Skip to comments.
Jeff Sessions Shows Hypocrisy On Spending
JeffWartman.com ^
| 02/01/2009
| Jeff Wartman
Posted on 02/01/2009 9:32:25 AM PST by wartman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
1
posted on
02/01/2009 9:32:25 AM PST
by
wartman
To: wartman
Yieks. What a story. Why are they throwing that in Sessions face? First of all it was a different time and second he was a Republican with a Republican President. I think this is unfair especially coming from Fox News.
To: napscoordinator
We were/are in the middle of the WOT.
This spending by the dems this time is NOT the same.
3
posted on
02/01/2009 9:36:14 AM PST
by
GOP_Lady
To: napscoordinator
We have a dem here in CA that voted against everything Bush wanted and has voted for everything O wants.
Fox is becoming unwatchable.
4
posted on
02/01/2009 9:38:25 AM PST
by
edcoil
(Hey, I found my round-tuit, guess I'll go to work now.)
To: GOP_Lady
Good point that I foolishly forgot.
To: GOP_Lady
We were/are in the middle of the WOT.
This spending by the dems this time is NOT the same.
This statement is FALSE.
Bush increased discretionary entitlement spending more than any other President in HISTORY. Much of the new debt is NCLB, Medicare, and other social programs.
6
posted on
02/01/2009 9:39:06 AM PST
by
wartman
(http://www.jeffwartman.com)
To: wartman
I wish Jeff Sessions was President. Why oh why can’t we have a good president? We keep getting idiots for the presidency.
7
posted on
02/01/2009 9:42:05 AM PST
by
GinaLolaB
(=^..^=)
To: wartman
While the basic point is fine, this is the trap the libs are counting on—”I voted for overspending before, so now I have to overspend forever in order to be consistent.”
Sessions should just explain his change in position. No big deal. Or live with the idea that there are a lot of smug folks out there who will repeat this kind of thing at every barbecue from now on.
8
posted on
02/01/2009 9:42:11 AM PST
by
Darkwolf377
(Pro-Life Capitalist American Atheist and Free-Speech Junkie)
To: wartman
The past is the past and stop the spending now. I applaud him for starting now
To: GOP_Lady
“We were/are in the middle of the WOT.”
That’s always left out of the equation. If I explain why it’s left out, I’ll ruin my breakfast, so I won’t bother.
10
posted on
02/01/2009 9:43:48 AM PST
by
Gator113
("Noli nothis permittere te terere.")
To: Gator113
Did you miss the economic numbers of the entitlement spending under Bush? (Medicare, Transportation bill, NCLB, etc.)
His record is on par with LBJ spending.
Pathetic, pathetic excuse for “limited government”
It’s sad, really.
11
posted on
02/01/2009 9:46:36 AM PST
by
wartman
(http://www.jeffwartman.com)
To: napscoordinator
I'm sorry, I meant to post my comment to #1 (ALL), not you, naps. While I agree that over the past 6 years spending grew and grew and grew, we are/were in the middle of the WOT. The spending the dems want to do now is nothing but a huge, huge, huge “wish list” that will forever change our great country and saddle us with debt for far too many years to come.
12
posted on
02/01/2009 9:47:27 AM PST
by
GOP_Lady
To: Gator113
Yeah. I know what you mean. Sorry I brought that up.
13
posted on
02/01/2009 9:48:10 AM PST
by
GOP_Lady
To: GOP_Lady
No problem. I am still glad that you reminded all of us on that. lol.
To: GOP_Lady
saddle us with debt for far too many years to come.
Yet you're responsible for five times that amount in debt our children will be responsible for.
How does it feel?
15
posted on
02/01/2009 9:48:57 AM PST
by
wartman
(http://www.jeffwartman.com)
To: italianquaker
I agree, it looks like we have a kook here.
As was noted in the first response, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.
The real disappointment was Bush losing touch with the base.
And what is the alternative, elect another conservative who, almost-certainly, would also yield to a future Republican President...or elect a Democrat?
Let me guess, we need Ron Paul.
16
posted on
02/01/2009 9:50:24 AM PST
by
BobL
To: wartman
Me? I’m not in Congress. I’m just a measly member of the GOP is all.
17
posted on
02/01/2009 9:51:24 AM PST
by
GOP_Lady
To: BobL
As was noted in the first response, its EXTREMELY difficult for a Republican in Congress to go against a Republican president (although some kooks cannot figure that out). That is why Bush was so disappointing. If we had a Reagan-type conservative in the White House, then I have NO DOUBT that Sessions would have supported that agenda.
So you're saying that party loyalty is more important than doing the right thing.
That's the difference. You want to elect Republicans who will mindlessly vote with the party. I want to elect Republicans who will cut taxes decrease entitlement spending, and make inroads towards paying down the debt so that our children can have a better life.
Bush decided he wanted to run up the credit cards and give the bills to our kids.
18
posted on
02/01/2009 9:54:15 AM PST
by
wartman
(http://www.jeffwartman.com)
To: wartman
A very nice blog you have there, wartman.
Lots of luck to you in Illinois.
19
posted on
02/01/2009 9:54:34 AM PST
by
GOP_Lady
To: wartman
I watched FNS this morning and didn’t see my Senator. Did I doze off?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson