Posted on 01/30/2004 5:51:44 AM PST by beaureguard
After all, it is conceivable that some future congress can actually do something to turn back the obscene spending increases we've seen out of George Bush. Not likely, but conceivable. It is far more likely, however, that if we see an appeasement-oriented Democrat take the reigns next year we'll see not only the same level of spending (if not worse) but a weakened posture against Islamic terrorism that will end up costing us lives .... thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.
The bottom line here is that no matter how disgusting Bush's spending might be, no matter how offensive it might be to his core conservative base, there is no Democrat running in this race who would spend any less. Every single Democrat running for congress has a new-spending agenda that ranges from a low of $169 billion a year for Joseph Lieberman, to a high of $1.3 trillion a year for Al "The Liar" Sharpton. Now it's true that every single one of these candidates promises to raise taxes on the evil, ugly, nasty, putrid rich by overturning Bush's tax cuts, but that would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each and every Democratic candidate would increase the budget deficit. The frontrunner, John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.
So ... a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here. Vote for Bush and you get runaway government spending, but you also get a strong defense and an aggressive war against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as they can, on our own soil if possible, and to destroy the American way of life. Vote for a Democrat and you get the same runaway government spending, but as an added bonus you get the appeasement of our enemy, instead of its destruction. Vote for Bush and you get some appeals court judges who actually have an appreciation of our Constitution .. plus runaway spending. Vote for a Democrat and you get activists judges who will use judicial fiat to enact the leftist agenda ... plus runaway spending.
I understand the strong impulse to punish Bush for his free spending ways by withholding your support in November. The price for sitting on hands could be huge. It could be another terrorist attack on American soil, this time with tens of thousands dead. It could be higher spending, a bigger deficit, and a slowed economy brought on by higher taxes. It could be the end of a dream of Social Security reform ... and the list goes on.
And then ... there's always the hope that in a second Bush term he could actually start dancing with who brung him.
I also consider myself a libertarian, and I totally agree with Neil's view about the election. Inspite of all the waste of good money, I see Bush advancing the libertarian ideals of freedom more than any Democrat. Plus, with nutcakes in the world who are bent on killing as many Americans as possible just because we are Americans, the idea of entrusting our defense to the likes of Howard Dean or Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich sends chills up my back.
And I see Ted Bundy advancing law and order more than Henry Lee Lucas too...
What's your point?
On the off chance that you're serious, the political left has been getting its way, not by demanding everything at once, but just little by little gradually over time. That's what we have to do.
Right now, some stupid environmental regulations have been changed into something that involves reason, there's a good chance we'll see an end to the estate tax and there's a push to allow people school choice and to put at least some of their money that would otherwise go to the FICA tax into their own private retirement accounts.
Those things aren't everything, but they're a good start. And it would be a travesty to see them squashed in their infancy merely on the grounds that Bush doesn't meet the libertarian ideals of Harry Browne or Ron Paul.
Bush is the biggest leftist to EVER come down the pike.
He's a social-spending nightmare.
If we are talking about the current president, he seems to comprehend the difference between the 3 branches of government. I believe he also gets the constitutional duty of the administration to manage the common defense. (I agree with his methods up to now.) Yet in handling the nations domestic "problems" he seems to be in lock step with the majority of the congress that there is no problem so large that heaving cash at it won't take care of it. Also, there is no spending issue too large that it should be considered a bad "investment."
Irrational hyperbole alert.
He's advocated (and signed into law) unprecedented levels of social spending.
More than any president in the history of the republic.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
(or not)
So I agree with Neil on this one.
Thank goodness for the NEA and free prescription drugs.
Otherwise we wouldn't be safe.
You're right. I'm never voting for GWB again.
I suspect what many are trying to determine, is how spending on the NEA, Prescription Drugs, et al protects us from terrorists. Can you provide your theory?
Let me think a bit on that one.
I don't waste my time on the irrationally stubborn.
Translation: I have no rebuttal, so I'll stick my fingers in my ears and hum.
Wrong translation..It means I won't further waste my time with an consistantly negative jackass. See? Very clear.. Now, back to your tin foil hat making. We have no further need for contact.
No answer.
So run away.
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.