Cut military spending!
Posted By: Less Military = Mo Money on 2008-09-30
In Reply to: What are Obama's plans now? - Just a thought.
How about we spend less on war and more on the citizens of the United States? Those who have family members in the military whose livelihood depends on war may call this socialism, but I call it common sense!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
Dem vs. GOP spending
You can look this all up, but thought this might help. We'll see if it works. This doesn't even include the last 2 years. Note the very first column - 37 presidents over 198 years.
If they don't like spending.......
Where did over $10 trillion go over the last 8 years?
I'm sorry but spending more and more
money is the path to destruction. The reason Bush's tax cuts didn't work was because we were still spending WAY too much money in government. More government programs will only cost us more money, raise our taxes, and the American people will be hurting more. Businesses that employ people will cut back knowing taxes are going up and more people will lose jobs. Some businesses will go under and more people will lose jobs. I just do not see this spending spree and government programs helping us at all. I do not want a bigger government. I do not want government to have more control because God knows they can't even do their part without screwing something up. We have too many corrupt people in Washington who are trying to pay off the special interest groups that got them elected in the first place. If Obama signs this omnibus bill, that will be the final nail in his coffin for me. I gave him a chance and all I've seen is lie after lie. I truly feel that he is running this country even more into the ground.
If I am wrong, I will gladly admit that, but I will have to see a major turn around in order for me to admit that. Right now....all I can see more government control and future bankruptcy for our country and it scares the dickens out of me.
How about spending all that energy doing
Sorry if you call what you have been doing work, but it shouldn't surprise me. Most O lovers aren't worried about hard work, just free money.
Spending under control...huh?
Yeah.....an 825 billion dollar stimulus package that won't really work....sounds like spending is under control to me. Holy crow people! Nothing like adding that to our huge deficit now and how many days as he been in office? Is that like a new record of making the deficit shoot up so fast within the first month of a presidency. Impressive....NOT.
This spending is just a drop
in the pocket at what they will actually have to spend to buy us out of this mess. We can't afford to spend our way out of this. They are going to have a spend a lot more money realistically do create the jobs they are talking about. Plus, all this money won't be going into the system right away. To me this package is crap.
At least with major tax cuts businesses could work their way out without government controlling them. I do not like the idea of our government controlling so much.
With all the spending he is proposing
to make government bigger.......he will bankrupt this country.
And spending money
we don't have is going to save the country? What I want to know is this.....we are all about finding alternative fuel sources and we want to end our dependency on foreign oil right? So if we are going to spend and invest money, why not spent it on drilling for oil now as well as starting alternative fuel sources. Think about how many jobs that would create and they would be longterm jobs because we will constantly need energy. To me that would seem like a smart thing to spend money on instead of the pet projects and crap that congress just voted for...jerks.
People would get jobs and could then afford healthcare. That would mean less people needing government assistance....but wait......Obama and the democrats want the American people dependent on government....my bad.....so that wouldn't work for their personal agenda of having more control and power over us little people.
Runaway Spending
Meet the Press: GOP Whip Cantor Hides Behind Troops to Explain Runaway Spending
by: Scott Isaacs
GOP House Whip Eric Cantor (R - Virginia) gave a gem of a performance today on NBC's Meet The Press, this site's parent company which is ultimately owned by General Electric. Cantor's job was to criticize the administration while trying to convince David Gregory, and by extension the American people, that his own personal behavior in Congress as well as the collective behavior of the GOP in Congress prior to the Obama administration was immaterial to the current situation.
First up on Cantor's checklist was to attack the administration on not having a concrete plan yet to remove troubled assets from the balance books of American banks. When confronted with the fact that the Republicans had no current plan and that the previous Republican administration was completely befuddled by the whole issue of the troubled assets and how to value & remove them Cantor insisted that it was important that America look forward, not backward.
