Spending obscenities
There was a really great column By Cal Thomas in the Free Press today. It can be found on Town Hall here.
It really explains the difference between conservatives and the current Republicans in Washington, D.C. Thomas, who I would describe as a small government conservative, expresses the dissatisfaction that many GOP faithful, myself included, have with the party today.
Spending obscenities
Mar 21, 2006
by Cal Thomas
Not so long ago, in a country that now seems far, far away, Ronald Reagan told the nation: "we don't have deficits because people are taxed too little. We have deficits because big government spends too much."
Last week, a Republican Senate voted to raise the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion. Senators quickly passed a record $2.8 trillion budget. What would Reagan say now? He said then, ".the federal deficit is outrageous. For years I've asked that we stop pushing onto our children the excesses of our government." He called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and labeled the budget process a "sorry spectacle." That Republicans are outspending the most reckless 1980s Democrat (and 1960s Great Society Democrats and 1940s FDR Democrats) is the sorriest spectacle of all.
Read more.
7 comments:
I like Cal's last paragraph:
"Maybe it's time for a strong third party, or failing that, another revolution."
The former Fed. Reserve Chief Greenspan had something similar to say in his February interview, saying the two major parties in the US are creating an opening for a third-party candidate who appeals to the voting public, who is in the middle of the two parties.
I consider myself one of those who doesn't fit in either the left or right, but in the middle, a Libertarian.
For those wondering what Libertarian means, here's a brief description:
Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.
In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.
If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact either me or my husband, Jeremy (Burlington's Libertarian party chair).
I thought of you guys when I read that line. Here's the Libertarians big chance!
Personally, I think that conservatives should support personal freedom. What ever happened to the small government GOP?
Phony demagoging on the deficit. They want rally people around doing away with every social program ever created instead of blaming it on the real culprit this pitiful and shameful war. First and foremost innocent people are dying in the tens of thousands. Secondly, it's an absoulute waste of precious resources. All the while we've got the police rounding up welfare cheats in upstate New York. That's what people like, busting welfare cheats while their taxex bankroll billionaires. What a country.
Oh come on! We've always wanted to do away with social programs - even before the war.
Remember? We hate poor people. (Yes, that is sarcasm.)
The point of the column was that we need another fiscal conservative in the White House. Bush has betrayed many of the Republicans that put him in office. Thomas quoted Pres. Reagan to remind us what a fiscal conservative sounds like.
Anonymous brings up one of my favorite absurd liberal ideas: 'busting welfare cheats while their taxex bankroll billionaires. What a country.' Paraphrased, it's 'taking from the poor to give to the rich'. Have they ever stopped to think of how absurd that is? If you are poor, then by definition, you don't have money!! You can't get blood from a stone.
Don't tell me that the poor pay taxes, because they don't. They may have them taken out all year, but they get it all back in the form of a refund.
On a side note, isn't if funny that when the government takes money from you it's called 'taxes', but when you take money from the government it's called 'theft'?
Yes, you are right, Hardy. I was being facetious when I said I wanted to do away with social programs. You hit the nail right on the head. A private (meaning non-government) system of charities is exactly what I support and for the very reasons you listed.
Hardy-
Can't we start taxing churches for God's sake?
Post a Comment