Posted on 01/30/2002 3:51:59 PM PST by AAABEST
With Conservative Like This, Who Needs Liberals?
Let me start off by addressing those who have been bashing(and I do mean bash) me and other well intentioned and well known Freepers as being anti-Bush, Libertarians, from the reform party or whatever.
I voted for GWB, and I can ping several freepers to this thread that met me in real life at several Bush rallies (with megaphone in hand). I was a member of the Broward County Young Republicans before moving to the West coast of Florida and I was active in Jeb Bush's campaign for Governor.
I've been on this forum for almost 4 years and anyone that knows me is aware of my conservative views and knows that I'm not a member of the reform party, I'm not a Libertarian (large "l") or any of the other things I and others like me have been accused of.
If you have been engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, bashing long-time, well known Freepers or acting like children because not all of us are enthralled with "Georges Big Government Adventure", please try to control yourselves, at least while posting on this thread.
It's not my purpose (at least at this point) to get GWB un-elected, I like him, he has a beautiful wife, he's a good Commander in Chief and he seems like an honest politician. However, if he keeps ignoring conservative principles and promoting a larger more intrusive government, I and others can no longer continue to support him....on principle.
We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.
Above is the Free Republic mission statement. After his first year, would anyone say that GWB has worked towards this end? I think many conservatives suffer from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome as a result of 8 years of President Clinton, because when I ask many of them what GWB has done for conservatism lately, all I get is that he's not Clinton.
I know he's not a corrupt, law breaking scoundrel, but is that all that's required? Can our republic survive a cycle where Republicans get into office grow government greatly, interspersed with Democrats who grow government even more greatly with little or no reduction? There are actually people on FR that think all of this growth in government spending is some grandiose 8 year plan by Mr. Bush to fool Democrats so that he can cut government later. What an absurd notion.
If any of the initiatives below originated from the Clinton administration, people on FR would have had a cow. Those "Day in the Life of President Bush" threads garner hundreds of fawning responses, while a thread on how our government is growing out of control will die after 10.
I appeal to anyone reading this to consider the below information without bias. The links will open in a separate window for you convenience. I will be adding to this information as necessary God bless America, God bless this forum and God bless you.
Click on the Picture of the President (thinking of new ways grow government) for the corresponding article.
71.5 billion over 10 years for government health care
The passage from the NYT/AP article you based your above iaticized passage,
Conservatives typically prefer a free-market approach, which would have families choose their own health insurance packages in the open market. Bush's plan, first made when he was running for president and included in his budget last year, will offer tax breaks to help pay often-steep premiums.
This year's proposal will be essentially unchanged and worth up to $1,000 per person or $2,000 per couple, according to an administration official speaking on condition of anonymity. Like last year, it will be available to people who don't owe federal taxes -- typically people with very low incomes.
Last year's proposal, which was phased in over a number of years, set the income limit at $30,000 in adjusted gross income for individual tax filers and $60,000 for married couples.
The plan's cost was estimated at $71.5 billion over 10 years
LOL, you got snookered by the AP. In AP terms the $71.5 billion it "costs", is the "cost"(i.e lost revenue) to the federal treasury due to the tax credits.
We are, and your not alone.
Your points are well made, targeted, lucid, and................accurate.
Look, I think we can all agree that GW is a good man. He has truly risen to the "occasion" since 9/11. He's a highly capable CinC, has a top notch cabinet and collection of advisors, etc., etc., etc.
However, it would be disingenuous of me to say that the growth of the Fed under his administration didn't bother me. It bothers me a lot. I'm not quite sure why he's done it, except to somehow bend over backward and show the Democrats that he, too, can give away taxpayer funds to be "compassionate".
I don't see him as a strict Constitutionalist. I am. GW and I may have to agree to disagree.
Anyway, just wanted you to know (from another long-time FReeper) that your concerns are shared by others; you aren't alone.
You neglected to mention "and stealing our stuff". It happened to my wife last Friday at O'Hare... cash stolen from her purse by a security screener while a cooperating screener made sure her back was turned. Never, ever let these people go through your property unless you're watching them!
As for Dubya, as proud as I am to have a man and woman of honor in the White House, I am disappointed at a number of his actions. I'm withholding my opinion of his speech for now. I can understand and appreciate his "centrist" rhetoric as a way of de-clawing the dimocRATS (as Clinton did to the GOP). However, actions speak louder than words. I'm gonna watch. Very carefully.
Effective immediately, I expect Mr President to stop publically sucking up to the drunken senator from Taxachusetts.
Did Bush cut back discretionary spending compared to the rates of inflation and population growth?
Exactly! I remember thinking how conservative Olympia Snowe was!
His way is totalitarianism. See Patriot Act.
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/usa.act.final.102401.html
The gubbermint is smaller today than it was 20yrs ago.
The idealists think that Bush should be Ruling as a Monarch. The realists know that the man barely got in.
The idealists think they saw Bush kissing Ted Kennedy's ass over the ED bill. The realists saw him blowing smoke up Ted's ass.
HEAR! HEAR!!!! This Paine is a REALIST!!!
That is an extremely limited and WRONG statement. I will criticize anyone of any party if they are wrong. But I don't happen to think President Bush is. And I think the Democrats are extremely worried about that. In fact,.. I wonder if many who post in these threads, aren't just that "DEMS" Who are trying to disrupt the biggest threat they have.. PRESIDENT BUSH!!!
Daschle is the sole person holding up a stimulus package.. there is bi-partisan support for it. In otherwords.. it would pass.
He ALONE is holding back 49 issues from going up for voting in the Senate. That he has a "D" behind his name is his fault. Not mine.
You couldn't be more wrong. Check out incindiary's home page.
You are correct and I was mistaken for not beleiveing that someone could read all the comments and then post back on the first reply.
BTW, any comments on reply #221?
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.