Second was to go on the offensive against the administration in the name of wasteful spending. Whilst criticizing the Obama administration's stimulus plan, Cantor loudly lamented (while holding up a sheaf of papers) that the poor Republicans had a plan of their own but it was totally ignored by the press and, thus, ignored by the public. Cantor then went to bat on the 2009 budget bill that Obama signed into law criticizing the earmarks and the dreadful deficit spending. David Gregory then asked Cantor "People are wondering where these fiscal conservative convictions were when Republicans in Congress were complicit in President Bush's spending." Cantor's reply was quick and predictable: Of course they did! But it was for a good cause: the troops! How dare anyone question a massive budget bill in which a fraction of the massive spending goes towards outfitting our troops? Cantor slyly avoided the point that the regular Pentagon money was in the runaway budgets that the Republican Congresses approved but the specific money to operate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were specifically appropriated as emergency measures so that they would not have to be tabulated all together and give the public a sticker shock and awe campaign over how much our Arabian adventure was actually costing. Nor did he give the Democrats that voted for this last budget the same out that he himself took: they were just doing it for the troops because we should all take care of our troops and that is what a patriotic American would do: okay anything with even a fraction of military spending in it even if the rest is massive and unneeded pork barrel spending. Despite the fact that we are still very much at war in Afghanistan, which apparently slipped Cantor's mind, he left the blame to lay squarely on Congressional Democrats. It got more entertaining when Gregory asked Cantor if it was true, as the Democrats had presented data to show, that Cantor had supported 46,000 earmarks in his time in Congress. It was at this point that Cantor said with heartfelt sincerity that there was more than enough blame to go around but that now was the time to be forward-looking and heed his and Minority Leader John Boehner's call for a moratorium on earmarks. Cantor also generously offered the Republicans in Congress' help in supporting any veto that President Obama wanted to use on a Democratic-written bill and, if need be, the Republicans would even move on Obama's behalf to repeal any legislation that Obama feels was a bad idea. It was a very touching moment of bipartisanship... a member of the other party selflessly offering to help the President undo everything he has done over the past 50 days.
Gregory then brought up the specter of government stabilization of the financial system through buying up the troubled assets. Cantor specifically said that this was priority #1. Gregory asked Cantor if he would be willing to deviate from the current Republican stance of rigid fiscal conservatism to spend the money needed to gather up these troubled assets and remove them from the game board until they had recovered to the point that they were not toxic on the banks' balance sheets anymore. Cantor hemmed and hawed saying it would depend how much it would cost and so on. Gregory then hit him with the Big "T": $2 trillion. Cantor demurred as best he could, avoiding an answer from then until the end of the interview.
Pundits and Republicans both label Cantor as one of the up-and-coming rising stars in the Republican Party. He seems to need more experience on Meet The Press before he takes a serious spokesman role. If David Gregory can roll you, Tim Russert (bless his soul, I miss him) would have eaten you with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
but it's not his money he's spending...
it is taxpayer money. that's they problem. I don't care if he spends a hundred grand on his date - if he's money. But when it's taxpayer money and he's spending it for fun, I see a problem.
Spending..AND not even reading what they are
nm
Hopefully we will no longer be spending billions on the
.
The only attorneys spending money here are
the ones preying on the witch hunt delegation and receiving funds via internet extortion schemes. Obama does not have to lift a finger, just sit on the sidelines and watch the SC strike them down, one after another.
So agree with you. It is a spending stimulus.
No social security, nothing for the future but debt. I bet a country will be ready to buy us soon. Probably China, Iran, and Russia just waiting to buy us and take over. Shoot, probably it is in the stimulus bill because NOT ONE PERSON HAS HAD TIME TO READ IT AND GOVERNMENT PASSED IT. HOW STUPID!!!!!!!!
Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?.....sm
Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics”/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland
The stimulus bill had to be passed quickly. President Obama warned that not passing it would result in disaster. He warned that any delay was “inexcusable.” The 1,071 page stimulus bill had to be voted on quickly — so quickly this last week that the House and the Senate couldn’t even provide politicians the 48 hours they were supposed to have to read it.
The legislation was not put up on the Web until 11 PM on February 12 and the House passed it just 12 hours later. The Senate started voting on it only hours after that. Politician after politician admitted or complained that it was physically impossible to read the bill. As it was, the copies available on the Web for voters had all sorts of hand markings on it that sometimes made it difficult to figure out exactly what the bill proposed.
Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.
Despite all this pressure, Obama seems rather laid back after the bill was passed — he doesn’t plan the signing ceremony until Tuesday. As the New York Post noted, after passage, Obama “promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.” Possibly, Obama’s vacation was well deserved, but why couldn’t Congress have held debate and voted over the weekend or on Monday to allow extra time to read the bill?
It was not just the House and Senate rules that were set aside to get this vote through quickly. Promises were broken also. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised voters at least 5 days to study legislation. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site claimed that any earmark should have a written justification as well as “72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.” Of course, the whole spending bill is at odds with Obama’s promise to cut “net” government spending.
But the Democrats had help ramming this through. Three Republican Senators — Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins — could have voted for more time for debate. It was only with all three of their votes that the Democrats were able to reach the exact 60 votes they needed Friday to pass the bill. If any one of these three senators had asked for more time to read the bill and allow others to analyze it, they would have gotten it.
Not only did the final “stimulus” bill have major changes from what had been voted on previously by the House and Senate, but the amount of money involved is staggering. With 90 million tax filers who actually pay taxes, the $787 billion means the average taxpayer will pay over $8,700.
By itself, adding $8,700 to the average tax bill should get everyone’s attention. But that is on top of everything else that we are spending this year. With the stimulus bill, the $700 billion financial bailout (half spent by Bush and half by Obama), and the bailout for the auto companies, this year’s deficit is already at about$1.7 trillion — almost $19,000 per taxpayer. With more possible bailouts for the auto industry and others, that total might rise further.
But the stimulus won’t just raise government expenditures for the next two years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2010 to 2019 government expenditures for just 20 provisions will increase by almost $2.4 trillion. Assuming a 4.5 percent interest rate, that is the equivalent of about $1.9 trillion today. Adding that to the previous total brings the total to about $40,000 owed per taxpayer.
But that is not all the money that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for. Last week, the Obama administration promised another $2 trillion for the financial bailout. The decisions that we are making just this year are adding up to $5.6 trillion — $62,200 per taxpayer. Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.
Each one of these expenditures are getting pushed through quickly, but it is all adding up. People have to weigh this against benefits such as the $400 per person tax credit that those who make less than $75,000 per year are going to get under the stimulus.
And that is not the end of the costs that we will face this year. From even more health care reforms to environmental regulation and global warming to even more money for autos and other companies, the bills are going to get bigger. Some costs will temporarily be hidden through borrowing, but others will mean higher immediate taxes and higher product prices.
But the average taxpayer faces a simple question: are they getting $62,200 worth of benefits from all these government expenditures this year? If so, they are going to be poorer. My guess is that most of us are going to be a lot poorer.
John R. Lott, Jr. is the author of “Freedomnomics” and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
The poor are spending money, sure
but they didn't earn that money. That money could be used for education or healthcare instead of making sure poor people circulated it. I'm middle class. I have been a single mom since my son was born, no Welfare, he is 19 now. I have NEVER asked for a handout. Are you telling me that I don't spend money? I have paid for everything I have. I own a house and I haven't even received 1 dime in child support. I barely make it, but I do make it and I work my butt off to do it. It isn't fun, but who are you to tell me that I would spend more money and boost the economy more if I was on Welfare instead. My son didn't grow up with a Welfare mom and I'm sure he won't get mad at me for not helping the ecomony because of it. He doesn't even know I'm broke. For him, there is a sense of pride in earning. He is in college now and excited to be among the working class because he was never taught there was any other way, you WORK. He will get a student loan, which he will have to pay back someday. This isn't free money. He did get a Pell grant, so I guess he got a little bit of a handout, but to qualify for that, you still have to do something, go to school. The Pell grant is less than what most people get for Welfare and they don't have to do anything at all. Seriously? Poor people make this country work, who knew? And here I thought this country was built on the sweat and tears of the middle class and the hard working folks who believed in capitalism and not socialism.
So if my neighbor gives me a $1000 bucks and I go spend it, does that mean I helped my neighbor? Do I have to pay him back? Just curious.
Yep, just keep spending money we dont have, O
nm
WELFARE SPENDING MADNESS!!
And for those that say you HAVE to work to get welfare,...... NO YOU DON'T! I see that waaaay too much where I live...... mostly just generation after generation living off ME!!!! So, MORE government is just FINE with them!!
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=578936
I do not think that was the Obama's personal spending there -
why should they reimburse that? Obama did not even know anything in advance about it.
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Stop the spending on stupid earmarks,
give the middle class some real tax cuts, and have some patience. Things aren't going to change overnight and they're not going to change by continuing to throw money at it every day.
PA liquor control board spending $173,000
to teach their state liquor store employees how to be more courteous and knowledgeable of the booze they sell and make sure they're really up to snuff on info ABOUT the booze they sell...... How in the heck does this CREATE MORE JOBS? WHAT A JOKE AND A STINKING WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!! 
and start spending them taking care of those...
who no longer function because they don't need to hide it at all anymore and taking care of the emphysema and other problems it causes. Just my opinion. Like I said, I am clearly in the minority here, but I think it is a stupid idea to legalize pot.
He was NOT "one of the good ones". Voted for the spending.
I was glad to see the people of both parties come together to repudiate this Congressman. Now, let's carry this kind of common sense on into the next elections!
Top bailout recipients spending money
on federal lobbying. This makes me furious at both the companies and the government. ARGH!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/bailed-firms-money-lobbying/
ANOTHER Big-Spending Bill Going to be Rammed Down Our Throats
House committee okays massive climate spending bill.
It's pretty obvious. The Democrats plan to get all of their spending bills in while they have the chance. What isn't apparently so obvious to them is that the public is growing more and more fed up with all of this at a time when WE CANNOT AFFORD IT, even if we did want the intrusion into our lives.
Bailouts. Stimulus. Auto takeovers. New emission standards. Universal healthcare. Mandated paid vacation. Afghanistan. Climate. All of these things will raise prices and the increase is the same thing as an increase in taxes. Meanwhile, taxes themselves are being raised at all levels of government.
Meanwhile, the offshore drilling passed by law last year has yet to be implemented, so oil companies are still having to drill miles out in deep ocean at a cost that is many times higher. Can anyone say sky-rocketing gas prices?
Looks like we'll have to teach them another lesson in 2010 like we did in 1992 and 1994 - and the Democrats vastly misunderstand what just happened in the California vote, obviously. That's okay. They'll finally get it about the time that they find themselves looking for work starting in January, 2011.
GOP govs with large deficits who are increasing spending are
can be found:
1. Schwartzeneggar, California.
2. M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut
3. Sonny Perdue, Georgia
4. Linda Lingle, Hawaii
5. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
6. Haley Barbour, Mississippi
7. Jim Gibbons, Nevada
8. Michael Rounds, South Dakota
9. Jim Douglas, Vermont
BTW, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is expecting to go into deficit spending this year. Despite being a socialist, commie, Kool-aid drinking comrade, I think the world of Bobby Jindal and the GOP would do well to start moving him up in the leadership ranks. I mention him just because I think it is unfair to judge the governors of any state, regardless of party, as being greedy, self-serving, or any other such nonsense in economic conditions such as these.
I would much rather see tax funds being directed toward education, road construction, infrastructure, social programs, Medicaid, etc, rather than tax cuts for the rich, corporate retreats, golden parachutes, astronomical CEO bonuses, disappearing credit stimulus funding to banks with no accountability and the like.
Read JTBB post again. She has made excellent points that pretty much sum up the situaion. Obama will be hearing from all sides in due time before he decides what to do and how to go about it. Get used to it. This is open commnication. It just looks weird to you after 8 years of behind-closed-doors secret session pseudoleadership issuing forth from hunkered-down bunkers in undisclosed locations.
Yup - that's what I thought "The O" is spending over 170K on his coronation
Real good logic there. NOT
The juvenile attitude of spending money we dont
nm
*Whatever It Takes* by Peggy Noonan re: Bush's out of control spending
 
Warning: This is a L-O-N-G article, written by a conservative former speech writer for both President Reagan and Bush's daddy. The condensed version for the conservative trolls with admitted limited attention span: Bush is a very UNconservative BIG SPENDER with no means or concern how all this will be repaid. In other words, he represents the complete ANTITHESIS (opposite) of conservative values that you all claim to have. I guess that's what happens when you elect a spoiled, rich kid who was born to privilege and never had to worry about paying for anything.
PEGGY NOONAN
'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?
Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.
George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--But where's the money going to come from?--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying Republicans don't care about black people, and They're always tightwads with the poor.
In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.
That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--whatever it takes--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.
Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.
Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.
As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.
Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.
A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.
The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.
Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.
At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration the pre-Bush era. See where it got them.
Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?
The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger. That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.
But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.
Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.
First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.
Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.
Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.
The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.
Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it. We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.
Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.
Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--Here's a check? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy. Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?
At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a compassionate conservative. The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.
But conservatives also understood compassionate conservatism to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.
I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.
I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: We're having some trouble with part of the base but--smile--we can weather that.
Well, they probably can, short term.
Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.
Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.
If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;
If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;
If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;
If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is Whatever it takes;
If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?
And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?
It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Sorry, but Palin has been preaching about CUTTING SPENDING, what a double talker she is, she's a
mnnn
TARP has been followed by Obama's massive spending and expansion of government.
I have been very critical of both parties and of the previous administration for the bailouts.
However, I am also growing very tired of the current administration's childish efforts to lay off anything bad that happens (in any area) now or going forward on the previous administration, while happily taking credit for anything that might be positive.
We hear the current administration crow whenever there's even a SLIGHT improvement in the economic indicators (ignoring the fact that the numbers are still very bad) and saying that "Obama's plan" is working. However, if one of those same numbers goes down, they continue to blame the past administration.
Now, you can believe that they themselves don't believe what they're saying. They know, for instance, that Obama's plan hasn't even had time to make any impact on the economy. And, they know that a whole heck of a lot of them had as big a hand in the economic problems and in the bailouts as the previous administration had. So, they're basically counting on their ability to put a fast one over on the American public.
Surely, they can't believe that we're ALL stupid enough that we can't see through this. Nope. What they're counting on is that ENOUGH of us will swallow this transparent pack of lies - and I wouldn't bet the farm that they're wrong, either. A lot of Americans do not pay attention to government the way we on this forum obviously do.
I'm so relieved. We're spending $6 million for explosives detection
I was just thinking the other day: If I'm Obama, I'm saying to he!! with spending enough money to secure the borders. The main threat is that Jackson Hole airport.
I'm telling you, people, the government has gone positively insane. $6 million would go a VERY long way at the border. Oh, but wait - that wouldn't make good pork politics, now, would it?
I'm so relieved. We're spending $6 million for explosives detection
I was just thinking the other day: If I'm Obama, I'm saying to he!! with spending enough money to secure the borders. The main threat is that Jackson Hole airport.
I'm telling you, people, the government has gone positively insane. $6 million would go a VERY long way at the border. Oh, but wait - that wouldn't make good pork politics, now, would it?
We ARE the military.
You forget that when it comes time to put themselves on the line, you have just as many Democrats stepping forward as you do Republicans - and many more Dems go on for careers in public service. You think you own the Army? The Marines? The Navy? Well you're wrong. The military is a BIPARTISAN operation. Your problem in understanding this is that you refuse to listen to anything BUT soldiers confirming your tunnel vision. I watched the C-Span coverage of Saturday's march AND the C-Span coverage of Sunday's pro-war attempt. I listen to what all veterans have to say, not just a few that I can brand as like me. You won't have any kind of a realistic view of the whole picture until you consider BOTH sides of the issue.
