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.

 

[nunya bidness]

Amen.

[mrustow]

Of related interest:

The State of Our Union

Which brings me to the unpleasant surprise: This State of the Union Address could easily have been given by a Democrat. It's a budget-buster of a statement. It's a document promising us more of Leviathan, not less. And yet, Mr. "Looking for Friends in All the Wrong Places" still failed to soften his enemies' hearts. A socialist commentator accompanying Brit Hume of Fox 5 in New York, complained, "There was nothing for minorities." Had a socialist president called for "good jobs" for [black] welfare clients, "broader [black] home ownership," even MORE aid to that anti-intellectual, minority money pit, Head Start, people "rebuild[ing black] communities," "mentors to love [black] children ... whose parents are in prison," "more talented teachers in troubled [black] schools," and quoted black socialist Marian Wright Edelman on leaving no child behind, the same commentator would surely have applauded his "commitment to social justice."

[bayourod]

You haven't got a clue. Let me guess, you are 19 years old, right?

[mafree]

Thanks for the flag- this article is good and offers some things to think about.

[Southack]

"I'm always a little baffled by such questions. What do government laws do other then restrict behavior or take property, and therefore circumscribe freedom? ... So every prohibition in new laws is a theft of our liberty."

No. There are thousands of driving laws, yet I can still drive. There are hundreds of drinking laws, yet I can still drink. There are scores of security laws, yet I can still purchase stocks. There are miriad property laws, yet I can still buy and sell land.

With that in mind, I asked you what SPECIFIC liberty that you've been denied.

[mafree]

Was already pinged but thanks anyway.

[Southack]

"In addition, there was not one--NOT ONE--proposal to dowsize any part of the US government."

Once again, GWB proposed and signed into law a $1.3 Trillion tax cut.

Apparently in your world, that means that not one part of government was downsized.

[Ben Ficklin]

Hello Bush bashers, it is accounting time.

Now that the thread has reached 300 there is a total of only 84 posters on the thread doing the Bush Bash Boogie.

I have become concerned about the extreme minority position the malcontents occupy here and wondered if it might be better for you at this place.

[Texasforever]

Just to put some perspective to your outrage let's play what if for a second. What if Al Gore had been president for the last year? What was in the "pipeline" that he would have embraced with open arms. First, the Kyoto accords. By the most "conservative estimate, implementation of that treaty would have cost the United States economy 20% of the GDP every year for ever. Had Gore been president, he would have signed the ergonomics bill that by every "conservative" estimate would add 10% to the operating costs of every employer large enough to be covered under the rules and passed through to you and I in price increases. If Al Gore had been president there would have been NO tax cut at all and very likely a tax increase to pay for items 1 and 2 above. If you thought Clinton was a land grabber think for a second what Al (earth in the balance" Gore would have done? I will not even address the Sept, 11 and the military because I think even you know what an Al Gore presidency would have given us. The first two items above, DWARF the laundry list that you posted above.

[toenail]

"The first two items above, DWARF the laundry list that you posted above."

When the term RINO loses its umph, feel free to use DWARF as an acronym for a Democrat With A Republican Face.

[ATrueConservativeMan]

I see not one person has provided an answer to my question back in post #72. PLEASE NAME ONE PROGRAM BUSH HAS PROPOSED TO ELIMINATE OR EVEN CUT? Please name just ONE program. Those who say that for Bush to fight for the elimination or even the reduction of government programs would not be "realistic" are either fake conservatives or do not have any confidence in conservative principles. Those on this tread who support Bush without reservation even though he has not proposed (much less fight) to cut even ONE federal program (much less eliminate ONE federal program) do not have the moral standing to even lick President Ronald Reagan's shoe. You people are not censervatives. You are behaving like chumps.

[Texasforever]

Please name just ONE program

See post 331, items 1 and 2

[verboten]

There were thousands of driving laws, yet Nazis could still drive. There were hundreds of drinking laws, yet Nazis could still drink. There were scores of security laws, yet Nazis could still purchase stocks. There were myriad property laws, yet Nazis could still buy and sell land. Replace Nazi with Soviet or any other represive regime.

Each law that does not protect your life, liberty, or property, is a specific infringement on liberty. And likewise the government being granted the right to infringe on your life, liberty, and property is a loss of liberty. The idea that you are free if in order to obtain that freedom you must get a license is strange. Freedom does not mean seeking permission or avoiding using your freedom in a manner which does not violate the life, liberty, or property of another person. You can say a slave is free, so long as he did his masters bidding, but I would object to misuse of the term free.

[DoughtyOne]

Grin. I dub thee Sir Gawain, knight of the FR Table.

[DoughtyOne]

I fear the day will come, and not too distant my friend, when yours will be one of few options left. I understand your thoughts for I have had them myself.

[Southack]

"There were thousands of driving laws, yet Nazis could still drive. There were hundreds of drinking laws, yet Nazis could still drink. There were scores of security laws, yet Nazis could still purchase stocks. There were myriad property laws, yet Nazis could still buy and sell land. Replace Nazi with Soviet or any other represive regime. Each law that does not protect your life, liberty, or property, is a specific infringement on liberty."

Well, you win the prize for the flaming non sequitor of the day.

Not all Germans could drive. Jews had their permission to drive revoked. Jews had their rights to own private property revoked. They literally had rights denied to them, including the loss of their lives.

In contrast, you've managed to avoid admitting the obvious: you haven't been denied a single right.

Either admit that fact or produce evidence to the contrary, but posting more non sequitors won't cut it.

[Spiff]

I agree 100%.

Some people here think that backing Bush's war effort means also supporting his socialistic, big government programs too. He needs to spend more money on the military and intelligence programs to fight and prevent future terrorist attacks - and not more money on welfare state programs.

If this was a Democrat president announcing all this liberal, government expanding nonsense while were fighting a freakin' war (dammit) and the economy was going to hell we'd be out in the streets protesting en masse. Instead this forum has become an amen corner for whatever big government scheme the leftist-controlled Republican Party is promoting. I even had someone on FR call me a Nazi today because I was condemning these big government programs.

[Lion's Cub]

Thank you for speaking so well for many of us!