Democrat Blackmail Succeeds
Posted December 19th, 2007 by Da King
I woke up this morning determined to write something good about the Democrats, since it has been pointed out to me that I'm pretty critical of the Jackas..er, Donkey party. I even had a couple things in mind for which to compliment the Dems.
But then I read about the Senate passing the $555 billion Omnibus bill, with it's 9,000 pork projects and $28 billion in new spending above and beyond Bush's requested budget, and that instantly killed my desire to compliment the Blue state team. See, the Democrat game plan all along has been to push through a bunch of new spending as a kind of quid pro quo blackmail in return for the Dems agreeing to fund the troops in Iraq. That makes me want to puke. I wrote about it last week. Sadly, the blackmail worked, as many Senate Republicans happily agreed to betray conservative principles in order to secure the 11th hour troop funding. What kind of politicians use troop funding during wartime as a bargaining chip ? That's about as low and unpatriotic as it gets, and the Democrats do it on an ongoing basis. That's why the previous 11 appropriations bills stalled and this last minute Omnibus bill is being pushed through at year end.
To make matters worse, some of the Republicans are apparently so relieved to get the troop funding passed that they have lost their minds. Listen to this:
"Even those of us who have disagreed on this war have always agreed on one thing: Troops in the field will not be left without the resources they need," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
SAY WHAT ?!?!?!? Is Mitch McConnell drunk ? That sounds like something Ted Kennedy would be saying, it's so patently false. Many Democrats have been trying to stop troop funding all year long. They just couldn't succeed, because Republicans and the Blue Dogs effectively blocked them.
Other conservatives speak the truth:
"Congress refuses to rein in its wasteful spending or curb its corruption," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz
That's the central problem with Congress in a nutshell, Mr. Shadegg. This should be engraved in giant letters on the outside of the Capitol building. I'd like to multiply Shadegg by a hundred in the Senate, and Mike Pence by 400 in the House, to replace the pandering blowhard seat-fillers we have taking up space there now. (Oh, and to that person to whom I said I'd try to cut down on the name-calling, 'pandering blowhard seat-fillers' is the toned down version of what I really wanted to say about our distinguished ladies and gentlemen in Congress.
So, we have an extra $28 billion in new spending for the Democrats to brag about (we helped people !) and blame Bush for (Bush raised the deficit !) all at the same time, the taxpayers get screwed, the Dems abandon more of their 2006 campaign promises, and business proceeds as corruptly as usual in Washington D.C. Zippity-frickin'-do-dah. Has anybody noticed that the Democrats try to increase taxes and spending at every single turn ? They did it with the energy bill, this Omnibus bill, S-CHIP, AMT, etc. Every single time without fail. That's why they are the enemy of all that's fair and good.
Oh, I almost forgot, I said I was going to compliment the Dems, didn't I ? It's a difficult task, alright, but I'll do it anyway. Two things:
First, during a fundraiser back in october, ex-prez Bill Clinton told some 9/11 Truther conspiracy nuts to "shut up", and said "how dare you" in response to their moronic claims that 9/11 was an inside job by our government. Kudos to Bill. It's nice to know that Kos-manian fever hasn't taken over all the Democrats (yet).
Second, fuel efficiency standard mandates were increased 40% in the latest energy bill. I generally don't favor government intervention in business, but this one is actually a matter of national security. That's when I DO favor government intervention (as in wiretapping, tracking, interrogating, and imprisoning Al Qaeda members, for which the Dems call Bush a criminal. Duh). National security is why we have a federal government (not national redistribution of funds). Golf clap for the Democrats on this one element of the energy bill, though I'll have more to say on the entire energy bill in a later column. I'm worried about the effects of the massive ethanol increase, and the bill fell way short on new domestic oil exploration and other alternative energy sources.
There, you see. I can say good things about the Democrats. It's just that the Dems don't do very many good things for me to write about. Usually, they are aiding the enemy, throwing around taxpayer money, trying to lose the war, and things like that. Nothing to like there.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
A budget over $3 trillion — the fools in Washington continue to spend America into bankrupcy.
Those pigs — Republicans & Dims — that we habitually elect got into politics to "serve" alright — to serve themselves and their cronies.
