Rivkin has his finger on the pulse of the Founders every time I read him. It’s true they believed that public borrowing was important, but it should be used SPARINGLY. Now does that sound like the Obama administration? Or even Bush II? Heck no.
To: IndePundit
I don’t think they would be happy with the very existence of massive entitlements.
2 posted on
08/05/2011 12:18:29 PM PDT by
GeronL
(The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
To: IndePundit
He's absolutely correct as far as the process goes. What none of them -- not even Alexander "Having a National Debt is a GOOD THING" Hamilton -- would agree with is the level of spending, or the level or debt.
I'm all for a Congress that doesn't get much done. Can we make them part timers in the next cycle?
3 posted on
08/05/2011 12:23:57 PM PDT by
FredZarguna
(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
To: IndePundit
If the Senate has been less willing than the House to call an immediate halt to federal borrowing and to seek a more gradual return to fiscal responsibility, this too is exactly what it is supposed to do. What nonsense.
The Framers believed in gradual change.
They were revolutionaries.
To imply they would support boldface violations of our Natural Rights is idiocy.
4 posted on
08/05/2011 12:42:09 PM PDT by
Jacquerie
(We are no longer governed, we are ruled.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson