Posted on 09/25/2005 10:56:29 AM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
And where does that money come from?
Perhaps, keeping our country strong and bound together takes precedence.
Gosh, the next thing to happen will be a government official threatening the POTUS with "punching" him.
Nah, that would never happen....
"Bush is spending like a socialist, and his successor will be a socialist. Our country is going downhill fast.
"As President Richard Nixon observed in 1971, “We are all Keynesians now...."
It's just been renamed, "Compassionate Conservatism".
Me and my children.
Ultimately from taxes.
Some from taxes and some from shifting the burden of funding some programs to states and local communities.
Good point, but the burdens that are shifted to the states, "unfunded mandates", must be paid for by taxes from the residents of the states affected.
One wouldn't think that money would be available with the way that it is conveyed as to how government, VIA the doings of Dubya', is making it unavailable.
Gosh, you have money?
Give me some!
One just can't make it in a choice filled "free Enterprise based" economy where one also has the freedom to vote to change government.
How did you find access to FR?
I know, you are at the library for government is the only option to allow you access the the Internet since you are so financially strapped. Right?
Life in the USA just stinks doesn't it?
Of course I am looking forward to your input as to how it can be made better.
Please reply and enlighten me.
Where does it go from there?
...and the states will push as much as they can down to the local level. Property taxes may rise in some instances and in other cases programs will not be funded.
It's going to get very interesting in the next five or six years.
So you had no problem when Clinton raised taxes right?
There you go with that "forest for the trees" thinking again.
No I didn't vote for Clinton and won't vote for her in '08. ; )
The wealth confiscated through taxation is redistributed.
If you're trying to say that it stimulates the economy then I really have to wonder what you are doing on a conservative website.
Where does the money go when a person mugs you and takes your wallet? Does it not stimulate the economy too?
"it takes money to make money."
If that is the case, then why not turn over all of our money to the government?
LOL - good point. I was not aware that the purpose of the federal government was to make money.
My brother e-mailed me a story by this giant douche Sullivan this morning. He wanted my opinion. My opinion was, in Sullivans' world, America=bad, World=good.
We wound up having a nice heated political debate after that.
Bush is trying to cut Medicare, Bush's budget had a lot of cuts it was the dems and rino's that stopped those cuts.
Do you think Kerry would have proposed Medicare Cuts.
Bush has no power without Congress and the republicans don't have a majority proof without the rino's. The problem isn't Bush it is the rino's.
Kathleen Blanco is your typical dem spending wise and John Kerry would have been just like her. Blanco wants more beuracracy and more bilions with her new agency. That is how dems think.
If you're trying to say that it stimulates the economy then I really have to wonder what you are doing on a conservative website.
Where does the money go when a person mugs you and takes your wallet? Does it not stimulate the economy too?
Alas, another anarchist with a single point mind set.
Redistribution of taxation is not a relevant statement when it comes to economic stimulation.
Taxation via how the money is used is.
If we were to keep our money and not pay taxes then we as a country would have been lost long ago.
Paying taxes is a part of the economy and the way tax monies are spent is a factor as to the health of our economy.
The way tax dollars are spent is what turns the crank of dissension when it comes to paying.
Would you prefer paying your tax dollars to the Fed's to take care of and control your health care completely or would you be more complacent in spending it on national defense and use it only when needed.
Let me guess you would disagree with both scenario's.
I have always wondered how "Conservatives" could support continuous deficit spending.
You were right the first time. Bush is no conservative. Sullivan is indeed a whining, drama-queen crybaby, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush is spending and regulating us into socialism.
Oh yea...he also has shown that he will nominate and STAND BY his conservative judical appointments.
If you're talking about Roberts, it has yet to be demostrated that he is a conservative or a liberal or anything in between. If you're talking about the appeals court nominees, Bush had nothing to do with standing behind them. They were confirmed via a back-room deal between Democrats and a group of spineless Republicans.
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.