Posted on 06/16/2005 12:59:54 PM PDT by churchillbuff
I'm guessing that he's right that a Democrat would not have increased spending so much. A Democrat would have turned the other cheek on 911, hence no increase in military spending.
Of course, the Dems constantly deny that, though.
That's true. However, I'm pro-war, when it's a war that needs to be fought to defend US security. the Iraq invasion didn't fit that bill.
He right. The Dept of Homeland Security is a big waste bin full of the most excessive pork barrel spending in recent memory.
Shame on W for signing off on that Demo idea and for Congress in abusing it.
If he wants loss of freedom -- just let those throat slitting b@sta@rds take over and he will be much-o sorry-o.
(Know what I mean Vern?)
Friedman is a great thinker. He knows defense is a vital Constitutional function of the Federal Govt. I doubt he is precisely against the war in Iraq and such. I feel his comments would be assigned to any war; and are presented to show the nature of govt to grow beyond it's "constitutional" duties during times of war. I believe that spreading Liberty throughout the ME and elsewhere is good for our long term defense. War unfortunately helps the State grow. Withholding came out of WWII and helped make it easy to grow government in the following years. If everyone had to right a check to the Feds, spending would come down fast. He is right about so much of government. He definitely is not happy with the growth of government under Bush, as are so many of us on the right.
You omitted the other part of the title:
"Private Social Security accounts were his idea"
MOST of the article talks about his stance on Social Security.
"It was Friedman who in 1962, with the publication of "Capitalism and Freedom," first proposed the abolition of Social Security, not because it was going bankrupt, but because he considered it immoral.
Friedman calls Social Security, created by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, a Ponzi game. "
Since Saddam didn't have an air force or navy, or any WMDs, (And his army was 4th world quality) there was no chance he was going to "take over" the US. The invasion of Iraq was a costly -- $300 bill. -- enterprise that wasn't necessary for US security.
Friedman's a libertarian. They don't do war.
Yes, but I wanted to point out to freepers that Friedman views our current military expeditions as an impediment to lowering taxes and rolling back government. So do I. I'm for war, when war is necessary to defend American interests. An invasion of a country with a fourth-world military and no WMDs was NOT necessary to defend American interests.
FREE TO CHOOSE
is a classic. Highly recommended reading. and its short too.
"There's no question if we're holding down spending, a Democratic president and a Republican House and Senate is the proper combination."
says Friedmen in this article. Wonder what our spending would be like if Gore had been elected? No medicaid bill and I bet much, much lower spending. He might be right...
Hillary in '08! LOLOLOLOL! /s
Turn the other cheek? Clinton did not hesitate to go to war in the Balkans and bomb Iraq on an almost daily basis, nor did conservatives hesitate to oppose him on Kosovo. I suspect that the Demos would have gone to war in Iraq had Gore won and that the GOP would have been antiwar (as it was on Kosovo.
You need to take one step back and get a glimpse of the larger picture.
Iraq is only one theater in a global conflict.
Not as such, no. But destroying Islamofascism is, and installing a democratic government Iraq is one element of that strategy.
Clinton did nothing when the Islamic extremists originally bombed the WTC. He offered token responses to other terrorist attacks.
I like what Nixon said about people like this vis a vis our failure to strongly confront Asian Communism during the late 1960s. He said that whenever our national strength was really on the line, and required anything remotely resembling a sacrifice, that the business community and intellectuals painted their asses white and ran away like antelope!
Saddam was running a secular state. He was suppressing the Islamic extremists who are now running wild over the country. He was a bastard - and a socialist -- but he wasn't an "Islamofascist"
When a war needs to be fought, we need to cut social spending. Oh, but that's apparently a third rail in these latter days of what used to be a courageous country.
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.