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!
I, am proud to be part of this great country. I fully support the President.
After seeing the people in Houston in action re the refugees, I understand fully what COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE means.
Socialism is socialism is socialism. I don't care who heads it, whether conservative or democrat, it's still extorting money from some to give to others.
While I agree that there's been no "small government" since Calvin, I will still say that what you are proposing is that the 'Pubbies buy votes like the Dems did with the New Deal.
What do you think will come from that ? Why not just join the Dems, with that attitude ?
If "conservatives" need to buy votes to retain office, we've all lost and there are no remaining conservatives principles upon which the 'Pub party can stand. The Republicans then become Democrat Lite.
no I'm not...you're the guy in south bumkin.
I don't own a house, can't afford one, and I can't afford to buy a house for anyone else either.
The people of New Orleans would have torn down the levees years ago if they knew it meant winning a lottery.
What motivates me is to move as many people away from the one party system, to realize neither party has the interests of the citizens of the respective states nor the Constitution at the forefront of their motives. I still work to do as much damage to both sides of the one party as I possibly can. It just seems somewhat pointless at times when speaking with one of the party faithful, either party
My point about Bush's support for bigger government than Clinton was solely in reference *domestic* spending and regulation, not foreign policy or terrorism.
Ahhhh! Silicon Valley is south bumkin on your alternate universe map.
This explains much about your posts...
It's not so odd. We had gridlock back then. That's why a lot of people on here talk about voting for democrats, and some of them may do it. Giving pubs the controls has arguably done no good at all.
No, it is NOT Okie Dokie! I am all for spending YOUR money on this nonsense, not mine.
we spent how much federal money on the tsumani? 200 billion? 60 billion? not even a fraction of that.
is our only measure of compassion now, how much we spend on this? look, everyone agrees regarding the spending to repair the public infrastructure - roads, bridges, ports, levees. but if the Bush "formula" for how individual relief will be provided falls apart, and it simply becomes giant waves of handouts, then where are we? in the name of compassion, we will simply do nothing different then the welfare state has done since the 1960s.
>>Which private business do you want to rebuild the port? The very one's that are going to be financially impacted because it's going to be closed for some time?
It is already open from what I understand. Maybe it is not up to capacity yet though (story from 5 days ago):
"The port of New Orleans also was open, as the container ship Lykes Flyer unloaded its cargo of coffee beans and much-needed plywood Tuesday night, port officials said."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/14/katrina.impact/index.html
It's a good point Sinkspur, because like Pres. Bush, Hoover was an extraordinarily caring person, his humanitarian work after WWI was what got him elected president.
Another griper. How do you propose to rebuild the Gulf Coast without federal dollars? Private industry will not fund the infrastructure (ports, roads, seawalls, etc.). And private industry will do nothing to incent those at the edges to home ownership or to open small businesses.
If investing in your fellow Americans so that some who were not productive will now become productive is not important, then what is?
Well...Okie Dokie..!!
LOL!!
So let's condemn the entire premise now.
Looks like Hillary will ride in on Jan. 2008 on her broom w/viberator.. and she will bring Bill with her..
A hard choice.. a Witch or a Vampire?.. Hmmm.. both are parasites of the national treasury..
Did you vote for Clinton?
Clinton reduced spending because the Republican Congress made him do it. Remember, he tried to socialize 12% of the American economy with his health care proposals.
Then I will ask you, "Why do you stay there?"
That is the wrong question. The question is, "Why should I be responsible for your decision to stay there?" You are free to live anywhere you want for any reasons you think are sufficient. You ARE NOT entitled to my money for your BAD decisions.
Get a clue.
So let me ask you this.
Are you saying that the federal government should NEVER...under any circumstances...give any taxpayer dollars to individuals or business's to help rebuild following a natural disaster?
Be careful of your answer.
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.