A train wreck is coming — and it's not that far off. Until then, the squandering & fiscal irresponsibility will go on. Why? Because there is an insufficient combination of political will & leadership to do anything about it. Right now, the special-interest groups rule — from big business to labor unions. But when the s**t finally hits the fan, the very same elite who got us into this mess will be the ones who will tells us how to get out of it. Then, they'll want to change everything — but of course, they'll insist they'll have to stay in charge.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
It really is amazing to me why it is you make a big deal out of $28 billion. Really. Inside Iraq, each month about $10 billion of American tax dollars are drained out into the sand, but you have little problem with that.
Why is it that when conservative-types complain about spending, the bloated corrupt spending on defense is never included in the discussion? It seems to be exempt.
Bill Clinton commenting on 9-11 and asking, "how dare you?" is truly unfortunate. I suppose Bill has answered all the unanswered questions the victims have been asking for 6 years…..or not. I would simply say to Bill, "how dare you ask how dare you, when you haven't offered up any answers to the many questions still remaining."
Of course, 9-11 wasn't an "inside job", but there is NO question there was prior knowledge.
The increase in fuel efficiency is a bit laughable, as one blogger notes, those standards bring us up to date for the 1980's. The only reason the White House and the GOP obstructionists went for it was because the Dems agreed to remove any taxes on their buddies in the oil patch.
Nothing good will come out of this Congress until Bush is gone. The one third plus one rule is fully in effect with Bush prepared at a moment's notice to veto. That's how the absolute worst president in U.S. history will remain "relevent".
Yeah, the Congress votes to spread federal dollars around the country. That's what they are supposed to do. It's kind of, like, their job.
And a $3 trillion budget for a country whose economy moves $13 trillion each year is certainly nothing to be alarmed about.
And finally, why do conservative-types continue to talk about fiscal conservancy? Honestly aren't you guys embarassed to even bring it up…what with the national debt exponentially exploding….under Republican rule? That wasn't the Dems running up the debt.
Conservatives have no credibility in this area. They just don't.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Hey, Red, do you suppose any of the people who voted to pass this last bit of crap had any idea what any of the 9,000 bits of pork were for? I say that since there were to be no porks that number is a bit high. All through the campaign, 2006, we heard over and over that pork wouldn't be allowed and then along comes this we will give you something if you will give us something with 9,000 bit of pork attached. Please tell me which bill of the previous 2 years had anything as sick as that attached.
When you try to tell me don't dare talk about a bridge in Alaska. This thing was full of crap like that and we all know that.
Hey, Red, I want to turn the whole bunch out and get 535 new Congressmen and start over. I suppose that you would only want to turn out the Republicans but I am for getting rid of the whole bunch.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
King, a couple of points….
I don't mind that you are critical of the democratic party, it was just the name calling I didn't care for. So I appreciate your attmepts, I know it is difficult for you……..
I don't want to rehash the past (as you accused me of in a different thread), but your point on pork is hard to take because of how the Republicans abused that sort of thing to excess from 2000-2006. If the Democrats are doing it now, it's more out of revenge than stupidity or greed. And I'm not sure it's blackmail; the Republicans that have gone along go along because they see where the power is. Just like all those dems who voted for the war then a few years later claimed they were duped.
I cannot share your enthusiasm for Mr. Shadegg, however, based on his love and support for insurance companies and their love for him. And Pence, while generally putting forth a well-thought out front, should probably go back to an Indiana outdoor market in the summertime, as much of the money he appropriated has:
"Pence also secured earmarks in the $141.9 billion fiscal 2007 Labor-HHS measure, which has yet to reach the floor. Those include $200,000 each for Ball State University's Center for School Innovation in Muncie, Ind., and to the Madison County Community Health Center in Anderson Ind., for an electronic medical records system. He also secured $100,000 for Ivy Tech Community College's Columbus, Ind., campus for cybersecurity training." (from govexec.com)
As I said before, while I lean to the left, you cannot convince me the republicans are any better than the dems…..
December 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Hey Truth, was there one bill during 2000-2006 that had 9,000 pieces of pork? Do you really call that getting even?
Did you not know that way back in March there had already been 22,000 pork bits introduced and all from Dems? Yep, after Nancy said there would be none they had so many that the head man said they would just wait and assign pork to bills when they reached the conference phase. That way nobody could find out much about them. With these huge numbers you have the guts to say that the Dems want to get even. I say that doing 6 years in one year should make them pretty even by the time they get themselves voted back out for getting even so soon and for not shutting down the war.
