The era of big government is over

[xsited1]

CNN transcript of President Clinton's radio address
January 27, 1996

Earlier this week, I had the privilege of delivering the State of the Union address and discussing the challenges we face today, only five years from a new century.

As I said, the state of our union is strong. We are entering an age of possibility in which more Americans from all walks of life will have more chances to build the future of their dreams than ever before.

But we also face stiff challenges. Challenges we must meet and meet together if we are to preserve the American dream for all Americans, maintain America's leadership for peace and freedom, and continue to come together around our basic values.

These are the seven challenges I set forth Tuesday night -- to strengthen our families, to renew our schools and expand educational opportunity, to help every American who's willing to work for it achieve economic security, to take our streets back from crime, to protect our environment, to reinvent our government so that it serves better and costs less, and to keep America the leading force for peace and freedom throughout the world.

We will meet these challenges, not through big government. The era of big government is over, but we can't go back to a time when our citizens were just left to fend for themselves.

CNN - 'The era of big government is over' - Jan. 27, 1996

 

[Old Rocks]

But then the Republicans took over the House, Senate, and Executive. And Government and Debt expanded exponentially.

 

[elvis]

But then the Republicans took over the House, Senate, and Executive. And Government and Debt expanded exponentially.

have the debt and government curved at all since Pelosi and Reid took over Congress?

 

[Modbert]

And Homeland Security, which is now one of the biggest agencies in the entire government in the shortest amount of time.

 

[xsited1]

But then the Republicans took over the House, Senate, and Executive. And Government and Debt expanded exponentially.

I just started reading this book:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Right-Big-Government-Conservativism-Republican/dp/1933995009]Amazon.com: Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservativism Brought Down the Republican Revolution: Michael D. Tanner: Books[/ame]

A scathing look at how the rise of conservatives who believed big government could be used to further the conservative cause ultimately undermined the legacy of traditional conservatives and shattered the Republican revolution.

Interesting read so far.

 

[Old Rocks]

I just started reading this book:

Amazon.com: Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservativism Brought Down the Republican Revolution: Michael D. Tanner: Books



Interesting read so far.

Sounds interesting.

 

[indago]

"A scathing look at how the rise of conservatives who believed big government could be used to further the conservative cause ultimately undermined the legacy of traditional conservatives and shattered the Republican revolution."

The "conservative cause" turned out to be raping the public, the public "treasury", civil rights, other countries, etc.

 

[DiveCon]

I just started reading this book:

Amazon.com: Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservativism Brought Down the Republican Revolution: Michael D. Tanner: Books



Interesting read so far.

that is a mouthful of truth

 

[Toro]

oops!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And Homeland Security, which is now one of the biggest agencies in the entire government in the shortest amount of time.

Only because it absorbed all those other agencies. But hey lets not deal with facts, they get in the way of a good rant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The "conservative cause" turned out to be raping the public, the public "treasury", civil rights, other countries, etc.

Neo Cons are not conservatives, they are left wing Democrats that were not as far left as the moonbats and so changed parties. But again, who needs facts when ranting.

 

[Annie]

Some suggestions. Very interesting essay for 'conservatives' and even 'libertarians':

An appeal for disunity | Samizdata.net

An appeal for disunity
Perry de Havilland (London) North American affairs
2009 is going to be an interesting year, particularly in the USA. Big State Democrat Barack "The One" Obama crushed Big State Republican John "I Support the Bail Outs" McCain and this means the country is going to have a new president whose politics make him the most committed statist since LBJ. The country was given a choice between statism and statism and it voted for... statism.

Well to quote Mencken, the American electorate are going to get what they voted for good and hard, because this is also the year the global economy is truly going to crash, big time, plunging us into a recession and indeed a depression that will last longer and be driven deeper by the policies being implemented by governments on both sides of the Atlantic.

And this presents friends of liberty with a great many opportunities....

...The simple fact is that people can be fellow travellers on a path that leads to liberty without all marching in ideological lock-step. It just boils down to asking the question "do you want the state to have less control over people's lives or more control?" If a person can honestly answer that they think the state is too powerful and needs to be reduced, that is a fellow traveller.

This is the time to apply that test to Republican politicians, every last one of them... and drive any who fail that simple test out of the party by whatever means necessary. Now is the time for a figurative internal 'Night of the Long Knives'. This is the opportunity to destroy a great many political careers and remake the Republican Party into the party of constitutionally limited government and to start fighting the culture war that the party should have been fighting since the day Ronald Reagan left office with his job only half done....

