Posted on 09/23/2005 8:13:00 AM PDT by Reagan Man
if there was an actual CONSERVATIVE in the race in 2000 or 2004, that person would have gotten my vote
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There was, but not on the Republican Party ticket.
This is about Bush`s liberal spending habits on welfare and entitlement programs. And when you look at those numbers, Bush is spending a rate well above anything Reagan spent in his day. Read it and weep.
According to OMB, in 2002 spending on the budget line item called HUMAN RESOURCES (aka."social spending") was 65.5% of the budget. In 2003 it was 65.6%, in 2004 64.8%, 2005 64.0%. The Bush adminsistration estimates in 2006 it will rise to 65.3%, in 2007 66.1%, in 2008 66.9% and 67.2% in 2009 and 2010.
When Reagan took office HR spending under Jimmah Carta was 53.4% of the budget. Over the next 8 years under Reagan, that spending was significantly reduced. 52.1%, 52.7%, 50.7%, 49.9%, 48.6%, 50.0%, 50.1%, 49.7%. Face it. Reagan significantly reduced social spending. Under Bush43 its gone way way up. That's my point.
I agree. There was absolutely no excuse for the the Medicare drug fiasco. I can't imagine Pres. Reagan would have dreamed of such a thing.
The topic of the thread concerns Bush`s liberal spending habits. You've raised other issues. You and others have taken cheap shots at the Reagan legacy. Its still a free country and you have every right to speak out on political issues. Even though Bush43 doesn't think political campaigns are entitled to free speech rights. Remember, Bush43 signed CFR.
I don't think so. I think he/she/it is actually a Democrat and no one has caught on.
Thanks for the reminder. ;^)
Blahr, blahr, blahr, could you please can the jesse jackson/democrat victim rhetoric.
They are Dane's currency.
Wrong deport. Honesty is telling it like it is. Not making excuses for Bush and coming across like he has no control over the GOP majority Congress. Come on now. Bush is the leader of the GOP!
Hi Laz, still don't have the cajones to address me directly.(i.e reply #88)
It annoys you, and one of my many thrills in life is annoying you.
I've mentioned you dozens of times, and not pinged you in the last few months. You weren't aware of it. We all had a really good laugh at your expense.
>>>>BTW, some trivia, who was the person who coined the term "11th Commandment".
Gaylord Parkinson. California GOP Party Chairman.
See my RE:#24 and get informed.
Rohrabacher ignores the fact that realities in the 21st century are far different than those of the 1980's. Reagan's rhetoric was "small government is better government" but the reality is that ending the Cold War required massive expenditures in our military forces after the massive cuts done during the post Vietnam era mainly by Carter.
Dubya is a conservative reformer. He will go down as one of the greatest conservative reformers in US political history.
At astonishing speed he has reformed our defenses again after cuts made by the SOB Clinton, changed the wrong direction the world was headed for, made attempts to reform government, placed conservative moral values front and center on the cultural agenda of this nation, etc.
Proof? The simplest (in the interest of time) is the venom and anger he provokes among the Left.
It annoys you, and one of my many thrills in life is annoying you
If I were a real Libertarian, your "thrills" happening probably behind a bathroom door, would say that I should get a "royalty" from your "thrills".
No thanks Laz and get some help.
It was ever thus.
So why did Dana Rohrbacher vote for the very spending he criticizes Bush for?
This is true. I know I've enjoyed a few laughs at Dane's expense. Pity if it stopped.
Dane is universally disliked, roundly mocked, and takes no action to change this status. He likes negative attention. He's a masochist -- probably in the classic sexual definition, too.
Yes. And people forget, when Pres. Reagan talked of cutting spending, his budget was declared "dead on arrival" prior to submission by the Democrat congressional leadership.
Later, he cut a deal with the Democrat congress to raise taxes back up a bit, in return for two ( or was it three?) dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. Needless to say, the spending cuts never materialized and the Gipper regretted the deal.
I think that Pres. Reagan played his hand masterfully. The Democrat House signed on for massive tax rate cuts! I think he would have cut spending if he could have, something I do not believe about Pres. Bush.
"But at times like this, when we have an emergency where so much money is needed, it is incumbent upon us to cut the spending that is not absolutely necessary, not just make it reflect this value or that value," Rohrabacher added.
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.