And These Are Republicans?

Wall St. Journal ^ | May 16, 2002 | STEPHEN MOORE

[The Raven]

Despite the fact that the Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and 30 governorships, the nation is now in the midst of the biggest government spending spree since LBJ. Incredibly, the domestic social welfare budget has expanded more in just two years ($96 billion) under George W. Bush than in Bill Clinton's first six years in office ($51 billion).

[The Raven]

>>All of this is reminiscent of the old Reagan quip that to say that Congress spends like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors.

Who's going to pay for this?

[Quila]

And These Are Republicans?

More evidence that there's really no difference between Republicans and Democrats. It's the one-party system in charge, and you'll always get the same results no matter which face is forward.

[agitator]

Let's look at the $96 BILLION the article mentioned and maybe put that figure in a little different perspective.

I don't think most people would mind living in a bran-spankin-new $250,000 house that was fully paid for with cash.

---

Well, you could buy 4 of those houses with cash for every $1,000,000 tax dollars.

---

Another way of saying "BILLION" is one-thousand-million dollars. Thats 1000 x $1,000,000.

4000 of these to every billion tax dollars

So that means every billion dollars could buy 4000 bran-spankin-new $250,000 houses. You could make a nice town full of houses out of that.

---

384,000 of these to 96 thousand million dollars

Ninety six thousand million dollars would buy 384,000 bran-spankin-new $250,000 houses. You could make a nice small city full of houses out of that.

---

That's 384,000 of those nice, fully paid, bran-spankin-new $250,000 houses EVERY YEAR for that social welfare budget. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to federal spending. Pleasant thought, isn't it?

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

You PLAY ALOT of monopoly dont you?

[Uncle Bill]

"Who's going to pay for this?"

American taxpaying slaves.

---

Bush promises to cut farm bill

Reversing Course, The Real George W. Bush Signs Bill Raising Farm Subsidies

---

Congress Inaction On Debt Ceiling Could Disrupt July Social Security Payments!

U.S. Official Pushes for Soviet Debt Write-Off

Caring About The Future - The Greatest Generation

---

Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes
"The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack."

CATASTROPHIC INTELLIGENCE FAILURE - Reed Irvine - "In 1995, the CIA and the FBI learned that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as bombs to attack important targets in the U.S. This scheme was called Project Bojinka."

London Report: Bin Laden May Hit New York, Stock Exchange - **** October 5, 1999 **** - [Free Republic Thread]

London Report: Bin Laden May Hit New York, Stock Exchange

Newsmax.com - Inside Cover
Tuesday October 5, 1999 - 9:30 AM

The London-based Terrorism and Security Monitor is reporting that US intelligence sources are worried that terrorist Osama Bin Laden may be planning a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

US sources are said "to be particularly concerned about some kind of attack on New York, and they have recommended stepped-up security at the New York Stock Exchange and the Federal Reserve.

U.S. Authorities believe Bin Laden may have acquired chemical weapons.

Reports of Bin Laden’s activities come on the heels of heightened agitation among Muslims against the West.

Yossef Bodansky, staff director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare says "There are rumblings throughout the Islamic community right now. There’s a lot of movement and talk. It’s like a volcano just before the explosion.”

All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
[End of Transcript]

We’ve Hit the Targets’
"Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill."

THE FAILURE OF U.S. INTELLIGENCE AND THE ROAD AHEAD FOR AMERICA

---

Why Democrats should draft George W. Bush in 2004

The surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government."
George W. Bush - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000.

Gore offers an old and tired approach. He offers a new federal spending program to nearly every voting bloc. He expands entitlements, without reforms to sustain them. 285 new or expanded programs, and $2 trillion more in new spending. Spending without discipline, spending without priorities, and spending without an end. Al Gore’s massive spending would mean slower growth and higher taxes. And it could mean an end to this nation’s prosperity."
George W. Bush Source: Speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1, 2000.

"People need more money in their pocket, as far as I’m concerned."
George W. Bush - The Tampa (FL) Tribune Oct 26, 2000.

"I think the economy has grown really in spite of government. This is an incredible period of time when productivity has been enhanced, not because of any great initiative of government, but because of the ability for entrepreneurs to stake a new claim."
George W. Bush - Source: Ronald Brownstein, LA Times Aug 13, 2000

I was deeply concerned about the drift toward a more powerful federal government. I was particularly outraged by two pieces of legislation, the Natural Gas Policy Act and the Fuel Use Act. It seemed to me that elite central planners were determining the course of our nation. Allowing the government to dictate the price of natural gas was a move toward European-style socialism. If the federal government was going to take over the natural gas business, what would it set its sights on next?"
George W. Bush - Source: “A Charge to Keep”, p.172-173 Dec 9, 1999

Un El día En El la vida de Jorge W. La arbusto

"Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is the sign of a successful nation."
George W. Bush - Source: Speech in Washington, D.C. Jun 26, 2000.

"In September of last year, I welcomed my good friend, the President of Mexico, to the White House. Standing together on the South Lawn, President Fox and I spoke of building a hemisphere of freedom and prosperity and progress."

Foolin' them is easy isn't it? Heck yes.

A UNICEF-funded book being passed out at the United Nations Child Summit encourages children to engage in sexual activities with other minors and with homosexuals and animals

Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice

"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."
George W. Bush - Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

[goldstategop]

I much prefer the Rats in charge than tax and spend Republicans. The latter are an insult to everything conservatives believe in.

[Badray]

"I much prefer the Rats in charge than tax and spend Republicans. The latter are an insult to everything conservatives believe in."

It used to be that the GOP fought harder for principle when they were in the minority. Now I'm not so sure. This is disgusting.

[Calico Cat]

That's a $250,000 house? Here in Portland, Oregon, you'd pay $500,000 for that house. I want to live where you live!

[Badray]

Are these the Republicans that you are so proud of? The ones who follow the principles of the party - like smaller government and lower taxes?

[Utopia]

I get the point - you hate Bush. Fine. Explain to me, how from the following item in your list: A UNICEF-funded book being passed out at the United Nations Child Summit encourages children to engage in sexual activities with other minors and with homosexuals and animals is Bush's fault? Explain to me how an article dated: Tuesday October 5, 1999 - 9:30 AM is part of the Bush Presidency and therefore Bush's fault?

Its one thing to dislike the policies of a leader, but piling on with irrelevancies to "prove" your point is ridiculous. --
Unless that is the point you are trying to make (ie, that you are ridiculous and your points lack coherence.) ...

[willa]

"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." -Thomas Jefferson-

I found the following web site a couple of months ago. What an eye opener it was.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/hodges.htm

[RJCogburn]

may severely demoralize conservative voters

I'm becoming demoralized.

I also note that the threads that may be critical of President Bush seem to attract fewer and fewer Bushophiles posting in his defense. They now seem mostly to talk to themselves on such threads as "A Day in the Life..." Have you noticed that? Are they perhaps getting just a tad demoralized as well?

[kellynla]

Just be happy you are in Portland. In L.A. that's 2MIL at least...depending on the zip code and the size of the lot...

[Kobyashi1942]

Despite the fact that the Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and 30 governorships, the nation is now in the midst of the biggest government spending spree since LBJ. Incredibly, the domestic social welfare budget has expanded more in just two years ($96 billion) under George W. Bush than in Bill Clinton's first six years in office ($51 billion).

If big govt. is an ichon of liberalism, isn't it logical to assume that anyone who promotes big govt. is a liberal?

[The Raven]

>>"I much prefer the Rats in charge than tax and spend Republicans.

Let's not get carried away, now. - That's the wrong direction...how about Libetarians?

[RaceBannon]

Where do I sign up???

[RaceBannon]

What...didn't someone get their muffler???

[Little Bill]

That house is $400,000 in Mass., in some areas $450,000, I built the exact same thing in 1977 for $42,000.

