Posted on 09/19/2005 7:50:12 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Yesterday on his radio show, conservative talk host David Gold said the proposed massive federal spending for Katrina "relief" is a TIME OF TESTING FOR CONSERVATIVES. Do they really believe in small and efficient government - - or will they accept socialist-scale big spending as long as it's proposed by a Republican president?
Gold said he was surprised and disheartened to find many posters on FreeRepublic.com making excuses for the huge proposed spending. Bet they'd be sounding a different tune if Clinton were president and he had proposed it!
Oh yeah, better get used to it. The majority of the GOP now are former liberal democrats who jumped ship to get away from the insanity. Once the rats are destroyed we will have to jump ship to get away from the liberal GOP.
You need to get over the idea of "small government". The last "small government" president was Calvin Coolidge, in a vacation from history in the Roaring 20s.
Every president and Congress since then has grown the size of government, spent more money, and expanded the scope of the federal level.
We either spend the money to reconstruct the Gulf and surround it with conservative incentives, enterprise zones, and ownership, or we propagate the notion that conservatives are scrooges who care only about pinching pennies.
Americans overwhelmingly want to invest in the Gulf Coast, so it is going to happen. Best that it be done under conservative auspices.
I trust Samurai Jack won't mind, so I'm reproducing a post of his from a previous thread. It's insightful.
Precisely, There was early speculation as the democrats were hyperventilating over the 'bush hate black folk' flap. Many conservative pundits speculated that this was a historical repeat of new orleans from the late 20's the last time it was wiped out by a hurricane.
In 1929 New Orleans was wiped out by a powerful hurricane. At the time New Orleans was a poor black ghetto swamp from which there was no escape. Much similar to the contemporary situation. At the time there was a rich upperclass section of new orleans with the capacity to escape the misery, disease and mosquitos. And at the time it was during the presidency of the niggardly Herbert Hoover. The same Herbert Hoover that presided over the stock market crash.
Herbert Hoover was a 'fiscal conservative' like todays liberals of late have staked their positions. You can hear them complaining about 'This Administration' spending all the money on the war in iraq and not enough on the poor puppies drowning in the storm drains. So when Herbert Hoover encountered a recession after the 'Roaring Twenties', the fiscal conservative failed to relax interest rates to stimulate the economy. He didnt want to cut any roaring twenties spending programs, and he wanted to maintain a balanced budget.
Well, when the storm hit and destroyed New Orleans he left the people of the state to fend for themselves. Then, as now, the state government was a corrupt cleptocracy with no capacity or plan to react to emergencies. The poor people of region suffered in squalor, disease and misery laden tent camps for months. Those people didnt forget that misery when it came to the voting booths.
Franklin Delanor Roosevelt came along with his 'new deal' politics and swept the republican party out of power for decades. Nowadays, the black voting bloc have largely forgotten why they dont vote for republicans. But primarily it is because back in 1929 the GOP turned it's back on that population in favor of an austere fiscal policy.
Today, it was the Democrats who turned their backs on the poor in new orleans. And this president has seized the opportunity to come up with HIS new deal. Let us hope that president bush possesses the same courage with his ownership society and conservative ideals that that possessed FDR to stack the courts and so ruthlessly pursue his socialist goals.
So in the late 20's the GOP lost the black voting bloc. President Bush today has his opportunity to be the conservative New Deal. Perhaps he has the strength to implement it, and we have the wisdom to shut up about it.
(thats my story and im stickin to it!)
disclaimer:
any flames, complaints, and/or historical nitpicking will be ignored.
12 posted on 09/19/2005 3:25:45 AM CDT by Samurai_Jack (ride out and confront the evil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
There is a difference in being fiscally conservative and being cheap.
When Americans are in danger and really hurting is no time for being stingy.
My take is that the recovery is going to be a business boom. An official said that the are in question exceeded the area of UK. Think on that. The population is less but the immensity needs to sink in.
Well, you've surprised me. A variation on your normal smear and run modus. }:^)
Excuse me, but please explain why I should pay for folks who were stupid enough to live in a coastal city built below sea level and failed to purchase flood insurance?
The are entitled to sympathy and whatever insurance they contracted for. Anything else is either extortion or charity.
If we're going to rebuild NO, why shouldn't we rebuild the infrastructure of Detroit as well? It's pretty much defunct. And Gary. And Cleveland. And Pittsburgh. And Washington. And St. Louis, E. Stl expecially., etc.
BS and you know it, but a nice try at a smear and run modus operandi on your part.
Your stingyness is inexcusable in the present context. Pay attention please..... the states of Mississippi and Lousiana are in severe distress.
Your worldview was outmoded the moment Katrina passed. What you once thought you knew is now irrelevant.
Whatever. }:^)
Heck, just sit back and enjoy the ride. Both parties are going to take us to full blown socialism, all they're arguing over is the speed. Why would Republicans get upset over $200 billion? Considering the other wastes that have been foisted upon us in a scant 4 years, I'd consider this a step down. At least he hasn't started mucking with Social Security yet (which should be shut down tomorrow). That 'fix' will cost a trillion easy.
And FWIW, I would be concerned but when I look at the average postings here and speak to co-workers, it's clear we're too far gone. Trying to advocate limited Constitutional government to the blind faithful is somewhat Quixotic and after awhile quite tiring
I'm not disappointed....
OT: Are you Elvis?
Just a question because I really don't know so no ulterior motive.
Do bonds also cover the rebuilding of the infrastructure which supports the people who work at the port or the building of new housing or the clean up needed?
Also, how well do you think these bonds would be invested in by investors?
Don't want their vote, especially if it costs $200 billion in tax money.
How about a Tel New Orleans?
That's the $200 bill. gamble isn't it. But, we do at least have to rebuild the freeways. Why doesn't anyone even mention the idea of leaving the ruined homes as landfill and pumping in mud to raise the city and deepen the lake rather than just building so far below sea level again? The city didn't used to be so low.
Maybe. Clinton didn't even approach Bush's level of fiscal irresponsibility.
>>If they didn't insure themselves, they are out of luck.
Private charities will pick up a lot of that slack.
IMO The Feds should be paying for infrastructure rebuilding and that is about it.
You make a good point, it was a disaster, brought upon by a combination of Nature and Man. Good point, but I still dont mind the spending in that case, I just wish Bush had trimmed the budget of other things I consider wasteful. I think that one thing this discussion should finally put to rest is this stupid notion by the MSM and Liberals that GWB is a right wing conservative. No way. Simply a Republican.
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.