Replies

Admittedly, I hadnt 'read the content of the site as apparently you have. I just typed GWB's spending into Google and that's what I found. My intent wasn't to slander or disparage Jim Robinson or Free Republic in any way.

I'll gladly consider any other information on GWB's spending should you provide the source.

"I'll gladly consider any other information on GWB's spending should you provide the source."

The kind of information that needs to be known is spread all over the thomas.loc.gov site and througout US political history. It would be a huge task to gather the information about social program spending from congressional records. But here's a hasty synopsis of the greatest part of the problem.

All who speak in favor of continuing feminist and other anti-family social programs [working women, university instructors and students who do write-ins for them (AAUW, NOW and seemingly infinite other so-called "women's" organizations), "battered women's" shelters, police agencies (remember Clinton's "100,000" more municipal cops program?), Catholic organizations for "women," Protestant organizations for "women" (e.g. Focus on the Family), social workers, the congressmen who serve them,...] speak in unison for what they want through Congress. Extremely few speak through Congress against those programs.

We see from this that the President would not be in office for long if he refused to sign what Congress could pass without him. Most US political activists who are Republican or especially Democrat or otherwise are on the anti-fatherhood (i.e., anti-family) bandwagon and support the huge part of bureaucracy (without which, feminism cannot live in government) that receives our high social program spending. And always, it must go up (VAWA, Child Support Act, numerous programs to put more women in the job market, etc.), even according to the large, noisy groups of Republicans who scream for it.

Take so-called "affirmative action," for example. I have a long list of Fortune 500 companies that recently paid laywers to file briefs in favor of affirmative action in Michigan. And how about Title IX (feminist program to force equal expenditures on women's sports in universities,...)? Can you imagine any president opposing spending like that and trying to keep a large enough Republican base to get re-elected? It won't happen. Feminazis and their lecherous, effinate male sidekicks are in every institution, including the liberaltarian and Buchananite groups (along with "Outright Libertarians," who are homosexual activists, and all of that).

So what's the Libertarian and Buchananite answer? Their answer is to defame President Bush by implying that he alone keeps spending high on social programs. And being the socialist shills that they are, they would rather have a Democrat in the White House through the next term. so they continue to spread conspiracy stories.

What's our answer? Well, there's only one thing we can do and have any chance that our politicians will be in office long enough to get it done. Cut taxes, let the real spenders (congressmen and their social effete, anti-family constituents) spend, and eventually, the spending will have to go down in order to manage the deficits.

In other words, even if the Democrats get into office again, which they will, eventually, we don't want to leave them with a heck of a lot of money to destroy our country with. If the Democrats don't get in too soon, on the other hand, we'll have an excellent excuse to cut those social programs, even though our spoiled-rotten-to-the-core Baby Boomer majority wants their frenzy of illicit sex, drugs and "independence" from marriage responsibilities to go on forever. Then, our only choice will be to cut spending.

...got any better ideas to stop the US orgy of single life and huge social spending to support it, even though the majority of voters in our country want it to continue? Our US whorehouse is expensive, but everyone who is participating will object in many nasty ways (more feminazi lawsuits, etc.) against anyone who gets in their way.

I say cut taxes again and again, all the while, letting our bureaucrats (social workers, et al), man haters and family haters keep their attentions on their feeding frenzy. Their will come a day when we will close their office doors--a day when further funding for the choices will come to an abrupt and suprising halt.

"...a day when further funding for the choices..."

I meant to write, "...a day when further funding for their 'choices'..."

Their are a lot of Republicans, Libertarians and "paleo-cons" wanting to keep many of those social programs going for the "women" and the "children," and to make "males pay for their irresponsibility," when in fact, they are socialist programs that will eventually break most remaining families. And most singles vote socialist.