Thought a few current data points of the accomplishments of this Republican Administration are worthy of note:
National Debt: The National Debt will exceed 8.0 Trillion by the end of the month. That is an increase of 2.33 Trillion in just five years of the Bush administration. Each person has a $26,797 share of the National debt. Great inheritance gift from our fearless leaders.
During Bill Clinton's eight years the National debt went from 4.1 Trillion to 5.67 Trillion and the last two years saw a surplus and a reduced national debt over the previous year.
IRAQ: There are now 2,000 dead military members, almost 7,000 officially wounded not returning to duty and many more wounded returned to duty.
Two hundred people killed in Iraq today and nearly 600 wounded. We are making progress of the Republican kind.
AlQueda: Ben Laden is still free. We have given him the best live fire training program that far surpasses the training camps he had in Afganastan. His recruiting is doing well.
Katrina: President Bush plans hundreds of billions to fix the Gulf Coast but the money to pay for it is going to come out of current income or more National Debt. He is not a tax and spend liberal. No No, he just spends and spends and spends our childrens future financial security. That is suppose to be ok by all the Republican voters. I guess it is as they voted for all his policies and his fellow Repbulican house and senate rubber stamps who do his bidding.
What are the moral values demonstrated by these policies?
This is the good news Marco wants us to all swallow.
Joe
More Good news from the Republican Administration
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
More Data Points for Friends on the Right
Well, some interesting poll data for consideration:
1. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the administration's handling of the Katrina crisis.
3. The majority of Americans feel we should pull out of Iraq soon.
4. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the job Bush is doing as president.
Additionally, a growing percentage of Republicans are now distancing themselves from the president's policies--especially fiscal ones.
Is this just more leftist/Al-Queda/Clintonoid/liberal propaganda? Or has the majority of the country now become a security threat? Have you noticed your neighbor acting strangely lately?
Was Chertoff playing a fiddle while New Orleans (and Brown) burned?
Has Haliburton been elevated to cabinet-level status?
marcogarybill
1. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the administration's handling of the Katrina crisis.
3. The majority of Americans feel we should pull out of Iraq soon.
4. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the job Bush is doing as president.
Additionally, a growing percentage of Republicans are now distancing themselves from the president's policies--especially fiscal ones.
Is this just more leftist/Al-Queda/Clintonoid/liberal propaganda? Or has the majority of the country now become a security threat? Have you noticed your neighbor acting strangely lately?
Was Chertoff playing a fiddle while New Orleans (and Brown) burned?
Has Haliburton been elevated to cabinet-level status?
marcogarybill
Great Googly-moo!
More Good news from the Republican Administration
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Schad [mailto:jgs1942@shentel.net]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 08:58 p.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: More Good news from the Republican Administration
Katrina: President Bush plans hundreds of billions to fix the Gulf Coast
but the money to pay for it is going to come out of current income or more
National Debt. He is not a tax and spend liberal.
The policy choice is btwn the democratic "Tax and Spend" or the GOP's
"Borrow and Spend."
Everything else being equal, which is the most responsible public policy?
Pay for what you use or get someone else to pickup the tab?
From: Joe Schad [mailto:jgs1942@shentel.net]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 08:58 p.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: More Good news from the Republican Administration
Katrina: President Bush plans hundreds of billions to fix the Gulf Coast
but the money to pay for it is going to come out of current income or more
National Debt. He is not a tax and spend liberal.
The policy choice is btwn the democratic "Tax and Spend" or the GOP's
"Borrow and Spend."
Everything else being equal, which is the most responsible public policy?
Pay for what you use or get someone else to pickup the tab?
More Good news from the Republican Administration
The president has said the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.
Now that many of our freedoms have been revoked, would you agree that the
terrorists have won?
-----Original Message-----
From: Flying Lobster [mailto:in_a_cloud@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 09:25 p.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: More Good news from the Republican Administration
Well, some interesting poll data for consideration:
1. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the administration's handling of
the Katrina crisis.
3. The majority of Americans feel we should pull out of Iraq soon.
4. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the job Bush is doing as
president.
Additionally, a growing percentage of Republicans are now distancing
themselves from the president's policies--especially fiscal ones.
Is this just more leftist/Al-Queda/Clintonoid/liberal propaganda? Or has the
majority of the country now become a security threat? Have you noticed your
neighbor acting strangely lately?
Was Chertoff playing a fiddle while New Orleans (and Brown) burned?
Has Haliburton been elevated to cabinet-level status?
marcogarybillgot art?
http://www.marcfink.com/
wanna fly?
http://www.downeastairsports.com/
Now that many of our freedoms have been revoked, would you agree that the
terrorists have won?
-----Original Message-----
From: Flying Lobster [mailto:in_a_cloud@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 09:25 p.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: More Good news from the Republican Administration
Well, some interesting poll data for consideration:
1. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the administration's handling of
the Katrina crisis.
3. The majority of Americans feel we should pull out of Iraq soon.
4. The majority of Americans dissapprove of the job Bush is doing as
president.
Additionally, a growing percentage of Republicans are now distancing
themselves from the president's policies--especially fiscal ones.
Is this just more leftist/Al-Queda/Clintonoid/liberal propaganda? Or has the
majority of the country now become a security threat? Have you noticed your
neighbor acting strangely lately?
Was Chertoff playing a fiddle while New Orleans (and Brown) burned?
Has Haliburton been elevated to cabinet-level status?
marcogarybillgot art?
http://www.marcfink.com/
wanna fly?
http://www.downeastairsports.com/
Get used to deficits
So long as both parties are enjoying spending so much money with little regard for the deficit or national debt, then deficits will continue.
Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
Repubs don't want to admit that they want to cut spending, especially on the domestic side, because it kills them politically.
So, until the debt monster becomes a behemoth to the American people, which it has not yet, neither political party is willing to address it in a serious fashion.
What ever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment?
Marco
PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about enlargement of airspace restrictions?
Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
Repubs don't want to admit that they want to cut spending, especially on the domestic side, because it kills them politically.
So, until the debt monster becomes a behemoth to the American people, which it has not yet, neither political party is willing to address it in a serious fashion.
What ever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment?
Marco
PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about enlargement of airspace restrictions?
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
The Bush administration has the biggest spending habit of any administration in history. The national debt--not to be confused with the trade deficit--which is also at historic levels--is generally considered to be a threat to the country's economic well-being when it surpasses 4% of GDP. It will likely surpass that before year's end--if it hasn't already.
More than any other issue, this one of fiscal responsibility is what will ultimately spell Bush's end. Why? Because the conservative right also holds conservative spending philosophies as an essential difference between them and the democrats. There is a significant and growing dissatisfaction within the Republican ranks over the administration's spending largesse. Also, they know they will have to deal with the hang-over of Bush's policies long after he is gone. Elections are not that far off and the time to make things right is short.
Oh--but wait! I forget! This is all the fault of Clinton (although I can't figure it out since Clinton left Bush one of the biggest Budget surpluses in the country's history when he took office). Sky captains of tomorrow! Man your back-to-the-future machines! We're off on another mission (and God is my co-pilot)!
marcodevanman
More than any other issue, this one of fiscal responsibility is what will ultimately spell Bush's end. Why? Because the conservative right also holds conservative spending philosophies as an essential difference between them and the democrats. There is a significant and growing dissatisfaction within the Republican ranks over the administration's spending largesse. Also, they know they will have to deal with the hang-over of Bush's policies long after he is gone. Elections are not that far off and the time to make things right is short.
Oh--but wait! I forget! This is all the fault of Clinton (although I can't figure it out since Clinton left Bush one of the biggest Budget surpluses in the country's history when he took office). Sky captains of tomorrow! Man your back-to-the-future machines! We're off on another mission (and God is my co-pilot)!
marcodevanman
Great Googly-moo!
More Good news from the Republican Administration
I've suspected for sometime you're trolling, but now there's little doubt.
Habeas corpus
4th amendment freedom to be secure in our homes and personal effects
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of speech
Due process
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 05:34 a.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: More Good news from the Republican Administration
Marco
PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about enlargement
of airspace restrictions?
Others from your side of the fence seem to agree...
Todd Lakey, Canyon County Republican Chairman ("Idaho GOP for limits on the
Patriot Act," The Spokesman-Review, 6/15/2004)
"We want to support our preside, and we want to fight terrorism throughout
the world, but we also want to be careful of our personal liberties."
State Rep. Janet Miller (R-Boise) ("Idaho GOP for limits on the Patriot
Act," The Spokesman-Review, 6/15/2004)
"The Patriot Act was a very good idea. I think they just wrote it so hastily
that they maybe went more in-depth than they should have done. We, of
course, in Idaho really believe in personal freedom and not having the
government meddle in our lives, so I think taking another look at it is a
good idea."
Idaho GOP platform plank ("Idaho GOP for limits on the Patriot Act," The
Spokesman-Review, 6/15/2004)
"The Patriot Act is necessary to facilitate the cooperation between law
enforcement agencies. We support appropriate amendments to limit the
incursion upon personal freedoms, rights, and liberties of American
citizens."
Harry Schneider, Legislative Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsman's Association.
("Administration policies prompt some gun owners to recoil," Associated
Press, 4/14/04)
"Most gun owners are not very enthusiastic and they're very apprehensive
about aspects of the Patriot Act, specifically about search-and-seizure
rules. They're just not going to dig into their wallets or devote their time
to help Bush."
Kevin Starrett, Executive Director, Oregon Firearms Federation ("Gun Groups
May Not Be Bush Campaign Weapon," Los Angeles Times, 4/13/04)
"Had the Clinton administration proposed the Patriot Act, which is a real
scary thing for gun owners, the Republican-controlled Congress would have
been apoplectic."
Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Patriot Act divides Bush
loyalists," Washington Times, 4/5/2004)
"The Fourth Amendment is a nuisance to the administration, but the amendment
protects citizens and legal immigrants from the government's monitoring them
whenever it wants, without good cause -- and if that happens, it's the end
of personal liberty."
"I don't care if there were no examples so far. We can't say we'll let
government have these unconstitutional powers in the Patriot Act because
they will never use them. Besides, who knows how many times the government
has used them? They're secret searches."
Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America (Coalition for
Constitutional Liberties Weekly Update, Free Congress Foundations,
2/27/2004)
"Anytime the government is in a conflict, they see it as an opportunity to
aggrandize themselves and run roughshod over the Constitution"
"More laws are being made making things illegal. All of us stand to be in
violation of some law."
"Farmers [including some who were wielding guns] participated in civil
disobedience at the site of the main water valve. [Under the PATRIOT Act,]
The Klamath farmers would have been a terrorist organization."
On the membership of Gun Owners of America:
"They see the Bill of Rights and defense of freedom as seamless"
"The government feels that we, the people, need to be transparent. It should
be the other way around."
Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN-2) ("Bush gets 'high marks'," South Bend Tribune,
1/21/2004)
[Chocola held back an immediate endorsement of the president's call for
renewal of the Patriot Act when it expires next year]
"That's a debate we've got to have."
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA-11) ("Feedback to the state of the union address,"
Contra Costa Times, 1/24/2004)
"I think Congress will spend more time debating the Patriot Act, or any
reauthorization of the Patriot Act. We passed it originally in a time of
crisis. I have concerns about provisions in the Patriot Act, particularly
when it comes to protecting the privacy of the average American citizen."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
("Inside Politics," Washington Times, 1/23/2004)
Mr. Sensenbrenner, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said
"over my dead body" will the act be reauthorized without undergoing thorough
re-examination in hearings held by the House.
Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House ("The Policies of War:
Refocus the mission," San Francisco Chronicle, 11/11/03)
"We must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed,
that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon."
"I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes
unrelated to terrorism."
"Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however
indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations
unconnected to terrorism or national security.
In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we
cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect
for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against
terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to
value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton
acts of violence.
We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a
solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire
freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how
can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?
I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit
its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing
"mission creep" into areas outside of national security.
Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other
serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers
should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the
tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no
case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for
national security purposes.
This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to
have the "courage to be safe," this courage must include keeping to the
American principles that have made this country great for more than 200
years."
Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) ("Otter to speak on Patriot Act dissent,"
Idaho State Journal, 11/9/2003)
"You cannot give up freedom, you cannot give up liberty, and be safe. When
your freedom is lost, it makes no difference who took it away from you. (The
terrorists) have won. What did they want to do? Take away our freedom.
They've won in some cases."
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
("Senators join forces to roll back parts of Patriot Act," Washington Times,
10/16/03)
[On the introduction of the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act]
"This has nothing to do with the current administration; it's about putting
into effect the right law."
"It's time we adjusted this law to assure civil liberties are not being
trampled."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("Civil liberties
advocates laud Sununu for stand on Patriot Act reform," Manchester Union
Leader, 10/16/2003)
"These are people who are now taking a look at it and saying much of this is
a good law, but let's make sure we didn't go too far. While the government
should have all the power it needs to protect us, it shouldn't have all the
power it'd like to have."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) ("Hatch alarms right over anti-terror act," Salt
Lake Tribune, 9/15/2003)
"To date it appears portions of the Patriot Act may have moved the scales
out of balance"
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, board member,
National Rifle Association and American Conservative Union ("Hatch alarms
right over anti-terror act," Salt Lake Tribune, 9/15/2003)
"I don't know whether Hatch is slower to see this than other Republicans,
but the Butch Otter vote was a statement to the administration that Congress
is not going to stand there like potted plants and accept everything they
send over. It's been two years since 9-11, and for the administration to
still answer the public's questions about how these powers are being used
with 'Just trust us' is insulting."
Rep. Jim Leach, (R-IA) ("Latest Anti-Terrorism Proposals Not Likely to Move
Through Congress Quickly," Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/2003)
"There are very few acts of Congress that deserve more careful oversight
than the Patriot Act."
John W. Whitehead, President, Rutherford Institute (Memo on "Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Terrorists: A Rutherford Institute Response to Attorney
General John Ashcroft's 'Patriot Act Tour' and Website," 8/27/03 available
at: http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/JWWPatriotActResponse.pdf)
"Attorney General Ashcroft charges that passage of the Patriot Act radically
changed 'a culture of law enforcement inhibition' in America. When the Act
restricts or weakens constitutional and statutory protections for
fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy, including a right
characterized by the Supreme Court as being 'as old as the Magna Carta,' one
can surely forgive a reasonable observer for wondering whether, in throwing
off "inhibitions" on law enforcement for the sake of its pursuit of
terrorists, America has carefully calibrated the ramifications of this
authoritarian revolution for its continued commitment to the life and
liberty of all its people."
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
("Specter blasts part of anti-terrorism act," Associated Press, 8/2/2003)
[On section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act]:
"I don't think that's any of the government's business. I don't think what
people read is subject to inquiry. What difference does that make? It has a
chilling effect on fundamental freedom of activity."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) ("Murkowski Proposes Changes to USA PATRIOT Act
to Protect Civil Liberties While Fighting Terrorism," Press Release from the
Office of Senator Lisa Murkowski, 8/01/2003)
"Given the tragic events of Sept. 11th there is no question that federal law
enforcement agencies needed more tools and that Congress needed to update
our nation's anti-terrorism laws. But it is also clear that Congress has an
obligation to make sure the law is working as intended. We must strike a
careful and constitutional balance between protecting the individual rights
of Americans and giving our law enforcement and intelligence officials the
tools they need to prevent future terrorist attacks. To date it appears
portions of the Patriot Act may have moved the scales out of balance.
My goal is simply to make sure that our laws are balanced. I want to make
sure that law enforcement has all the tools they need to protect us, while
also protecting our individual freedoms and liberties - the very same
principles upon which the United States was founded and that make this
nation so great today."
Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) ("House Lawmakers Limit Scope of Patriot Act
Powers," Fox News, 7/29/2003)
"I think [law enforcement officials] are trampling on our rights and they
are doing it in the name of trying to protect us from domestic terrorism'"
Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) (Congressional Record, Page H7289, 7/22/2003)
"Mr. Chairman, over 200 years ago when the formulation of this great
republic was being put together, John Stuart Mill sat down and probably put
the essence of this government in writing better than anyone could. ' A
people,' he said, 'may prefer a free government, but if from indolence or
carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to
the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight for it
when it is directly attacked; if by momentary discouragement or temporary
panic, they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; or
if in a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay
their liberties at the feet of even a great man, in all these cases, they
are more or less unfit for liberty. And though it may have been to their
good to have had it for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it.'
The United States PATRIOT Act was well intentioned, Mr. Chairman, especially
during a time of uncertainty and panic. However, now we have had a chance to
step back and examine it objectively. The legislation deserves serious
reevaluation. While I agree with some of the new powers granted to the
Federal law enforcement authorities that may be, and I stress 'may be,'
necessary, many more are unjustified and are dangerously undermining our
civil liberties.
We have the opportunity to revisit these sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and
to correct these mistakes from those first frenzied weeks after September
11, 2001.
One provision, section 213, allows delayed notification of the execution of
a search warrant. It authorizes no-knock searches of private residences, our
homes, either physically or electronically. By putting off notice of the
execution of a warrant, even delaying it indefinitely, section 213 of the
USA PATRIOT Act prevents people, or even their attorneys, from reviewing the
warrant for correctness in legalities.
These 'sneak and peek' searches give the government the power to repeatedly
search a private residence without informing the residents that he or she is
the target of an investigation. Not only does this provision allow the
seizure of personal property and business records without notification, but
it also opens the door to nationwide search warrants and allows the CIA and
the NSA to operate domestically.
American citizens, whom the government has pledged to protect from terrorist
activities, now find themselves the victims of the very weapon designed to
uproot their enemies.
It is in defense of these freedoms that I offer this amendment today to the
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2004 bill. This amendment would
prohibit any funds from being used to carry out section 213 of the USA
PATRIOT Act as signed into law on October 26, 2001. Through the passage of
this amendment, Americans would have reinstated a different kind of
security; one giving them renewed confidence in their government in
tirelessly protecting their individual freedom from unjustified and
unnecessary intrusion.
Being secure at the expense of our freedom is no real security. Like many
Idahoans who have come to me with their concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act
and in passionate defense of their freedoms, we must continue to examine our
actions to correct our mistakes to guard against the apathy or the
indifference to safeguarding our liberties.
To these Federal agencies, it is a house, it is a building, it is a
business; but to us, Mr. Chairman, it is our homes, and there is nothing
more sacred than homes in America because it is the foundation on which we
build our families. It is the arsenal in which the virtue and hope of every
generation resides, and it is the fundamental primer of any free people.
We can, with the adoption of this first alteration to the PATRIOT Act, begin
the reclamation of our title of a Nation as a people fit for liberty."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
(Statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner at House Judiciary Committee Oversight
Hearing on the Department of Justice, 6/05/2003)
"As I stressed during legislative consideration of the PATRIOT Act, my
support for this legislation is neither perpetual or unconditional. I
believe the Department of Justice and Congress must be vigilant toward
short-term gains which ultimately may cause long-term harm to the spirit of
liberty and equality which animate the American character. We must maintain
a fundamental commitment to ensure the protection of Americans while
defending the beliefs that make us American. To my mind, the purpose of the
PATRIOT Act is to secure our liberties, not undermine them."
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) ("Patriot Act seen as danger to civil liberties,"
Mount Shasta News, 6/04/2003)
"It's a fine line we walk between our freedoms and having to defend
ourselves. The Act has to be carefully monitored so it is not abused and the
innocent are not harmed."
Wayne Anthony Ross, former National Rifle Association vice president ("I
Spy," Anchorage Daily News, 5/23/2003)
"This (act) needs a substantial amount of review."
Rep. Don Young (R-AK) ("Young wants changes in Patriot Act," Associated
Press, 5/13/2003)
"I think the Patriot Act was not really thought out. I'm very concerned
that, in our desire for security and our enthusiasm for pursuing supposedly
terrorists, that sometimes we might be on the verge of giving up the
freedoms which we're trying to protect."
[On the possibility that he would co-sponsor legislation introduced by Rep.
Bernie Sanders (I-VT), that prevent judges on the FISA court from issuing
warrants to search library and bookstore records for "personally
identifiable information concerning a patron."]
"It goes to show you I'm willing to look at the right side of an issue. I
think he's right in this issue. I don't think it's anybody's business what
I'm reading in the library."
James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former
Virginia Governor ("Gilmore Cautious Over State Of Security And Civil
Liberties," National Journal: Technology Daily, 5/12/2003)
"I am not prepared to say that the [USA] PATRIOT Act is being used in any
unlawful way, but as citizens, we have a duty to be watchful of that,
particularly if PATRIOT Act II comes along."
Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), member of the House Judiciary Committee, ("Senate
OKs More Power for FBI Surveillance," Salt Lake Tribune, 5/10/2003)
[On Senator Hatch's proposal to lift the sunset clauses from the PATRIOT
Act]
"On the House side, and I can assure in the Judiciary Committee especially,
there is not going to be much traction for Sen. Hatch's idea. It'' just not
going to go anywhere on this side, nor should it, from my perspective."
"Nobody knows how this law is being used, that's a fair knock, and if U.S.
attorneys could do anything they wanted, nobody would be safe. It's going to
take a while for [law enforcement] to adjust their procedures and their
safeguards, and if they are not forthcoming on what they are doing, they are
going to get slapped really hard."
James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former
Virginia Governor ("Gilmore: Security Must Not Come at Freedom's Expense,"
Daily Press, 5/9/2003)
"It's almost un-American to think about challenging the law. I am not
prepared to say that the application of the Patriot Act is being done
improperly. But as citizens and as lawyers, we need to be watchful."
Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Both right and left condemn
Patriot Act," The Hill, 5/6/2003)
"There are a lot of people who say, 'I don't have anything to hide.' But
every one of us is subject to being criminalized."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
("Sensenbrenner vows to uphold sunset of added police powers," Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, 4/18/2003)
[On the issue of making permanent many of the expanded police powers]
"That will be done over my dead body."
"If they want the sunset to be repealed, they're going to have to show that
Patriot Act One is constitutional and has done good things."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
("Key Republican Not Sure on Patriot Act," Associated Press, 4/16/2003)
[When asked about the future of the USA PATRIOT Act]
"I can't answer that because the Justice Department has classified as
top-secret most of what it's doing under the Patriot Act. The burden will be
on the Justice Department and whomever is attorney general at that time to
convince Congress and the president to extend the Patriot Act or modify it.
But because of the fact that everything has been classified as top-secret,
the public debate is centering on (the act's) onerousness."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("National Security
vs. Civil Liberties: Finding a Balance" Press Release, American Conservative
Union, 4/10/2003)
"These infringements on the individual freedoms of American citizens are not
part of some plot or conspiracy to deprive us of our civil liberties. The
President, the Attorney General and those interested in maximizing
individual liberty need to work together to guarantee that we can defend
ourselves without altering the nature of the greatest society on earth. The
USA PATRIOT Act was passed in haste included ideas previously shelved by the
Congress, like expanded civil forfeiture and roving wiretaps: ideas that law
enforcement wanted, but could never get. When creating sound anti-terrorism
legislation, the line should not be drawn at 'what is helpful for law
enforcement,' but at what is needed to protect us while preserving the
proper balance between preserving civil liberties and our nation's national
security needs."
Dick Armey, former Republican member of Congress and former House Majority
Leader ("Judiciary - Armey Bashes Ashcroft's Leadership On Privacy Issues,"
National Journal: Congress Daily, 3/14/2003)
"Before they ever got through with a full implementation of the authorities
under the PATRIOT Act, they were back asking for more."
"If you talk with Sensenbrenner, he is furious with the Department of
Justice's refusal to cooperate on oversight."
Christopher Pyle, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, served on the
Church Committee, ("Conservative Backlash Provisions of 'Patriot II' Draft
Worry Those on Right," ABCNews.com, 3/12/2003)
"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore. I think it's been buried
by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down.
We need a requiem mass for theFourth Amendment, because it's gone."
Rep. Don Young (R-AK), (Talk of Alaska Radio Interview, 2/11/2003)
"Everybody voted for it [the PATRIOT Act] but it was stupid, it was what you
call 'emotional voting'...because we didn't follow it through, we didn't
study it. I say it's the worst piece of legislation we've ever passed."
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), House Majority Leader and Chair of the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security, ("Armey: Justice 'Out of Control'" USA
TODAY, 10/16/2002)
"I told the President I thought his Justice Department was out of control...
Are we going to save ourselves from international terrorism in order to deny
the fundamental liberties we protect to ourselves?... It doesn't make sense
to me."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("Ashcroft: Good
Intentions on a Bad Road" The Hill, 7/31/2002)
"The Bush administration argues convincingly that roving wiretaps, reading
people's e-mail, putting video cameras on every corner and perusing their
library habits will make it easier to catch terrorists before they act...the
problem is that once all this is in place, we will no longer be living in
the same country we lived in prior to Sept. 11."
Paul Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Foundation ("Ashcroft's
Terrorism Policies Dismay Some Conservatives" The New York Times, 7/24/2002)
"A lot of the social conservatives appreciate the stands he's taken on child
pornography and the Second Amendment and a number of social issues. But
there is suddenly a great concern that what was passed in the wake of 9-11
were things that had little to do with catching terrorists but a lot to do
with increasing the strength of government to infiltrate and spy on
conservative organizations." [In an 8/6/2002 op-ed in the Washington Times,
Weyrich indicated that his concerns primarily related to how a future
Attorney General, not Ashcroft, would use new governmental powers.]
Ken Connor, President of the Family Research Council ("Ashcroft's Terrorism
Policies Dismay Some Conservatives" The New York Times, 7/24/2002)
"It's important that we conservatives maintain a high degree of vigilance.
We need to ask ourselves the questions, 'How would our groups fare under
these new rules?"
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("J.
Edgar Hoover Is Back" Washington Times, 6/10/2002)
"The Justice Department has gone too far. [We can have security]... without
throwing respect for civil liberties into the trash heap. We don't have to
go back to the bad old days when the FBI was spying on people like Martin
Luther King."
John W. Whitehead, President, Rutherford Institute (Forfeiting "Enduring
Freedom" for "Homeland Security": A Constitutional Analysis of the USA
PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Justice Department's Anti-Terrorism Initiatives,
1/9/02, available at:
http://www.rutherford.org/documents/pdf ... at_act.pdf)
"While Congress's anti-terrorism law-the so-called "USA Patriot Act"-may not
have been designed to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens, its
unintended consequences threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of
people who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism."
"We must be mindful that while ensuring the security of our husbands, wives,
children, and friends may be worth some price paid in terms of our freedoms,
even small infringements over time could become major compromises that alter
the American way of life."
"Unlike previous wars, this time there may be no truce to signal the return
of our freedoms. With or without sunset clauses, there is no horizon for
recapturing any freedoms we relinquish today. And the U.S. Constitution, if
compromised now, will, in my opinion, never again be the same.
In today's world, once we place a barbed-wire fence around our civil
liberties, they may never be freed. Yet the outcome, at least for now, is
perhaps less important than understanding that we are operating in a new
paradigm. Concerns for security and freedom will always conflict to some
degree. And while Americans must understand that this is a new kind of war
on terrorism, with no immediate end in sight, it is also a new kind of
challenge to our civil liberties.
Thus, it is time for a fundamental rethinking of what we consider our basic
freedoms. We may decide-and I, for one, hope we do-that certain freedoms,
especially those guaranteed in the United States Constitution, are simply
too precious to sacrifice, at any cost, on the altar of security."
"To set aside the lessons of 225 years of American freedom, enshrined in the
Declaration of Independence as a commitment to the truth that "All men are
created equal [and] endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as politically or
practically inexpedient in a time of "war," would be to allow the extremists
to win by surrendering who we are as a nation. If the American people accept
a form of police statism in the name of a promise of personal security, that
would be the greatest defeat imaginable."
Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato
Institute, ("The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better" Cato Institute,
11/27/01)
"If you think the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper, and the
separation of powers doctrine has outlived its usefulness, then the USA
PATRIOT Act, passed overwhelmingly on Oct. 25, is the right recipe to deal
with terrorists. On the other hand, if you are concerned about Fifth
Amendment protection of due process, and Fourth Amendment safeguards against
unreasonable searches and seizures, then you should be deeply troubled by
the looming sacrifice of civil liberties at the altar of national security."
Phyllis Schlafly, President of the Eagle Forum (Letter to Congress,
10/2/2001, http://www.cdt.org/security/011002eagleforum.shtml)
"We can have security and civil liberties in a time of crisis. The Fourth
Amendment is one of our most precious constitutional rights, and we will not
hand it over to the terrorists. Proposals that give the federal government
unprecedented police power to snoop and spy on law-abiding citizens must be
rejected. We do not want an American society where everyone is treated as a
terrorist, money launderer, drug trafficker, or criminal. Only totalitarian
regimes monitor the private actions of law-abiding citizens."
Habeas corpus
4th amendment freedom to be secure in our homes and personal effects
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of speech
Due process
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 05:34 a.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: More Good news from the Republican Administration
Marco
PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about enlargement
of airspace restrictions?
Others from your side of the fence seem to agree...
Todd Lakey, Canyon County Republican Chairman ("Idaho GOP for limits on the
Patriot Act," The Spokesman-Review, 6/15/2004)
"We want to support our preside, and we want to fight terrorism throughout
the world, but we also want to be careful of our personal liberties."
State Rep. Janet Miller (R-Boise) ("Idaho GOP for limits on the Patriot
Act," The Spokesman-Review, 6/15/2004)
"The Patriot Act was a very good idea. I think they just wrote it so hastily
that they maybe went more in-depth than they should have done. We, of
course, in Idaho really believe in personal freedom and not having the
government meddle in our lives, so I think taking another look at it is a
good idea."
Idaho GOP platform plank ("Idaho GOP for limits on the Patriot Act," The
Spokesman-Review, 6/15/2004)
"The Patriot Act is necessary to facilitate the cooperation between law
enforcement agencies. We support appropriate amendments to limit the
incursion upon personal freedoms, rights, and liberties of American
citizens."
Harry Schneider, Legislative Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsman's Association.
("Administration policies prompt some gun owners to recoil," Associated
Press, 4/14/04)
"Most gun owners are not very enthusiastic and they're very apprehensive
about aspects of the Patriot Act, specifically about search-and-seizure
rules. They're just not going to dig into their wallets or devote their time
to help Bush."
Kevin Starrett, Executive Director, Oregon Firearms Federation ("Gun Groups
May Not Be Bush Campaign Weapon," Los Angeles Times, 4/13/04)
"Had the Clinton administration proposed the Patriot Act, which is a real
scary thing for gun owners, the Republican-controlled Congress would have
been apoplectic."
Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Patriot Act divides Bush
loyalists," Washington Times, 4/5/2004)
"The Fourth Amendment is a nuisance to the administration, but the amendment
protects citizens and legal immigrants from the government's monitoring them
whenever it wants, without good cause -- and if that happens, it's the end
of personal liberty."
"I don't care if there were no examples so far. We can't say we'll let
government have these unconstitutional powers in the Patriot Act because
they will never use them. Besides, who knows how many times the government
has used them? They're secret searches."
Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America (Coalition for
Constitutional Liberties Weekly Update, Free Congress Foundations,
2/27/2004)
"Anytime the government is in a conflict, they see it as an opportunity to
aggrandize themselves and run roughshod over the Constitution"
"More laws are being made making things illegal. All of us stand to be in
violation of some law."
"Farmers [including some who were wielding guns] participated in civil
disobedience at the site of the main water valve. [Under the PATRIOT Act,]
The Klamath farmers would have been a terrorist organization."
On the membership of Gun Owners of America:
"They see the Bill of Rights and defense of freedom as seamless"
"The government feels that we, the people, need to be transparent. It should
be the other way around."
Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN-2) ("Bush gets 'high marks'," South Bend Tribune,
1/21/2004)
[Chocola held back an immediate endorsement of the president's call for
renewal of the Patriot Act when it expires next year]
"That's a debate we've got to have."
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA-11) ("Feedback to the state of the union address,"
Contra Costa Times, 1/24/2004)
"I think Congress will spend more time debating the Patriot Act, or any
reauthorization of the Patriot Act. We passed it originally in a time of
crisis. I have concerns about provisions in the Patriot Act, particularly
when it comes to protecting the privacy of the average American citizen."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
("Inside Politics," Washington Times, 1/23/2004)
Mr. Sensenbrenner, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said
"over my dead body" will the act be reauthorized without undergoing thorough
re-examination in hearings held by the House.
Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House ("The Policies of War:
Refocus the mission," San Francisco Chronicle, 11/11/03)
"We must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed,
that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon."
"I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes
unrelated to terrorism."
"Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however
indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations
unconnected to terrorism or national security.
In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we
cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect
for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against
terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to
value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton
acts of violence.
We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a
solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire
freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how
can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?
I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit
its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing
"mission creep" into areas outside of national security.
Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other
serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers
should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the
tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no
case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for
national security purposes.
This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to
have the "courage to be safe," this courage must include keeping to the
American principles that have made this country great for more than 200
years."
Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) ("Otter to speak on Patriot Act dissent,"
Idaho State Journal, 11/9/2003)
"You cannot give up freedom, you cannot give up liberty, and be safe. When
your freedom is lost, it makes no difference who took it away from you. (The
terrorists) have won. What did they want to do? Take away our freedom.
They've won in some cases."
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
("Senators join forces to roll back parts of Patriot Act," Washington Times,
10/16/03)
[On the introduction of the Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act]
"This has nothing to do with the current administration; it's about putting
into effect the right law."
"It's time we adjusted this law to assure civil liberties are not being
trampled."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("Civil liberties
advocates laud Sununu for stand on Patriot Act reform," Manchester Union
Leader, 10/16/2003)
"These are people who are now taking a look at it and saying much of this is
a good law, but let's make sure we didn't go too far. While the government
should have all the power it needs to protect us, it shouldn't have all the
power it'd like to have."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) ("Hatch alarms right over anti-terror act," Salt
Lake Tribune, 9/15/2003)
"To date it appears portions of the Patriot Act may have moved the scales
out of balance"
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, board member,
National Rifle Association and American Conservative Union ("Hatch alarms
right over anti-terror act," Salt Lake Tribune, 9/15/2003)
"I don't know whether Hatch is slower to see this than other Republicans,
but the Butch Otter vote was a statement to the administration that Congress
is not going to stand there like potted plants and accept everything they
send over. It's been two years since 9-11, and for the administration to
still answer the public's questions about how these powers are being used
with 'Just trust us' is insulting."
Rep. Jim Leach, (R-IA) ("Latest Anti-Terrorism Proposals Not Likely to Move
Through Congress Quickly," Congressional Quarterly, 9/11/2003)
"There are very few acts of Congress that deserve more careful oversight
than the Patriot Act."
John W. Whitehead, President, Rutherford Institute (Memo on "Life, Liberty
and the Pursuit of Terrorists: A Rutherford Institute Response to Attorney
General John Ashcroft's 'Patriot Act Tour' and Website," 8/27/03 available
at: http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/JWWPatriotActResponse.pdf)
"Attorney General Ashcroft charges that passage of the Patriot Act radically
changed 'a culture of law enforcement inhibition' in America. When the Act
restricts or weakens constitutional and statutory protections for
fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy, including a right
characterized by the Supreme Court as being 'as old as the Magna Carta,' one
can surely forgive a reasonable observer for wondering whether, in throwing
off "inhibitions" on law enforcement for the sake of its pursuit of
terrorists, America has carefully calibrated the ramifications of this
authoritarian revolution for its continued commitment to the life and
liberty of all its people."
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
("Specter blasts part of anti-terrorism act," Associated Press, 8/2/2003)
[On section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act]:
"I don't think that's any of the government's business. I don't think what
people read is subject to inquiry. What difference does that make? It has a
chilling effect on fundamental freedom of activity."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) ("Murkowski Proposes Changes to USA PATRIOT Act
to Protect Civil Liberties While Fighting Terrorism," Press Release from the
Office of Senator Lisa Murkowski, 8/01/2003)
"Given the tragic events of Sept. 11th there is no question that federal law
enforcement agencies needed more tools and that Congress needed to update
our nation's anti-terrorism laws. But it is also clear that Congress has an
obligation to make sure the law is working as intended. We must strike a
careful and constitutional balance between protecting the individual rights
of Americans and giving our law enforcement and intelligence officials the
tools they need to prevent future terrorist attacks. To date it appears
portions of the Patriot Act may have moved the scales out of balance.
My goal is simply to make sure that our laws are balanced. I want to make
sure that law enforcement has all the tools they need to protect us, while
also protecting our individual freedoms and liberties - the very same
principles upon which the United States was founded and that make this
nation so great today."
Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) ("House Lawmakers Limit Scope of Patriot Act
Powers," Fox News, 7/29/2003)
"I think [law enforcement officials] are trampling on our rights and they
are doing it in the name of trying to protect us from domestic terrorism'"
Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID) (Congressional Record, Page H7289, 7/22/2003)
"Mr. Chairman, over 200 years ago when the formulation of this great
republic was being put together, John Stuart Mill sat down and probably put
the essence of this government in writing better than anyone could. ' A
people,' he said, 'may prefer a free government, but if from indolence or
carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to
the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight for it
when it is directly attacked; if by momentary discouragement or temporary
panic, they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; or
if in a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay
their liberties at the feet of even a great man, in all these cases, they
are more or less unfit for liberty. And though it may have been to their
good to have had it for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it.'
The United States PATRIOT Act was well intentioned, Mr. Chairman, especially
during a time of uncertainty and panic. However, now we have had a chance to
step back and examine it objectively. The legislation deserves serious
reevaluation. While I agree with some of the new powers granted to the
Federal law enforcement authorities that may be, and I stress 'may be,'
necessary, many more are unjustified and are dangerously undermining our
civil liberties.
We have the opportunity to revisit these sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and
to correct these mistakes from those first frenzied weeks after September
11, 2001.
One provision, section 213, allows delayed notification of the execution of
a search warrant. It authorizes no-knock searches of private residences, our
homes, either physically or electronically. By putting off notice of the
execution of a warrant, even delaying it indefinitely, section 213 of the
USA PATRIOT Act prevents people, or even their attorneys, from reviewing the
warrant for correctness in legalities.
These 'sneak and peek' searches give the government the power to repeatedly
search a private residence without informing the residents that he or she is
the target of an investigation. Not only does this provision allow the
seizure of personal property and business records without notification, but
it also opens the door to nationwide search warrants and allows the CIA and
the NSA to operate domestically.
American citizens, whom the government has pledged to protect from terrorist
activities, now find themselves the victims of the very weapon designed to
uproot their enemies.
It is in defense of these freedoms that I offer this amendment today to the
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2004 bill. This amendment would
prohibit any funds from being used to carry out section 213 of the USA
PATRIOT Act as signed into law on October 26, 2001. Through the passage of
this amendment, Americans would have reinstated a different kind of
security; one giving them renewed confidence in their government in
tirelessly protecting their individual freedom from unjustified and
unnecessary intrusion.
Being secure at the expense of our freedom is no real security. Like many
Idahoans who have come to me with their concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act
and in passionate defense of their freedoms, we must continue to examine our
actions to correct our mistakes to guard against the apathy or the
indifference to safeguarding our liberties.
To these Federal agencies, it is a house, it is a building, it is a
business; but to us, Mr. Chairman, it is our homes, and there is nothing
more sacred than homes in America because it is the foundation on which we
build our families. It is the arsenal in which the virtue and hope of every
generation resides, and it is the fundamental primer of any free people.
We can, with the adoption of this first alteration to the PATRIOT Act, begin
the reclamation of our title of a Nation as a people fit for liberty."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
(Statement of Chairman Sensenbrenner at House Judiciary Committee Oversight
Hearing on the Department of Justice, 6/05/2003)
"As I stressed during legislative consideration of the PATRIOT Act, my
support for this legislation is neither perpetual or unconditional. I
believe the Department of Justice and Congress must be vigilant toward
short-term gains which ultimately may cause long-term harm to the spirit of
liberty and equality which animate the American character. We must maintain
a fundamental commitment to ensure the protection of Americans while
defending the beliefs that make us American. To my mind, the purpose of the
PATRIOT Act is to secure our liberties, not undermine them."
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) ("Patriot Act seen as danger to civil liberties,"
Mount Shasta News, 6/04/2003)
"It's a fine line we walk between our freedoms and having to defend
ourselves. The Act has to be carefully monitored so it is not abused and the
innocent are not harmed."
Wayne Anthony Ross, former National Rifle Association vice president ("I
Spy," Anchorage Daily News, 5/23/2003)
"This (act) needs a substantial amount of review."
Rep. Don Young (R-AK) ("Young wants changes in Patriot Act," Associated
Press, 5/13/2003)
"I think the Patriot Act was not really thought out. I'm very concerned
that, in our desire for security and our enthusiasm for pursuing supposedly
terrorists, that sometimes we might be on the verge of giving up the
freedoms which we're trying to protect."
[On the possibility that he would co-sponsor legislation introduced by Rep.
Bernie Sanders (I-VT), that prevent judges on the FISA court from issuing
warrants to search library and bookstore records for "personally
identifiable information concerning a patron."]
"It goes to show you I'm willing to look at the right side of an issue. I
think he's right in this issue. I don't think it's anybody's business what
I'm reading in the library."
James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former
Virginia Governor ("Gilmore Cautious Over State Of Security And Civil
Liberties," National Journal: Technology Daily, 5/12/2003)
"I am not prepared to say that the [USA] PATRIOT Act is being used in any
unlawful way, but as citizens, we have a duty to be watchful of that,
particularly if PATRIOT Act II comes along."
Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), member of the House Judiciary Committee, ("Senate
OKs More Power for FBI Surveillance," Salt Lake Tribune, 5/10/2003)
[On Senator Hatch's proposal to lift the sunset clauses from the PATRIOT
Act]
"On the House side, and I can assure in the Judiciary Committee especially,
there is not going to be much traction for Sen. Hatch's idea. It'' just not
going to go anywhere on this side, nor should it, from my perspective."
"Nobody knows how this law is being used, that's a fair knock, and if U.S.
attorneys could do anything they wanted, nobody would be safe. It's going to
take a while for [law enforcement] to adjust their procedures and their
safeguards, and if they are not forthcoming on what they are doing, they are
going to get slapped really hard."
James Gilmore, Chair, Federal Commission on Terrorism Policy and former
Virginia Governor ("Gilmore: Security Must Not Come at Freedom's Expense,"
Daily Press, 5/9/2003)
"It's almost un-American to think about challenging the law. I am not
prepared to say that the application of the Patriot Act is being done
improperly. But as citizens and as lawyers, we need to be watchful."
Bob Barr, former Republican member of Congress ("Both right and left condemn
Patriot Act," The Hill, 5/6/2003)
"There are a lot of people who say, 'I don't have anything to hide.' But
every one of us is subject to being criminalized."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
("Sensenbrenner vows to uphold sunset of added police powers," Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, 4/18/2003)
[On the issue of making permanent many of the expanded police powers]
"That will be done over my dead body."
"If they want the sunset to be repealed, they're going to have to show that
Patriot Act One is constitutional and has done good things."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
("Key Republican Not Sure on Patriot Act," Associated Press, 4/16/2003)
[When asked about the future of the USA PATRIOT Act]
"I can't answer that because the Justice Department has classified as
top-secret most of what it's doing under the Patriot Act. The burden will be
on the Justice Department and whomever is attorney general at that time to
convince Congress and the president to extend the Patriot Act or modify it.
But because of the fact that everything has been classified as top-secret,
the public debate is centering on (the act's) onerousness."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("National Security
vs. Civil Liberties: Finding a Balance" Press Release, American Conservative
Union, 4/10/2003)
"These infringements on the individual freedoms of American citizens are not
part of some plot or conspiracy to deprive us of our civil liberties. The
President, the Attorney General and those interested in maximizing
individual liberty need to work together to guarantee that we can defend
ourselves without altering the nature of the greatest society on earth. The
USA PATRIOT Act was passed in haste included ideas previously shelved by the
Congress, like expanded civil forfeiture and roving wiretaps: ideas that law
enforcement wanted, but could never get. When creating sound anti-terrorism
legislation, the line should not be drawn at 'what is helpful for law
enforcement,' but at what is needed to protect us while preserving the
proper balance between preserving civil liberties and our nation's national
security needs."
Dick Armey, former Republican member of Congress and former House Majority
Leader ("Judiciary - Armey Bashes Ashcroft's Leadership On Privacy Issues,"
National Journal: Congress Daily, 3/14/2003)
"Before they ever got through with a full implementation of the authorities
under the PATRIOT Act, they were back asking for more."
"If you talk with Sensenbrenner, he is furious with the Department of
Justice's refusal to cooperate on oversight."
Christopher Pyle, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, served on the
Church Committee, ("Conservative Backlash Provisions of 'Patriot II' Draft
Worry Those on Right," ABCNews.com, 3/12/2003)
"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore. I think it's been buried
by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down.
We need a requiem mass for theFourth Amendment, because it's gone."
Rep. Don Young (R-AK), (Talk of Alaska Radio Interview, 2/11/2003)
"Everybody voted for it [the PATRIOT Act] but it was stupid, it was what you
call 'emotional voting'...because we didn't follow it through, we didn't
study it. I say it's the worst piece of legislation we've ever passed."
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), House Majority Leader and Chair of the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security, ("Armey: Justice 'Out of Control'" USA
TODAY, 10/16/2002)
"I told the President I thought his Justice Department was out of control...
Are we going to save ourselves from international terrorism in order to deny
the fundamental liberties we protect to ourselves?... It doesn't make sense
to me."
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("Ashcroft: Good
Intentions on a Bad Road" The Hill, 7/31/2002)
"The Bush administration argues convincingly that roving wiretaps, reading
people's e-mail, putting video cameras on every corner and perusing their
library habits will make it easier to catch terrorists before they act...the
problem is that once all this is in place, we will no longer be living in
the same country we lived in prior to Sept. 11."
Paul Weyrich, President of the Free Congress Foundation ("Ashcroft's
Terrorism Policies Dismay Some Conservatives" The New York Times, 7/24/2002)
"A lot of the social conservatives appreciate the stands he's taken on child
pornography and the Second Amendment and a number of social issues. But
there is suddenly a great concern that what was passed in the wake of 9-11
were things that had little to do with catching terrorists but a lot to do
with increasing the strength of government to infiltrate and spy on
conservative organizations." [In an 8/6/2002 op-ed in the Washington Times,
Weyrich indicated that his concerns primarily related to how a future
Attorney General, not Ashcroft, would use new governmental powers.]
Ken Connor, President of the Family Research Council ("Ashcroft's Terrorism
Policies Dismay Some Conservatives" The New York Times, 7/24/2002)
"It's important that we conservatives maintain a high degree of vigilance.
We need to ask ourselves the questions, 'How would our groups fare under
these new rules?"
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee ("J.
Edgar Hoover Is Back" Washington Times, 6/10/2002)
"The Justice Department has gone too far. [We can have security]... without
throwing respect for civil liberties into the trash heap. We don't have to
go back to the bad old days when the FBI was spying on people like Martin
Luther King."
John W. Whitehead, President, Rutherford Institute (Forfeiting "Enduring
Freedom" for "Homeland Security": A Constitutional Analysis of the USA
PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Justice Department's Anti-Terrorism Initiatives,
1/9/02, available at:
http://www.rutherford.org/documents/pdf ... at_act.pdf)
"While Congress's anti-terrorism law-the so-called "USA Patriot Act"-may not
have been designed to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens, its
unintended consequences threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of
people who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism."
"We must be mindful that while ensuring the security of our husbands, wives,
children, and friends may be worth some price paid in terms of our freedoms,
even small infringements over time could become major compromises that alter
the American way of life."
"Unlike previous wars, this time there may be no truce to signal the return
of our freedoms. With or without sunset clauses, there is no horizon for
recapturing any freedoms we relinquish today. And the U.S. Constitution, if
compromised now, will, in my opinion, never again be the same.
In today's world, once we place a barbed-wire fence around our civil
liberties, they may never be freed. Yet the outcome, at least for now, is
perhaps less important than understanding that we are operating in a new
paradigm. Concerns for security and freedom will always conflict to some
degree. And while Americans must understand that this is a new kind of war
on terrorism, with no immediate end in sight, it is also a new kind of
challenge to our civil liberties.
Thus, it is time for a fundamental rethinking of what we consider our basic
freedoms. We may decide-and I, for one, hope we do-that certain freedoms,
especially those guaranteed in the United States Constitution, are simply
too precious to sacrifice, at any cost, on the altar of security."
"To set aside the lessons of 225 years of American freedom, enshrined in the
Declaration of Independence as a commitment to the truth that "All men are
created equal [and] endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as politically or
practically inexpedient in a time of "war," would be to allow the extremists
to win by surrendering who we are as a nation. If the American people accept
a form of police statism in the name of a promise of personal security, that
would be the greatest defeat imaginable."
Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato
Institute, ("The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better" Cato Institute,
11/27/01)
"If you think the Bill of Rights is just so much scrap paper, and the
separation of powers doctrine has outlived its usefulness, then the USA
PATRIOT Act, passed overwhelmingly on Oct. 25, is the right recipe to deal
with terrorists. On the other hand, if you are concerned about Fifth
Amendment protection of due process, and Fourth Amendment safeguards against
unreasonable searches and seizures, then you should be deeply troubled by
the looming sacrifice of civil liberties at the altar of national security."
Phyllis Schlafly, President of the Eagle Forum (Letter to Congress,
10/2/2001, http://www.cdt.org/security/011002eagleforum.shtml)
"We can have security and civil liberties in a time of crisis. The Fourth
Amendment is one of our most precious constitutional rights, and we will not
hand it over to the terrorists. Proposals that give the federal government
unprecedented police power to snoop and spy on law-abiding citizens must be
rejected. We do not want an American society where everyone is treated as a
terrorist, money launderer, drug trafficker, or criminal. Only totalitarian
regimes monitor the private actions of law-abiding citizens."
There rights have NOT been REVOKED
TQ wrote: <<Habeas corpus
4th amendment freedom to be secure in our homes and personal effects
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of speech
Due process >>
These rights have not been REVOKED. There is a legitimate debate as to the extent the govenment can impinge on these rights, given national security & criminal concerns, but these rights are not REVOKED. And none of your quotes claim they are "revoked", but instead voice concern about the potential for governmental abuse under these guidelines.
Can you name for me anyone whose aforementioned rights have been revoked?
Perhaps we are simply disagreeing on the meaning of the word "revoked".
Last I checked the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were still in force. Be vigilant of power, but don't panic over it, especially without evidence of serious abuse of power.
Marco
4th amendment freedom to be secure in our homes and personal effects
Freedom of assembly
Freedom of speech
Due process >>
These rights have not been REVOKED. There is a legitimate debate as to the extent the govenment can impinge on these rights, given national security & criminal concerns, but these rights are not REVOKED. And none of your quotes claim they are "revoked", but instead voice concern about the potential for governmental abuse under these guidelines.
Can you name for me anyone whose aforementioned rights have been revoked?
Perhaps we are simply disagreeing on the meaning of the word "revoked".
Last I checked the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were still in force. Be vigilant of power, but don't panic over it, especially without evidence of serious abuse of power.
Marco
More Good news from the Republican Administration
Very cogent, balanced analysis of the two parties.
Just trying to say something positive in this thread.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> So long as both parties are enjoying spending so much money with little regard for the deficit or national debt, then deficits will continue.
>
> Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
>
> Repubs don't want to admit that they want to cut spending, especially on the domestic side, because it kills them politically.
>
> So, until the debt monster becomes a behemoth to the American people, which it has not yet, neither political party is willing to address it in a serious fashion.
>
> What ever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment?
>
> Marco
>
> PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about enlargement of airspace restrictions?
>
Just trying to say something positive in this thread.
Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> So long as both parties are enjoying spending so much money with little regard for the deficit or national debt, then deficits will continue.
>
> Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
>
> Repubs don't want to admit that they want to cut spending, especially on the domestic side, because it kills them politically.
>
> So, until the debt monster becomes a behemoth to the American people, which it has not yet, neither political party is willing to address it in a serious fashion.
>
> What ever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment?
>
> Marco
>
> PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about enlargement of airspace restrictions?
>
black helicopters and things that go bump in the night
.
i was poking around under the bed looking for anything suspicious (back in the 'we create our own reality' department
) and i gave myself this thought -
( keep in mind that we have already acknowledged that 'they' are evil geniuses (well, not you marcoroniboy - i see you as more of an evil gofer (envision the movie 'caddy shack) (disrespect intended)))
...ANYWHO...does this takeover of all conversations (public and private) by the rabid few...well does it serve the purpose of not only (and maybe not primarily) keeping the 'left' back on their heels...BUT to actually keep the 'silent majority' silent?
...to create an apprehension among, perhaps the majority(?) of, republicans ( including those who feel that their party has been in some fashion hi-jacked) that the mere voicing of concern would open them up to attack and charges of disloyalty, blah, blah, blah by these very same people?...
it's been an effective political method, and used often come to think of it...
has someone already made this point? if so, sorry, there are just so many WORDS...i mainly just read looking for things to ridicule
i was poking around under the bed looking for anything suspicious (back in the 'we create our own reality' department
) and i gave myself this thought -( keep in mind that we have already acknowledged that 'they' are evil geniuses (well, not you marcoroniboy - i see you as more of an evil gofer (envision the movie 'caddy shack) (disrespect intended)))
...ANYWHO...does this takeover of all conversations (public and private) by the rabid few...well does it serve the purpose of not only (and maybe not primarily) keeping the 'left' back on their heels...BUT to actually keep the 'silent majority' silent?
...to create an apprehension among, perhaps the majority(?) of, republicans ( including those who feel that their party has been in some fashion hi-jacked) that the mere voicing of concern would open them up to attack and charges of disloyalty, blah, blah, blah by these very same people?...
it's been an effective political method, and used often come to think of it...
has someone already made this point? if so, sorry, there are just so many WORDS...i mainly just read looking for things to ridicule
deveil wrote:whereas there may be a concern among some (myself among them) that i, markemX, my personal style of hyperbole, would be a detriment to participation by those of, let's say, a moderate republican viewpoint...perhaps such persons may actually be more intimidated by the idea of being associated with someone, purporting to be from their side of the tracks,... who would feign sincere, serious representation of a particular school of thought and/or philosophy and/or loyalties... yet be willing to speak in such disgusting, rabid, irresponsible fashion...unselfconsciously , unblinkingly, un(you-name-it)
hey.....it's just a thought (admittedly self serving, but not necessarily therefore illegitimate).
garyDevan
More Good news from the Republican Administration
Has it struck anyone else as odd that when the Democrats are in power, the
Republicans harp about stop all the spending and balance the budget. Then
when the Republicans are in power, they give tax breaks and spend huge
deficits?
I finally figured this out. I'm not joking, and you can think about it and
see if you don't see the truth in this.
Republicans want smaller government, and less spending on 'social' programs.
They know they can't stay in power forever, and eventually the Democrates
will be back in the office. By racking up huge deficits, they leave the
Democrats with an inability to spend any money, and have to work at reducing
the deficit. What better way to keep the Democrats from spending money,
than to not leave them any to spend.