 

[garyd]

Excellent piece of work annie. Good find. Rove et all thought and apear to still think that you can steal the hearts and minds of Americans by sending them money from the public till so they became Democrat lite though exactly lite on what isat themoment unclear. This election was not a repudiation of the party of the right since it had no candidate running, rather it was a repudiation of the notion that actual conservatives will continuously vote for people that obviously don't share there political views. McCain-Feingold as an egregious an assault on free speech as this country has yet seen, was the first nail in McCain's coffin the bail out merely the last.

 

[editec]

Neo Cons are not conservatives, they are left wing Democrats that were not as far left as the moonbats and so changed parties. But again, who needs facts when ranting.

They are "left wing Democrats" !?!

The left wing Democrats have been warning idiots like you that the Neo-Cons are ANYTHING but conservative for over a decade.

They're not left wingers and they're not conservatives, either.

They're basically criminals operating under the color of the law, because nitwits like you kept electing them.

We warned you...but of course you couldn't listen to a bunch of lefties, could you?

And why couldn't you listen?

Because you were too concerned about a load of nonsense like gun control, abortions, queers, and the terrible threat of WMDs.

I know you so want to absolve your guilt, but honey, trying tell us that Bush II is a LEFT WINGER is about the goofiest example of congnitive dissonance we've seen for quite some time.

 

[Red Dawn]

Neo Cons are not conservatives, they are left wing Democrats that were not as far left as the moonbats and so changed parties. But again, who needs facts when ranting.

Yet you voted not just once, but twice for Dumbya, and probably spent the last 8 years defending the Bush Adminstration with every fiber of your being.

I voted against Bush twice, and I knew as far back as 2000 that he was an incompetent and dangerious moron.

So, that makes you, and the 50 million other republicans who voted for him twice, NeoCons.

 

[garyd]

Because nit wits like you kept running even more incompetent bozos agains them. Al Gore? Give me a break. The only man in America so stupid he believes his own propaganda? John "if I leaned any further to the left I'd have to roll intead of walk" Kerry? Get real as Bad as Bush was he at least was right on two things Which is two more than those two Bozos have ever been correct about.

 

[Red Dawn]

Because nit wits like you kept running even more incompetent bozos agains them. Al Gore? Give me a break. The only man in America so stupid he believes his own propaganda? John "if I leaned any further to the left I'd have to roll intead of walk" Kerry? Get real as Bad as Bush was he at least was right on two things Which is two more than those two Bozos have ever been correct about.

Oh Jesus, this is still my favorite NeoCon whine of 2008:

"Democrats FORCED me to vote for Bush!"

Aren't you the party of personal responsibility? Did Democrats really force your hand to check that box next to Bush's name, not just once but twice?

Didn't you republicans have TWO opportunities in your OWN primaries to vote against Bush, if you allegedly didn't like him? Yet in 2000, you overwhelmingly handed bush the GOP nomination against a field of at least half a dozen other candidates. And then in 2004, you thought Bush was doing such a great job none of you - not a single one - ever made a suggestion to run a primary opponent against bush in the 2004 GOP primaries. You allowed and enabled him to run unopposed because you were in love with him.

 

[garyd]

To the extent you provided no viable alternative yes. I voted for Bush in 2000 because he was largely and unknown quantity, and Gore was well known and detestable because of what he knew and lied about and continues to lie about. Ditto Kerry. I wasn't all that sold on Bush then but considered him far and away the least stupid of the candidates running and the least far left. And in OK those were the only people on the ballot.

 

[Red Dawn]

To the extent you provided no viable alternative yes. I voted for Bush in 2000 because he was largely and unknown quantity, and Gore was well known and detestable because of what he knew and lied about and continues to lie about. Ditto Kerry. I wasn't all that sold on Bush then but considered him far and away the least stupid of the candidates running and the least far left. And in OK those were the only people on the ballot.

Please just accept your responsiblity for voting - twice - for one of the worst presidents in american history, and stop blaming it on other people.

You knew what Bush promised in 2000. His campaign pledge was explicit, and out there for everybody to see. And, for what it's worth, Bush did what he promised to do: less taxes for the rich, more spending on the Pentagon, education, and medicare, and less regulation for wall street and the "free market". Republican claims that they were "duped" are laughable. Everyone know what bush's campaign promises were.

That's what you voted for. That's what Bush publically promised.

The fact that his policies didn't work is something you should have considered, when people like Al Gore told you it was all fuzzy math bullshit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only thing worse then Bush woul have been Al Gore or John Kerry. But hey you dumb shits sure pick some losers.