Posted on 02/21/2005 2:12:24 PM PST by theworkersarefew
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), said: "The Republican majority, left to its own devices from 1995 to 2000, was a party committed to limited government and restoring the balances of federalism with the states. Clearly, President Bush has had a different vision, and that vision has resulted in education and welfare policies that have increased the size and scope of government."
Pence, an influential leader of House conservatives, said 50 Republicans gathered in Baltimore this past week and discussed, among other things, an overwhelming desire to protest the expansion of government by opposing Bush's education plan for high school students. While only 33 House Republicans opposed the No Child Left Behind law in the first term, Pence predicted that a significantly larger number will vote against expanding the program to cover high schools. Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation, a pro-Bush think tank, agreed. "It's a non-starter" in the minds of a large number of Republicans, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You are right it is not the governments job to lead a Christian revival.However,the increase of freedom in America,and the acknowledgment of our Christian ethics,will
possibly lead to a revival.Pence will not be anymore "faith based" policy wise than Reagan.Pence will make the Christian Right happy,and the freedom loving libertarians.He is the perfect package.
You are right it is not the governments job to lead a Christian revival.However,the increase of freedom in America,and the acknowledgment of our Christian ethics,will
possibly lead to a revival.Pence will not be anymore "faith based" policy wise than Reagan.Pence will make the Christian Right happy,and the freedom loving libertarians.He is the perfect package.
Facts prove differently if you look at ACTUAL governmentnumbers re tax confiscation, growth of govrrnment employees, growth of government spending above the inflation rate, growth of programs, . . . and growth of government by any other measure.
I state that FACTS prove this is a lie. The Republicans, under Trent Lott, let government expand greatly in this period.
Anyone, including Mr. Pence, want to challenge me on the >b>FACTS?
Thanks for the post on Mike Pence. I would enthusiastically support him for the presidency. After an administration that has spent wildly, it would be nice to have someone who believes in smaller government. When compared with other names I've heard mentioned on this forum (e.g., Giuliani, Rice, Frist, McCain, and Pataki), none of whom I would consider conservative, it would be exciting to have someone who, like Pence, holds to small-government, federalism, border control, and conservative social positions.
This is a forum that helped bring down Dan RATher! Surely, some of you out there can peresent FACTS that prove this statement is crazy.
I sure can.
Can anybody else?
Good point.
"If businesses can't "cut the mustard" without cheap labor subsides, they should go out of business. That's the way the market goes..."
Thank you!
So the founders opposed it. They weren't infallible. They were mere people, just like the rest of us, with an extraordinarily flawed and limited view of economics that prevailed at the time.
So I say: who cares.
I agree totally, Gipper08.
The Republican spending under Bush has been so extreme it may "appear" that the 1995-2000 was a period of more "limited government", but that is not the case.
Under Trent Lott, the Senate (and the House) during Clinton's regime increased the rate of growth of government in employees, spending, new programs and new regulations.
NOT ONCE did spending equal or stay under the rate of inflation. There was no "limited government" agenda by the Republicans in 1995-2000.
However, George Bush and the Republicans 2001-2005 have rocketed the spending juggernaut to territories that even Marx and Engels would label "unchartered". George Bush has made Karl Marx smile in his grave.
We have entered the period under George Bush of true "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." (Even the Africans are holding there hands out to grab $15 billion from George). George Bush is a spending machine, driving this nation into statist land at hypersonic speed.
"So I say: who cares."
You've made it obvious that you don't.
So, you're saying taxpayer subsidies for cheap labor is not flawed?
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping.
I'll be sending Pence a few bucks the next time he's up for re-election.
Capitalist societies should never have subsidies for labor, but subsidies aren't what makes Mexican labor cheaper when it comes to, say, strawberry picking. By and large, Mexicans are willing to do the job cheaper. So let 'em.
But look: you're not going to convince me otherwise. Sorry--you don't get some sort of special prize for being born in America in my book. I said level playing field and I meant it; that doesn't include subsidies, but that also means a free labor market--and that doesn't include artifical restrictions from Congress.
America belongs to Americans, period. The "rights" of illegals ends at the border.
Jeremy,welcome to FreeRepublic,how was CPAC?
(It is me,Chris BTW)
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.