Doug Miller wrote:

In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.


I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

[snip]

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.


Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
the President.


It makes no difference. Bush signed those bills. Unless Congress
used its veto override in these matters Bush is just as culpable for the
irresponsible spending as the Congress Critters.

He's the latests of the Big Time Spenders and has Socialist spending
instincts that mirror FDRs...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/