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 ...
Sorry you didn't get it - With GWB's resurrection of the "Great Society", RR must be spinning a lot in his grave about now.
It lacked any legitimate clues, but yes, I will agree with that. LOL.
Peggy Noonan gets it. You gotta decide if you are a Conservative or a Republican. Way to put it Peggy.
Strategery.
When the federal budget needs to be fixed ( and I am not convinced it does need to be fixed) you either cut spending or raise taxes. My guess is that politicians will cut spending before raising taxes. So Bush has made a bet. A bet that the country will not be in a tax raising mood anytime soon.
Nope, you didn't...I am just saying he does need to cut! (Somewhere).
I wouldn't give it to those countries but that doesn't mean you spend on something that doesn't make sense either
Which begs the greater question, why should he have to when we control Congress. The unavoidable answer is because Bush provides no leadership in this area. Why should we expect Congress to practice fiscal responsibility or to shrink government when the President isn't interested in doing either of those two things and provides absolutely no leadership in those areas.
My opinion is that Americans are worth whatever it takes....people from other countries can wait....our people are more important!
From the opening bell, Bush and Kennedy became buds on education and the spending race was on.
How about all the aid to Egypt, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Iraq?
The last time the federal budget was cut year on year was 1965.
We avoided President Al Gore by statistical noise and President John Kerry by less than 1.5% of the vote. If Bush thinks tax hikers can't win elections, he's even stupider than the Dims claim he is.
What he is really betting on is that the majority of voters are too stupid to comprehend deficit spending, and that pork today will bring more votes than responsible planning for tomorrow. That's a sure bet. When the bill comes due, that will be another politician's problem.
My point is that whether you raise taxes or not, the real tax rate is measured by the rate of spending - we are paying for it either now or later.
I always thought it meant liberal about everything except big business.
Noonan's paraphrasing the Republicans, not speaking for herself.
But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true.
But as Noonan notes, this doesn't mean the Republicans are good, just not as bad.
You got my idea....come on
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.