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.

 

[AAABEST]

You people in your pin-headed kneejerk bashing of Bush are losing it.

M2C, you made poo-poo in your dipey again!

Gosh can't you guys handle any views outside of your own? The poster was simply expressing his POV and not insulting to you in any fashion, yet you can't refrain from the drooling personal attacks.

It's pathological with you guys. Express a view that's not totally on board the Bushelmania Happy Train and ya'll start drawing knives and wildly slahing.

It doesn't even matter if the person is a fellow conservative who votes Repubican.

[Protagoras]

And that ought to scare the bejesus out of everybody on this forum!

Most of them would walk across burning coals to vote for it.

Remember, we are the crazy ones, but we are only a small minority so I guess the others feel safe.

[My2Cents]

M2C, you made poo-poo in your dipey again!

What a freakin' intelligent comment.

I came to FR around 1997 (I used a different screen name than I do know, for those who don't believe my longevity with FR). I came here because I found kindred spirits -- people of like-mind who helped me get through the horrible days of the Clinton Presidency. On FR, I found people who loved liberty, who loved the principles this nation was founded on, who hated abusive government, who hated corruption and lies, who loved integrity, and who hated Clinton (who was the complete antithesis of what we all believed in).

Now what I am increasingly finding on FreeRepublic is a collection of cranks and sourpusses; people who hate the phrase "compassionate conservative" because they seem to hate the word "compassion';" Michael Savage wannabees; people who are strident in their views; whiners who truly think the golden age of the Republic was the 19th century, and wish to return there; for whom "conservative principles" have only to do with their pocketbooks; people who are chronic nitpickers. Maybe with Clinton fading into the midst, all the people I felt a kinship with on FreeRepublic have drifted away to other pursuits, leaving only the cranks left. That's the way it seems.

[Protagoras]

What happened to the Republican goal of the elimination of the Department of Education?

I personally don't believe it ever was a real goal. Just a talking point in a struggle for domination of the one party to which they both belong.

[stanz]

The fact that George W. is somewhat of a moderate is what appealed to me in the first place. While I clearly don't agree with all of the points you listed, I am pleased with his agenda thus far. History ( if the liberals don't re-write it) will tell.

[jla]

he would (like Congressman Paul) issue a press release outlining the reasons he won't sign the bill into law. He could do that with any legislation that Congress sends him. Does he? Nope.

Could you give me an example of any of Dubya's proposals or budget items you refer to?

[AAABEST]

OK, I'm gonna give a shot at smokem' peace pipe.

They're not all cranks. Many long time Freepers have real disagreements with Mr. Bush. It's a fact of life (as opposed to opinion) that he's growing Government vastly and conservatives or people with strains of libertarian are going to have a problem with that.

In the initial post I stated this and kindly appealed to people to not flame each other out of hand. JR has also asked this.

We've been posting here for a long time until recently we all were pretty much on the same side.

On another thread you called me a .0001% reform party member and on this one you said that my opinion means nothing to you, or something to that effect. Which is fine I suppose.

Get this through your head. We're not all a bunch of "cranks", or newbies or crazed Harry Browne fans. We're for the most part, serious and well intentioned people who would like to see smaller government. Most of us even voted for Bush.

He's growing government too big and too fast without even having his hand forced by the Dems. At what point will M2C say "uh...can you please cut that out"?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Good Sir.. could you PLEASE tell me who is better able to run this country? Who could have done or be doing a better job?

And please.. don't say H. BROWN!!!!!! e'gads!!!

So many people with so much bravado.. with really nothing to add or say, because their speech is fruitless. It produces NOTHING.

I happen to like that this President is now acting like a President SHOULD IMHO. Once elected, after we have elected someone based on their positions, they then become the President of ALL. I would further state,.. that I don't think an acting President should campaign for his party while in office!!! Because he is the Leader of ALL of us during his tenure.

But all this exposing of political virtues,.. has delivered NOTHING. It's just a bunch of people who would rather see a Democrat in office. Because that ended up being the two choices. The rest did not run a good campaign, again IMHO.

It is just to comical to watch all these people sitting on their duffs doing NOTHING, but bitching and moaning. LOL

No real answers.. just copy and paste off the Constitution or the Federalist Papers etc,..and then profess to know all the answers.

In this house.. we honor President Bush. We are trying to research and understand his policies. And we feel "no threat" by his Presidency. In fact,..we feel he may be the first President in DECADES, to get it right.

His Administration is lawful, moral (darn that is refreshing and so great to be able to say!!)..and is trying to understand and follow the guidelines set forth by our Founding Fathers. And I might add.. they are doing one hell of a job!!!

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

"Could you give me an example of any of Dubya's proposals or budget items you refer to?"

Sure. They are listed in the original post of this very thread. Just click on any one of those pictures of Gee Dubya.

[Spiff]

You seem to have confused the position of President with the role of a King.

