George Bush's Big Government Adventure

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

[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.

	Huge education spending bill (i.e. Federal Local School Board Bribery Act) which liberal Democrats love that doesn't mention a word about choice or local control.
	Food stamps for immigrants.
	Largest spending bill in American History. The first to exceed 2 trillion dollars.
	The Airport Security Bill that completely takes control of over 28,000 screening jobs. Now it seems that they don't even have to be high school graduates either. The big difference, they can't be fired.
	100 million for welfare moms.
	Hugely Expanding Clinton's Amercorps boondoggle that all conservatives railed against.
	Kowtowing to law breaking illegal immigrants by proposing amnesty. Speaking of illegal immigrants who sneak across the border; "And we've got to respect that, seems like to me, and treat those people with respect," he added. "I remind people all across our country: Family values do not stop at the border."
.	38 Billion for a new Homeland Security bureaucracy that allots a 20% increase for border control. Guess what. It goes to our problematic Canadian border, with not a dollar spent on the Mexican border. Read it for yourself
	The  Orwellian "Patriot Act" that gives Federal authorities carte blanche to rifle through all of your digital communications and essentially,  rob your house without notice.
	71.5 billion over 10 years for government health care.
	Not releasing appropriate documents on Clinton and FBI corruption.

 

[junta]

How is he gonna buy the Hispanic vote without the federal largesse as his pocketbook?

[editor-surveyor]

"Food stamps for immigrants" instead of "illegal immigrants"

Deb, I can't make this distinction. - Anyone whose resources are so limited as to need such welfare entitlements should not be allowed to immigrate here. - Do you really wish to pick up their share of the load?

[sinkspur]

I see you've attracted some of the 6% of the country that didn't like Bush's speech to your sandbox.

Ya'll have fun.

[Ragin1]

"That assessment absolves Bush: he, or any other GOP politician"

Only if we continue to swallow camels to swing at the gnats. Our congress has laughed at every line in the sand, and now our last 3 president's actually seem to throw the sand in our face.

There oughta be a law.

[CubicleGuy]

NEWS FLASH: This is a Two Party System.

Well, that's certainly the impression they hope you're left with.

[incindiary]

lol!

[DLfromthedesert]

Mine too. I'm a Republican precinct committeeman, state committeeman, helping with several campaigns of Conservative Repubs (including Matt Salmon for AZ Gov); active with Tucson Republican Women.

I am NOT a malcontent; I've been working hard for a smaller government; I worked hard to get this President elected because I believed that was HIS intention.

I'm not against him, but I am disappointed by some of his policies, like more welfare for non-citizens, his border policies in general (which are responsible in large part for 9/11; I realize this was gong on for years, but he needs to implement a more common sense policy).

I plan to watch what he does, support him when he's right, and speak out when I believe he's wrong, as any responsible citizen should do. Are we supposed to be mindless cheerleaders in order to be good Republicans?

[GummyIII]

I see you've attracted some of the 6% of the country that didn't like Bush's speech to your sandbox.

Then there are always the ants that come to the picnic....

[rob777]

"Yeah but I do not think we will ever have the constituition back I wish all entitlements and the income tax could be abolished but call me cynical I don't think it will ever happen."



I agree, but am not ready to stop insisting that we get there. There was a time in this country that some people said the same thing about the income tax, federal control of education, social security, etc., but look at where we are now. The wild eyed socialists who were insisting on pushing for these issues were seen as unrealistic extremists. 20/20 hindsight has proven them to be visionaries. We may never restore the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but I would rather risk being known as an unrealistic extremist than to give up the fight. If we lower our sights because we view the ideal as unattainable, we create a self fullfilling prophesy.

[Deb]

Why don't you run for office on the platform of ending food stamps for immigrants here legally. See how far you get.

Nobody, absolutely nobody should be allowed to come to this country who cannot contribute to society and provide for themselves, but the are cases of people falling on hard times once they arrive. If you can't understand the difference between someone who waits his turn, follows the rules and respects our laws and someone who doesn't...then I can't help you. But all three GOP candidates for govenor, including FReeper fave Bill Simon, came out in favor of it.

[Tauzero]

"The experiment failed."

Unfortunately, you're probably right. I'm pretty much resigned to simply positioning myself so that me and mine can profit from the denouement.

[going hot]

How do you reach a population that has been brainwashed by socialist propaganda? How do you reverse the damage done to three generations of citizens?

Slowly, very slowly, the same way it was brought upon us in the first place.

Any one person, elected as president, that tries to change the "populace" in one fell swoop, in either direction, is doomed to four years, with a large loss at mid term.

Bush is not aiming at the one percenters, he is slowly trying to gain the trust of the majority who sit on their hands until voting time, then simply use their emotions on election day.

Once he has gained their respect and trust, he, and conservatives in general, can slowly turn up the heat and accelerate change.

To attempt to change generations of socialism in one year, or even one term, is a foolhardy proposition. Lots of hot air, lots of soapbox grandstanding, even excellent ideas, but without the trust of 51% of the electorate, that person's opinions and a dime get a cup of coffee.

If you are not in the game, you simply cannot get your hands on the ball to move downfield.

[alcuin]

Your 1: Good post.

[rob777]

"Respectfully, I think that is empire think, not republic think. The US was designed as a republic of republics. Most matters should be local. Folks in Mass. should not be dictating my life in NC. Also, I have a greater chance of knowing, and having a say with local politicians. The guys in DC represent the narrow interests of the elite. It doesn't matter what letter they attach to their name. When Bush tells me I need to give money to help people 2000 miles away I cant know how true his words are. But I can see the problems I live with day to day. All this money going to help other people never seems to solve anything other then take money from me I would have used locally to fix the problems I know of. The only problem I know with certainty gets solved is how to pay all the people getting a government salary."



Well Said!

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

"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?"

Frankly, it's looking to me like the classic bait-n-switch con, or a political version of Good-Cop/Bad-Cop. The Republicans seem to be convinced that statism is, in fact, the answer to life's problems: it's just that the wrong people had been in charge for too long. Now that the right people are in charge, they hope to use the One Ring "for good." Well, it wouldn't work for Gandalf and it's surely not going to work for George II. When you get Frankenstein's monster in custody, you don't teach him to perform parlour tricks, YOU DESTROY HIM! Why? Because the monster's evil boss is lurking just around the corner ready to resume control at the first opportunity.

But the once and future Leviathon is not what I worry about most. The current administration has taken steps for the purposes of maintaining internal security that are a hair's breadth away from negating the Bill of Rights. So right now, the state is focused on Moslem terrorists and their friends. Anyone care to wager what a Democrat administration will do with these expanded police powers? Or are we really THAT naive?

George II has, probably with the best intentions, laid the foundation for a regime of political repression that will make us yearn for the good old days of Arkancide and the Politics of Personal Destruction.

Well, I'll be looking forward to meeting you all in the Gulag.

[Holden Magroin]

Which includes standards for schools. Also for the first time Pubbies are at parity with demo's in the polls when it comes to education. Education is not a demo issue anymore and the public is willing to listen to pubbies when it comes to education, not dispel them outright.

The Republicans threw the DemocRATS on the defensive when they emphasized accountability and vouchers. But Bush got hoisted on his own petard when he signed Ted Kennedy's bill. The teachers' unions will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Food stamps for "legal" immigrants. Anyway the five year limit for welfare still stands.

The food stamp program has no time limits. It's also virtually noncategorical, which is why it now costs around $20 billion a year.

Too bad, most Americans wanted the airport screeners to be "federalized"(although I didn't). Bush unlike you doesn't have a politcal death wish.

Apparently, he does. These 28,000 new federal employees will probably pay somewhere around $20 a month in union dues. Do the math.

[On welfare:]Yeah so, also this program, I beleive, also wants to encourage marriage.

Terrific. Let's also ban handguns to reduce gun violence.

Uh Clinton's Americorps was feel good gobbledygook, IMHO. This is more like the civil defense program of the 50's.

That's what the National Guard is (supposed to be) for. Uh please show me an official proposal where "blanket amnesty" has been proposed?

It's Tom Dasshole and Dick Gephardt who are proposing total amnesty. But Bush's proposal to grant citizenship to three million illegals is enough. Out of 15 states with the lowest immigrant populations, Bush won 14. Out of 7 states with the highest immigrant populations, Bush lost 5 and probably 6. Does Bush want to lose Texas, too?

Real homeland security means plugging the wholes in our porous border and deporting illegal aliens at once.

And proposing market reforms in Medicare.

Bush's proposed "reforms" include subsidizing prescription drugs for the elderly. Bush's approval ratings were 94% after the State of the Union address. He could be using those ratings to dismantle the welfare state or at least change some hearts and minds. But instead he is using his ratings to encourage people to continue believing that the government is supposed to take care of the people from cradle to grave.

[Nubbin]

Thanks. If it had been a snake..

[verboten]

If you can't understand the difference...

I cant understand the difference between the Democrats who created food stamps, and the Republicans willing to expand them. How are Republicans making the moral argument against wealth redistribution when they advocate food stamps? The problem is they are for their fair share of government power so they must allow the Democrats theirs. It is sort of like if we both agree to not rat the other out for taking $5 from an open cash register.

[nunya bidness]

Are we supposed to be mindless cheerleaders in order to be good Republicans?

I guess it depends on whom you talk to. I prefer to tell the truth.