[Zack Nguyen]

As conservatives we have to get past the idea that Bush is violating stated principles. He is not. Bush does not believe that America's relationship with government needs to be radically altered. He believes that government should remain the primary instrument for social and economic welfare, and that $2 trillion per year is not too much to ask of the American taxpayer.

And let's face it - right now this philosophy is the belief system of the Republican Party. No one in power is really challenging him. By 1999 the Republican Party was an empty vessel, without any new ideas or innovations among the top leadership. Their entire strategy was to wait for George W. Bush to come along and save them. Bush did, and filled that empty vessel with his own ideas. I can't blame him for that.

Anyone who is surprised by this didn't listen to Bush's campaign rhetoric or watch how he did business in Texas. Bush is not interested in cutting spending, or even in holding it steady, and he never claimed to be. He may have mouthed a few platitudes about fiscal responsibility, but he never promised to do anything responsible save cut taxes. He just quietly spends enormous amounts of taxpayer money as a matter of government policy.

This is still more evidence of the extreme disconnect that exists between the Republican leadership and the conservative grassroots that are the hands and feet of the party. Quite simply, the Republican leadership in Washington (and in state capitols across America) is very uncomfortable with the principles of the those that put them in office.

[Zack Nguyen]

bump

[Reagan Man]

Are these the Republicans that you are so proud of? The ones who follow the principles of the party - like smaller government and lower taxes?

I think its pretty clear, Americans are overtaxed and it is that excessive taxation that is driving the funding of the bloated bureaucracy in Wash-DC. We American's that support, a strong policy of fiscal restraint, don't agree with the type of spending increases we've witnessed over the last several Congressional sessions. The Republican Congress of 1995 actually cut spending and that type of Congressional responsibility has been sorely missed in recent years. I support economic policy that cuts taxes on working Americans and reduces the growth of government.

As I told you a few days ago, I support and vote for the most principled conservative candidate available. It's clear, not everyone in the House and Senate are conservative minded enough and serious about fiscal responsiblity. While that applies mainly to lawmakers on the leftwing, it also includes Republicans, who do not follow the agenda of the Republican Platform.

However, that doesn't mean, every Congressmen should be held to an absolute standard either. There are political forces that bend and shape how any elected official, may vote on certain legislation. Again, politics is about human nature and human interaction, it isn't about perfection or absolute standards. Politics is also about winning elective victory, so you can advance your agenda.

If more conservatives were elected to public office, it would help turn the tide of liberal-social policies, that have given us, excessive taxation and an ever expanding federal government. However, conservative-republicans don't constitute a majority in the House or the Senate and therefore, the influence conservative-republicans have on legislation is limited.

Your negativity and pessimism towards every elected officials and all of government is excessive and extreme. Its one thing to be vigilant, its another to condemn every elected official. Your malevolent and cynical nature isn't appreciated.

[WhiteGuy]

Thanks Raven,

The WSJ is right on the ball with this article.

[WhiteGuy]

Wow, you've outdone yourself!

[meadsjn]

That's 384,000 of those nice, fully paid, bran-spankin-new $250,000 houses EVERY YEAR for that social welfare budget.

Thanks for putting that in perspective. You could take it further (384,000 families * ~4 = ~1.5 million population, or 3 cities like Des Moines) -- but I've seen enough.

[meadsjn]

This is still more evidence of the extreme disconnect that exists between the Republican leadership and the conservative grassroots that are the hands and feet of the party. Quite simply, the Republican leadership in Washington (and in state capitols across America) is very uncomfortable with the principles of the those that put them in office.

19 posted on 5/16/02 8:21 AM Pacific by Zack Nguyen

I'd nominate that for the Quote of the Day, at the least

[Zack Nguyen]

Well thank you!

[Revolting cat!]

Smoke and mirrors, I've long thought. Mouth a few banalities, slogans to get re-elected, then go back to the swamp to spend and spend. The cynicism about the state of our political system is fully warranted, me thinks. To believe that electing a Repub dog catcher here and a sewer commisioner there will lead to a solution is foolishness.

[meadsjn]

Don't thank me. You'll never get invited to a precinct caucus speaking the truth like that.

[RJCogburn]

politics is about human nature and human interaction, it isn't about perfection or absolute standards. Politics is also about winning elective victory, so you can advance your agenda

Yes, human nature and human interaction. It really is so much about perceptions.....

GWB knows this and is, as a President, an honest, decent version of Bill Clinton in a lot of ways.

[The Raven]

Hmmm....I wonder if they're using public policy instead of campaign finance contributions, just like the Dems. You know..."Vote for me and I'll bring all this money your way"

[Red Jones]

The RNC has for 8 years or so been intervening into republican primaries and donating lots of money to liberal republicans, especially when a strong conservative is in the race. Under Ronald Reagan it was taboo for the national party to get involved in primary races. Not any more, the national party has an agenda and it does not match our agenda. We are not welcome in the party in reality. Yet they depend on us to get elected and we are much stronger than other groups in the party that are favored instead.

In the summer of 1980 after Ronald Reagan had dominated the primaries and had the nomination locked up but before the actual republican convention occurred the most prominent republican other than reagan at the time was jerry ford, the ex-president. Ford held a press conference and told the world that reagan was an unstable character who needed to be replaced. This was after the primaries. Ford was trying to sabotage his own party's chances of winning the election because a conservative republican had won the primary. That's the republican leaders for you.

We are fools to keep voting republican. Instead we need to be selective. Vote Republican sometimes, vote democrat sometimes, vote 3'rd party sometimes, depending on the race. We should vote against liberal and moderate republicans always even if it means voting for a liberal dem. Otherwise, the republican party will in fact walk all over the conservatives and the two parties will not compete with one another to serve the americans as the americans would like.

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Molly Pitcher]

Wow! This thread got a lot of attention. I can't even get it to load all the way...

Have to agree with you and Mr. Moore here, Raven. This is not good...

[1rudeboy]

No. Maybe they just run to the bathroom and puke when they read such patronizing, masturbatory [sic] comments.

[jpsb]

Articles like this make me feel like a fool working so hard in 93 to help the GOP take control of Congress. No more.

[1rudeboy]

The WSJ is right on the ball with this article.

Easy, cowboy. It's a guest editorial on the op-ed page.

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Tuor]

You PLAY ALOT of monopoly dont you?

Yeah, the money he's talking about is almost as much as rent for a hotel on Boardwalk.

Tuor

[Black Agnes]

You're correct.

[hattend]

More on the Club for Growth:

Our members help elect candidates who support the Reagan vision of limited government and lower taxes.

Do you want a Republican Congress, but don't want to give your contributions to Republicans who would vote like Democrats? Or who vote for Republican pork instead of Democratic pork?

If you're tired of politicians whose "solution" to every problem is more taxes, more spending and more government, then the Club for Growth gives economic conservatives like you a chance to finally do something about it. Founded in 1999 by Steve Moore, National Review president Dusty Rhodes, Cato Institute president Ed Crane, Richard Gilder, economist and CNBC America Now co-host Larry Kudlow and other like-minded pro-growth conservatives, the Club for Growth sends campaign contributions from our members to the most free-market oriented candidates in tight, but winnable races.

In the 2000 election, ten Club for Growth candidates won their congressional races. We have a formula that works.

And if ever there was a time we needed real leaders in Washington who were committed to making our economy – and our nation – as resilient and strong as possible, this is it.

That’s why, if you’ve ever given money to a congressional candidate or...

...if you’ve ever thought about doing so, but didn’t because you weren’t sure what candidates deserved your support, then this is your opportunity to get in the game and make a difference.

Here’s how the Club for Growth works:

First, we research and interview dozens of candidates. We assess their potential for leadership, find out where they REALLY stand on our issues of tax cuts and economic growth, and determine whether they can win.

Second, following this extensive research process, we recommend only the very best candidates in the most important races. We give you the information you need to make an informed decision about the candidates you are considering for your support.

Third, you write your checks out directly to any candidates YOU DECIDE to support. And 100% of your contribution goes directly to help elect a great candidate who believes in the same things you do.

Then we combine your contribution with those of other Club members, greatly magnifying the impact of your contribution. In our first election in 2000, Club members and our political committee spent $2.4 million to help get our kind of candidates elected. Since then, our membership has tripled.

We need to elect congressmen with backbone. Leaders who are committed to making our economy -- and our country -- as strong as possible.

Leaders who will resist the corrosive tax and spend temptations of Washington and work tirelessly to cut taxes and unleash the power of the free market.

[Tuor]

Politics is also about winning elective victory, so you can advance your agenda.

The problem, as I see it, is that the Republicans are winning elective victories and *not* advancing their alledged agenda. They're 'taking issues away from the Democrats', which, by definition, is not supposed to be part of their agenda.

We all know that some compromise is in order, especially when the Democrats (barely) hold the Senate. However, it appears that very little compromise is occurring. In my view, Bush occasionally tosses us a bone, but gives way on the important issues.

A thought just occurred to me...as startling and sad sort of thought. I, and many others, have bemoaned every compromise that the Bush administration has made. Others have justly pointed out the need for compromise in politics. My thought was that the liberals have scraped and sheared and rubs and torn away all the areas where compromise would've been in order: they are so far progressed on their agenda that they are starting to press against the inner, most fundamental parts of Conservative and Constitutional precepts. Thus, any loss, due to compromise or flat loss is becoming increasingly difficult to endure -- more critical to us. This may be part of the reason why Bush's perceived failures are so hard for us to endure or countance: there is little left that we can compromise on without betraying our core ideals.

At any rate, the Republicans had best get their act together if they want to continue to be perceived as a independant and viable party, IMO.

Tuor

[Artist]

BTTT

[RLK]

In the summer of 1980 after Ronald Reagan had dominated the primaries and had the nomination locked up but before the actual republican convention occurred the most prominent republican other than reagan at the time was jerry ford, the ex-president. Ford held a press conference and told the world that reagan was an unstable character who needed to be replaced.

---------------------

The Republican heirarchy was dead set against Reagan. Bush was their man. Reagan went around the heirarchy and around the media and went directly to the people.

[NMC EXP]

Have you noticed that

The broken glass republicans grow quieter by the day around here.

Regards

J.R.

[nunya bidness]

Uncle Bill bump.

[NMC EXP]

Your malevolent and cynical nature isn't appreciated

I do not appreciate sycophants and water carriers for an organization which has demonstrated by it's deeds that it intends to deprive me of what little liberty and property I have left, while telling me it is the "party of smaller government". Don't urinate on my back and try to convince me that it's raining.

Are you employed by the fedgov, or by the rnc?

Regards

J.R.

[Uncle Bill]

"This farm bill will cost the average American taxpaying family $4,300 in higher taxes."

Why Democrats should draft George W. Bush in 2004

[Reagan Man]

I do not appreciate sycophants and water carriers... Don't urinate on my back and try to convince me that it's raining.

And I don't appreciate hearing from someone like you, who doesn't understand politics and can't tell the difference between their arse and a hole in the ground. Stuff it, bucko.

[NMC EXP]

who doesn't understand politics

I understand politics quite well as evidenced by the fact my remarks caused you to respond in a vulgar manner.

You translate my failure to worship politics as lack of understanding. Those who accept the "political process" as is are the ones with the problem.

It's not known as the "parliment of whores" without good reason.

Regards

J.R.

[philman_36]

Anyone who is surprised by this didn't listen to Bush's campaign rhetoric or watch how he did business in Texas. Bush is not interested in cutting spending, or even in holding it steady, and he never claimed to be. He may have mouthed a few platitudes about fiscal responsibility, but he never promised to do anything responsible save cut taxes. He just quietly spends enormous amounts of taxpayer money as a matter of government policy.
Well said. I'm actually glad that Bush is in office. It really shows, more than anything else could've, that this coin may have two sides, but both are identical and neither is inverse from the opposite side.