TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:44 pm

Somebody told me this, and it SEEMS true (though even I can't believe it)
I tried to raise the question on another thread, but got no answer.

The statment made to me was that our current POTUS, W.; has NEVER vetoed or refused to sign ANY spending bills.

My question is if this is true; how can ANY TRUE dyed in the wool conservative support this man who spends money on an order to make the pork barrell Democrats of pre Gingrich days envious?
This space intentionally left blank
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:46 pm

I don't believe Bush has yet to veto any bill of any nature submitted to him.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
slider
Posts: 6814
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:06 pm

He's not a conservative whatsoever.

Republican lemmings were fleeced (twice) and he continues to carry on spending in a manner that makes Democrats blush.

The sooner America realizes that we aren't in a Republic anymore but an oligarchy, the better off we'll be.

Time to take out the trash, on both sides of the aisle.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:23 pm

Tom Friedman's Article says it all, where he refers to the sage words of a Singaporean journalist:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/op...dman.html?incamp=article_popular_2

Quote:

Janadas Devan, a Straits Times columnist, tried to explain to his Asian readers how the U.S. is changing. "Today's conservatives," he wrote, "differ in one crucial aspect from yesterday's conservatives: the latter believed in small government, but believed, too, that a country ought to pay for all the government that it needed.

"The former believe in no government, and therefore conclude that there is no need for a country to pay for even the government that it does have. ... [But] it is not only government that doesn't show up when government is starved of resources and leached of all its meaning. Community doesn't show up either, sacrifice doesn't show up, pulling together doesn't show up, 'we're all in this together' doesn't show up."


How true.
There was a time in the early 90s when I cast my first vote for a Republican in the form of Governor Bill Weld in Massachusetts, that I flirted with registering as a Republican. Alas, I realized that the responsible, noblesse oblige, modern Republican party of yore composed of such stalwarts like the feminist Millicent Fenwick didn't exist any more, and that Gov. Weld was really a dying breed within the GOP.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:49 am

It's amazing to me that the usual suspects are mystically silent.
This space intentionally left blank
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:08 am

The irony is that you are bashing Bush for not being conservative enough.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:22 am

Quoting B757300 (Reply 5):
The irony is that you are bashing Bush for not being conservative enough.

The irony is you have glossed over the fact I have said time and time again that I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Get your facts right, THEN take a shot.
This space intentionally left blank
 
slider
Posts: 6814
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:30 am

The irony is that the thread and argument is, once again--and predictably at that--set for the usual left VS right, Democrat VS Republican war.

Yawn.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:25 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 7):
The irony is that the thread and argument is, once again--and predictably at that--set for the usual left VS right, Democrat VS Republican war.

Hardly.

It just goes to show how today's GOP is vastly different from the party of fiscal responsibility. At least during the Clinton years, that unholy alliance between Clinton, Greenspan and the Gingrich Congress kept a balanced budget within view, and sought to cut back deficits. Now, ever since the foxes are in charge of the whole hen house, its been widespread financial plunder and carnage. It appears that the only thing important to the GOP is banning gay marriage, banning the teaching of evolution, banning stem cell research, trotting out the flag at the slightest, and hounding those who want to maintain the separation of church and state.

The Dems could - if they wanted to - become the party of fiscal common sense and modern social ideas. After all, scientific modernism and capitalism should go hand in hand. But of course, they'll botch it up being the sissies they are.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:37 am

Can someone point out to me when a fiscal conservative President decided to show up? Reagan? Nixon? Bush Sr? Bush Jr? Anyone?
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:45 am

Quoting B744F (Reply 9):
Can someone point out to me when a fiscal conservative President decided to show up? Reagan? Nixon? Bush Sr? Bush Jr? Anyone?

Jr. aside; the others at least made a good pitch at FEIGNING fiscal conservatisim.
This space intentionally left blank
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15326
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:51 am

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

No sh!t!

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
how can ANY TRUE dyed in the wool conservative support this man

The alternative is worse.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:55 am

I'm still at a loss as to how one could claim to simultaneously be Socially Liberal AND fiscally conservative. To me, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction. One aspect of being Socially Liberal is to support a Welfare State and/or various Social Programs, which flies in the face of claiming to be fiscally conservative, which preaches that one be self sufficient.

Also, the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Dems want a big government in your wallet and a small one in your bedroom. The GOP wants a big government in your bedroom and a small one in your wallet-as long as you have a deep wallet.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:06 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
To me, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction

Oh how narrow minded we can be. that's ok, I have a similar problem with gay republicans..

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):

The alternative is worse.

The alternative is the EXACT same thing, save a SLIGHTLY diferent moral agenda. They are both money/power hungry scubags.
This space intentionally left blank
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:06 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
Socially Liberal AND fiscally conservative.

Almost nobody is completely conservative or liberal. I'm the opposite of Ted - a social/moral conservative and a fiscal liberal.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):

Ted, I have to agree with you on this. The Republicans and conservatives preach smaller government and fiscal conservatism, but we've enlarged government by adding the Dept. of Homeland Security, increasing international and domestic actions against terrorism, and passing the USA PATRIOT Act which encroaches on the freedoms of association and expression which we have come to enjoy in daily life.



redngold
Up, up and away!
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:12 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 2):
He's not a conservative whatsoever.

He's a social conservative, I'll give him that.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 5):
The irony is that you are bashing Bush for not being conservative enough.

He's pointing out that Bush gets credit for being a fiscal conservative even though he spends money very freely and without sufficient oversight.

Blind loyalty must do more damage to your brain than crack.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
The alternative is worse.

Once again, nothing to backup your claims.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
I'm still at a loss as to how one could claim to simultaneously be Socially Liberal AND fiscally conservative.

For instance: Perhaps you want the government to leave gays alone and keep abortions legal, but you also want to keep the government to stay out of dept and are very skeptical of welfare, including corporate welfare.

That's one example. You need more?
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15326
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:56 am

Quoting SATX (Reply 15):
Once again, nothing to backup your claims.

Oh I have tons and tons and tons of backup but if you think I'm going to rehash those battles...feel free to hold your breath.

[Edited 2005-09-15 22:59:11]
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:43 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 13):
Quoting Matt D (Reply 12):
To me, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction

Oh how narrow minded we can be. that's ok, I have a similar problem with gay republicans..

To further embelish on this.

I believe welfare should be a stop gap measure at best (much like it is now). Give those who genuinely NEED it get it JUST long enough to get themselves going.

I believe that Social Security was a mistake. People got sold on the fantasy they'd live their lives to a certain point then they'd be on Government easy street. This was wrong. you want a good non-working life, save, you fu¢k it up you go to a state sponsored retirement work center where you are made to produce goods consumate with your abilities. I know I'm going to work untill I die and I am VERY happy with that thought. I will always be contributing to society instead of becomming another whiny crybaby looking for the Damn EARLY F-ing Bird special.

I believe that abortion ought to be ENCOURAGED and a tax PENALITY be given those like myself who had children and burdened society with HAVING to create homes, jobs, cars, infrastructure, and everything else they will need when they come of working age. The insanity of our ever expanding population is DUMB.

Does that give you enough insight?
This space intentionally left blank
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:16 pm

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 3):
Janadas Devan, a Straits Times columnist, tried to explain to his Asian readers how the U.S. is changing. "Today's conservatives," he wrote, "differ in one crucial aspect from yesterday's conservatives: the latter believed in small government, but believed, too, that a country ought to pay for all the government that it needed.

"The former believe in no government, and therefore conclude that there is no need for a country to pay for even the government that it does have. ... [But] it is not only government that doesn't show up when government is starved of resources and leached of all its meaning. Community doesn't show up either, sacrifice doesn't show up, pulling together doesn't show up, 'we're all in this together' doesn't show up."

Well, there you go again... I usually like Friedman but this time I think he's really off. There is a huge sense of community here and it's showing in the nationwide effort to assist the victims and in the over $100 million already raised in the fundraising by Pres' Clinton and Bush 41.

Quoting TedTAce (Thread starter):
W.; has NEVER vetoed or refused to sign ANY spending bills.

I think you are correct, but then again we have been at war and in a rebuilding effort nationwide both economically and after 9-11. I'd like to have seen the same kind of cost cutting that President Reagan did, but the same people on here now would be screaming about that too.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:25 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
but the same people on here now would be screaming about that too.

Namely because of all the money going to the war instead of us in the first place.
This space intentionally left blank
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:40 pm

Today's Republican party and those in party are neo-conservatives. It's this new brand of conservativism that is different from the previous version of Republican conservatism. It justifies the heavy spending of tax dollars to extend the arm of the U.S. military to have a greater influence in world affairs. Donald Rumsfeld is the mouth for this movement these days, and Rove is the brains behind the presidency.

I just wish that conservatism of the days before would return.
NO URLS in signature
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:07 pm

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 20):
I just wish that conservatism of the days before would return.

You may get what you wish for if Hillary becomes President.
 
slider
Posts: 6814
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:30 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
I believe welfare should be a stop gap measure at best (much like it is now). Give those who genuinely NEED it get it JUST long enough to get themselves going.

Agreed.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
I believe that Social Security was a mistake.

That's twice I've agreed with you.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 17):
tax PENALITY be given those like myself who had children and burdened society with HAVING to create homes, jobs, cars, infrastructure, and everything else they will need when they come of working age. The insanity of our ever expanding population is DUMB.

