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.

 

[Tauzero]

"President Bush put together the first Energy Plan that our nation has had in place in decades."

We don't need an energy plan. Or a department of energy. Or at least that's what conservatives used to say.

"Part of getting rid of waste in government is managing with a comprehensive plan"

Part of restoring liberty is renouncing government management.

[editor-surveyor]

"but there are cases of people falling on hard times once they arrive..."

Yes, there are, but there are far more cases of immigrants coming here destitute, and their sponsors not fulfilling their obligations. - That is fraud that should be eliminated.

[DLfromthedesert]

Mr. Mind numbed Bot, Don't tell me who to vote for!! I'm not a cheerleader; I'm a thinking citizen. Maybe you can buy a couple of brain cells and do some thinking yourself!!

[rob777]

"You can harp on the senate all you want, but when push comes to shove, our conservative seems to sign the yes column for the Democrats far too often. There is a power of the veto, no? "



Unfortunately this started far before the election. The Bush campaign bullied conservative Republicans into dropping the plank in their platform eliminating the Department of Education. It was not pressure from Democrats that forced him to jettison this plank. Federal control over education is one of my biggest concerns. Any totalitarian society must maintain control over the education of children in order to shape a society's future.

[x]

Times change. What made the Reagan years was the reaction to 50 years of big government and its increasing failures, fifteen years of radical social change, ten years of economic stagnation, and five years of foreign policy defeats. Those conditions don't apply now, so the public mood is different and the agenda now doesn't resemble Reagan's. Even Reagan wasn't able to put his agenda through.

Partial successes make government grow. Winning a war or putting a man on the moon made people think that government could do anything, so they pushed government to the limits of its competence. Real failures, by contrast, make people impatient with and angry at government. So modest successes at getting people off welfare and improving urban conditions have weakened the sentiment for cutting back government. While it's possible to rouse people against expanding government it will probably take other clear and damaging examples of government failure to reawaken enthusiasm for a rollback.

That desire for change may -- will -- come back in a decade or in a generation. There's a lot of harm that will happen in the meantime. But people deal with problems as they come up -- one thing at at a time. A complete package of across the board changes won't go anywhere.

If you can make real cases for specific reforms, and show that the benefits to those concerned far exceed the possible costs or drawbacks of the reform, maybe you can get something done. Don't hold your breath, though, as the political elites can hold back changes that a majority of Americans favor.

The political system resists change unless there is a real crisis or catastrophe. If you want change, keep up the policy analysis, build coalitions, and present what you want as reforms or incremental changes, rather than as a revolution or a radical rollback.

[DontLetItGetYouDown]

I'm with Southack on defending GW in this case. Let's not forget the political realities here. Thanks to the defecting Jeffords(because GW was TOO conservative), we have an unapologetic, obstructionist Senate. They have not been scared off because they have a political base that is equal to ours.

Thanks to the war and some "centrist" political maneuvering, GW has accomplished conservative goals and is currently making the Dims pay. Yes, amnesty would have been a bad idea, but, conveniently, the President was given credit for promoting it even though it never came to fruition. hmmmmm. Food stamps, well maybe that is a bit much for my tastes, but face it, if this Party fails to make inroads with hispanics we will be on the outside looking in PERMANENTLY!

I'm curious as to what the disenchanted here believe we could have accomplished without bargaining. Also, how big has this centrist stance enhanced our chances of gaining seats in the House AND Senate? I like our chances.

[sam_paine]

His way is totalitarianism. See Patriot Act.

I don't like Dashole's bilge either...

But could we afford the New York Times headline, "Bush Vetoes Patriot Bill"

Is gridlock acceptable right now if all we have to round up Muslim Murderers is a corrupt FBI/CIA/BATFag corps? I don't think sitting on our hands on principle helps us save lives -or- the Constitution. If the terrorists are too successful, and chaos ensues, the Constitution will become just a memory anyway.

Damnit. I agree with you that the socialist slime seeping out of congress is killing the Constitution. But if the tide is going to change peacefully, it will have to change slowly, through the ugliness of the system you so despise.

P.S. Don't give me any guff about totalitarianism, personally. I've fought the fight at my own TxDOT license renewal and refused them my fingerprints....and taken the resultant tin-foiler heat for that. I'm not just whining about how upset I am I haven't gotten everything I wanted. I'm fighting for the Constitution at both ends: via the ballot, and personal peaceful protest. (And I'm armed as the founding fathers suggested, just in case!)

[weikel]

Perhaps but I don't think we will get anyone better than Bush( not for 100 years anyway).

The pyramid scheme( social security) has too many fanatical dependents voting for it.

Maybe some day libertarians will get elected( unfortunately they are too weak on national security issues since the Lib party creed is non initation of force which prevents preemptive strikes on our enemies this kind of idiot thinking among them is shown plain and clear on antiwar.com the Ayn Rander libertarians are a bit smarter when it comes to that but the religious conservatives will never vote for them).

Our best bet for now is to push for lower taxes and deregulation to the exclusion of all else on economic issues.

The real problem now is that everyone can vote regardless of qualifications the only way we will ever really get a small government is if suffrage is restricted as it originally was to the upper class and senators are not directly elected anymore. We'll also need an amendment abolishing the income tax.

[Southack]

"President Bush's first budget last year was a massive ballooning of the government that most socialists would be proud of. In addition, there was not one--NOT ONE--proposal to dowsize any part of the US government."

So a $1.3 Trillion tax cut enlarges government in your world??

You would have preferred a nice tax increase instead?! Would that make government smaller?

You also managed to miss my key point that until Conservatives drum up enough grass roots support to roll back the AUTOMATIC increases in each year's federal budget, that EVERY President will be labeled as having the largest budget in history, bigger than last year's, bigger than the last President's budget, et al, from here on out.

Until Congress knocks the automatic increases out of all future budgets, every President is going to be encumbered by them. It serves no purpose other than anti-Conservative propaganda to disingenuously claim that our current President is responsible for the bigger budget under our existing circumstances, but it probably makes a few 3rd-party types feel a little better to repeat such senseless rhetoric...

[Kevin Curry]

Poor baby. You must be in torment, suffering in agony. No freedom, no money, no happiness. Life is pure hell in this giant statist stalag called America.

All in all, I'm happy. No torment. Good health, no addictions. Taxes are too high, and the libertarians want to make them higher by legalizing dope and buying into the doper-victim scam. Still, I have all the money I need and then some.

God bless America. Despite its flaws, it is still the greatest and most free nation on earth. I am grateful to be a citizen.

[sam_paine]

RE: "Ron Paul for President-2004"

Bless your heart!

I love Ron's "Vote no first, Ask questions later" attitude. But your gonna have to get more than TWELVE-HUNDRED signatures on a world wide internet petition to get him measuring drapes in the oval office!!! Best of luck, though!

[Southack]

"Part of restoring liberty is renouncing government management."

Yet, you've lost no specific liberty. What right was denied to you?

[Ragin1]

Sam, That's one headline that would not have hurt him 1 bit. He/they knew the real problem is lax immigration laws. No need to keep it a secret. I think it is time to lock it up. For the last 15 yrs we've take 3 steps back for every half step forward. How would it look? It would look like a real man was in the white house. It would look like the buck does stop right there. He could use the pulpit to reason to the masses. He seems to use it to push for more robin hood measures. Fireside chats was a wonderful idea. I think even with his speach problem, (wich really isn't a problem), he could become a greater communicator, than the great communicator.

[MadameAxe]

Nicely put.
:-)

[Tauzero]

"I don't care if he gives it all to welfare moms, as long as the country is defended. Isn't that after all the first priority of government?"

No, it's not. The first priority of the government is and always will be defending the government. A side effect is that the country is also defended. Most of the time.

[weikel]

If Hilary gets elected barring a coup the country is doomed America will become another Soviet Union. Don't not vote Republican if the dem nominee is Hilary.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Hello there. No, I didn't say we say nothing. I said that I could not say or do anything that aligns myself with the Hillary led Stalinists (who are drooling at the prospect of dividing conservatives again (as they did with Papa Bush and Perot) and getting Hitlery into office. I also said President Bush and his team are going to have to address these issues, reach out to conservatives as they have reached out to liberals.

I respect others who want to speak out and are speaking out. I simply won't join them.

[Twodees]

It can't be done that quickly, the way they seem to be intent on doing it. It's apparent that a crisis situation is necessary for any big push toward subjugating the citizenry completely, but the 9/11 attacks are the wrong kind of crisis. An economic crisis, like a depression is the kind of crisis that is needed for the kind of demoralization that would have to be common among the American people for a sudden switch in the balance of power that still tenuously exists now.

The demoralization wouldn't take as long to set in among the kind of Americans we are today, compared to the kind of people we were in the early decades of the 20th century. The last depression was in its fourth year before FDR was emboldened enough to really start pushing his agenda. So, if a depression was set in place, your two year estimate is much more likely than my thirty year estimate.

Seeing that there are quite a few republicans waking up and becoming resistant is encouraging, though.