Posted on 09/25/2005 10:56:29 AM PDT by Uncle Joe Cannon
"Usual response by a republican/conservative not to answer."
You have an answer.
"Answer this question: How has Bush made your life better?"
LOL, typical tack of a troll: change the subject from their comments.
Tell me, why did Ruth Bader-Ginsburg not have to answer any questions, yet Roberts does?
An apt name. Canard you are, canards you write. "Bush is a socialists" that is why Kerry and all the other Hysteric Leftists are running around screaming about how it is all Bush's "neglect" and "tax cuts" that caused the Levees in NO to break. That is why all the Dems lined up in lock step to make sure NO Soci Scecurity reform would move forward (You are aware Soc Security is the Feds biggest single spending program right?) If you think a Kerry/Clinton/Dean/whomever Demo admin would not be spending it 3 or 4 times as fast you have NOT been paying attention to what goes on in Congress.
Wordly Philosophers reads like a popular history, but it's been responsible for more people entering the field than any other single book. It hooked me on economics, and I dated an economist for more than a year without taking an interest.
"How has Bush made your life better?"
Personally, my finincial situation has never been better. I'm out of debt and own my home. I'm making more money than ever before and my investments are doing well. I'm even thinking of buying a second vacation home.
Also, a great part of the increase in government size and budget was for required national security purposes like Homeland Security, the integration of communications and liaison between the many law enforcement agencies, new security equipment, etc. If memory serves correct, Pres. Bush was against federalizing the airport screeners, but Congress and strong national consensus pretty much forced him to sign on.
FEMA too, has been modernized and expanded, mostly due to 9/11 and the very realistic concern of future attacks. The military budget itslef has been greatly increased since 9-11 also, not just for Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, but for general equipment technology upgrades.
Still, I do think the President is too free with spending and tends to overlook American citizens' needs in favor of helping out foreign nations and illegal immigrants. This was evidenced when he forgave the forty billion dollar debt with Africa and almost simultaneously signed a bill that made it harder for AMERICANS to get out of debt, (the new bankruptcy laws). The money spent on programs and benefits for illegal aliens is another outrage, as is the entire modern immigration policy.
In any case, it's still a gross exaggeration to call the President's extravagance 'socialism'.
History and bios are my favorite reading. I also like mind sciences stuff also. Most modern fiction doesn't grab me at all - whenever I do read fiction, it's all older stuff. Go figure.
Well see that's okay. He has the wrong letter by his name. So you can call him a socialist. But dare not speak ill of anyone on our 'team'. Then it's compassionate conservatism.
In fact, it's still a socialistic move. And by the clearest sense of the word. But the faithful will not allow a word spoken against our leader. If a Democrat did these things, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the cheerleaders would be up in arms
Then definitely check it out.
I'm off to work.
What? He (Sullivan and others), act like these hurricanes never happened, and that the President just woke up one day and decided to spend millions of money. He can't win, no matter what he does, and I'm sick of it. There's plenty of 'pork' to get rid of in budget.
The problem with this is that we are not taxing and spending but borrowing and spending. The surplus is gone and now we have an enormous deficit that is being financed by China. China could throw our economy into chaos without firing a shot, all they would have to do is call in the loans issued since Bush took office.
Is the GOP majority in Congress or not?
Perhaps my Constitution is different than yours. He does sign these bills into law. And Bush has never met a spending bill he doesn't like. But you're right. We should be irate at Congress more importantly for listening to his nonsensical suggestions for waste in the first place. Aren't you so glad you spent time back in '02 'winning back the Senate'? How'd that go?
Point out the Constitutional basis for spending tax dollars on rebuilding the Gulf Coast. I'll even help out a bit. Here's James Madison on the issue...
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.And he even would have disagreed with the $300 billion for highways. Although I don't expect Republicans or Democrats to rescind their stance on that issue either....A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
"that is why Kerry and all the other Hysteric Leftists are running around screaming about how it is all Bush's "neglect" and "tax cuts" that caused the Levees in NO to break"
Funnily enough some politicians will take any opportunity to criticise opponents. Do you think a Kerry administration would have pushed for more funds to be allocated to New Orleans' flood defences?
"If you think a Kerry/Clinton/Dean/whomever Demo admin would not be spending it 3 or 4 times as fast you have NOT been paying attention to what goes on in Congress."
It's not a matter of speculation that this administration spends more than the previous one, that's fact. Now there are various reasons that might be offered for that, but the base facts are there.
I find it very hard to imagine that a Kerry administration would be spending money '3 or 4 times as fast' as the current administration that has itself hugely expanded federal spending however, there is no reason historically or rationally to see why that would be the case.
CFR,pork laden highway bill, farm bill. Said he would sign the assault weapon ban if congress renewed it.
I doubt them. While it is true that Congress spends the money, Bush has yet to veto a bill which would include oh, I don't know, a spending bill? Bush's own proposals include massive spending. It isn't like we have a spendthrift Congress and a President who can't do anything about it. We have a spendthrift Congress and a President who likes it that way. The fact is that Bush is a socialist and Kerry is somewhere between a socialist and a communist. The difference is a difference of degree, not of kind.
Excellent point, Keith! It's a shame the Constitution doesn't give President Bush any power to restrict the orgy of runaway spending our liberal congress has engaged in!
Maybe the Rockefeller wing. The Gingrich wing has apparently departed.
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.