I was in the military all through the 80s.
Ex-husband is a 100 percent disabled Vietnam vet with PTSD. Currently 1 son in the Army on his 2nd enlistment (in Korea even as we speak, as well as serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq). My other son and daughter-in-law also served in the Army.
The military is not the only way
su
The military could get him...yes
I can't say enough good about our young warriers but they can only follow orders.
How did they get in the military? sm
They ENLISTED. The draft was abolished in 1973 after the end of the Viet Nam War.
If our military can
be waterboarded during training, I think I could handle it for 50K. That would be a nice payment on my house. Where do I sign up?
I say let the military do what they have sm
to do to get the information they need. If the media would stay away from the military, battlefields, etc things would not drag on as long as they have. Our soldiers are limited as to what they can do or say to these bunch of terrorist because there is a camera or a microphone, it seems, recording their every word or every move they make.
The enemies of this country do not care what they do to us, but we are suppose to "molly-coddle" the terrorists and for goodness sake, don't "torture" them. Out guys go through more "torture" in boot camp than we are allowed to give to the worst terrorist when trying to get information from them.
Personally I say get the media, the papers, the TV, etc out of the battlefield. Let our soldiers do what they need to do and get back home! I wonder what the soldiers who found Sadam Hussein would have done if the media had not been breathing down their necks? If I had my guess, they probably would have blown him away and stuffed him back in the hole saving a whole lot of hassle and money.
love the military
that is why I want them home. Cant fight a war without military, so no military, no war. No immoral, illegal war. Bush will have to finally face up to facts that he lied about this war, this war is wrong. Let him send his daughters or let him finish his military duty. No we are not going to send our sons and daughters to your illegal war, Bush..
The military is not a kid club. sm
Drinking age and fighting is an old and worn out reasoning. Besides, they get all the alcohol they want. What are we supposed to do with men and women who choose to join the military. Put it in writing that they will never have to go to war? And where was the left's outrage when Clinton sent men and women into his little skirmishes. I never heard a word then. Never saw one leftie holding a sign that said NO MORE MOGADISHUs. In fact, the left hardly even mentions it. Why is that exactly?
I never said all the military supports the war.
That is a flat out untruth.
How can one's child being in the military sm
equate to a point for foreign affairs experience? Please explain that to me. I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience. Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq.
And so you think our military isn't fed a load of
they've been sent to do is 'morally right'? Dont' get me wrong, they are brave, upstanding young men and women who believe in the country. But once they sign on that dotted line, they've gotta go & do what they're told during their enlistment. Even if it's for dubious reasons. So what you wanna bet they get fed a WHOLE lotta propaganda.
Suicide rates amongst our military is at an all-time high, as well. Ever wonder why that might be?
The majority of the military
have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.
yes, they enlisted in the military
but they didn't enlist in the war.
I stand behind our military too but
I sure as heck am not going to stand behind a president who sends our young men and women in harms way for his own personal gain and that of his oil cronies. What happened to bin Laden? Don't tell me that our military men and women couldn't take him out. And how about McCain saying he knew how to get him. How anyone who can support this administration and this war is beyond me. Isn't it "Mission Iraqi Freedom" now? What about 9/11? Who has paid for that? And today Iraq has given us "permission" to stay for 3 more years? Permission??? We have no business meddling in their business to begin with. Wasn't Bushes and Sadam friends before they became enemies???
I'm from a military family, too
My grandfather fought in WWI and WWII. He received 5 medals for the battles in WWI in France, plus the French Etagierre. My father and mom's brothers were army. My gf retired in the 1970s. My one uncle retired in 1990 from the Army. My son was in the Marines. They all enlisted.
|
