1
   

Republicans- Endangered Species

 
 
pistoff
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 07:16 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0102-02.htm

Published on Friday, January 2, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

Republicans Are at Risk of Becoming an Endangered Species

by Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey

Quote:


Former US Rep. Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey (R-San Mateo), a co-founder of Earth Day in 1970, was in the House from 1968 to 1982. Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

*Republicans are befuddled now. They know that the Republican Party has had a coup from the Neocon and the Relgious Right. What can real Republicans do about it?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 701 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 07:19 pm
They'll go on pretending it doesn't matter!
Many can't even admit that the party's been taken over by the lunatic fringe.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 07:30 pm
Many are voicing their objections.
Here is what many "Conservatives" really feel about Bushco.


President Bush promised fiscal responsibility, but instead has delivered a budget rife with profligate spending.

By David Tancabel | Staff Writer | 30 July 2003

Quote:
The Republican Party took control of Congress with the 1994 Republican Contract with America on the idea that government "is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money." Almost a decade later, with control of the White House, the Republicans in power have turned around and created the largest budget and deficits this county has ever seen. At a time when this country needs a sound fiscal policy, President Bush has led the path away from fiscal conservatism, and Republicans in Congress and across the country have followed. Conservatives have blindly followed Bush away from what used to be one of their pillars, low government spending and a balanced budget.

During the Clinton years, federal spending as a percentage of the nation's total economic output dropped from 22% at the start of his first term to below 19% at the end of his second. Huge deficits were replaced with record surpluses while the Republican Congress kept his spending in check. Regulatory costs also declined steadily throughout Clinton's presidency, according to a study released by Americans for Tax Reform, a group that favors lower taxes.

Under Bush, government spending is up 12.4% over the past three years, record deficits have returned and regulatory costs are up 8.4%. The $2.2 trillion budget is the most of any budget in United States' history. This number does not include the $74 billion spending bill already past to pay for the war in Iraq, nor does it include the further supplemental appropriations that will be needed for the increasingly expensive occupation of Iraq.

It used to be the Republicans who would start an outcry on spending increases, but for now, they are content spending away, creating the big government they supposedly abhor. If the Federal Government needs to increase its spending this much, a tax cut to boost the economy is not prudent. Making sure the war and the government can be paid for is a more pertinent issue.

There was also little opposition from Republicans on Bush's tax plan. A large $330 billion tax cut that, if Bush got his way, would have been closer to $750 billion. Bush now faces the largest deficits in the history of the Federal Government, estimated at $455 billion. Republicans and fiscal conservatives had believed for quite some time that a balanced budget was a good policy, but now that they have control, they believe they can do whatever they want with the public's money. Some economists agree that the tax cut will give the economy a boost, but the economic conditions are not bad enough that such a boost is needed when expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought.

Blaming the higher budgets on the "war on terror" stretches credulity too. As The Economist put it, "Federal spending has increased by 18% in Mr Bush's first two years--far more than the forecasts allow for in the future. The non-military component has been rising by more than 6% a year, which makes blaming it all on the war on terror seem strange. And the forecasts do not include the costs of war in Iraq, which are unpredictable."

President Bush and the self-proclaimed "conservatives" in Congress are showing they have no discipline when they are in control of the money. Bush and many of the Republicans have turned on their roots that won them control of Congress and are now blazing a trail back to the big government and big money that they were suppose to destroy.


http://www.conservativesagainstbush.com/30july.html
0 Replies
 
Umbagog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 09:07 pm
The former USSR had no such laws protecting the environment, and they plundered it mightily to be the Top Nuke Holder in the world. Their economy collapsed as a result, and still struggles to this day because they created wastelands instead of habitats.

The US is now apparently bent on the same idea...to take and plunder anything and everything in sight to maintain an economic superiority.

History is loaded with examples of how this is a bad idea. We are given gardens and we create deserts, and all that fabulous wealth and power gets covered by sand. Most of the world's archeological sites are still untouched, as they are vast in their numbers, and we are still only just stumbling into them, never mind excavating them to see what happened. The story for those we have excavated is always the same. A sudden end, by fire, drought, war, disease, floods, famine, abandonment, etc....because the region could no longer support the populations that thrived there....because they stripped away the resources only to find, once they are gone, they stay gone.

Those who want to take have a hell of a lot of history on their side, albeit, histories of destruction, but somehow, I doubt anything will change, as the pattern is clearly repeated over and over again.

Will the human race ever grow up and think sensibly instead of lusting after power and wealth? Today I say no, but that could change...
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 09:08 pm
suzy wrote:
They'll go on pretending it doesn't matter!
Many can't even admit that the party's been taken over by the lunatic fringe.


They've been sitting on the sidelines for the last 30 years waiting for the Democrats to admit the same thing... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 09:22 pm
Hi fishin! Very Happy
But we don't elect 'our fringe' for president, unless you think Clinton was liberal? He sure wasn't!
Bush is definetly a fringe candidate, and he got past the primaries on name recognition and some nice ideas that he promptly forgot about.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Republicans- Endangered Species
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 10:27:50