Your explanation about why you don't find the patriot act troubling explains a lot to me about your satisfaction with things. Are you not a civil libertarian? I have not heard that the reason the government bungled the clues that they did have, was from a lack of power. It appears it was blundering and infighting - from not doing their job.
I followed the patriot act closely before it passed both houses and got signed into law. There were a number of newspaper articles that mentioned that both Ashcroft and Bush wanted no sunsetting. They made this statement when the house and senate were deliberateing on it and trying to add provisions to it. I'm sure I printed some of the articles out and will look for them.
Same with the social spending - it was on Newsmax. I think I've saved that too. Being as I have school tonight and a very busy weekend - it'll be awhile before I can search for the info for you.
Got to run - thanks for your time - have a great day.
Look, I'm a law and order conservative, but I'm also a realist. This idea that we're just suppose to sit back and allow terrorists free access to circumvent our nations laws and ultimately kill more Americans is a crazy policy. After all, we were attacked once by cowardly bastards and we are now engaged in a war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad. Being inconvenienced, bothered or annoyed by extenuating circumstances, are small sacrifices that most Americans have no problem with. All the freedoms and liberties we had before 9-11, we still have today. I know of no one, who has lost any freedoms and liberties. Except for may be a few terrorists and criminals.
>>>Are you not a civil libertarian?
Like most Americans, I support civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and in that regard, I guess I could be considered a civil libertarian. However, I'm not a fringe extremist, reactionary, absolutist, anarchist or libertarian. I don't believe that holding terrorist scumbags like Jose Padilla, against his will and without due process, will turn America into a totalitarian state.
>>>Same with the social spending...
You have your facts wrong. Bush has proposed two budgets so far. From 2002 ($2.052 billion) to 2003 ($2.128billion), spending increases have totaled $76 billion or 3.57%. The DoD and Homeland Security have received the largest increases under Bushes first two budgets. Add to that, emergency spending for 9-11 and its obvious where the funds have been allocated. This funding is discretionary spending and is different then mandatory spending under existing law, for items like Social Security, medicare, medicad, income security and interest on the national debt. One more time. If homeland security and 9-11 emergency spending is excluded, nondefense spending rose by 3.3 percent in 2002 and is slated to decline by 0.4 percent in 2003. Those are the facts from OMB.