Count me in

Errr.... Out

If you cannot trust any of them it makes sense to vote for the one who is pressuring to shrink them all...Republicans...The more we push to the right, the smaller the gubmint gets...this, obviously, results in less corruption...Something Democrats seem to overlook as they offensively vote their neighbor's hard-earned money out of their and their family's budgets, and into the pork trough.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!!

Since the republicans have taken control of the white house and congress they have been spending money like drunken sailors. And this has nothing to do with the "war on terror". This is non-defense spending.....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1127790701.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1127790735.jpg

Not satisfied?? Here's more...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0308-16.pdf

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1208/p01s02-uspo.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-375es.html

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031127-112025-7591r.htm

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/dehaven-030728.html

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rugy-030212.html

And those are just a few from a quick Google search. Don't make make me quote The Economist!

Today's republican party has lost its way. The only way to reduce the size of government is to vote for a third party, such as the Libertarians.


SmileWavy

Mainstream political parties? Heck, I'm not even considered a US citizen according to Bush Sr!

I believe that our government has grown into this giant self-eating watermelon that really doesn't reflect the will of the American citizen any longer. We're just along for the ride.

Mike

Count me in. Once again Mul proves he lives in the land of black & white, no grey anywhere.

It scares the hell out of me that people actualy believe this outdated, stale and completely fictional account of the Republican Party. This statement has not been true for 20 years, yet people repeat it like some sort of twisted fairy-tale mantra.

Discretionary non-defense spending has DOUBLED since Bush has been in office. You got that Mul? Doubled!

Do you have any idea how hard it will be to reverse that? Near impossible ... I worked on the Hill, I know. For every new dollar of government spending you create a new constituency. And they fight like hell for INCREASES every year, never mind cut backs. If you can kill one in 20 of these programs, you will be the biggest cost-cutter in history. And you will likely be voted out of office the next election.

This administration is the most fiscally-reckless bunch I have seen in my lifetime. Their absurd, incompetent management of the government will haunt us and our children for years to come.

As if to emphasize my above rant, this is from today's Washington Post. My favorite quote:

"a fellow member of the Republican Study Committee, lunching with reporters at Charlie Palmer Steak, accepted that Congress would not find cuts to pay for the $62 billion spent so far on Katrina -- much less the $250 billion more that Louisiana wants from the feds. If 'we find $20 billion in offsets, we'll probably declare victory,' said the congressman, who spoke on the condition that he not be named."

Deep Pockets, Small Government and the Man in the Middle
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; A04

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) had the look of a hunted man as he walked from the Capitol to the Longworth House Office Building yesterday for a speech to young conservatives.

Pence, chairman of a group of House conservatives called the Republican Study Committee, was complaining to his companions about a Robert Novak column in yesterday's Washington Post saying Pence was subjected to a "closed-door auto-da-fe" from Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay for daring to suggest that the profligate House leadership should reconsider its big-spending ways. But Pence got the leadership's message, loud and clear.

Pence's speech was billed by the conservative Young America's Foundation (YAF) as a discussion of "why the conservative leadership in Congress has abandoned its allegiance to the principles of smaller government" and gone on "massive spending splurges." But instead, a chastened congressman delivered unstinting praise for his superiors.

"I believe in the leadership of this Congress," Pence told his surprised audience. "I believe in the men and women who lead the House of Representatives and the Senate. I see them as men and women of integrity and principle, who work every day to bring the ideals of our Founders into the well of the people's house."

To the further surprise of his YAF hosts, Pence left the room without the promised Q&A. "Unfortunately, the congressman will be unable to answer questions today," a befuddled young host ad-libbed. "But we are going to have a door prize."

Ideology and party loyalty are clashing among congressional Republicans these days, and the smart money is on party loyalty. Conservatives, enraged by talk of spending $200 billion on the Hurricane Katrina recovery, are calling on the leadership to slow down popular programs and to find spending cuts to offset the expenses. But congressional leaders have rejected most of the conservatives' entreaties.

Just before Pence gave his toned-down speech, a fellow member of the Republican Study Committee, lunching with reporters at Charlie Palmer Steak, accepted that Congress would not find cuts to pay for the $62 billion spent so far on Katrina -- much less the $250 billion more that Louisiana wants from the feds. If "we find $20 billion in offsets, we'll probably declare victory," said the congressman, who spoke on the condition that he not be named.

As fiscal hawks surrendered, would-be government contractors were meeting in the Hart Senate Office Building to figure out how to get a share of the money. A "Katrina Reconstruction Summit," hosted by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and sponsored by Halliburton, among others, brought some 200 lobbyists, corporate representatives and government staffers to a room overlooking the Capitol for a five-hour conference that included time for a "networking break" and advice on "opportunities for private sector involvement."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) sent his budget director, Bill Hoagland, who cautioned that federal Katrina spending might not exceed $100 billion. But John Clerici, from a law firm that helped sponsor the event, told the group that spending would "probably be larger" than $200 billion. "It's going to be spent in a fast and furious way," Clerici said.

Sipping coffee from china cups and munching on doughnuts, the corporate crowd heard Joe McInerney, president of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, predict: "I think we'll see Mardi Gras in New Orleans to some extent this year."

Small Business Administration official Herbert L. Mitchell told them to think of the SBA as "really the federal government's disaster bank." Mitchell said his payroll has gone from 800 to 2,300 since the storm and he is adding 200 people a day as he tries to increase maximum payments to small businesses.

This sort of federal honey pot alarms fiscal conservatives. Earlier this month, the conservative Heritage Foundation complained about a 33 percent expansion of the federal government since 2001, even before the Katrina spending. "Unless lawmakers make difficult decisions now, they will dump the largest debt in world history into the laps of the next generation," Heritage concluded.

The natural enemy of this spending is Pence's 110-member Republican Study Committee in the House. House GOP leaders have taken to calling the group "the minority caucus," believing that Republicans would return to minority status if they were to follow its recommendations.

But the minority caucus lost its nerve. People arrived at Pence's speech to learn that, after he objected to YAF's original description, the topic had been changed to a more neutral question: "Have conservatives given up on smaller government?"

Pence's answer: Not in the least. The silver-haired third-termer lamented that "many Republicans see government increasingly as the cure for every social ill," and he said "we've got to figure out how to pay" for the Katrina spending.

But Pence did not have thoughts on that question, other than the RSC's "Operation Offset," a list of possible cuts that has been dismissed by the GOP leadership he lavishly praised. As for the originally planned talk questioning the leadership's fealty to small government, YAF spokesman Jason Mattera said "it would have been nice" to hear Pence's views.

How about the Pelican Party?

Here here!!

Of course, I'd just like to add that you could ditch the entire discretionary budget and we'd still be in the red most years. We really need to get a handle on entitlements.

yep

I miss Newt.

Well, I think the President I have voted for has only won 2 terms since I last voted for Nixon in 72. Nixon did it for me. Yeah, I voted for him even though I was a war protester in 1970.

tax the churches

tax the businesses owned by the churches

Then we should also tax the cancer research institutes...and the ACLU...and private universities...and "foundations"...

Why tax anyone at all? Let's just keep cutting taxes, that's how we get more $$$ into the treasury.

Don't tell me you guys are not hip to Bush economics ... The less we tax the more tax revenue we have.

Tax the Carlyle Group

Vote for Kinky

Yes, more tax cuts. That'll fix it..........

Spend some time in Congress, you'll understand. Everything from committee assignments to leadership positions to office size/location are bargaining chips. Heck, what do you think the "whips" do?

And of course the granddaddy, campaign money. Guys like Tom DeLay control vast amounts of money. They can make you or break you if you are an up and coming Congressman. And DeLay, to use an example, is brutal. If he goes after a Republican representative from a deep red district, they are dead meat.

It all comes down to leadership. That starts at the White House and flows through the Congressional leadership offices. There's no leadership from the President on fiscal matters -- there is no leadership from him on almost any subject you can think of. He is just plain awful.

Every once in a while, Karl Rove will wind him up for "the base." Gay marriage, stem cell, Terri Schiavo, blah blah. When the political work gets done, he goes back on vacation, or for a bike ride.

"What is the lure that makes a one's "party loyalty" so much more important than one's own ideals?"

Idealism gets you elected but selling out gets you power/positon/money. Naivete gets you....... um, not sure what the lure is there.

Where was it ever written in stone that all Americans are either Red or Blue.. Democrat or Republican.. How likely is it that we've narrowed down all social, economic, and political issues into two platforms, one of which represents YOU perfectly? Two??

I spend all my time here trying to talk to the purples ... trying to reason with the radicals on either side is senseless.

I must say, however, that the "pro-Bush" crowd here on PP (I will NOT call them conservatives, they are not) seems to be particularly rigid and unbending. Maybe its my bias (I think President Bush is the worst leader in my lifetime), but look around: Guys still arguing that there are WMDs in Iraq, that Katrina was all the fault of the locals, that Bush can be counted on to control spending. Almost like a parody of some kind. But they are actually serious.

If you can find out what makes them tick, you are smarter than me :)

Winners don't need to bend.

And yes, most conservatives truly believe the local New Orleans officials caused the weather system that became Katrina.....

Was posting to the thread above (if you really can read). Your juvenile rantings speak for themselves and don't require response.

Oh yea, forgot to add: In addition to blaming the Katrina response entirely on the locals, the "pro-Bushers" call you names when you ask them to explain themselves :D

Sonny, I think you'll find I do anything but sidestep.

To your original question, people have been asking the same thing forever. It's nothing new - just the way the system is set up.

Edit, maybe read the freakin posts next time.

Well I guess I am smarter than you. I distinctly did not call anyone a name (right there). I simply described the content of his posts.

1. Are you drunk?
2. Where did you see anything in my post that resembles an excuse?
3. I'm certainly not a product of your environment (thank God). What's your point?

What a silly question.

I love the GOP because they are more conservative than democrats.

Feel better?

- Skip

You know, drunkeness is no excuse for stupidity.

Since you're serving, do you work the window or the counter? I'd like some fries, please....

What's so funny?

I love purple ... I'm a raging moderate.

I love honesty and competence, so I am disgusted with our current leadership.

Some people think that makes me liberal.

What leadership were you happy with?

socially conservative (creationism is equivalent to evolution, no gay marriage, etc), but apparently fiscally more liberal than the democrats. As if that was even possible.

I'd rather have it the other way around...

I’m not saying that I have been happy with any administration 100%. But I'm UNHAPPY with the current administration probably 95%, or 110% if you consider the damage it has done and will do to America. Other than the leadership exhibited immediately after 9/11 (which made me proud, and glad that Bush was our President), I can’t think of a single achievement of this administration.

In my lifetime, I liked Ike's pragmatism and rock-solid leadership. I am grateful for Kennedy's and Johnson's Civil Rights advances, and Kennedy's inspirational leadership in taking us to the moon. I admired Nixon's China policy, which took guts and vision. I liked Reagan's dogged insistence the democracy would prevail over communism. I liked Bush I’s ability to build a coalition for Iraq I, and his wisdom in understanding that we did not have the means or international support to "nation-build" in Iraq. I liked Clinton's fiscal leadership, taking us out of deficit spending and into surpluses, and the welfare reform that was enacted on his watch.

I could give you examples from each of the above administrations where they fell short, sometimes far short. I can’t give you a single example of this President’s vision or wisdom or leadership. Other than and aforementioned 9/11 aftermath. Which lasted all of a month or two.

Procon, apparently you are not going to get answers beyond party affiliations, or at best broad and sweeping labels like conservative and liberal. That's a shame, this could have been an interesting exercise.

But its indicative of the deep divisions in our country right now. We can't even talk to one another, never mind try to find some middle ground.