Posted on 09/25/2005 10:56:29 AM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
You will get no argument from anyone here that the GOP congress, especially the senators have been a huge disappointment.
That being said, congress has given Bush everything that he has asked for except in the area of judicial appointments. Bush would probably prefer spending bills that did not have so much pork, but he hasn't cared enough to veto one, threaten a veto or even complain about it.
He has also called for new entitlements that were his idea and did not originate in congress.
Thank gawd this, as of yet, hasn't become a function of government.
When the line of government assistance crosses the line to government dictation, when it comes to personal finances, then all freedom is lost.
People still have the right to be stupid with their finances and this maintains an atmosphere of person freedom.
And at the same time creates classes of the "haves" and the "have not's".
He has with a majority of support to do so from most American people! : )
There's going to be a lot of "haves" on Wall Street this year. I've never seen so many 28 year olds already spending those half million dollar bonuses.
How does that make him socialist?
There's the difference between him and Kerry. Kerry would have tripled my taxes.
Personally, I have never conveyed such an attitude toward GWB.
My understanding is that, more than ever, spending bills are not single issue/topic spending and designed to aviod a veto (especially with there being no line item veto). Bush is definitely not one to be negative, but the most appropriate place to put pressure is on Congress.
Why don't you just say you don't like President Bush. I'm not defending him, I'm defending his office. This is not personal it's AMERIACA. Why don't you see if you can take on 535 guys by yourself.
I trust you don't consider that to be a bad thing?
Your being "conservative" in your statement aren't you. ; )
Since I have no dog in that particular fight, I judge it to be a source of amusement. There are few things more interesting than a 28 year old running around Manhattan with a half million dollars burning a hole in his pocket.
I don't dislike him. I do dislike the spending that the GOP has engaged in and President Bush has been a prime mover in the effort.
My allegiances are not a man or his career, but to the nation and the constitution. The spending that President Bush has signed into law is bad for the nation so he should be taken to task on that matter. This is not a small issue either.
It is not clear why creating new entitlements that we do not have the money to pay for is a good thing if a person with an (R) next to their name proposes it.
"In any case, it's still a gross exaggeration to call the President's extravagance 'socialism'."
The word "socialism" is one of the most misused and misunderstood terms on these kind of boards. Almost any spending is "socialism."
Also remarkable is for five years Bush has done what he has yet people still mark him as a victim.
Fact is he is a corporate conservative. If the corporation profit from government assistance, he gives it, if they want to profit from decreased regulation, he gives in the name of "free markets."
Bush made his money as a corporate conservative - the Arlington stadium subsidies.
Until "conservatives" call Republicans on a balanced budget and figure out that the hints they might do something about social issues like abortion are insincere we will continue to see these bizarre discussions wherein Bush is a paragon of conservatism and if conservative principles are not evident he's a victim.
To a small degree the deficits are not his fault. To the budgets he proposes Congress adds about another 5% of pork - so he's responsible for about 95%.
In reality Bush has endorsed a program that is one of the most socialistic in US history - his Social Security reform plan (what we know of it.) He wants to take surplus funds from treasury notes and convert them into stock - a massive governement ownership of the "means of production." The verbal trick hiding the socialism is calling the scheme "private accounts."
"Why don't you just say you don't like President Bush. I'm not defending him, I'm defending his office. This is not personal it's AMERIACA. Why don't you see if you can take on 535 guys by yourself."
Having the ability to take on 535 guys by himself is one of the requirements of the office of President.
That would require a "black and white" mindset.
It's much easier to say nothing at all at 100 words a minute via conversation, when the liberal "gray thinking" is used as an approach to confronting realism.
This way it is much easier to debunk the truth.
"There's going to be a lot of "haves" on Wall Street this year. I've never seen so many 28 year olds already spending those half million dollar bonuses."
Big year for them and their partner lobbyists. CAFTA, drug company subsidies posed as charity, reducing the bankruptcy rights of the middle classes, etc.
Rational economic profit strategies dictate better efficiencies by giving political parties campaign money to change laws than making and selling products.
If a credit card company lowers your minimum payment but triples your bill, are you really ahead?
The tax cut was a very good thing but should have been followed up with spending cuts. As the deficit gets bigger and bigger, the tax cuts will be blamed rather than the spending and it will poison the public against future tax cuts.
Deficit spending is a de facto tax increase. The money that is borrowed has to be paid back, with interest.
It all makes sense now. You live in a black and white world were President Bush must be 100% correct on all things or 100% wrong.
I'm a realist....
It can all turn on a dime and frequently does, though most people don't believe that.
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.