Posted on 09/22/2005 1:36:50 PM PDT by Crackingham
George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--"But where's the money going to come from?"--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying "Republicans don't care about black people," and "They're always tightwads with the poor."
In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, "You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork."
That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--"whatever it takes"--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Point taken. He should have vetoed the Ag bill and the Trans bill. Still, he has had a lot on his plate, and could he really have fought members of his own party over the budget?
He has actually called for restraint on all the major spending bills, and the Congress has sent him a larger bill one than he requested every time!
And we got a long long way to go to European Socialism.
Long, long, long way.
can't we donate the poor and the blacks to some other country---if you can think of one that will take them that is--- hey their welfare checks would make them rich in Zimbabwe
I agree that big government is here for either party. The real battle is between bureaucracy and us. Entitlements have to be cut eventually, but no one has the cojones to promote that.
What is the percentage now of federal employees to the working public?
GW tried to ring the alarm bell on SS and what did that get him...a big yawn from everyone including his own party.
As far as McCain goes, money is not everything. Whatever it costs not to have him President is ok with me.
You can only have a Euro Socialism welfare state if you find someone else to pay your defense bills.
You sound like Abraham Lincoln.
It generally requires strong labor unions...Bwahahaha
The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.
Fourty years of massive government spending on the part of the Democrats did nothing to improve the lot of poor and minorities. We know that. Yet we figure that the way to help is, you guessed it, massive government spending. If the definition of an idiot is someone who does the same thing expecting different results then the administration is full of idiots.
The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true.
When it comes to growing government and deficits and spendin how, on God's green earth, could the Democrats have done worse than Bush has done? What has he denied them or their constituents? What programs that they support has he cut? What program of any kind, other than FEMA has he cut? In this area he has out Democrated the Democrats.
Because he has aided and abetted them. Because he has shown zero leadership in attempting to reduce spending or reduce government. Because he has bent over for every insane spending bill that Congress, the Republican Congress as you pointed out, has passed. He could have changed any or all of those positions.
He could have vetoed the highway bill, but didn't have enough votes to support it.
It would have taken a stand. It would have made a point. He could have shown some loyalty, or at least recognition of core Conservative values. But then he isn't a conservative.
I can't help but think that the country would've cheered a full frontal attack on the race hustlers. Though Hispanics are now a larger minority than blacks the racial angle polling from the MSM was strictly Black vs White views. Wha?
Anyway whites overwhelmingly dismiss the racial angle. Yet Bush comes out as a racial apologist. It's pathetic and out of touch with his base. And actually the populace as a whole.
What a waste. You can't buy good race relations, Chief.
I agree that he should have used his veto, but i'm not in his shoes. There is still the valid question -why should he when we control the Congress?
If Congress won't support it, why fight. He's fighting on enough fronts already.
You're not going to believe this, but he wants to increase foreign aid!
WorldNet Daily September 15, 2005
WASHINGTON – It wasn't just a speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of the United Nations that President Bush delivered in New York yesterday.
Instead, he laid out an ambitious program of increased U.S. foreign aid to tackle worldwide problems of poverty and disease.
Think of it as Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" plan gone global.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1485275/posts?page=50#50
If they need to alleviate an energy shortage in California, all they'll have to do is hook up a generator to the rapidly spinning remains in Ronald Reagan's tomb.
Uh, last I checked power is on, but what does that have to do with what I posted here??
___________________________________________________________
Bush at U.N. – more foreign aid (President lays out agenda for global war on poverty)
WorldNet Daily September 15, 2005
WASHINGTON – It wasn't just a speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of the United Nations that President Bush delivered in New York yesterday.
Instead, he laid out an ambitious program of increased U.S. foreign aid to tackle worldwide problems of poverty and disease. Think of it as Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" plan gone global.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1485275/posts?page=50#50
Hmmm.. that was brilliant.. really.. BINGO....
A Boston Tea party -or- something like it... The thieves will not leave on their own..
Did I say he was?????
Well I sure would like to give aid to this country rather than give it to people who don't appreciate it like we have been doing for centuries....wouldn't you????
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.