Forums | MacLife

I'm still confused about the whole "less government" thing.

This administration has federalized ALL of the security folks...I can't understand why you would want to make ANYONE a federal employee who wasn't one.  It's like asking your employees to suck.

They've created an entirely NEW government bureaucracy, which was admittedly first developed by democrats.  It makes sense for democrats to expand government, not the opposite.

Less goverment basically means one of two things when someone like Bush is in office. a) less government regulations for the wealthy, or b) less government assistance for the needy.

Less government typically never means "less government" with a conservative administration. As a matter of fact there hasn't been a republican administration that has made government smaller in years. Every republican administration that we, our parents, our grandparents, etc have lived though have all worked to make government bigger.

I have a feeling the conservatives on this board are soon going to have to make a split between upholding conservative values and supporting this administration, which seems to only value itself. And perhaps everyone on the board can take this as a lesson against simply voting the party line. November will be here before we know it, and reasons for voting for Bush (regardless of what side of the aisle you're on) are quickly disappearing. Eventually the only reason left for Republicans to vote for Bush will be that he is not a Democrat. Hardly a resounding endorsement. Of course, I fully expect the Dems will nominate only the lousiest candidates they can find, in which case we'll be SOL regardless.

#1- it is not "his own country"
#2- besides the impending war in Iraq, just exactly what has Pres. Bush done that you think goes against why we voted for him?
Increasing the size of gov't with the creation of the Homeland Security Dept? (federalizing the screeners was wrong, he shouldn't have caved to the Dems)
Massive aid to New York after 9-11?
Telling the world Kyoto was a no go?
Proposed tax cuts?
Proposed spending increases in research that would make America a world leader in new energy sources tech?

"Sadly, Clay, my mother's family is from that area (my mamaw's place is only about 20 minutes from Palestine), and those slack jawed hicks are a pretty representative sample of the population."

Haha, I don't live too far from Palestine either . But I know what you mean about the very small towns in that part. I'm just glad to be on the side making jokes. I had a talk about this with some people who have been watching the news more than me, and from what I heard they had some lady saying "I wonder if there were any survivors?".

Ohh well, I guess every place in the country has the same thing in different forms, they just have more fun making fun of our intellectually disinclined.

SchnikySnack... like jondaris said, thinking people are seeing flaws with the Bush administration regardless of political stance.

Zoess, you don't have an argument from me about the drug war. Scrap [most of] it, and let's use it for something better. I guess that isn't a big requirement, anything would be better. We could burn the money, and at least it would give warmth to homeless in the winter months.

ClayH:
Zoess, you don't have an argument from me about the drug war. Scrap [most of] it, and let's use it for something better. I guess that isn't a big requirement, anything would be better. We could burn the money, and at least it would give warmth to homeless in the winter months.

Word.

Maybe if NASA had a piece of the drug money pie they could afford to re-design, fix or whatever and this situation could have been avoided. . . maybe.

One thing I've noticed is that no one has brought up the government's approach to getting things done. Back in 97' or so they started to contract everything they could in order to reduce costs. NASA does the same thing. There are many pro's and con's to this. I have worked closely with a few federal agencies and I have witnessed the nightmare that comes from awarding the lowest bidder. The old saying is, "you get what you pay for". But then again, ever tried to fire a federal employee?

"conversative"

Definitely.

What I'd like to know is, why are the conservatives around here being so silent? You'd think they'd be sounding off with lots of explanations for this way of doing things.

C'mon, guys, what gives? You'll support Bush going to war but you can't even justify the way he runs his own country?

Some of us have posted our thoughts.  Just because someone considers themself a conversative does not mean they have to agree with everything the administration does.

*applauds*

Right on.

Jayhawk Said:

Yep, by raising taxes throug the stratosphere. Truly a tax and spend politician. hWen forced to choose between a taxer and a spender, and just a spender, I'll choose the latter evry time.

But eventually either that spending must stop (Which by the way, will never happen) when the tap runs out, or whoever is the unlucky person in office when it does raised taxes throught the roof again.

Plus the President has no say what happens to the taxes, if Congress wants them to go up, they will go up.

Jayhawk Wrote:

So it's not the President's (Clinton's) fault when taxes go up, but it is the President's (Bush's) fault when spending goes up?

In both questions, no.

Papa Bush Said he wouldn't raise taxes his entire campaign, but he didn't have the authority to say that, as congress, despite H.W.'s opposition, went an raised taxes, which is one of the reasons he lost to Clinton.

It isn't W's fault that spending went up, it always does, it is inevetable, unless we cut programs, which, under the current setup of the American Government, is impossible.

W wanted to lower taxes to raise his, and the republican parties, popularity, and, so that he wouldn't make the same mistake as his father, was actually able to get the tax cut through, thus increasing his chances for re-election.

Plus the President has no say what happens to the taxes, if Congress wants them to go up, they will go up.

So it's not the President's (Clinton's) fault when taxes go up, but it is the President's (Bush's) fault when spending goes up?

Bottom line, we need to be moving toward LOWER taxes and LESS spending.  Obviously Bush didn't accomplish all of that in his latest budget, but he's halfway there, and that's better than we've had in a long time.

Actually the 90's rise in taxes started with Former-President G.H.W. Bush, one of the reasons way he did not get re-elect, because his campaign mantra in '88 was "Read my lips..No new taxes!", but by the end of the Gulf War he was forced to raise taxes, and the Dems had a field day when the '92 elections came around.

War, even short ones, are very expensive.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Bush has to raise taxes to help pay for it.

I don't see the current congress ever NEEDING to overwrite a veto, the Republicans control the government right now, they can get whatever the party wants.

Jayhawk Wrote:

So it's not the President's (Clinton's) fault when taxes go up, but it is the President's (Bush's) fault when spending goes up?

In both questions, no.

He was more involved that that...I believe there was much debating going on before the tax plan was approved of, which Bush finally agreed to.