Posted on 02/09/2005 1:51:17 PM PST by rightalien
Apology accepted. I lost my temper one time with a Florida basher from massachusetts, of all places. That was too easy...However, I apologized to him, too. We're all stuck with lefties in our states, sadly.
There is another reason -- and it is controlling.
There is reportedly no way, from an engineering and physics standpoint, to put another face on Mt. Rushmore. Let alone two...
Accordingly, we need another mountain...
thanks........I hate it when I get that way which isn't very often........we have bigger fish to fry........no need to write back......i'll be seeing ya on other threads...
True, but it's no longer powerful. China is moving to a free market economy in a lot of ways, and most other Communist countries (Cuba, North Korea, Viet Nam, etc.) are so weak that they are not a threat to free countries anywhere. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Communism lost the battle.
You can argue about NK, but IMO, that's more a threat of nuclear weapons than a threat of Communism. Two different threats.
dude or dudette, you are totally exagerating this issue and have blown it way out of proportion.......I mean I hated Bush's spending but really....Karl Marx......good lord, we all hate it when the other side compares Bush to Hitler and now you go and compare him to Marx.......I don't see the parallels if you are being serious........
I've heard that but we can make it out of playdo and add it to the mountain........LOL......paper mache', whatever, or what you said is cool.......start a new mountain and put Reagan up there first.......
W will achieve greatness because of his opposition. He will prove them wrong and the lesson will be grasped by many
For some reason, when a relative newbie compares Dubya to Marx, I start getting a whiff of ozone...
yeah except his by line says Bush has a heart of gold..guess the overspending is his hot button issue....god knows i have mine
How about Mt. Whitney? After all, he was a Californian...
Or are there any usable mountains that overlook San Francisco? The idea of dominating the views of Bela Pelosi, Gavin Newsome, et al with the stone visage of Ronaldus Magnus is rather intriguing...
Events overtook this presidency, but it was the way he responded and led this country, and much of the world, that sets his place in history.
naw......they aren't that good solid granite but the Sierra Nevadas are all Granite and there would be some great smooth or wall like mountains that would be perfect on your way to Tahoe
In Reagan's time, we saw various programs and agencies be funded at 1-3% below inflation or 1-3% above inflation, except for Defense that was (rightfully so) increased greater.
Guess how much Bush has increased funding for MANY social welfare programs above inflation?
1-3% like Reagan?
5-10%?
25%?
50%?
Do you know that many programs have been funded at 100 to 300% above inflation?
Take Education. I know how much Bush increased it since taking office. Do you? Inflation has been running 2.00-3.25% in his first four years. How much did Educaton spending go up?
I am stating facts. Bush has been the biggest social welfare spender in the history of man. That is just domestic. What do you think he has done globally? What Democrat as president initiated a $15 billion program for aid to Africa?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bush did. Since entering office, Bush has been so Marxist in his spending that Marx and Engels are partying in their granves. It is a fact. I voted for Bush twice, but the FACT is, he is a Marxist when it comes to social spending.
Take a look at his new 2006 Budget, in times of a half trillion deficit and nearly 10 trillion in debt, and while military programs are being scaled back due to "lack of funds":
• $74 billion over 10 years for health-insurance tax credits for low-income individuals and families that
will ultimately help 15 million families purchase affordable health insurance.
• $4 billion in grants to States to establish health insurance purchasing pools, through which people who
qualify for the tax credit and others can obtain coverage.
• $28.5 billion over 10 years for tax deductions for premiums for high deductible insurance, which will
ultimately help six million Americans save for their health care costs in tax-free accounts.
• $19.2 billion over 10 years for tax rebates for small businesses that contribute to their employees’ health
savings accounts, encouraging more small employers to offer health benefits.
• $2.0 billion for Health Centers in medically underserved areas, a $304 million increase, fulfilling the
President’s commitment to create or expand 1,200 center sites by 2006 and begin the commitment to
establish a health center in every high-poverty county that can support one.
• $1 billion in grants over two years for Cover the Kids, a new campaign to enroll millions more
low-income children in Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
• $125 million for Health Information Technology to help achieve the President’s goal that most
Americans have electronic health records by 2014.
• $3.2 billion, an increase of $382 million, to continue to expand the President’s Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief.
• $1.2 billion for international food aid, including a new initiative to provide $300 million as cash
assistance, allowing emergency food aid to be provided more quickly to address the most urgent
needs.
• $4 billion, an increase of 8.5 percent, for Federal housing and social programs for the homeless,
including $1.4 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants.
• $100 million to fund competitive grants for States to develop innovative approaches to promote healthy
marriages.
• $3.1 billion over 10 years in tax incentives to promote donations to charitable organizations from
individual retirement accounts.
I say this is a Marxist Budget. We can't afford $1 billion to save the Hubble Space Telescope but we can spend all this on social programs?
The proof of my claim is in the rate increases in the FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004 and and FY 2005 budgets compared to Bill Clinton's budgets. Study these rate increases in social welfare and you will see that George Bush is a Marxist when it comes to social welfare spending.
I agree with all your facts, thanks for posting them, I've long known that Bush screwed the pooch there by not vetoing a single bill........but being a Marxist also implies a certain ideololgy that Bush just does not have.....the act itself does not make it Marxist.....it can be stupidity, pandering, politics whatever but Bush lacks the Marxist ideolgy ........
You mean "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?
Actually, if you look at Bush's social programs and his verbiage in proposing them he flat out talks about the needy and "poor" and in effect, is in so many words saying "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
Generally, I just look at Bush's percent increases in social welfare spending and note that they have been increased at a very high rate over inflation, while spending on the military has DECREASED (inflation adjusted).
All this during times of war and nuclear proliferation.
I call it Marxist. Others can call it something else. But the fact is, Bush's social spending boom is putting this nation in grave danger as programs to defend us (like the F-22) are being scaled back.
He becomes amazing when he enforces the laws on immigration and removes illegals.
Until then, we are fortunate to have him as we went to war.
fine......again, I am with you about the spending debacle, I almost want to raise taxes on the rich to get rid of it and then slash everything........we just disagree on what to call it......I think it was a pandering to everyone mistake he made especially with the Farm Bill and the Medicare Drug thing........
His foriegn policy will be hailed as visionary. The freeing of 50 million Afghanies and Iraqis, the capitulation of Libyia, and the [POSSIBLE] resolution of the Israeli/Palistinian nightmare are without a doubt monumental achievements.
Couple that with the modernization and saving of Social Security and possibly Medicare and you have a combination that will drawf FDR and rival the military accomplishments of Lincoln, FDR and Reagan put together.
I know there are many IFs but so far so good and the outlook is bright.
Reagan first, then maybe Bush.
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.