 01/21/04

[Pokey78]

Analysts at Cato, Heritage, Club for Growth unconvinced by Bush's pledge to cut deficit.

WASHINGTON, Jan 21 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush faced open rebellion on Wednesday from some members of his fiscal conservative base for not laying out concrete plans to reduce government spending and the budget deficit.

[Texas_Dawg]

Well, let's see what the admin moderator has to say about it next time you choose to go off on your Al Qaeda comparisons, shall we?

It's very simple. A vote for the Constitution Party is a vote for Al Qaeda. You have two choices this election: GWB, or, Al Qaeda.

[montag813]

Analysts at Cato, Heritage, Club for Growth unconvinced by Bush's pledge to cut deficit.

Why this obsession with the deficit? As the economy picks up, the deficit will shrink. The Clinton surplus was a major reason why the economy tanked so quickly. It is better for the government to owe money via tax cuts than carry a surplus. The tax cuts and cash-out refinancing is the only thing keeping consumers afloat these days.

[CMAC51]

Not at all. Now, let me give you the LOGICAL refutation of that silly overused facile statement that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for a Democrat: In reality (I mean "true" reality), a democrat can't get elected unless at least 40% or more of the people vote for him. Now, if I vote for a moral committed virtuous 3rd party candidate and a Democrat gets elected, it will be the responsibility (a concept that a person can ony be accountable for what they actually do that is wrong). It is a fallacy to say that a Democratic win can be my responsibility when I didn't vote for him. So, you are forced to blame the people who did - the half of the country who have chucked virtue and morals. You see, in "true" reality, the problem is that half of America is immoral, blind, selfish, or just plain ignorant and educated, so you can blame the election of a bad leader on the people who voted for him.

Using that logic, you cannot be blamed for standing idly by watching someone get beat to death. You aren't doing the beating. The people doing the beating are the guilty ones. You are only standing there vigilant, ready to step in when God gives you the command.

If you choose not to provide assistance, when you have the capability to do so, then you bear guilt, the same as those doing the beating. You can try to wrap it in the Bible any way you want, but you effectively participated in an immoral act. The God I believe in would not look mercifully on such egrigous behavior.

[montag813]

Web design question: what is the font used for the axes in the chart? it is nice and small and legible. Anyone know where i can download it? Thanks...

[Wolfstar]

In very many ways, this actually is the most conservative president of my lifetime — yes, that includes the great Ronald Reagan. With the exception of a couple of passages, that was a remarkably conservative speech last night.

For a brief, quick list, George W. Bush has been very much a conservative in his:

• Response to the 9/11 and anthrax attacks.
• Policy on abortion.
• Attempts to reintroduce accountability into the public schools.
• Willingness to reintroduce religious expression into public dialog.
• Introduction of medical savings accounts and choices of Medicare plans in an effort to control costs.
• Backing for the introduction of some Social Security privatization.
• Willingness to at least attempt to get government to stop discriminating against religious charities.
• Tax policy.
• Willingness to defend marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
• Defense of Israel by acknowleding her right to self-defense and refusing to interfere in her attempts to protect her citizens.
• Management of the military.
• Management of homeland/national security.
• Willingness to tell the UN to take a flying leap.
• Refusal to give in to internationalists who want a veto over American foreign policy.
• Withdrawal of Clinton's signature on the International Criminal Court treaty.
• Withdrawal of the U.S. from the Kyoto accords.

As I said, this is just a quick list. There are many more examples. For a President who came into office after the Florida debacle on the strength of a razor-thin win, the scope and breadth of his conservative achievements in three short years are nothing short of astonishing.

One thing is certain: Any Democrat will immediately and assiduously attempt to reverse all of these achievements.

There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

[exmarine]

Using that logic, you cannot be blamed for standing idly by watching someone get beat to death. You aren't doing the beating.

Another fallacy...false analogy. A vote cannot be compared to a life-threatening crime that requires life-saving action. Try again.

[BiffWondercat]

You even a tiny bit tempted to write in Ron Paul? or Tom Tancredo?

[hedgetrimmer]

I think you know.

no, I don't. Be specific.

[CMAC51]

>> If one candidate can produce small progress toward your goal and a second candidate would move you farther from your goal, then your moral obligation is to support the one that moves you closer to your goal. <<

I see you have bought into the fallacious philosophy. That is our choice. I reject it. God is God. Trying to manipulate or control the future through my vote is playing God.

Then you are saying it is morally wrong for you to vote at all. Any vote you make is an attempt to manipulate or control the future. Your only option is to not vote and leave it all up to God. If he wants you to vote, I'm sure he will get a message to you.

I am called to do the right thing...vote for the candidate that best represents biblical values...and I don't compromise on moral values.

And that is why you are so ineffective in promoting moral values in the world around you.

[My2Cents]

Great summary. Compelling. Irrefutable.

The problem with some of the naysayers is that if they didn't have something to complain about, they'd probably implode.

[BiffWondercat]

While Repubs will vote that way and 'Rats will vote their own...

I would say that the independents opinions are going to count greatly. If it comes to a Kerry/Edwards ticket, I would not be suprised to see your landslide around 3-5%.

[My2Cents]

I love good satire. Thanks.

[Owen]

>
"GW Bush's domestic discretionary expenditures as a percentage of GDP (and note he's been fighting a recession) are LESS than Ronald Reagan in the same year of his presidency."

Yeah but that is not any credit due to Bush, the credit goes to the Republican Congresses of the 90s for keeping tabs on it. Guys like Kasich at budget etc. The fiscal discipline is gone and Bush is like a frat boy egging on more drunken sailor behavior on the part of Congress.
>

I don't understand how the 90's are relevant to either Bush's or RR's domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP in the same years of their terms, and the data show, of course, that Bush's number in that regard is LESS than Ronald Reagan's.

Actually, there's an interesting reality in that data. Over multiple decades, the number generally floats between 3% and 4%. That was true for Reagan and Bush both.

[Texas_Dawg]

no, I don't. Be specific.

OK.

Soros plant.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Another "alienating the base" alert!

[Ol' Sparky]

Didn't you hear Rove today on Sean Hannity's show stating that spending has really declined since the end of the Clinton administration...Too bad Hannity didn't even attempt to challenge what he said.

[Howlin]

So I saw.

[itsahoot]

They hated Reagan too. They won't admit it now, but they did.

Here is one bellyacher that loved Reagan. He did things that I bellyached about too, but I still voted for him both times. That may not be true of my support of GW, and the reason is open borders period.

[BiffWondercat]

With such vociferous support, I safley predict the two party system (scam) will go on another 140...

If the globalists are slow perhaps...another can another thread...