Spend, spend, spend
Bush will fly to Illinois next week to sign an energy bill that is a testament to the new Republican mantra of “spend, spend, spend”. Hastert has secured more than $200 million for his district or $1000 per person for roads projects. LA secured less than $60 per person. The notion of fiscal conservatism has been lost to both the administration and senators. This energy bill is laden with funding for projects aimed to appease individual constituencies, millions for a bridge in a remote area of Alaska, $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in New York, and some of this money is excess to the budget.
As a fiscal conservative, the one aspect of a Bush win that appealed to me in 2000 was the chance for spending restraint. Instead not only do we have to deal with the social conservatism but the government has followed a fiscal policy that encourages overspending on unnecessary projects to placate a relative small proportion of the electorate.
As a fiscal conservative, the one aspect of a Bush win that appealed to me in 2000 was the chance for spending restraint. Instead not only do we have to deal with the social conservatism but the government has followed a fiscal policy that encourages overspending on unnecessary projects to placate a relative small proportion of the electorate.
posted by mochi at 9:00 AM
9 Comments:
Every time the republicans refer to themselves as the party of fiscal restraint, I can't for the life of me imagine who believes it.
Amen...
-Jack
Wait, Wait, Wait... that's kind of an unfair generalization: I can think of some religious fundamentalists that live or work in a big white house (earning slightly more than the the $5 an hour of their suggested counterparts) perfectly content not to send their own children to Iraq.
Curf,
Are you use that term "religious fundamentalists" in the same way some people refer to others as "f-gots" or "n-ggers"?
Just wondering...
-Jack
No, I are not using the term in the manner suggested. I should have been more sensitive to other's feelings. Next time I will write "R-gious f-mentalists".
I don't mean to be dense, but that comment confused me; both the original comment which seemed to be an unfair generalization (hence my reply) as well as your own unfair assumptions.
I happen to be a n-gger lover and a f-got in training, thank you very much. There also happen to be some religious fundamentals that work for the government in addition to those that "work at Walmart", just as there are Liberal Athiests (I mean "L-ral A-ests") in government and at Walmart as well. Just an observation.
Haha!!
-Jack
Curfew I posted a response in the "Conservatives against Darwin" post.
Mochi,
Playing Hide and Seek with your post was awesome. Sorry for the misplacement. Let's be best buddies.
Haven't you heard Wealthy Republicans argue that most Democrats are low-income, welfare and social security lovers? I was just noting that there are quite a few of the Religious Right with nice salaries working at the White House. Not enough to equal the population of those bible-belt states that you mentioned, of course, but those few voices scream a lot louder.
I've met some real-live poor people before, and a lot of them aren't happy with the situation our current government has found them in whether or not they love Jesus more than Apple Pie.
And as for serving in the military, I'd like to argue our current situation as a Poverty Draft. I have friends that are dead or missing limbs that needed money for college. During Vietnam it wasn't mostly the rich or the right-wingers volunteering in the noble cause against Communism either. I don't think it's fair to assume that the military is composed of the religious right sending their kids off to kill 'em some muslims.
Every time the republicans refer to themselves as the party of fiscal restraint, I can't for the life of me imagine who believes it.
As difficult as this is to say. I agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home