Skip to comments.
VANITY: Will We Need to Vote Democrat to Reduce the Growth of Goverment Spending?
12/29/04
| Skyman
Posted on 01/29/2004 8:54:26 PM PST by skyman
O.K. I not really serious...I don't think ...but who would have thought that someday we might have to vote democrat to reduce the growth of government? (notice I didn't say cut government because certainly they wouldn't) It pains me to even think this but it's hard to imagine even a dem president spending more money than Pres. Bush is proposing.
Does Pres. Bush think we are stupid? That we will vote for him no matter what? Even those of use who would probably never vote Democrat might have a hard time getting excited about voting at all this Nov since there is getting to be less and less difference between Pres Bush and the dems on domestic issues.
Being tough on the war on terror will only take him so far if he keeps this up and bankrupts the country.
If he turns enough of us off who really want to vote for him because of his massive health care spending and increases for programs like the the NEA, he's going to be in for a big surprise when he finds his base doesn't turn out in big numbers to vote in Nov.
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: budget; spending
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
To: JRandomFreeper
Republicans understand one thing and one thing only---they like being in power. The ONLY way they will learn is to vote them out. May hurt for two years, but you'll get a slate of conservatives the next time.
I agree that the republican congress does better with a dem in the White House, of course the problem then is appointments and exec orders.
Remember that someday a democrat Atty Gen'lwill be enforcing the Patriot Act.
21
posted on
01/29/2004 9:30:48 PM PST
by
Founding Father
(The only principle I have is to get reelected!!!)
To: xrp
There aren't many Democrats who are more liberal on spending than President Bush is. The lying Bush-haters are really out tonight!
22
posted on
01/29/2004 9:31:33 PM PST
by
cinFLA
To: Founding Father
Which "founding father" are you?
To: skyman
If being registered ONLY 10 months and questioning the leader of the party I believe in makes me a troll then so be it.Some here are rather fast and loose with their use of the term troll, and you'd be well served to keep that it mind if and when that charge is ever leveled against you again in the future.
However, the term stupid is made with great thought and deliberation.
To: skyman
On another thread someone called the President Democrat Lite. And by George, I'm beginning to agree.
25
posted on
01/29/2004 9:33:08 PM PST
by
JoJo Gunn
(Gut and raze the NEA! ©)
To: skyman
26
posted on
01/29/2004 9:35:58 PM PST
by
deport
(BUSH - CHENEY 2004.........)
To: Toddsterpatriot
So, name one program that a Democrat would reduce spending on. Besides defending the country. Since Bush isn't reducing spending, there is a different question you should be asking.
Name one program that a Democrat would increase spending on, that Bush wouldn't. I can't think of any.
To: inquest
28
posted on
01/29/2004 9:41:00 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: skyman
Terry McAuliffe is that you?
29
posted on
01/29/2004 9:41:10 PM PST
by
MJY1288
(WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
To: Founding Father
The ONLY way they will learn is to vote them out. They also learn from meet-and-greets held at individual homes. Coffee gatherings are a great tool for the grass-roots. It just means that you can't be a keyboard warrior. You actually have to clean the house and send out invitations to your radical right-wing compadres. Or skip the house-cleaning, if that's what they've come to expect.
I voted for Dr. Keyes in the last primary, and I've got friends that make Keyes look like a liberal.
Republicans get more grass-roots action than demoncraps. If they follow through and actually send the invitations to their reps.
/john
30
posted on
01/29/2004 9:42:20 PM PST
by
JRandomFreeper
(I'm not quite just a cook anymore.)
To: MJY1288; skyman
Skyman doesn't hang around much if you look at his posting history.... He's a hit and miss type feller......
31
posted on
01/29/2004 9:43:22 PM PST
by
deport
(BUSH - CHENEY 2004.........)
To: skyman
What is this, some form of political homeopathy?
32
posted on
01/29/2004 9:43:46 PM PST
by
Huber
(Love of one's own is inferior to love of what is both one's own, and good. - L. Strauss)
To: deport
Now after reading the thread you linked, and then seeing this thread hoisted for our perusal, I have to wonder how many of them even bother to read 1/3, let alone 1/2 of the threads on FR.
I almost want to believe they are given assignments on how many threads/posts they are to make each day with the same jibberish over and and over again.
STUPID???
Absolutely.
33
posted on
01/29/2004 9:45:47 PM PST
by
Neets
(Complainers change their complaints, but they never reduce the amount of time spent in complaining.~)
To: skyman
I remember the contract with America with fondness..remember how PBS and the council on arts were going to be cut .
Remember how the spending was going to be more responsible?
There has not been one program ever de funded .
The topper came when increased funds on Clintons phony "volunteer" program where everyone is on the government pay role.
There is a race to see what party will drive us into bankruptcy ...maybe England will take us back..or China will buy us..
34
posted on
01/29/2004 9:45:53 PM PST
by
RnMomof7
To: deport
"Skyman doesn't hang around much if you look at his posting history.... He's a hit and miss type feller......"Well..... It takes a long time to come up with something this freaking stupid :-)
35
posted on
01/29/2004 9:46:46 PM PST
by
MJY1288
(WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
To: MJY1288
lol!
To: JRandomFreeper
I don't agree with President Bush on several issues. But congress controls spending, not the president. It's written in the Constitution that way. Spending issues fall to congress. Period. No one is holding a gun to his head to sign the budget..and look and see the presidential plans that are put into the budget ...with all the congressmen promising not to sign on unless they get some pork too.
37
posted on
01/29/2004 9:48:05 PM PST
by
RnMomof7
To: hole_n_one
Republicans in Congress tend to be much tougher on keeping spending in check if they're up against a Democrat in the White House. In that situation, they stand up and proclaim themselves conservatives. But if there's a REpublican in the White House -- and he's a big spender -- he's not gonna get much of a fight from the GOP in Congress. THIS is the argument for having a Dem president and a GOP congress. Too bad Bush is acting like a spend-spend-spend liberal, or this argument wouldn't even occur to anybody.
To: RnMomof7
Yes, he's more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian, but at this point, I'd take a Hamilton
or Jefferson over a Carter, Clinton, or Roosevelt.
I'm so glad the Roosevelts are out of power.
/john
39
posted on
01/29/2004 9:53:38 PM PST
by
JRandomFreeper
(I'm not quite just a cook anymore.)
To: RnMomof7
with all the congressmen promising not to sign on unless they get some pork too.
Isn't Representative Democracy great..... I hope you congressman is getting your share of the pie... If not you should vote him/her out.... However if your share is left untaken then it's more for others to divy up..... thanks.
40
posted on
01/29/2004 9:53:39 PM PST
by
deport
(BUSH - CHENEY 2004.........)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson