• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

And I Thought This One Was Settled in 1865

I'll give you that a lot of what Bush did was sanctioned by Congress after the fact, but there really wasn't much of a choice politically speaking.

Congress: No, you can't imprison US citizens indefinitely without a trial
FoxNews: CONGRESS CALLS FOR RELEASE OF TERRORISTS!

Congress: No, you can't allocate X money to continue fighting in Iraq
FoxNews: CONGRESS DEPRIVES TROOPS OF EQUIPMENT!

Congress: No, we won't fund No Child Left Behind
FoxNews: CONGRESS HATES CHILDREN!
 
Brett327 said:
At any rate, I'm curious as to what kinds of unilateral governing President Paul would effect through enacting or recinding EOs. Do tell. Your view of how congressionally appropriated funds are spent by the Executive is a bit simplistic as well. Using the annual defense appropriations bill as an example, the President can't decide to spend 95% of the appropriated funds on MREs then buy one F-35 with what remains. It's a much more complex machine than I think you understand.

Brett
Click to expand...
The administrators have a mandate to spend in a certain way, but there's usually a matter of judgement going into it. You're right that the post was a bit simplistic, but then again, it's an Internet forum talking point... If you want details, you know how and where to get them.

Furthermore, it is the President that submits the budget proposal to begin with.
NAVYBM2 said:
I never understood what is the outrage at a little bigger government. It seems to me that a lot of people are forgetting that the most prosperous time in American history came after a government that makes today's government look like city hall in _________city, Nebraska. In WWII the US government help bring the unemployment rate from over 13,000,000 to about 600,000 in about 3 years.
Yes, I know that this is not WWII, but I do think a big government might actually help bring this country back on track. Now,I am not saying they should stick around forever, but in hard times it seems to help.
​
Click to expand...
A little bigger government? That is a matter of perception. The government now is twice the size it was ten years ago, based on the budget. What have we gotten for this doubling of the price of government? Are financial institutions twice as safe and stable thanks to regulation? Is any given private sector job twice as secure thanks to twice as good governance?

There's a huge number of differences between the WW2 era and today. For one thing, "unemployment" figures are somewhat meaningless during a massive draft.
 
Spekkio said:
I'll give you that a lot of what Bush did was sanctioned by Congress after the fact, but there really wasn't much of a choice politically speaking......

Congress: No, you can't allocate X money to continue fighting in Iraq
FoxNews: CONGRESS DEPRIVES TROOPS OF EQUIPMENT!

Congress: No, we won't fund No Child Left Behind
FoxNews: CONGRESS HATES CHILDREN!
Click to expand...

The big point is that Congress allocated the money, the federal budget isn't a slush fund for the President and the administration.
 
Furthermore, it is the President that submits the budget proposal to begin with.A little bigger government? That is a matter of perception. The government now is twice the size it was ten years ago, based on the budget. What have we gotten for this doubling of the price of government? Are financial institutions twice as safe and stable thanks to regulation? Is any given private sector job twice as secure thanks to twice as good governance?

There's a huge number of differences between the WW2 era and today. For one thing, "unemployment" figures are somewhat meaningless during a massive draft.[/QUOTE]

Yea the Tea party kinda missed the boat on that one. You'd think if they were true to their principles they'd be arguing against the republicans who were in office over say the past 10 years. Not embracing them.
 
Very true zpatman, very true for the most part.

Then again, that was seeminly an entirely different era. The economy was booming until tens of trillions of dollars of 'wealth' evaporated, the (un)clear and (not) present danger of Iraq looming with Iran further off over the horizon, the misunderestimation of asking nothing from Americans during 'wartime' except to go to the shopping mall...
Ah, those were the days... Never occured to any of our trusted experts, especially the Maestro himself, that the economy could go south...

In reality, I think the Tea Party movemet itself is something of a reaction against the Bush/Obama years in general, but was spurred into greater existance especially because of President Obama's ambitious, reckless agenda. It has changed and morphed over a long period of time, actually. It was Ron Paul's Tea Party moneybomb in 2007 that broke the records, after all.

Speaking of the economy, here's a fun graph for general consumption from the calculatedriskblog:
JobLossesAlignedBottom.jpg
 
HercDriver said:
It is doubtful that he said that.

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Government_big_enough_to_supply_you
Click to expand...

The great Virginian did have similar quotes though:

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government"

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"[Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824
 
ryan1234 said:
The great Virginian did have similar quotes though:

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government"

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
Click to expand...
Thomas Jefferson, what a loon. Glad we never listened to that naive kook. Also glad that children won't be reading about him from history textbooks. :icon_what :banghead_
 
HercDriver said:
At least not in Texas.
Click to expand...
I haven't done much research into the topic, but I have yet to find any state that uses schoolbooks that are not approved by the Texas State Board of Education. The publishers cater to their biggest customer, after all.

In other words, Thomas Jefferson will no longer exist pretty much nation-wide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top