Where were they then?

[hugo]

Where were all the small government, deficit hawk Republicans when GW was spending money like a drunken sailor with a credit card?

[timesjoke]

I agree that it was pretty sad that even the so called 'conservative party' politicians seemed to join in on the out of control spending spree but not to be out done, Obama and company have made GW's spending over 8 years look like nothing, and you have to consider that things seemed a little better for spending then, now we are obviously in bad shape and collecting way less tax funds and what do Liberals do when we are in hard times?

 

 

Raise taxes.......

 

 

The problem is you create a never ending cycle, the Government reuns out of money so they tax more to get the funds they "need", that supresses the economy, drives more people out of work or they spend less money (because they have less to spend) and that further reduces tax collection, so the Government has another shortfall of revinue and has to raise taxes again.......

 

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Chi]

Where were all the small government, deficit hawk Republicans when GW was spending money like a drunken sailor with a credit card?

 

Exactly. Hypocrites.

[timesjoke]

Exactly. Hypocrites.

 

Some of them certainly were hypocrites, but we should not be ignoring the fact that while both sides were spending too much money, the Democrats are spending by far the most while we are getting from it the least.

 

 

Too often this administration falls back on excuses of the last administration as excuses for certain things but I thought this President ran under the promise of "change"?

 

The only change we see is for the worse, and they keep charging foward as if they don't give a sh!t how upset the American people are at them, they have made up their minds and anyone who does not agree with them are racists, stupid, and need to be put down.

 

 

Say what you want, the Republicans never called people names the way the Democrats do, at least not to that level, in fact I am very irritated how often our new President uses the race card, I think he has set back race relations at least ten years all by himself.

[hugo]

The Biggest Medicare Fraud Ever

by James Bovard

 

The Bush administration admitted in February that its new Medicare drug prescription benefit would cost $1.2 trillion over the next decade – not the $400 billion that Bush had promised when he was pressuring Congress to enact the bill. His vast expansion of the welfare state is wrecking any effort to rein in government spending.

 

 

Throughout his first term, Bush was determined to expand Medicare by including prescription drug subsidies for seniors. Medicare is one of the fastest-growing parts of the federal budget, rising from $31 billion in 1980 to $245 billion in 2003. The value of the medical care that seniors receive far exceeds the Medicare taxes they have previously paid and are currently paying. But that was irrelevant to the political calculus.

 

Bush constantly portrayed the issue of new handouts in the loftiest moral terms. In a Florida speech on November 13, 2003, he declared, “The Medicare program is a basic trust that must be upheld throughout the generations.” And because it was an issue of trust, the Bush team was entitled to use deceit and any means necessary to ram the law through Congress.

 

The Republican leadership thought they could score victory in the House when the bill was brought to the floor on the evening of November 22, 2003. However, when the initial vote occurred at 3 A.M., the proposal lost by two votes. The Republican leadership violated House rules, which limit votes to a half hour or less, and proceeded to carry out the longest floor vote in House history – dragging out the tally until 6 A.M., when two Republicans switched their “nays” to “yeas” and the bill passed.

 

Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.), a veteran congressman in his final term, caught intense heat for opposing the bill. Efforts to sway Smith’s vote focused on his son, who was running for the congressional seat his father held. Columnist Robert Novak reported,

 

On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father’s vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.

Smith complained widely about the threats and bribes in the days after the vote. The House Ethics Committee eventually grudgingly launched a bribery investigation.

 

Barely a month after Bush signed the bill, his budget director, Josh Bolton, informed Congress that the estimated cost had jumped to $540 billion for the first decade, instead of the advertised $400 billion ticket price. The revision infuriated conservative Republican congressmen, but the congressional leadership tried to brush it off as a nonissue. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) declared,

 

In truth, nobody has any idea what the real figure will be at the end of the day, because we don’t know what those assumptions should be as we go further.

If Frist actually believed no one had any idea of what the legislation would cost, then he and other supporters were grossly negligent or deceptive in the claims they made to the American people when Congress considered the bill.

 

White House deceit

The Bush administration intentionally deceived Congress about the estimated cost of the bill. Thirteen conservative House members had vowed to vote against any bill costing more than $400 billion. Richard S. Foster, the top actuary at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, privately estimated in June 2003 – five months before the final vote – that the bill would actually cost $550 billion. He was contacted by Democratic staffers seeking estimates on the cost of the Bush proposal. By law, he was obligated to provide them the information. Thomas Scully, the chief Medicare administrator, is reported to have threatened to fire Foster if he provided the information. Foster later commented that “there was a pattern of withholding information for what I perceived to be political purposes.” The much higher estimate of the cost of the Medicare bill was apparently known by top officials at the White House.

 

On May 3, the Congressional Research Service released a legal analysis which concluded that “such ‘gag orders’ have been expressly prohibited by federal law since 1912.” The Supreme Court, in a 1927 ruling on the 1912 law, declared that a “legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information regarding conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.” But the Bush administration was too astute to fall for such radical notions.

 

Republicans sought to pooh-pooh the suppression of the more-accurate estimate. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay declared that the actuary’s numbers were “irrelevant to the policy that we passed.” Perhaps DeLay believes that Americans should feel lucky to have Republicans reelected at any price.

 

The National Center for Policy Analysis estimated that only 6 to 7 percent of the expenditures in the Medicare reform bill will pay for additional drugs for the elderly. In order to provide $1 for the elderly who could not afford prescription drugs, the Bush administration apparently felt obliged to spend $15 subsidizing nonneedy elderly people and insurance companies. The new program also provides a huge windfall for corporations; the Congressional Budget Office forecast that at least one-third of all private companies will dump their retirees into the Medicare system as a result of the new bill.

 

Bush faced intense resistance on the Medicare expansion because some Republicans and some conservatives refused to abandon their principles simply to help him get reelected. A group of 30 Republican congressmen favored a competing proposal that would have offered Medicare drug benefits only to seniors who lacked any private insurance coverage. The Bush team torpedoed this proposal. During the battle over the bill, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) declared, “I’m a Republican, and I didn’t come here to create the largest expansion of an entitlement program in history.” Republican aides made clear that conservatives who voted against Bush’s bonanza would suffer.

 

Throughout 2003, starting with his State of the Union address, Bush continually invoked the bill’s $400 billion price tag as proof of his benevolence. After meeting with congressmen on November 17, 2003, he boasted, “There’s 400 billion additional dollars available for our seniors in this bill.” Once the bill’s cost became a gauge of Bush’s generosity, any reform that targeted benefits would make him look less compassionate.

 

Bush painted his Medicare expansion efforts as distinguished service to humanity. At a White House talk on Medicare, he announced, “We’ve all come to Washington, those of us who have been elected to office, to serve something greater than ourself.” But most treatises on ethics do not recognize “reelection” as a specific category of “service.”

 

In July 2001, when Bush put forward his Medicare fix, he declared that any reform must “strengthen the program’s long-term financial security.” But his fix is the worst financial blow Medicare ever suffered. A report by the official board of Medicare trustees four months after he signed the bill warned that Medicare’s finances have “taken a major turn for the worse.” Thanks in large part to the new law, Medicare is now forecast to go bankrupt seven years earlier than previous projections – in 2019, instead of 2026. The Washington Post noted that “the program has never before lurched seven years closer to insolvency in one year.” The trustees forecast that the new prescription drug benefit would cost up to $7 trillion over the next 75 years. The trustees also warned that the combined Medicare–Social Security deficit (the gap between promised benefits and expected revenues) is now almost $50 trillion – almost triple the Bush administration’s forecast in 2003 of $18 trillion.

 

Bush reiterates that the new law gives seniors more freedom. He is giving seniors “medical freedom” the same way he gave local schools “educational freedom” with the No Child Left Behind Act. The Supreme Court ruled in 1942, “It is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” Bush’s rhetoric will provide no protection against further restrictions as future Congresses and presidents struggle to control the soaring costs of his drug giveaway. Bush’s Medicare expansion will inevitably increase government control over American medical treatment – a grave health danger to all Americans.

 

September 1, 2005

The Republicans have only nominated one truly conservative candidate for President since 1964. McCain was the most liberal yet and their new darling taxed businesses in order to give the citizens of her state a welfare check.

[hugo]

The 25 Republican House members who voted against Bush's expansion of medicare:

 

HONOR ROLL

These 25 GOP representatives deserve the applause of free-marketeers for courageously [rejecting the expansion of Big Government]:

Todd Akin of Missouri

Greshem Barrett of South Carolina

Dan Burton of Indiana

Steve Chabot of Ohio

John Culbertson of Texas

Jim DeMint of South Carolina

Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri

Tom Feeney of Florida

Jeff Flake of Arizona

Scott Garrett of New Jersey

Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota

John Hostettler of Indiana

Walter Jones of North Carolina

Jeff Miller of Florida

Jerry Moran of Kansas

Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado

Charlie Norwood of Georgia

Ron Paul of Texas

Mike Pence of Indiana

Jim Ryun of Kansas

John Shadegg of Arizona

Nick Smith of Michigan

Tom Tancredo of Colorado

Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

Zack Wamp of Tennessee

 

Proud to say Culbertson is my rep.

[eddo]

Where were all the small government, deficit hawk Republicans when GW was spending money like a drunken sailor with a credit card?

 

excellent question.

 

This "it was ok when we did it, but now it's not ok cause they are doing it" crap sucks- from both sides.

 

But since the Dems are in power now, it is a very legit and valid question.

[timesjoke]

The Biggest Medicare Fraud Ever

by James Bovard

 

 

The Republicans have only nominated one truly conservative candidate for President since 1964. McCain was the most liberal yet and their new darling taxed businesses in order to give the citizens of her state a welfare check.

 

Bush certainly was no Conservative, lol. His many liberal moves such as the amnesty for illegals proved he was no Conservative and in many ways should go down in history as a Democrat based on his policy decisions.

 

 

 

 

excellent question.

 

This "it was ok when we did it, but now it's not ok cause they are doing it" crap sucks- from both sides.

 

But since the Dems are in power now, it is a very legit and valid question.

 

I do not think it is legit because it is used to stifle honest debate on the merits of "current" policy. If they fill the air with accusations of how the past administration did something, then there is no time or will power to object to current policy.

 

 

We can't change the past, but we can learn from it and try "NOT" to make the same mistakes again. Leaning on that crutch of what someone else did in the past as justification for wrongs done today, eliminates any chance of change for the better.

[Chi]

 

This "it was ok when we did it, but now it's not ok cause they are doing it" crap sucks- from both sides.

 

I agree with this, too. I am SICK AND TIRED of both parties concentrating too much on making each other look bad and to spite eachother. Let's work together to benefit all.

[timesjoke]

I agree with this, too. I am SICK AND TIRED of both parties concentrating too much on making each other look bad and to spite eachother. Let's work together to benefit all.

 

But unfortunately we are talking about humans, and humans are greedy and selfish creatures much of the time.

 

Look at Al Gore, do you really think he would be as passionate and outspoken about "man caused" global warming if he was not making billions of dollars off of it? He is connected financially to companies who will make trillions of dollars off of forced regulations and that will mean the money he has now will be like nothing compared to what he will make should this political garbage get approved.

 

 

Obama is connected firmly to GE, and who will make a lot of money should these policies be put into place Obama has promised?

 

GE.

 

Makes sense that GE has handed their television network over to Obama to do with as he pleases.

 

 

 

 

The only way our politicians will do as "WE" want them to do is for us to force these issues. Even when we speak out in large numbers, the Liberals call us discontents and racists so they can continue to do as they please.

 

The Republicans do it too but not quite as hostile with their personal attacks.

 

 

They are more concerned with their agenda than our needs, and that will stay that way untill we as a Nation get upset enough to stand up to them............and that is where the Liberals are smarter then the Republicans........

 

 

The Liberals know they are pissing people off, that is why they want to have things like government run healthcare as a control method.

 

 

If the Government is supplying you with everything you need, you can't go against it because you will lose the things the Government is providing.

[hugo]

Bush certainly was no Conservative, lol. His many liberal moves such as the

 

 

I do not think it is legit because it is used to stifle honest debate on the merits of "current" policy. If they fill the air with accusations of how the past administration did something, then there is no time or will power to object to current policy.

 

 

We can't change the past, but we can learn from it and try "NOT" to make the same mistakes again. Leaning on that crutch of what someone else did in the past as justification for wrongs done today, eliminates any chance of change for the better.

 

The reason it is legit is because if conservatives do not learn from history they will nominate another big spender Bush II or tax raiser Bush I or federal agency creator Richard Nixon and we will continue down the socialist path. I suggest they look at the list of the 25 reps whose names I have posted for individuals with a track record of conservative votes, not simply partisan ones.

 

You are correct the fact that GW was a reckless spender does not justify Obama bankrupting our nation. The debate needs to be over how do we nominate a true conservative in 2012.

[timesjoke]

The reason it is legit is because if conservatives do not learn from history they will nominate another big spender Bush II or tax raiser Bush I or federal agency creator Richard Nixon and we will continue down the socialist path. I suggest they look at the list of the 25 reps whose names I have posted for individuals with a track record of conservative votes, not simply partisan ones.

 

You are correct the fact that GW was a reckless spender does not justify Obama bankrupting our nation. The debate needs to be over how do we nominate a true conservative in 2012.

 

That was what I was trying to say.

 

The point is legit to "learn from" but not legit as a talking point for the current administration or leadership to avoid taking responsibility for actions done now.

 

When people say "well Bush spent a lot, so why come down on Obama" that in my opimion is not a valid point, who cares what another President did when "TODAY" we are making it worse?

 

The promise was "CHANGE", not more of the same and then some.

[ImWithStupid]

Where were all the small government, deficit hawk Republicans when GW was spending money like a drunken sailor with a credit card?

 

 

Sorry. Many of us were there. I contested for a long time that the only reason GW won in 2004 was because John Kerry was the best the Dems could put up against him.

 

The Repubs lost their way shortly after balancing the budget, under Newt in the 90's, and turned into Democrats, once they had both houses of Congress and the White House that would sign anything.

[timesjoke]

Sorry. Many of us were there. I contested for a long time that the only reason GW won in 2004 was because John Kerry was the best the Dems could put up against him.

 

The Repubs lost their way shortly after balancing the budget, under Newt in the 90's, and turned into Democrats, once they had both houses of Congress and the White House that would sign anything.

 

The whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" concept comes to mind, I think many of them got drunk with the idea of the power they had and forgot the ideas and promises that had the people put them into power. That proken promise was wahy we had such a powerful backlash against Republicans in recent elections......the people felt betrayed.

 

 

Now we are seeing the same thing again, all the polls agree that the congress and this President is taking the Country in a direction they do not want to go, the Democrats are now feeling the same drunk from absolute power to do as they please without anyone who can stop them and that I believe will result in the same kind of voter backlash.

 

At least I hope so.