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!
Exactly. Why do some people on this website think we couldn't survive without the government holding our hands and doing it for us ?
In the 80s, tornados tore up Balch Springs, Texas. President Reagan refused to give tax payer's money to fix their houses.
No. I'm just encouraging people to recognize reality.
There has been no "small government" in 80 years. There appears to be little sentiment among the American people for a vast reduction in the size of government.
Do you disagree?
One word: insurance. Ever hear of it ?
And no, to answer your question, I don't think I am entitled to taxpayer dollars. If a private charity wanted to help me rebuild I would know it was from volunteered dollars, not extorted tax dollars.
He extended low interest rate loans for rebuilding, which is the equivalent of a subsidy. That is a standard offering for any declaration of a disaster area.
Just for the record, Publius6961 is not among them...
The old broken window theory of economics. So, you think hurricanes are economically beneficial if they cause a lot of business activity ?
This statement is so multipurpose and so useful, I just stole it.
I do, in fact, disagree. I'm sure you agree that small government is good government, despite how the populace might feel at any given time. When smaller government has the right spokespersons, people are attracted to it. Look at how popular the Republicans became during the Contract With America period.
When explained eloquently, people will agree. Unfortunately, I do not feel that in his heart Bush is a small-government guy, and therefore the momentum for smaller government is not as prevalent as it can be.
As I asked you last week, please do not give up hope on one day reducing government. I realize that it is easy to get frustrated with the way things are going, but if we don't keep an optimistic attitutde, our hopes will never come true.
The feds can help rebuild THEIR properties and others that they ordinary help with such as roads.
***
I was actually thinking more of the levees and whatever other "water" structures went kaplooee during this storm. I understand that part of the disaster can be attributed to a lack of funding to maintain these structures. And the principal entity responsible for those structures is the Corps of Engineers -- i.e. federal.
The Contract with America was not about smaller government. It was about specifically conservative things that a Republican Congress would do.
Did Gingrich et al reduce spending?
(Here's a hint: they didn't.)
There was a tiny reduction in the growth of spending, but that got reversed soon after it was passed.
As a glazier, you bet I believe in broken window economics. Fixing broken windows definitely supports the new construction part of the business.
Hurricanes in general don't necessarily promote business activity but Katrtina will.
They tried but couldn't do it due to a fiscal liberal president (just like we have now) being in the whitehouse. This was the first item in the Contract with America.
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
Reducing the size of government is almost an impossible thing to do in the modern age, given how much government spending are entitlements.
But at least we should hope that a Republican president and Congress would keep from increasing spending - by inflation adjusted terms, if not absolutely. But noooo, we're getting whopping spending increases, over and above inflation, from the GOP in DC
Ah - I see you don't know what I'm talking about. ;) Are you really a glazier ?
All hurricanes "promote" business activity in the rebuilding. Just look at Florida - ever see so many roofs replaced in one state in one year ? The point is, what is it you're not seeing ? What you don't see is what does not get spent.
The broken window theory of economics is an essay by Frederic Bastiat in 1850. Essentially he points out that yes, what you see is spending on a new window. What you do not see is that the person who has had to spend money to replace the window will not spend that money to replace his old suit. Since individuals cannot mint money, what is spent one place is not spent at another. And the government ? Yes, they can mint money, but that's called deficit spending and it translates into monetary devaluation.
Bottom line - we are all poorer as a result of the hurricane - whether you live in the affected area or are simply the taxpayer.
True, but he is all but revered here on FR. I suspect that RR would have pretty much done the same for NO as Bush. However, he would have used the veto pen FAR, FAR more often than Bush, and we would not have as spending as we do now, so we could more afford the NO spending.
We'd all hoped your banning was permanent. They must let you back on for the laughs.
Has Bush vetoed anything?
I dont know who you want banned, Peach, but don't get over-ripe.
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.