- WARNING TIGHT-ASSED LIBS: IF YOU CAN'T TAKE A JOKE, DON'T READ THIS BLOG!
- JOHN F. KERRY'S COMMENTS REFLECT WHAT THE DEMOCRATS TRULY THINK ABOUT OUR TROOPS
- WE ARE "pro-America" "pro-Wal-Mart" & "pro-Israel" BLOGGERS
- HOW MANY DAYS UNTIL THE LIBERAL MEDIA REPORTS ON LIBERAL SENATOR "DINGY" HARRY REID AND HIS LAND SCANDAL AND ILLEGAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS?
Friday, November 18, 2005
Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'The Houston Chronicle' (Soon Putting a NEW Face on OLD Liberalism)
Evidently the Chronicle website will be getting some new looks, and more Blacks and Hispanics will soon be laid off, (a nice little Christmas present for them) while the white liberals in the bowels of the Chronicle continue to run the paper into ground with more losses in circulation expected, which is fine by me with the liberalism they ooze.
Yes, the Houston Chronicle will soon be putting a NEW Face On OLD Liberalism, which even when repackaged in a nicer container -- still won't sell.
Screw the libs!
One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.
You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.
If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:
All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.
The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).
Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.
George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.
And conservative columnist George Will points out that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion. Does that sound like fiscal discipline to you?
You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage your future and the futures of your children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral leaders” in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues.
Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?
Read the whole Cato article here:
Read the Will column here:
It is not always easy to separate some of the costs of homeland security from what can be labeled as discretionary spending at first blush. I realize that a Libertarian president would do many things differently, and as a Libertarian I would prefer much of this, but not all of the “party line”, especially on defense in many ways. However, statistically we had no option of electing a Libertarian. The best comparison as far as spending criticisms would be to look at a Liberal like Kerry or Gore, look at our current conditions, and ask yourself who would be worse.
Clinton did not have the challenges that Bush has, at least not to the same degree, natural disasters, war on terror. I'm not saying there is not room for improvement on the spending side, but this is a blog that is here to expose the crimes of the Democrats and the Liberals, your Libertarian argument, while having merit, doesn't address the Democrats or liberals behavior on this. Johnson enlarged the welfare state that FDR gave us. But it grew even more after Johnson. Bush did not create it, he inherited it. I would love to see it dismantled, but it won't happen overnight. Too hard to pull people off of those government tits they have been attached to. Bush realizes this practical reality I’m sure.
Liberal hater was pretty hard on Landriew, Nagin, and the whole “give me 200 billion” crowd in New Orleans, so I think he certainly does believe in fiscal conservatism. I was even harder on the welfare witches for this issue. We can't afford to blow this kind of cash when there is war on that we can't afford to lose. Even if you are one of those who disagreed with the war to begin with, even Helen Keller could tell that we can't afford to lose it now and we must do whatever it takes to win, even if we have to swallow some deficit spending for a while.
Landriew, Nagin, the Jacksonites, Sharptonites, and Farrakanites want to put this nation even further in debt to cover their flock's bets when people did not properly insure themselves.
Social conservatives need a voice like this blog because of the liberal chains that have shackled our free speech for far too long. The media certainly is not going to let us speak our minds.
If you want Bush to put the money clip away I can agree with that in many ways, but more importantly--screw the libs!
"Talking Points" wants to reinforce two things. First, the huge, bureaucratic government will never be able to protect you. If you rely on government for anything, anything, you're going to be disappointed, no matter who the president is.
For example, engineers knew for decades the levee system in Louisiana could not withstand a Category 5 hurricane, but nobody wanted to pony up the $20 billion to shore it up. That kind of decision happens all day, every day.
Second point, New Orleans is not about race. It's about class. If you're poor, you're powerless, not only in America, but everywhere on earth. If you don't have enough money to protect yourself from danger, danger's going to find you. And all the political gibberish in the world is not going to change that.
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina should be taught in every American school. If you don't get educated, if you don't develop a skill, and force yurself to work hard, you're most likely be poor. And sooner or later, you'll be standing on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help.
Chances are that help will not be quick in coming.
And that's "The Memo."
I enjoy effective post that really piss off liberals, and to think that this post only took a few seconds to put together, yet yielded so much thought.
Until the Chronicle displays consistent fairness in their tripe they will still be considered "ultraliberal" in my book.
Links to this post: