George Bush's Big Government Adventure

Free Republic and Various ^ | 01-30-02 | aaabest

[incindiary]

"I will criticize anyone of any party if they are wrong. But I don't happen to think President Bush is."

So you don't think he was wrong to support any of those things listed in the original post? What about his silence on the pro-life issue? What about the fact that he has little interest in all the corruption of the Clinton administration? I could go on, but there's a few for starters.

[RnMomof7]

Death by shotgun or a IV drip..your choice.

Do we close our eyes and let the constitution be shredded ..and big brother government grow without a word because it would have happened a little faster under Gore?

BTW I do not think it would have because the Conservatives that are currently asleep would have been yelling..

So now we have a new Americore..and more PBS money and more money for the arts..etc etc and we say nothing because it is under a Republican?? No sale my friend!

[Blood of Tyrants]

No argument from me. As far as I am concerned, voting for Republicans only slows the rush towards socialism. I haven't heard of them trying to repeal a single bad law or cut a single government agency.

Face it, the choice is between socialist party A and "we try harder" socialist party B.

[verboten]

Never, ever let these people go through your property unless you're watching them!

Good point, but how does this admonition work in regards to our homes given the Patriot Act?

As for stealing our stuff isnt that just what Bush is proposing more of when he wishes to expand the government? I dont think it is his family or Kennedy's that will be footing the bill. It will be us paying for it. And I no more volunteer my money to the government then I do to the robber who points the same gun at me to acquire my compliance.

[AUgrad]

BTW, there is a Draft Ron Paul for President movement. He's a Republican, too!

Sign me up. No, seriously.

[incindiary]

Hey you... Thanks. :-)

[rdb3]

Pleased to make your acquaintance, Triple-A.

[nononsense]

I glad I was not only one who felt that way about his speech

[Nubbin]

I'm sure this has already been discussed and I'm the last one to notice that it is missing, but what happened to the bookmark option? I wanted to bookmark this thread for later reading.

[Deb]

When I saw he chose to include in his objection to the Bush presidency "Food stamps for immigrants" instead of "illegal immigrants", it was obvious what his real agenda was. Hey, but he's not "bashing Bush"...yeah, right, he just really, really cares about the country (gag).

[editor-surveyor]

"For the VIPs."

See!! - You're no better than W, if Turd Kennedy were here you'd ping him too. :-)

[editor-surveyor]

"what happened to the bookmark option?"

It's been moved to the end of the text of the article.

[Ragin1]

I was just going over the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments to our constitution, and can't help to think, he ran on big government. The only reason he won was because of hate people have for Bill Clinton. Gore could never have gotten half this crap through.

Our illustrious leaders have now run slipshod right over the 1st, see patriot act, the 2nd, see gun seizure's in 4 states now, the 4th, see patriot act, and the 10th, that is one they just ignore on a daily basis. I could add more, but that would be redundant at this point. That man actually stood up there and told us, I am Big Brother, and he won. Bet it happens again.

[annalex]

Kudos for the well put statement in form of a question that has been on many minds.

I voted for Bush, and will continue to vote GOP as the lesser of the two electable evils. I will do so as long as the GOP continues to be marginally better at containing the government than their electable alternative, marginally more honest, marginally better at the core government functions such as defense. I know that containing the growth of government is a losing battle. The victory, if ever, won't come about electorally in the foreseeable future. That assessment absolves Bush: he, or any other GOP politician, is dividing the electorate roughly in half, getting the half that is more conservative than it is liberal, and hoping the chad hangs on. The assessment condemns the America's better half, and most of all it condemns the system.

The system rewards politicians that expand the government and punishes (at the voting booth) politicians that contract it. That is because expanding government incurs acute joy in the recipients of the government's largesse, and diffuse pain among the rest. Reducing government incurs acute pain and diffuse joy. Guess who keeps winning, no matter who gets elected.

The solution may be cataclysmic, e.g. a war may rearrange the electorate's priorities, but most likely it will come at the point when the economic system infected by semi-socialism collapses: a Great Depression in reverse.