Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: 1rudeboy
There is some unintended irony in that statement

The US is Republicans ...

61 posted on 01/30/2004 8:53:27 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Galactic Overlord-In-Chief
I'm not even sure Republicans would try to hold the line on spending with a Democrat in the White House. All he would have to do is pull out the "Republicans want to starve children" line and they would fold like a tent.

He wouldn't be so likely to get away with that if a majority of the electorate voted in a conservative manner.

62 posted on 01/30/2004 8:53:56 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: deport
My guess is you've been working for a democrat in the past based upon your postings.....

Honey I have been voting and working for and contributing to Republican and conservatives while you were still pissing your diapers.

But I see stagnant wages the outsourcing of job..not only manufacturing ..but soft wear development , engineering , accounting and most recent attorneys..who knows where it will end??

I am hopping that the Mexicans leave us a few picking jobs so my grandkids can work..

If you are not worried..you need to get out more

63 posted on 01/30/2004 8:59:45 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: inquest
He wouldn't be so likely to get away with that if a majority of the electorate voted in a conservative manner.

Which would mean that a Democrat wouldn't be elected President in the first place.

64 posted on 01/30/2004 9:04:49 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: hole_n_one
This is where the use of the term stupid comes into play.

Give me ONE advantage for working the the current Republican congressman (Who' wife BTW is a family friend). Please tell me one thing that will happen or not happen as a result..

65 posted on 01/30/2004 9:05:07 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: skyman; Ahban; jpsb
We need to reduce spending, and not just the growth in spending.

Supporting a Democrat would only make matters worse, so I suggest voting for Constitution Party candidates such as Michael Peroutka. Unlike a vote for Bush or the Democrats, Peroutka seeks to reduce spending (and the related tax burden) to Constitutional limits.

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.

66 posted on 01/30/2004 9:07:00 AM PST by The_Eaglet (Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skyman
Who here would accept slightly smaller federal spending growth say bringing down federal spending from 22% of GDP (what it is now) to 18-20% of GDP (what is was in 2000)by having gridlocked government with Kerry as Pres and a GOP controlled Senate and House but a Constitutional Right found in the 14th amendment to Gay Marriage and full Gay Rights protected by the US Constitution as well as US foreign policy being turned over to the UN?

This is relevant because it is what some here on FR are essentially proposing by abandoning Bush in 2004. If you accept it fine, but be prepared.
67 posted on 01/30/2004 9:13:56 AM PST by lsmith1990
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lsmith1990
BTW the constitution party may clense your conscience but they arent going to win anything, so their platform is useless. They wont get 1/2 of 1% of the vote.
68 posted on 01/30/2004 9:16:43 AM PST by lsmith1990
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I see, the medicare prescription bill wasn't big enough for you

You only prove your ignorance of what is in the bill..perhaps if you read some you might know that the bill outlaws ANY private prescription plan and any gap plan for the elderly . All of the plans now paid for by business will be shifted to the taxpayer, (75% of the elderly currently have employer/retirement based prescription plans)

What now may be a 5-10 dollar co pay a script will be 25% and a monthly fee of $25 dollars a month and a $250 deductible and the coverage is only to $2500 a year .

The plan was never about helping the elderly it was about shifting the cost from business to taxpayers .

So starting in 06 you my friend will then have the opportunity to pay your part ( 75% )of my $6000 dollar outlay for drugs. This has given a windfall to Business and drug companies and let you pay the bill , and if you have an elderly parents ...lets them eat cake

69 posted on 01/30/2004 9:17:34 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Who says he doesn't like Bush? Those who like and admire him are likely to be the most disappointed and perplexed.

I have wallpaper on my screen with Bush on it--he's clearing brush in Crawford. I love that picture--it says everything that I cheered for and voted for.

And I'm MAD. Just FURIOUS with this amnesty *&^# ! Now he wants to turn American roads loose with Mexican drivers of big rigs. As if the roads aren't dangerous enough, and American truckers not part of the "willing" workforce!!

70 posted on 01/30/2004 9:19:39 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: skyman
I dunno, but I DO know that in Tennessee, our stupid big-spending "Republican" Governor was pushing for a State Income Tax, because he couldn't understand that spending less could close the gap just like getting more money. He didn't run for office again, and a DEMOCRAT was elected.

Guess what? The DEMOCRAT cut the budget, and pledged no income tax.

We need to start a "Conservative Republican" party or something.
71 posted on 01/30/2004 9:22:10 AM PST by HeadOn (Come ON, folks! Congressman Billybob needs us! www.ArmorforCongress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
"voting for Constitution Party candidates"

That only makes sense if the CP can get some momentum going. If the CP winds up with .04% of the vote then it really makes little sense to vote CP. I hope the CP does get something going, then I would vote CP, but I ain't gonna vote for a .04% party. I like yall but that's just the way it is.

third parties have a tuff row to how in the USA, the only one that is even mildly successful is the conservative party in NY. I am hopefull that something like the NY conservative party can get going nationally. Then I'd vote third party.

Often, but not always, the conservative party supports the GOP canidate, makes sense to me.

72 posted on 01/30/2004 9:24:18 AM PST by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: HeadOn
you make a good point about TN, however, your Dem Gov who is cutting spending isnt the first line of defense in the war on terror and as a southern dem gov probably wont be appointing judicial activists to state courts. Also you seem to be comparing a Southern Dem gov to a NE liberal senator. The results wont be quite the same
73 posted on 01/30/2004 9:25:14 AM PST by lsmith1990
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: skyman
I not really serious

What a neato surprise! Tarzan of the Apes graces us with a post at FreeRepublic!

I don't think

No argument here.

74 posted on 01/30/2004 9:26:39 AM PST by Johnny_Cipher (Miserable failure = http://www.michaelmoore.com/ sounds good to me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Not necessarily. A split conservative majority might result in a Democrat getting elected, but he would be left without the means to intimidate Republicans.
75 posted on 01/30/2004 9:40:50 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Not necessarily. A split conservative majority might result in a Democrat getting elected, but he would be left without the means to intimidate Republicans.

Dude, you forgot one thing: a split conservative majority means down-ticket races go to the Democrats.

76 posted on 01/30/2004 9:42:22 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
down-ticket races

Are you referring to congressional races and the like? One can vote Constitution Party for the presidency and GOP for Congress. The CP isn't even fielding candidates in the vast majority of congressional districts.

77 posted on 01/30/2004 9:45:41 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Are you referring to congressional races and the like? One can vote Constitution Party for the presidency and GOP for Congress. The CP isn't even fielding candidates in the vast majority of congressional districts.

You're presuming, wrongly, (a) that a split will not depress conservative tunrout (it would) and (b) that OTHER third parties won't be running down-ticket candidates that won't split off the vote.

Bottom line: a split conservative vote gives the Democrats all three branches of goobermint, and they will make sure next time that they NEVER lose it.

78 posted on 01/30/2004 9:48:57 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
What are you talking about? A split won't have any effect on turnout, because it'll happen after the voters have turned out to vote.

If you're referring to the following election, there's no way of predicting what exactly would happen, though it's at least as likely that a good showing by the CP in 2004 would get conservatives more energized to vote.

79 posted on 01/30/2004 9:56:46 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: inquest
What are you talking about? A split won't have any effect on turnout, because it'll happen after the voters have turned out to vote.

Then it's f***ing irrelevant to the election in question.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, why are the "true conservatives" so thick-headed?

80 posted on 01/30/2004 10:01:59 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson