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!
Yes.
"mobilize the private sector" eh? That's an old, tired rationalization for big government. Clinton used to say "build government/business partnerships" but it amounts to the same thing. Either you believe in free and unsubsidized markets or you don't. I guess we should have elected Gore after all.
we aren't. tax policy issues for the republican party are dead right now.
this is why I have been saying - Bush is not only betting his presidency on this working out, but where is the party going to go if this thing blows up? what are we going to do, run against Bush?
I think he/she/it has left the building.
It wasn't a "natural disaster". The situation was the direct result of a long-running, totally irrational policy of pouring money into enlarging a city which is totoally dependent on artificial walls and pumps to keep it from being underwater. A huge amount of that money came from the federal government -- subsidizing public housing, airports, ever-increasing numbers of students attending these below sea level colleges on government financial aid, and don't forget the super-dangerous government bio lab whose staff had to urgently get back into the place AFTER the hurricane/levee break to destroy the stockpile ofextremely dangerous microorganisms before they spread into the chaos.
Not one cent of federal money should be spent, directly or indirectly, to rebuild this travesty, or to relocate people back into it, or to provide flood insurance to any property owner there.
Bite your tongue Bushbot.
Really? I'm not a Republican.
Excerpt from"Statement by the founder of Free Republic" by Jim Robinson
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty".
booked
OK so if you listen to the debates in the House and Senate you will find that as much is being spent, it's NEVER as much as the DUMBOCRATS want to spend.
They're always arguing about all of Bush's CUTS.
Perhaps you think we would be better off with them in charge?
Think again, it COULD always be WORSE.
Which Bush and every Freeper would agree with....
However, Delay says there is no wasteful spending to be cut.
That was meant to be facetious. Delay was not serious.
Can I apply for a visa? Or a job in city government?
The nerve of some people...: )
that's all fine, the ownership theme and all. but you are assuming that its going to work, that we aren't going to see all these evacuees screaming on Nightline 6 months from now "Bush promised me a new free house and a car, where is it?". then what do we do?
I will answer that question - we give it to them as handouts. politically, there is no other way, we own this thing now. that is the problem.
I have a problem. New Orleans and its inhabitants are entitled to our sympathy, and to whatever monies their insurance companies are requried to pay. If they didn't insure themselves, they are out of luck.
After all, if Federales keep bailing out idiots who live in coastal cities built below sea level and fail to purchase flood insurance for themselves, then why should ANYBODY buy flood insurance?
You're right. Actually, it was pretty much downhill beginning in Reagan's second term. Oddly enough, Clinton showed more restraint (though Congress forced his hand) than Bush has.
Ah, BUT who cuts your taxes and who wants to raise them so they can INVEST(spend) more?
If the President goes ahead with this without even making an attempt to get some spending cuts in other areas, he ought to be ashamed of himself, and the republicans deserve whatever comes to them next November.
Priorities have changed. Museums and hike and bike trails don't matter now. All spending bills need to be reconsidered. All earmarks. Every senator/congresscritter who is getting earmarks should be re-examining them to see which ones he or she can live without because some of that money needs to come back.
How much? How the heck do I know? 25% of the projected cost, lets say.
But then, as long as they keep printing money and inflation stays under control, what do I care, I guess.
They may whine but the sad truth is that Clinton showed more spending restraint than Bush.
Nope, to your utter disappointment OO, I'm still here.
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.