Conservatives grumbling at Bush

Reuters ^ | 01/21/04

[Texas_Dawg]

It has become quite obvious that you are incapable of arguing your position. Such comments as the one above, which you commonly resort to, merely show your lack of knowledge on the issues and your immaturity in dealing with facts you don't like.

Only one viable candidate for President is proposing what it takes to stop Al Qaeda. You can vote for that man, or you can vote against him, or, for Al Qaeda.

[exmarine]

Only one viable candidate for President is proposing what it takes to stop Al Qaeda. You can vote for that man, or you can vote against him, or, for Al Qaeda.

Close your eyes, repeat that mantra over and over while tapping your heels together and maybe you will wake up in Kansas.

[Lazamataz]

Pretty cheeky, bold and rude for someone who has been around less than a month.

Nah. Mojo's been around since the forum began. ;^)

[Schwaeky]

Watch what he does, instead. In the last week alone, he has already called for a 10.2 % increase in Fedseral Govt remittances for doctor Medicare/Medicaid payments and a 7 % increase in NASA's budget which is set to grow exponentially in outlying years.

Hey I'm no fan of increasing spending (as % of GDP/overall budget etc--numerically it will always increase because of a nice lil thing called inflation), esp a new entitlement like Medicaid. NASA on the other hand, is a worthwhile expenditure, simply because NASA has been abandoned financially since the end of the Apollo missions, and if we are ever to do big things in space (ultimately necessary to the long term survival of humanity), we must put more funding into the space program--and eventually pump private investment into it also. But because of all the treaties concerning space that we are tied to, anything we do, it is critical that Government be the catalyst for starting stuff with it...

[Schwaeky]

There have been several court cases challenging parental notification, waiting periods, and, most obviously, the recent partial birth abortion ban.

None of these have been before the Supreme Court during the Bush administration

Problem is that since the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court Case, the Democrats have decided to use a new weapon to impose their social/economic/political agenda on this country, by fighting our agenda in the courts using their best legal minds to find pneumbras in the law where our people may not have necesarily done all their homework, and thus getting laws thrown out (state bans on partial birth abortion like in Nebraska--states attempting to get rid of vehicle emission testing, like in Kentucky, etc) to force their own political agenda on the country through the court system.

the only way we will turn that tide is to either get the supreme court to ban such politically motivated lawsuits to block political agendas from going through, or learn to fight them at this game. Unfortunately the former is not very likely with any court (they don't like such a thing), and the latter is very dirty and will mean we would have to fight dirty too.

[Nonstatist]

NASA has been abandoned

Im a big fan of NASA, but a President has to make choices. Something has to grow less than inflation, and under his last 4 budgets nothing has grown less than inflation. That is irresponsible, IMO, unless youre willing to raise taxes, which of course he isnt. A falling dollar can only fall so far.

[Schwaeky]

Yes, but a falling dollar will allow us to export products (agricultural goods strongest export product for us, with some industrial stuff following behind--even though most of the latter are imports here) cheaper than foreign nations can produce, still being profitable for us, and will allow the balance of payments to come back around. In the end, it will be better to keep the dollar slightly weak relative to other currencies. Yes but his budgets have grown slower than the Democrats would want them to, and to me and any right thinking politically minded Republican, that is ALL that counts (yeah we spent more, but the Dems would spend EVEN MORE--and guess what--no tax cut from them--only the GOP would do that)..

[Nonstatist]

It will be better to keep the dollar slightly weak relative to other currencies.

The key word is slightly. If one day the dollar drops 10 % or something, markets will panic and he'll have to do something in response. I know he's just waiting to get reelected , but this is no way to go about it

his budgets have grown slower than the Democrats would want them to, and to me and any right thinking politically minded Republican, that is ALL that counts

Thats a very weak argument. Would a Democrat President and a Republican Congress end up with federal budgets that grow 25 % a year? I would say .. no way. Bush is a Republican and he should show some self restraint (like Reagan did), and he hasnt. His #1 priority , as far as the budget goes, is re-election. Period.

[Schwaeky]

The key word is slightly. If one day the dollar drops 10 % or something, markets will panic and he'll have to do something in response. I know he's just waiting to get reelected , but this is no way to go about it

Well, I for one beleive that he has a smart enough team of people in the administration to pull the economic levers to keep such things in check. Plus we also have Mr. Greenspan and the federal reserve to take care of those issues.

Thats a very weak argument. Would a Democrat President and a Republican Congress end up with federal budgets that grow 25 % a year? I would say .. no way. Bush is a Republican and he should show some self restraint (like Reagan did), and he hasnt. His #1 priority , as far as the budget goes, is re-election. Period.

problem is, we can't do anything if Bush is not there. The Dems today are not willing to act in consensus to get sound public policy through the way the party used to be, now they use the courts, congressional/senatorial protocol, every possible thing they can, to block our agenda. If they are in power, then a whole foreign agenda that might put us on a path to communism will come into public policy. I for one, am willing to do whatever it takes to avoid walking down that path, even if it means providing an alternative to it that would discourage it by giving in on some areas.

[phil_will1]

"....when did the GOP stop being the party of smaller Govt?"

I was listening to Neal Boortz last week when a caller asked him to explain the difference between the Republicans and the Libertarians. He said to think of it as The Democrats are what the socialists were in 1960, the Republicans were where the Democrats were in 1960, and the Libertarians were where the Republicans were in 1960. IOW, both major parties have just shifted to the left and the Libertarians have filled the void that that shift has created.

That is an interesting perspective and one that I had not heard before.

[WOSG]

actually that's a cute formulation but untrue.

To be clear, the country as a whole was more socially conservative. Sodomy, abortion, obscene pornography, etc. was illegal, while prayer in schools, 10 commandments at courthouses, was legal and families and religion were revered more.

All political parties on social issues would look like the 'religious right' position today.

On economic issues, we've actually become less socialistic. In 1960, the JFK and more conservative Democrats were like Bush Republicans today, but there were liberal Democrats (Eleanor Roosevelt) who were like Liberals today;
The Republicans were actually more ecnomically liberal in 1960 in some ways, not advocating lower taxes when the top rate was 98%, but also anti-communist. It took the Goldwater/Reagan republicans to recover the Republican parties pre-New Deal conservative small-govt roots.

[WOSG]

"NASA on the other hand, is a worthwhile expenditure, simply because NASA has been abandoned financially since the end of the Apollo missions,"

NASA is $15 billion a year today. That's not chicken feed.
That's been a few hundred billion dollars sunk in post-Apollo.

In fact, we can and we should do with much less.

The Rover missions are successful and yet dont cost much, around $1 billion. We could be doing 15 Rovers a year, but we dont. The big boondoggle in NASA has been the shuttle and the int'l space station. We need to cut back on those and figure out how to get NASA back to its roots of exploration.

Bush's proposal to go back to the moon permanently is one attempt at addressing it, and a good one, but IMHO a lower-cost approach of unmanned exploration for now would be better.