-Mike
Republicans harp about stop all the spending and balance the budget. Then
when the Republicans are in power, they give tax breaks and spend huge
deficits?
I finally figured this out. I'm not joking, and you can think about it and
see if you don't see the truth in this.
Republicans want smaller government, and less spending on 'social' programs.
They know they can't stay in power forever, and eventually the Democrates
will be back in the office. By racking up huge deficits, they leave the
Democrats with an inability to spend any money, and have to work at reducing
the deficit. What better way to keep the Democrats from spending money,
than to not leave them any to spend.
-Mike
.
they actually mastered this strategy in the reagan days, but, indeed it's not mentioned often. part of their brilliance(and evil) is that part of the mastery is in the realm of double speak...i.e. 'blue skies', 'death tax', ' partial birth abortion' etc. remember the peace maker missiles or some such thing? if you talk about the 'reality' of all this bs they then paint you with their ray guns as a partisan kook.
this is one reason why i so fear them and take them so seriously. they strike me as having come up with an extremely effective way of controlling (creating?) the whole paradigm (is that a correct usage - i'm too lazy to think it through or come up with another word) - including having a teflon boob front and center while the work goes on elsewhere. and on and on and on.
damn, there i go again trying to do the heavy lifting. tiring. i' leave it up to the others.
they actually mastered this strategy in the reagan days, but, indeed it's not mentioned often. part of their brilliance(and evil) is that part of the mastery is in the realm of double speak...i.e. 'blue skies', 'death tax', ' partial birth abortion' etc. remember the peace maker missiles or some such thing? if you talk about the 'reality' of all this bs they then paint you with their ray guns as a partisan kook.
this is one reason why i so fear them and take them so seriously. they strike me as having come up with an extremely effective way of controlling (creating?) the whole paradigm (is that a correct usage - i'm too lazy to think it through or come up with another word) - including having a teflon boob front and center while the work goes on elsewhere. and on and on and on.
damn, there i go again trying to do the heavy lifting. tiring. i' leave it up to the others.
garyDevan
Re: black helicopters and things that go bump in the night
. btw...where've YOU been? you just trying to get me cranked up again...for YOUR own amusement? try that and my wife's gonna have a piece of you. i've got her worried too!deveil wrote:.
i was poking around under the bed looking for anything suspicious
garyDevan
More Good news from the Republican Administration
Yup, Reagan said so in so many words. - Hugh
>From: Mike Balk <mike@talismanenterprises.net>
>Date: Mon Sep 19 11:51:30 CDT 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: RE: More Good news from the Republican Administration
>
>Has it struck anyone else as odd that when the Democrats are in power, the
>Republicans harp about stop all the spending and balance the budget. Then
>when the Republicans are in power, they give tax breaks and spend huge
>deficits?
>
>I finally figured this out. I'm not joking, and you can think about it and
>see if you don't see the truth in this.
>
>Republicans want smaller government, and less spending on 'social' programs.
>They know they can't stay in power forever, and eventually the Democrates
>will be back in the office. By racking up huge deficits, they leave the
>Democrats with an inability to spend any money, and have to work at reducing
>the deficit. What better way to keep the Democrats from spending money,
>than to not leave them any to spend.
>
>
>-Mike
>From: Mike Balk <mike@talismanenterprises.net>
>Date: Mon Sep 19 11:51:30 CDT 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: RE: More Good news from the Republican Administration
>
>Has it struck anyone else as odd that when the Democrats are in power, the
>Republicans harp about stop all the spending and balance the budget. Then
>when the Republicans are in power, they give tax breaks and spend huge
>deficits?
>
>I finally figured this out. I'm not joking, and you can think about it and
>see if you don't see the truth in this.
>
>Republicans want smaller government, and less spending on 'social' programs.
>They know they can't stay in power forever, and eventually the Democrates
>will be back in the office. By racking up huge deficits, they leave the
>Democrats with an inability to spend any money, and have to work at reducing
>the deficit. What better way to keep the Democrats from spending money,
>than to not leave them any to spend.
>
>
>-Mike
Bad Analysis
From Marco...
> So long as both parties are enjoying spending so much money with little regard for the deficit or national debt, then deficits will continue.
>
> Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
>
Huh? In case you have forgotten, the Repubs control Congress and the White House. They are the ones controlling the purse strings and spending like crazy. Not both parties, just your party Marco. And as to taxes, the Dems are screaming all of the time that we have to eliminate Bush's tax cuts and increase taxes. Ever watch the news or read a newspaper??? Oh yeah, I forgot. According to the Right Wingers, the press is controlled by liberals.... even though most of it is owned by conservatives.
Matthew
> So long as both parties are enjoying spending so much money with little regard for the deficit or national debt, then deficits will continue.
>
> Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
>
Huh? In case you have forgotten, the Repubs control Congress and the White House. They are the ones controlling the purse strings and spending like crazy. Not both parties, just your party Marco. And as to taxes, the Dems are screaming all of the time that we have to eliminate Bush's tax cuts and increase taxes. Ever watch the news or read a newspaper??? Oh yeah, I forgot. According to the Right Wingers, the press is controlled by liberals.... even though most of it is owned by conservatives.
Matthew
More Good news from the Republican Administration
Problem is that people want lower taxes, but can't think of anything
they don't want from government. Farm subsidies? Social Security?
Medicare? National Defense? Highways? Disaster relief?
Republicans go ahead and give 'em the tax cuts, figuring that
something will give, but it never does. Democrats are in favor of
all these programs, so are willing to fund them realistically. - Hugh
On 19 Sep 2005, at 09:01, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> Very cogent, balanced analysis of the two parties.
>
> Just trying to say something positive in this thread.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So long as both parties are enjoying spending so much money with
>> little regard for the deficit or national debt, then deficits will
>> continue.
>>
>> Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it
>> kills them politically.
>>
>> Repubs don't want to admit that they want to cut spending,
>> especially on the domestic side, because it kills them politically.
>>
>> So, until the debt monster becomes a behemoth to the American
>> people, which it has not yet, neither political party is willing
>> to address it in a serious fashion.
>>
>> What ever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment?
>>
>> Marco
>>
>> PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about
>> enlargement of airspace restrictions?
>>
>>
>
>
>
they don't want from government. Farm subsidies? Social Security?
Medicare? National Defense? Highways? Disaster relief?
Republicans go ahead and give 'em the tax cuts, figuring that
something will give, but it never does. Democrats are in favor of
all these programs, so are willing to fund them realistically. - Hugh
On 19 Sep 2005, at 09:01, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> Very cogent, balanced analysis of the two parties.
>
> Just trying to say something positive in this thread.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So long as both parties are enjoying spending so much money with
>> little regard for the deficit or national debt, then deficits will
>> continue.
>>
>> Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it
>> kills them politically.
>>
>> Repubs don't want to admit that they want to cut spending,
>> especially on the domestic side, because it kills them politically.
>>
>> So, until the debt monster becomes a behemoth to the American
>> people, which it has not yet, neither political party is willing
>> to address it in a serious fashion.
>>
>> What ever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment?
>>
>> Marco
>>
>> PS: TQ, what freedoms have been revoked? Are you talking about
>> enlargement of airspace restrictions?
>>
>>
>
>
>
Reply to Matt
Matt,
You posted: << Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
>Huh? In case you have forgotten, the Repubs control Congress and the White House. They are the ones controlling the purse strings and spending like crazy. Not both parties, just your party Marco. And as to taxes, the Dems are screaming all of the time that we have to eliminate Bush's tax cuts and increase taxes.>>
Reply: I agree that the Repubs are in control and are spending like crazy. But I don't see the Dems "begging for cuts" in spending or demanding a balance budget either. Oh sure, they'll call for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts, but very very few of them (usually in heavily Democratic states or districts) are demanding "NEW TAX INCREASES" . The Democratic "Leaders" are not calling for tax increases. John Kerry sure as hell did NOT run on a higher taxes platform. Ditto for Gore in 2000, and Clinton, who actually ran on a "middle class tax cut", which never happened of course, but helped get him elected. Mondale tried it and lost 49 states....hence the Mondale Effect on all politicians, especially Democrats.
Marco
PS: Can you name me the Democratic LEADERS who are demanding TAX INCREASES (in addition to repeal of Bush's tax cuts) now? I haven't seen any.
You posted: << Dems don't want to admit that they want to raise taxes because it kills them politically.
>Huh? In case you have forgotten, the Repubs control Congress and the White House. They are the ones controlling the purse strings and spending like crazy. Not both parties, just your party Marco. And as to taxes, the Dems are screaming all of the time that we have to eliminate Bush's tax cuts and increase taxes.>>
Reply: I agree that the Repubs are in control and are spending like crazy. But I don't see the Dems "begging for cuts" in spending or demanding a balance budget either. Oh sure, they'll call for a repeal of Bush's tax cuts, but very very few of them (usually in heavily Democratic states or districts) are demanding "NEW TAX INCREASES" . The Democratic "Leaders" are not calling for tax increases. John Kerry sure as hell did NOT run on a higher taxes platform. Ditto for Gore in 2000, and Clinton, who actually ran on a "middle class tax cut", which never happened of course, but helped get him elected. Mondale tried it and lost 49 states....hence the Mondale Effect on all politicians, especially Democrats.
Marco
PS: Can you name me the Democratic LEADERS who are demanding TAX INCREASES (in addition to repeal of Bush's tax cuts) now? I haven't seen any.
Reply to Hugh
Hugh posted: <<Problem is that people want lower taxes, but can't think of anything
they don't want from government. Farm subsidies? Social Security?
Medicare? National Defense? Highways? Disaster relief?
Republicans go ahead and give 'em the tax cuts, figuring that
something will give, but it never does. Democrats are in favor of
all these programs, so are willing to fund them realistically>>
Hugh, I was with ya until you got to" realistically". The Dems are refusing to reform the programs they so cherish AND they won't admit, like you have, that they want to drastically raise your taxes to pay for these over-reaching social programs.
You guys have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton left a surplus,....but he also left an economy in recession and no meaningful reform of these social programs. So as the economy went into recession, revenues decreased while the social spending continued to rise. Add to that the cost of the two wars, and we have a deficit. If spending continues to rise faster than the economy grows,we will continue to have deficits. Bush is hoping that a growing economy, and hence more revenues, will outpace spending,....and it might,...but it would happen faster if we were to hold the line on spending.
So, in summary, the Dems do favor these programs, but have not proposed how to reform them or espoused the necessary cuts and/or tax increases that would be necessary to fund them "realistically". They have been "unrealistic", mostly due to the political calculations of the Mondale effect.
Marco
they don't want from government. Farm subsidies? Social Security?
Medicare? National Defense? Highways? Disaster relief?
Republicans go ahead and give 'em the tax cuts, figuring that
something will give, but it never does. Democrats are in favor of
all these programs, so are willing to fund them realistically>>
Hugh, I was with ya until you got to" realistically". The Dems are refusing to reform the programs they so cherish AND they won't admit, like you have, that they want to drastically raise your taxes to pay for these over-reaching social programs.
You guys have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton left a surplus,....but he also left an economy in recession and no meaningful reform of these social programs. So as the economy went into recession, revenues decreased while the social spending continued to rise. Add to that the cost of the two wars, and we have a deficit. If spending continues to rise faster than the economy grows,we will continue to have deficits. Bush is hoping that a growing economy, and hence more revenues, will outpace spending,....and it might,...but it would happen faster if we were to hold the line on spending.
So, in summary, the Dems do favor these programs, but have not proposed how to reform them or espoused the necessary cuts and/or tax increases that would be necessary to fund them "realistically". They have been "unrealistic", mostly due to the political calculations of the Mondale effect.
Marco
More Good news from the Republican Administration
What's over-reaching about insulating old people from abject poverty
and providing them with medical care? Seems like simple decency to
me. Bush's hope - if he really has it - that he can grow the economy
enough to overcome the deficit is totally unrealistic - his own
budget foresees deficits to the horizon. It's not SS and Medicare
that are driving us into deficit, it's the war and the tax cuts (and
now the hurricanes). How can you ask soldiers to make "the ultimate
sacrifice" if you aren't willing to pony up an extra $600 (remember
the checks we all got?) to pay for the war? Many of us have $6k or
more in hang gliding gear, so we can well afford it.
Since the Republicans are in the majority, it is their responsibility
to propose any needed reforms to social programs. Salami slicing
with higher retirement ages and raising the limit on taxable income
beyond $90,000 would suffice - no need to get fancy with
privatization which will undermine support for the program from the
upper middle class in the long run. You see, the genius of the
creators of SS was that everybody gets it - not just poor people - so
it's not seen as a "welfare program". Sure, rich people don't need
it - but they paid for it, so they get it. It's insurance against a
destitute old age. You don't complain if you don't get your money's
worth out of a term life insurance policy, now, do you? You don't
complain that you paid for health insurance and never had to go to
the hospital, right? So why should you complain if you paid a lot of
taxes but got rich enough that you didn't need SS to keep from having
to eat dog food in your old age. By the way, I'm not hearing
anything about SS reform lately - good! Bush's proposal was a turkey.
On the wonderfulness of the economy: we also have a rise in the rate
of poverty for the first time in decades. We have an unhealthily
skewed income distribution. It's not that successful people don't
deserve reward for their efforts, it's that there have to be
mechanisms to bring the rest of society along, or else you lose
social cohesion - the losers may eventually decide to just take what
the system will not allow them to earn honestly. This can take the
form of individual street crime or violent revolution. I'm not
saying this could happen here soon - but a society that is so grossly
out of whack that the rich live extravagantly while the poor are
neglected and those in the middle are insecure is ...unstable! The
answer isn't outright redistribution, but the rich should certainly
pay a larger share to run the government that provides the framework
in which they have been successful.
So, Marco, what's so bad about the Supreme Court? Was it
desegregation that bothered you? Would you really want your daughter
to be forced to carry a baby to full term against her will? Do you
think we all should have been subjected to prescribed prayer in
school? Should police have a free hand to interrogate a suspect
without reading him his rights, letting him see a lawyer, etc.?
Seems to me the Supremes have made the country better in the last
half century.
- Hugh
On 22 Sep 2005, at 23:45, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh posted:
>
> Hugh, I was with ya until you got to" realistically". The Dems are
> refusing to reform the programs they so cherish AND they won't
> admit, like you have, that they want to drastically raise your
> taxes to pay for these over-reaching social programs.
>
> You guys have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton left a
> surplus,....but he also left an economy in recession and no
> meaningful reform of these social programs. So as the economy
> went into recession, revenues decreased while the social spending
> continued to rise. Add to that the cost of the two wars, and we
> have a deficit. If spending continues to rise faster than the
> economy grows,we will continue to have deficits. Bush is hoping
> that a growing economy, and hence more revenues, will outpace
> spending,....and it might,...but it would happen faster if we were
> to hold the line on spending.
>
> So, in summary, the Dems do favor these programs, but have not
> proposed how to reform them or espoused the necessary cuts and/or
> tax increases that would be necessary to fund them
> "realistically". They have been "unrealistic", mostly due to the
> political calculations of the Mondale effect.
>
> Marco
>
and providing them with medical care? Seems like simple decency to
me. Bush's hope - if he really has it - that he can grow the economy
enough to overcome the deficit is totally unrealistic - his own
budget foresees deficits to the horizon. It's not SS and Medicare
that are driving us into deficit, it's the war and the tax cuts (and
now the hurricanes). How can you ask soldiers to make "the ultimate
sacrifice" if you aren't willing to pony up an extra $600 (remember
the checks we all got?) to pay for the war? Many of us have $6k or
more in hang gliding gear, so we can well afford it.
Since the Republicans are in the majority, it is their responsibility
to propose any needed reforms to social programs. Salami slicing
with higher retirement ages and raising the limit on taxable income
beyond $90,000 would suffice - no need to get fancy with
privatization which will undermine support for the program from the
upper middle class in the long run. You see, the genius of the
creators of SS was that everybody gets it - not just poor people - so
it's not seen as a "welfare program". Sure, rich people don't need
it - but they paid for it, so they get it. It's insurance against a
destitute old age. You don't complain if you don't get your money's
worth out of a term life insurance policy, now, do you? You don't
complain that you paid for health insurance and never had to go to
the hospital, right? So why should you complain if you paid a lot of
taxes but got rich enough that you didn't need SS to keep from having
to eat dog food in your old age. By the way, I'm not hearing
anything about SS reform lately - good! Bush's proposal was a turkey.
On the wonderfulness of the economy: we also have a rise in the rate
of poverty for the first time in decades. We have an unhealthily
skewed income distribution. It's not that successful people don't
deserve reward for their efforts, it's that there have to be
mechanisms to bring the rest of society along, or else you lose
social cohesion - the losers may eventually decide to just take what
the system will not allow them to earn honestly. This can take the
form of individual street crime or violent revolution. I'm not
saying this could happen here soon - but a society that is so grossly
out of whack that the rich live extravagantly while the poor are
neglected and those in the middle are insecure is ...unstable! The
answer isn't outright redistribution, but the rich should certainly
pay a larger share to run the government that provides the framework
in which they have been successful.
So, Marco, what's so bad about the Supreme Court? Was it
desegregation that bothered you? Would you really want your daughter
to be forced to carry a baby to full term against her will? Do you
think we all should have been subjected to prescribed prayer in
school? Should police have a free hand to interrogate a suspect
without reading him his rights, letting him see a lawyer, etc.?
Seems to me the Supremes have made the country better in the last
half century.
- Hugh
On 22 Sep 2005, at 23:45, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh posted:
>
> Hugh, I was with ya until you got to" realistically". The Dems are
> refusing to reform the programs they so cherish AND they won't
> admit, like you have, that they want to drastically raise your
> taxes to pay for these over-reaching social programs.
>
> You guys have mentioned repeatedly that Clinton left a
> surplus,....but he also left an economy in recession and no
> meaningful reform of these social programs. So as the economy
> went into recession, revenues decreased while the social spending
> continued to rise. Add to that the cost of the two wars, and we
> have a deficit. If spending continues to rise faster than the
> economy grows,we will continue to have deficits. Bush is hoping
> that a growing economy, and hence more revenues, will outpace
> spending,....and it might,...but it would happen faster if we were
> to hold the line on spending.
>
> So, in summary, the Dems do favor these programs, but have not
> proposed how to reform them or espoused the necessary cuts and/or
> tax increases that would be necessary to fund them
> "realistically". They have been "unrealistic", mostly due to the
> political calculations of the Mondale effect.
>
> Marco
>