[Southack]

"OK, so in your world, besides a tax cut and your lack of economics understanding, and in an attempt to match your arrogance, what gubmint agency has been downsized? In the leftist tone, how did W "Pay" for his tax cuts? It's all rhetoric from you. Where did you get your talking points? Blackbird."

I was responding to a wild-eyed claim that President Bush hadn't cut "any part" of government. Somehow, a $1.3 Trillion tax cut sprang to my mind as a clear refutation of that claim.

Your mileage may vary.

As for your question of which government agency got cut by GWB, I'd have to say that the $9 Billion that he cut from the DOT's highway funds would have to qualify, but then again, your mileage may vary.

[WRhine]

Great post AAABEST. You told it like it is. I've traveled a very similar path as you being a Bush supporter and voter. And unlike those trapped up in GW "Mania" I have sat up and taken note of that growing list of programs and bills GW has either proposed or signed into law. Like you said, if Clinton did the very same thing Freepers would be all over him.

I am particularly troubled with Bush's proposed Amnesty for nearly 4 million Mexican illegal aliens and the reinstatement of welfare for immigrants that he is pushing. How does this not encourage even more people from around the world (particularly in Mexico) to break our immigration laws and get on the American welfare gravy train? The way things are going eventually all illegal aliens will be granted permanent residency and have access to welfare while they wait --all courtesy of the American Taxpayer. Bush must think we are fools!

[jla]

I want SMALLER government, and I want the process to start now. I don't expect it to be completed anytime soon. But I want it to START NOW. Advocating larger government is going in the wrong direction.

I'm in agreement with that.
And I believe the Dept. of Education should be abolished. Education should be handed back to the individual states, which in turn should hand that responsibility down to the counties, and so on.

So, George W proposed an even larger budget for the Dept. of Education, guess that negates the fact that he wants to further lower tax rates (permanently), take pre-emptive action against the world's proponents of evil, abolish abortion, et al.

George W is doing good things, and he will continue to do good things.
At times he's going to throw something out there that you or I may disagree with.
I myself don't look at Dubya as if he should be a panacea against all that the liberals have entrenched in the American landscape and psyche since FDR.

To follow along the lines of your argument, Ronald Reagan should have been abandoned during his first term.
Well, he went on to do a 'few' good things, as Dubya will do.
I just believe if Conservatives persevere, and stop with the bickering every damn time something doesn't go their way, then conservatives can finally gain a sustaining majority in both Houses, which from the ideas of free enterprise, a strong & an ever-vigilant national defense can upheld and hopefully become pandemic.

[Protagoras]

Good Sir.. could you PLEASE tell me who is better able to run this country? Who could have done or be doing a better job?

Me for one. ( don't worry, no danger of it happening) :-)

On a serious note, do you mean of those who ran? Because if you do, you missed my whole point. I know hundreds, if not thousands of people who would be better for the country. If you want to stick to just the people who ran, then you can live happily with the one who won, while I live unhappily with it. I don't advocate grading on the curve. Bush was arguably the least bad of a sorry bunch.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a momment. You are in need of being disabused of some inncorrect notions.

[jla]

I don't see anything "unConstitutional".

[Southack]

"Your pummeling people with simple minded questioins like "what right have you lost" is juvenile. According to your thought process, an amendment would have to actually be deleted from the text of the constitution for you to consider that right to be lost."

No, I respectfully disagree.

I live in Alabama. I have personally seen people lose rights here. Due to their skin color, people have been denied the right to vote, for instance.

That is an example of losing a right. That is an example of having a "right" denied to you.

It is black and white. On and off. Boolean. Good versus evil. Either you have had a "right" denied to you or not. Either you have lost a right or not.

The reason that you have to jump through hoops to claim that losing a "right" isn't a simple yes or no question/issue is because you personally have never lost a right.

And that's my point. It isn't juvenile for me to hammer on people who are dancing around on this thread regarding that one simple question: have you personally lost a "right" because that question cuts to the chase.

Those who wish to attack our current President are claiming that he has trashed our Constitution and denied them their rights.

Yet they can never point to a specific right that they have lost. Instead, they jump around and say that if you add up all of this, that, and the other thing, then it all sums up to deny them some nebulous and unmentioned "right".

And that's the path of deception.

Either people have lost their specific rights, or they haven't.

But people who have as their agenda the issue of smashing Bush at every turn don't want to admit that they really haven't lost any rights.

So they dance around the question on this thread.

Have you lost a right?

[Lazamataz]

I live in Alabama. I have personally seen people lose rights here. Due to their skin color, people have been denied the right to vote, for instance.

Can I help it if I have a little acne? I SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE, dammit.

[Lazamataz]

Have you lost a right?

I have lost a few rights. I have the right to keep and bear arms; there is no restriction placed, in the BoR, on what arms those are. I cannot keep a Class III (machine gun) in Illinois at all, and I may not bear (carry) a pistol at all.

Those are two rights I have lost outright.