I disagree- how can we fund the entitlements you just enumerated in #1 and #2 above without growing the population? I'm not a sky-is-falling overpopulation freako, but clearly, we need to manage resources better, both natural and manmade.

What you're forgetting Ted is that this is coin is two-sided...those new births aren't just taking FROM but they're contributing TO society (hopefully) in terms of their skills, abilities and fruits of their labors. It's not a zero sum game.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 20):
I just wish that conservatism of the days before would return.

No doubt- rooted in Constitutional libertarianist doctrines, old school like Goldwater.  Smile
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:42 pm

Quoting Slider (Reply 22):
What you're forgetting Ted is that this is coin is two-sided...those new births aren't just taking FROM but they're contributing TO society (hopefully) in terms of their skills, abilities and fruits of their labors. It's not a zero sum game.

One thing I have learned/experienced with weight managment is something called a 'set point'. Effectively your body will find a point at which it's 'happy'. unfortuantely for me, mine's @ about 280lbs, which is very unhealthy, but as I can't change the factors that contribute to this, there is little I can do for now. BUT at least I'm not getting bigger, and maybe one of these days I will be able to change my diet and activity level to decrease where this point is.

My problem is this nation proverbally speaking weighs at LEAST as much as I do in relative terms. We have too many people cloging up our arteries (the roads we drive on), and if we keep insisting on gaining weight (adding to the population without regard) we will have a economic crisis (heart attack) and DIE.

Do I think everyone should have an abortion for the next several years F-NO!! I'm just saying we should do a lot more thinking before we F.. and not chide those who choose to terminate thier mistakes.
This space intentionally left blank
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:48 pm

Just something to throw out, rather than encourage more abortions, which are a surefire way to incite more civil unrest, why not offer some sort of cash payouts for voluntary sterilization-cash that you can use for anything you want, from paying off bills to gambling to fish and chips for your 500 closest freinds? Say-$10,000 for women and $20,000 for men, plus the cost of the procedure and ensuing treatment.

When you consider what one kid will cost society in the span of 80 years in terms of diapers, cars, gas, food, trash, school, etc, this proposal would be a bargain.

This would only be possible for PERMANENT sterilization-such as a hysterectomy or castration. Pills and vasectomys, even [fallopian] tube ties if I'm not mistaken can be reversed.

Not to sound sexist, but all things being equal, one man could potentially produce a hell of a lot more kids than any woman could even hope to-hence the higher payout.

It would be hard to cheat on this freebie. If your testicles or ovaries are missing, then that means you are no longer entitled.

[Edited 2005-09-16 16:51:29]
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:02 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 24):
which are a surefire way to incite more civil unres

This is what your proposal would do. That's not a fair thing to do. it's one thing to change your mind about having a baby 'for now' but saying absolutely no forever is too extreme.
This space intentionally left blank
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:05 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
I'd like to have seen the same kind of cost cutting that President Reagan did.



Quote:
From FY1962 (the first Kennedy budget) through FY2001 (the last Clinton budget) presidents have prepared forty budgets. Control of the White House was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats with each party preparing and submitting twenty budgets. We decided to take a look at the fiscal performance of the Federal government during that period. The measurement we used was budget deficits and surpluses. We wanted to control for inflation to make the comparisons meaningful. Fortunately, the Government Printing Office publishes such information on the web. We got our data here at table 1-3. All dollars are adjusted for inflation and are expressed as 1996 dollars.

Kennedy-Johnson Administrations (FY1962-FY1969)

During the eight years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (FY1962-1969), the budget was in deficit for seven years. The largest deficit was $110.1 billion in FY1968. The only surplus was $13.4 billion in FY1969. The Kennedy-Johnson budgets added $250.9 billion to the national debt and averaged a yearly budget deficit of $31.36 billion.

Nixon-Ford Years (FY1970-FY1977)

The Nixon and Ford administrations ran deficits for each of their eight years. The highest deficit was $188 billion in FY1976. The lowest deficit was $11.1 billion in FY1970. The Nixon-Ford budgets added $702.7 billion to the national debt and averaged a yearly deficit of $87.84 billion.

Carter Years (FY1978-FY1981)

The Carter administration ran a deficit in each of its four years. The highest deficit was $136.6 billion in FY1980 and the lowest was $83.1 billion in FY1979. The Carter budgets added $482.8 billion to the national debt and averaged yearly budget deficits of $120.7 billion.

The Reagan Years (FY1982-FY1989)

The Reagan administration ran budget deficits in each of its eight years. The lowest deficit was $188.6 billion in FY1989 and the highest was $311 billion in FY1983. The Reagan years added $1.94 trillion to the national debt and averaged annual deficits of $242.23 billion.

The Bush (George Herbert Walker) Years (FY1990-FY1993)

The Bush administration ran deficits in each of its four years. The highest deficit was $318.5 bilion in FY1992. The lowest was $261.9 billion in FY1990. The Bush years added $1.16 trillion to the national debt and averaged a yearly deficit of $289.68 billion.

The Clinton Years (FY1994-FY2001)

The Clinton administration ran deficits in each of its first four years and surpluses in each of the last four years. The largest deficit was $213 billion in FY1994 and the largest surplus was $219 billion in FY2000. The Clinton years paid down a net $14.2 billion of national debt and averaged a surplus of $1.78 billion.

Summary

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.

The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.

http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRecord.htm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
but the same people on here now would be screaming about that too.

Yes, we're all morons compared to a genious like you.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
slider
Posts: 6814
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:22 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 23):
We have too many people cloging up our arteries (the roads we drive on), and if we keep insisting on gaining weight (adding to the population without regard) we will have a economic crisis (heart attack) and DIE.

I'd say we have too many marginal people clogging things up- if we get back some sense of an achievement society instead of an entitlement one, there shouldn't be any population issues in America.
 
scamp
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:36 am

Quoting B757300 (Reply 5):
The irony is



Quoting TedTAce (Reply 6):
The irony is



Quoting Slider (Reply 7):
The irony is

Geez...if irony were strawberries, we'd be up to our armpits in Smoothies.
If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
 
scamp
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:44 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 24):
Just something to throw out, rather than encourage more abortions, which are a surefire way to incite more civil unrest, why not offer some sort of cash payouts for voluntary sterilization-cash that you can use for anything you want, from paying off bills to gambling to fish and chips for your 500 closest freinds? Say-$10,000 for women and $20,000 for men, plus the cost of the procedure and ensuing treatment.

When you consider what one kid will cost society in the span of 80 years in terms of diapers, cars, gas, food, trash, school, etc, this proposal would be a bargain.

This would only be possible for PERMANENT sterilization-such as a hysterectomy or castration. Pills and vasectomys, even [fallopian] tube ties if I'm not mistaken can be reversed.

Not to sound sexist, but all things being equal, one man could potentially produce a hell of a lot more kids than any woman could even hope to-hence the higher payout.

It would be hard to cheat on this freebie. If your testicles or ovaries are missing, then that means you are no longer entitled.

I think I just heard the sound of several hundred million Roman Catholics having a stroke. Not that I don't disagree with you, however. Personally, I can skip the whole procreation thing without sterilization, being a fag and all.
If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
 
TedTAce
Topic Author
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:08 am

Quoting Scamp (Reply 28):
Geez...if irony were strawberries, we'd be up to our armpits in Smoothies.

You need to go to http://www.robertishere.com/ . Great excuse to run down to Miami an hang out with the boys.
This space intentionally left blank
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:50 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 24):
Just something to throw out, rather than encourage more abortions, which are a surefire way to incite more civil unrest, why not offer some sort of cash payouts for voluntary sterilization-cash that you can use for anything you want, from paying off bills to gambling to fish and chips for your 500 closest freinds? Say-$10,000 for women and $20,000 for men, plus the cost of the procedure and ensuing treatment.

Sounds like next year will be 1984.
Dear moderators: No.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:04 am

What part of VOLUNTARY did y'all miss?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12427
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:12 am

Part of the problem now for Bush, is that he needs to spend $300 BILLION to make sure the Republicans get the votes they need in that region to assure a win in the next several Congressional, Senate and Presidential as well as State elections. He knows he and his fellow Republicans screwed up badly on this, especially among whites in the region and even worse among poor blacks. Thowing money like this around makes a lot of people buy into your b.s.. Worse, is that NO Politican - Republican or Democrat - is saying 'how about raising taxes' or not agreeing to cut taxes any further to pay for the rebuilding as well as the War in Iraq or the dire needs of our growing poor class.
I am also worried that the money being spent won't be any for schools in inner city areas across the USA, not anywhere enough to get us off the oil teat into alternative energy sources, nor into considering not rebuilding some areas affected as it will get it again in maybe 10-20-30 years and it will cost 1/2 TRILLION to redo.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:34 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 32):
What part of VOLUNTARY did y'all miss?

Come on, Matt. Do you really want to walk that tightrope?
Dear moderators: No.
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:51 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 32):
What part of VOLUNTARY did y'all miss?

Go research the history of Eugenics
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15326
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Bush's Spending NOT A Conservative Value...

Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:16 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 21):
You may get what you wish for if Hillary becomes President.

...Not because she's conservative, but because she would provide enough "yin" to the Republican "yang" that nothing would get accomplished...and the government does it best when it does nothing at all.
E pur si muove -Galileo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], cledaybuck, rfields5421 and 14 guests