Agreed, notice my tagline.
Here's Babs after us conservatives kicked bootie in the 2002 election . . .
Posted on 09/26/2003 8:15:52 AM PDT by presidio9
What is "Big Government?" We've been conditioned to believe these are bad words - but when Hurricane Isabel ripped through the East Coast last week, leaving many homes and businesses significantly damaged in its wake, Bush told disaster relief workers and governors of the affected states, "If you need help, let us know." This was not Bush showing his "compassionate" side... this is what the federal government does -it helps people in need. Contrary to Republican slogans against "Big Government" or "Tax and Spend Liberals," if you look at the reality, government spending is a key part of what makes this country function and provides the services that Americans both depend on and take for granted.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency Bush extolled in the Southeast this week, is designed to help Americans in crises - be they victims of natural disasters, or victims of extreme poverty. Agencies such as FEMA are what make our country able to bounce back from tragedy and unforeseen events, just as schools educate our children, firefighters fight fires, police officers keep our streets orderly, a decent highway system allows us to move freely, national parks maintain our incredible natural resources, our military protects us from outside threats, the Center for Disease Control protects us from epidemics, and Social Security and Medicare programs insure that our seniors aren't thrust into poverty after so many years of hard work. These are just some of the basics of government. These are not entitlement programs. These are not excesses. These are not "special interests." This is what the government is supposed to do for you, the people.
So when Republicans, such as leading tax-cut proponent Grover Norquist, talk about reducing government to the size where they can "drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub," we need to examine what that world without government would look like. Do we want to live in a country without a legal system, without a military, without free education, without safety net programs? Is this the future most Americans actually want for their country?
We also have to understand the connection between taxes and spending. It is our taxes that pay for these services, so Bush's two big tax cuts for the wealthy will, eventually, result in a cut in the services that all Americans depend on everyday, unless the tax cuts are repealed. So far, Bush has been more or less coasting on a policy of tax cuts and spending increases, such as the additional $87 billion he now is asking Americans to shoulder for Iraq. Meanwhile, he has cut spending for state-administered programs - plunging state governments into crisis, and has created unfunded mandates with catchy titles, such as the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush is dangerously betting against the future... turning an enormous surplus into an enormous deficit that future generations will have to grapple with. Eventually, we will be forced to have a national discussion about either repealing the cuts or asking the question: What everyday government spending programs are we really ready to do without?
Agreed, notice my tagline.
Here's Babs after us conservatives kicked bootie in the 2002 election . . .
Man, I wish that would fit on my tag line!
I've respected her art for over 30 years. I stopped respecting her in any degree when she said, in a 1998 on-line AOL interview apropos of Clinton's perjuries, "There are lies, and there are lies." Anyone who thinks integrity is a divisible commodity is being stupid, not just misinformed.
Now she (or '60s wannabe Marge Tabankin or someone else at her charitable foundation) writes insipid farragos like this, and a score of others, on her official Website. Her friends are persuaded already. It drives away those who don't know she's a political animal. Thus accomplishing nothing.
Is that from a particular speech or article? If so, might you have a link? Thanks.
Off the top of my head: Ed. Dept., PBS, C-SPAN, Endowment for the Arts, silly health studies, Planned Parenthood, aid to certain foreign countries, American military in Germany and Japan.
I don't know but it sounds like the latest RNC talking points to me. More military, more healthcare, and more government 'programs'
I don't think it is as cut and dried as a yes/no vote on these programs.
We need a legal system but the current one is extemely expensive, frustrating, not timely and effectively denies fair legal resource to the small guy. Not to mention that it frequently seems to overturn legislation without just cause. We need a legal system but there must be a way to improve it.
We need a military. Not just any military, but the world's best, smartest and most advanced.
Our founding fathers were very supportive of everyone in the nation being educated, one of the continental congress's first acts was to give free land for schools throughout the nation. It is in the nation's best interest to have all kids educated. That said, it's not in the best interest of the nation to have the schools go at the rate of the slowest student, learn an agenda that is anti-American and anti-Christian, and probably costs more than it should.
Safety Nets...I don't think we really want to go without some safety nets. The economy both in whole and regionally recovers much faster from stressors because of safety nets. Weve not had the kind of depressions like that of 1930 or the many during the 1800's that routinely wiped out hard working families, because of certain safety nets and certain restrictive regulations. But again the question is how much? How much are we willing to spend? How much abuse is allowed? How much should it cost to administer? How do we keep it from slowly creeping away our freedoms and our paycheck?
It is amazing what percent of people are able to find jobs immediately after their unemployment payments run out...
A very easy answer to that... All of them! BraBra makes our point in her first paragraph, using a proper function of government, that is, providing stopgap help in times of crisis (Hurricane Isabel disaster relief). The problem is that liberals have extended the definition of crisis to include whatever they want. The only other provisions the Federal government should provide is for national security. That's all, nothing else.
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.