I really expected them to do something real this year and all they have done so far is talk about a date certain to get out of Iraq and then knuckle under after brave promises.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
To all,
On virtually every economic bill that has come before Congress this year, it has been the Republicans that have attempted to hold down spending, while the Dems try to increase it. This isn't an opinion. This isn't spin. This isn't partisanship. It is fact. The one major exception is funding for the troops at war, and removing their funding should be unthinkable.
So, how in the heck do any of you have the nerve to tell me that Republicans are as bad as the Democrats when it comes to spending ? The majority of federal spending comes from Democratic programs. The enormous future unfunded liabilities are from Democratic programs. Let's at least be a little bit real here. The war, btw, is TEMPORARY. It won't go on forever. Those Dem programs do.
And Reverend, it is simply stunning that you think a $3 trillion federal budget out of a $13 trillion TOTAL economy is no big deal (and you need to add in the cost of state and local government to figure out the real government bite. Add in the debt too). That is the ENTIRE ECONOMY, for god's sake. You really do want us all to become slaves on that government plantation, don't you ? Those numbers should alarm the hell out of you. Insane in the membrane.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Hey King, what do you think of this?
Even given all the absurd squandering & wasteful pork in this $3 trillion-plus budget, the fools in Congress, both GOP and Dims, did not include money to build the two-tier, 700-mile border fence that was approved just last year.
I guess it doesn't matter to the political class that the American people slapped down their amnesty immigration reform this past Fall. Rather, our so-called representatives want to allow the illegal invasion of America to continue along with granting drug dealers, terrorists, and the diseased easy access to the U.S. and our lucrative social programs. Boy-oh-boy.
I tell you, a train wreck is coming what with these clowns we send to Washington. The government regime is quickly losing its legitimacy.
No wonder congressional approval ratings are at a record low. Excpet them to drop even further.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The problem with your point, roys, is that it is not based on facts:
AT $286.4 BILLION, the highway bill just passed by Congress is the most expensive public works legislation in US history. In addition to funding the interstate highway system and other federal transportation programs, it sets a new record for pork-barrel spending, earmarking $24 billion for a staggering 6,376 pet projects, spread among virtually every congressional district in the land. The enormous bill — 1,752 pages long — wasn't made public until just before it was brought to a vote, and so, as The New York Times noted, "it is safe to bet that none of the lawmakers, not even the main authors, had read the entire package."
Arizona Senator John McCain, who voted no, called the bill a "monstrosity" and wondered whether it will ever be possible to restore fiscal sanity to Congress. If "the combination of war, record deficits, and the largest public debt in the country's history" can't break lawmakers' addiction to spending, he asked, what can? "It would seem that this Congress can weather any storm thrown at it, as long as we have our pork life-saver to cling to."
McCain is a Republican, and it might surprise younger readers to learn that spending discipline was once a basic Republican principle. Hard to believe in this era of bloated Republican budgets and the biggest-spending presidential administration in 40 years — but true. Once upon a time Republicans actually described themselves with pride as fiscal conservatives. That was one of the reasons they opposed the promiscuous use of pork-barrel earmarks, which are typically used to bypass legislative standards, reward political favorites, and assert political control over state and local affairs.
(Boston Globe August 2005)
Read on:
The huge omnibus spending bill that’s passed the House and will be voted on in the Senate when it reconvenes in Washington is loaded with special gifts. Known in Washington as "earmarks," and known to the rest of us know as pork, these gift items have escaped all notice and accountability. There were no hearings on them, and no competitive bidding for them. There’s no reason for any of them except that members of Congress want to curry favor in order to get reelected.
The pork in this one bill totals $23 billion. That’s a new record. Pork-barrel spending has doubled in the last five years.
This year’s gift items include $50 million for a 4-and-a-half acre indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa, courtesy of Republican Senator Charles Grassley, of Iowa. Then there’s $1 million for the Anchorage Museum, courtesy of Alaska Republican Senator Ted Sevens. Representative Jim Gibbins, Republican of Nevada, gets a quarter of a million dollars to repair a swimming pool in his hometown of Sparks, Nevada.
And on and on it goes: $200,000 to the University of Hawaii to produce a documentary on Kalahari Bushmen, $220,000 to the University of Maine to renovate a blueberry research center. Here’s a good one: Half a million dollars to the University of Akron for a program called "Exercises in Hard Choices," examining how Congress makes budget decisions.
All this would be bad enough if the federal government was flush with cash. But let me remind you: We’re deep in the hole. The federal deficit is flowing red ink. This year’s deficit alone will be over $400 billion. We’re fighting a war against terrorism that’s costing more than anyone ever imagined. Meanwhile, American farmers are getting billions in extra subsidies. There’s a giant $1.7 trillion tax break, and a huge drug benefit just added to Medicare. And what about the tens of millions of baby boomers within eyesight of retirement? Where are we ever going to get the money to pay their Social Security and Medicare?
Republicans are in control, folks. They used to preach fiscal conservativism. Now they’ve opened the flood gates. And on top of everything else, they’re flooding the nation with pork.
(Robert Reich December 2003)
And finally:
From Chris Edwards' new book, Downsizing the Federal Government (which cited CAGW): bq. Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills bq. 2005 - 13,997 2004 - 10,656 2003 - 9,362 2002 - 8,341 2001 - 6,333 2000 - 4,326 1999 - 2,838 1998 - 2100 1997 - 1,596 1996 - 958 1995 - 1439 Using 2005 numbers, by voting down the "Bridges" amendment, the Senate let the country know that it was unwilling to defund 2 out of 13,997 pork projects today. That's 0.0142887762 percent.
So, yes, roys, I stand by my statements. And if you want to compare numbers, looks to me like the Republicans created the blueprint for what the Dems are doing now. Only problem is, the Dems don't have control of the executive office like the Republicans did when they pushed all that pork through. Like your point about the conference phase. Where do you think the Dems got that idea from?
And King, yes, historically Democrats spend more. But please, like I have asked before, don't ignore the facts. Facts is facts. The numbers don't lie. You constantly hammer the Democrats of today by comparing them to Pre-Bush I Republicans. You can't do that. The Republicans of today have little in common with anyone from the Reagan era, the Nixon era, or especially any who came before that. Yes, this year Republicans have attempted to control spending. Where were they for the last 7 years?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Roy: Dems made earmarks transparent. Republicans didn't.
And the bitching about earmarks is much to do about nothing. Why do you think voters send REPRESENTATIVES to D.C.? So their districts can get the green. If the earmarked funds are transparent for all to see, what's the beef?
If it's the spending,…..as soon as the obstructionists stop their imperialistic campaign in the middle east with my tax money…..that's when we talk about curbing spending…..not one nanosecond before.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Red, calling earmarks transparent and making them so isn't the same thing. Onlhy someone like you thinks that the earmarks of the present year are transparent. If they had been then I think that they would have been brought out into the open before the final phase of bill passing. Only an idiot could say that when a 3,000 page bill with 9,000 earmarks has transparent earmarks attached. Now if you qualify for that kind of reasoning then you have called yourself the name.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Truth do you have any idea how many 22,000 is? It seems to me that when the Dems had introduced that many by March and the committee in charge of attaching them to bills gave up and just decided to attach them to whatever bill they found in the conference stage. Somehow I don't see anything there that can be blamed on the Republicans. I think it is the Dems who have introduced all this pork, not Republicans.
Going back to 2003, 2005 or 2001 to justify what happened this time around after the Democrats promised to be open with earmarks and then forgot how to make them transparent makes me wonder just how they justify their actions. Promise transparency of earmarks to the voters, get elected, and then say there are just too many earmarks to make them transparent sounds a little bit like vote for us and after you do so we will slip it to you and you are too dumb to know the difference.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 am
Vince,
Our "representatives" in D.C. don't seem to be very interested in respresenting the people who want the border fence, do they ? Yet, they can find billions for everything else. Pitiful.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 am
Rev, you said:
"If it's the spending,…..as soon as the obstructionists stop their imperialistic campaign in the middle east with my tax money…..that's when we talk about curbing spending…..not one nanosecond before".
You have it backwards. When the country is at war is all the more reason to curb spending in other areas. It's not about you, it's about the country. We are fighting this war on the tab of the next generation, and that's irresponsible when it could be avoided.
The reality is, sadly, that regardless of what is going on, Congress can NEVER reign in spending, which is precisely what needs to be accomplished. We need to keep voting them out of office, regardless of party, until they get that message. We need to elect a president that understands that message. That leaves out the entire current Democratic ticket, and some of the Republicans as well.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 am
Roy,
I couldn't agree more that the Dems earmarks are not transparent, as the Rev claims. The members of Congress have no idea what all the pork is in those bills. They aren't debated, they aren't even examined. They are just thrown in at the last minute. That's about as far from transparent as you can get.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
roys,
You said:
Going back to 2003, 2005 or 2001 to justify what happened this time around after the Democrats promised to be open with earmarks and then forgot how to make them transparent makes me wonder just how they justify their actions. Promise transparency of earmarks to the voters, get elected, and then say there are just too many earmarks to make them transparent sounds a little bit like vote for us and after you do so we will slip it to you and you are too dumb to know the difference.
Exactly my point. And who taught the Dems how to do it? You and King fail to consider the past. But the first lesson of history is that it cannot be ignored.
King, you said:
The reality is, sadly, that regardless of what is going on, Congress can NEVER reign in spending, which is precisely what needs to be accomplished. We need to keep voting them out of office, regardless of party, until they get that message. We need to elect a president that understands that message. That leaves out the entire current Democratic ticket, and some of the Republicans as well.
I'd be interested in hearing who on the Republican side you believe would curb spending, since they have proven since 1994 they are the party that spends more.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
King: We are not at war. That's the first point. How many times do I have to ask you guys the same question before I receive a legitimate answer?
The lie that we are at war is the pretext for emptying the treasury for the sake of the military-energy-industrial complex.
We're not at war with Iraqis….because we defeated and killed Saddam's bunch. Now we're occupying that country militarily. We're not at war with the Afghans….there's no declaration of war on record that I know of.
You have bought into the lie that GOP'ers and neo-conservatives have spun. Bankrupt the domestic needs of our nation by funneling hundreds of billions of tax dollars into the complex. Borrow everything you can from the greatgrandchildren. Then complain there's no more money for domestic needs. It's a freaking GOP platform plank.
The argument you set forth is so flimsy it can't be called an argument at all. Before our very eyes trillions of tax dollars have been handed out to the wealthiest Americans, either in the form of huge tax cuts or credits, cronyism to the nth degree, or the filling of the complex's coffers with no-bids and handout contracts.
Having done all this, the architects of this mania use some phoney incantation that we are at war to justify their endless bitching about "spending".
The only really surprising issue in all this is why people like you have been suckered into believing the lies.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
da truth,
Correction about which party spends more. The Democrats have proven since the 1930's that they are the party who spends more. They redoubled their spending efforts in the 60's. The Republicans reigned in spending in the 90's better than any congress in my lifetime, though they abandoned fiscal conservatism in the 2000's, especially following 9/11.
Here's a link about spending and who had congressional leadership at the time:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_S/s1.cfm
Here's a link about how Democratic programs have caused mandatory spending to increase to the point that it is the majority of the budget:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_S/s8.cfm
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Rev,
We are not at war ?
Oh. Well, we have an awful lot of troops vacationing over in the Middle East then. I could think of a better spot, like Hawaii or Vegas, you know ?
And I'm just going to pretend you didn't say that stuff about the military-energy-industrial complex. Your conspiracy theories are spinning way out of control. I sense it won't be long before you are telling me Bush caused 9/11 again, or Cheney killed JFK.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Hey king, you said when the country is at war? Well the war has been over for 3 years. We are funding an occupancy.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Dumb Red Neck, can you tell me when someone other than some Democrat opponent of Bush declared that war over? bin Laden declared war on the US in the late 1990s and finally caused something to happen that even Democrats could see we needed to be at war for. Seriously, I didn't know the war had been declared over yet.
I wonder if my niece's husband, a Captain of Infantry who is on his second tour in Iraq knows the war is over. Somehow he doesn't talk like they know about that. I am sure that one I know who had severe damage to his ankle and brain but is nearly fully recovered didn't know about it being over or he would have demanded he get back home from his second tour there before he was wounded.
Nope, DRN, I don't think the war is over other than in the minds of Democrats and other anti-Bush people.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Roy and others: Using your thinking…..are we at war in Korea? Troops are there. Are we at war with any of the countries our 700 military installations are entrenched in? Are we?
To all conservatives. The "war on terror" does not exist. It is only as John Edwards said, "a bumper sticker". It's nonsensical.
A nation cannot possibly go to war against a tactic. It would, as others have said, be like declaring a "global war on farting". It's simply ridiculous.
The reason this is important is because international criminals like Bush and Cheney dismiss their lawlessness, imperialism and savagery as all necessary because of the GWOT. Wingers believe in the fear these criminals are selling, are properly scared, and then accept a bumper sticker over reality.
The most surprising aspect of what's happened over the last 6 plus years is how easily conservatives are scared. I didn't expect that. Imperialist warmongering, I realize, has always been part of the GOP playbook, but I really never expected the conservatives to be such scared-e-cats. But they are.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
King,
As you say, why are you rehashing the past? I've admitted in this and other threads that democrats historically spend more. So, unlike others that post here, my comments do take history into account. But thanks for admitting that they have been fiscally irresponsible during the last 8 years. As for their reigning in spending in the 1990's, remind me again who was president then?
December 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Also, King, I would take issue with your statement that Republicans reigned in spending in the 1990's. If you really look at the numbers you yourself cited, spending has increased since 1965 regardless of who leads Congress. And in the 1990's as well. The same numbers you cite shows that spending has increased at a greater percentage under Republicans than Democrats. Which makes my point for me. Even your cites of mandatory spending shows this as well. Fiscal conservatism has been dead for some time now.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
It ain't the spending, not really….it's what the spending is for.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
da truth,
I agree that fiscal conservatism has been dead for some time now. That is precisely the problem. It has been abandoned in favor of pandering liberal spending policies. We have to get it back, and you won't find that in the Democratic party, at least not in any kind of significant numbers.
I think you should look again at those spending numbers I linked you to. In the 1990's spending was as flat as it's been the entire period. That was the Republican congress doing that. I already agreed with you that the Republicans abandoned conservatism in the 2000's, so we have no argument there, but if you look back prior to 1994, that was all under the control of the Democratic congress. I also don't see how you can look at the mandatory spending numbers and not see that almost all the increase is due to Democrat instituted programs. That's not even debatable.
My greatest fear is that the people are going to put liberal Democrats in control of both the White House and Congress. The last time that happened was the disastrous Carter administration (not counting the brief early Clinton period, also a disaster, which ushered in the Republican Revolution and turned Clinton into a pragmatic moderate, thank god). Carter was an unmitigated disaster then, and I fear it would be an even worse disaster now. As a country, we need to reign in big spending and high taxation, not exacerbate it. All the numbers are screaming that to us, and the leading Democratic presidential contenders and the liberals in Congress are totally ignoring it, proposing boatloads of irresponsible new spending and taxation. If we don't choose the path of real fiscal conservatism now, we will do great harm to our country and future generations, all because we selfishly demand new mythical 'rights' for ourselves. It's a travesty. Social Security is a scam. Medicare costs are going to explode so much as to consume the entire size of the government today. Where will all that money come from ? Now the Dems want to add universal pre-school and universal healthcare to the tab ? We will be nothing but slaves to the enormous government bureaucracy if we keep following such a path (we're almost halfway there now). This is supposed to be the USA, not the USSR, with big brother watching over and controlling everything we do. What did all our ancestors even fight for, if we are going to turn around and freely give away all our liberties ? What's going on today is a disgrace. The Republicans are far from perfect, I'll grant you that, but what choice is there ? Electing liberals at this time in history is like inviting the vampire into your house. You end up dead.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
***Electing liberals at this time in history is like inviting the vampire into your house. You end up dead.***
Very well put, King. Of course, liberals can't manage to understand what you are talking about since they can't understand that Dems won't even make any effort to cut spending, as is so well borne out by the number of earmarks on the budget bill.
When the most sensible one of them can't see that it was the Republicans and not Clinton that were responsible for the lowering of non-mandated spending there is very little hope the others will manage to see that.
No Red, I wasn't talking about you in the preceding paragraph.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I'm trying to remember the last time the Democrats cut spending. Let me think….
Oh yeah, that would be NEVER. Not during my lifetime anyway.
The Dems get mad even when programs stay the same instead of expand, like S-CHIP. On that program, the Dems are certain that middle class kids and adults have the right to have their neighbors pay for their health care. That must be in the Constitution somewhere, because I know the Dems wouldn't lie, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe it's written between the lines.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
The Dims will cuts spending — for the U.S. military. Why the military? Among other reasons, the Dims are embarassed by American strength. They'd rather see America's defenses weakened rather than strengthen — that's what Clinton/Gore did.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Yes, the Dems will cut military spending, or intelligence spending, but never spending overall. It isn't only spending either. Sometimes, it's just left-minded stupidity. What Clinton in the area of intelligence ('the wall') sure came back to bite us, didn't it ?
Do you remember how the liberals howled about Reagan's Cold War defense spending ? It was loud and endless, and then all of sudden, Reagan won the Cold War, making liberals look like the simpletons they are.