Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Public Trough Is Bigger Than Ever
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Bill Clinton once declared, "The era of big government is over." Both Republicans and Democrats applauded.

What a joke.

Government grew under Clinton, and grew even faster under his successor. Government is so big today that more than half the population gets a major part of its income from the state.

So says a study by economist Gary Shilling. Shilling, a Springfield, N.J., consultant and forecaster, says the portion of Americans feeding substantially at the public trough stands at 52.6 percent. In 2000, it was 49.4. It seems unbelievable that in 1950, only 28.3 percent of Americans lived off the taxpayers. Shilling projects 60 percent by 2040.

One out of five Americans works for some level of government or for a firm that depends on taxpayer financing. One in five also draws Social Security or a federal pension. That number will grow as the baby boomers move on to Social Security, which, let's not forget, is a transfer program.

Among other recipients of largess: Nine million are on food stamps, 2 million received housing subsidies, and 5 million go to school on the federal taxpayer. In Shilling's reckoning, dependents of recipients are also part of the group he calls "government beneficiaries."

Wasn't the welfare system reformed in 1996? On the surface, yes. Cash payments are available only for a limited time and recipients are expected to work eventually. Millions of women once on welfare have gone to work. But the idea that the taxpayer has gotten a break or that overall dependency has decreased is a myth. As the AP reported: "The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid. The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor -- including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits -- are bursting with new enrollees. The result ... is that nearly one in six persons rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago."

The handouts go to the well off, too. Farm programs and corporate subsidies benefit big farmers and big business, and wealthy people draw large Medicare benefits. The Cato Institute says there are nearly 1,700 federal subsidy programs spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

According to Michael Tanner's "Leviathan on the Right", federal domestic spending under President Bush has risen 27 percent in real terms, while discretionary non-entitlement spending has gone up 4.5 percent a year. (Clinton's annual increase was "only" to 2.1 percent.)

Who'd have thought that a Republican president would challenge Lyndon Johnson's spending record?

Government is "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else," wrote Frederic Bastiat, the great laissez-faire economist of Nineteenth-Century France. Of course, everyone cannot live at the expense of everyone else, but people who understand nothing about economics try, egged on by politicians looking for an election-wining coalition.

Government has no wealth of its own. Before it gives anything to anyone, it must take from those who produced it. But the taking could discourage future production, leaving less to be distributed by the politicians. Productive Americans have forged ahead despite a constellation of transfer programs, but how long will they continue to do so?

The European welfare states are learning that producers don't leave themselves available for milking forever. Their economies are sluggish, and unemployment is high. Government promises exceed resources, and citizens who were guaranteed lifelong security find their benefits shrinking.

Yet this doesn't deter our champions of big government. Even the coming Social Security and Medicare train wrecks don't faze them. So don't expect government to stop growing. The Washington Post reports ominously: "In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier."

The lobbyists go where the money and the power is.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

It's sad that that's no myth.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Ron Paul sure looked good in that debate
Smaller government, and strict reading of the constitution. Man, that sounds good!

Who will stop it
Which Presidential candidate will halt and reverse this. After the last 100 years we certainly know a Democrat won't. After the last six years we can certainly say a Republican won't. If Rudy McRomney is our standard-bearer, you should stop complaining Mr. Stossel and get in line. Power is more important than principle.

Grow government faster!
The data is indeed promising, provided the trend continues. Far too many people still remain aloof of the government, and until we can get everybody on board, implementing policies that are in the best interest of the people shall still remain difficult.

Once the government has a firm hold on the purse strings of every Amerian, there will no longer be a need to be concerned about the votes of renegade citizens. Too often, well intentioned government programs have to be tossed aside merely because large groups of citizens oppose them. However, once the governement can effectively cut off the livelihood of those who dissent, they will have the tool that they need to assure the right programs are always readily accepted by everyone.

Rather than critique the concept of massive growth in government, we should be making eforts to fuel it even more. Once every citizen becomes fully dependent on government, utopia will be within our grasp.

LD
not sure if that is sick sarcasm or you really believe that the road to utopia lies in being dependant on the state. i mean that is about as anti intellectual as one could possibly be.

please review hayek's road to sefdom

that would be
serfdom

Beauracracy
I've lived in a place where the nieghbors all got out and fixed the road when it needed it- we didn't want the county to do it,because we wanted it to be rough enough to keep traffic down.If the county did it ,it had to be done to "official standrds".
Short of that kind of shared personal responsibility,we get beauracracies that do it for us.And of course those in the systme don't want to take responsibility anymore than anyone else.
Another reason we could do it is that we communicated and made an agreement.Self reliant people don't need to be governed.

To "Loyal Democrat"
I was actually trying to pick up on the sarcasm as well, but when Loyal Democrat did not end with mentioning the millions murdered by the government in countries that have given up all decision making to government, i really had to wonder. Well if you are serious LD, you should probably move to Cuba or Venezuala. Surely you would enjoy living there where you will not have to worry about anything for yourself except being murdered if you decide you want to leave, or have your own opinion... and the great masses that are living in Poeverty.

Good Grief, People...
Loyal Democrat is a satirist. And Jefferson was a prophet. Unfortunately for America, he was a prophet of doom, because we cannot keep this up. Goodbye, America, it was nice while it lasted.

It's sad but true
that America is slowly rotting from the inside out.

Unfortunately when more Americans care about the next American Idol than the robber baron politicians I don't see any hope.

As well if the people who are paying attention aren't willing to hold their representatives accountable by voting them out are really no better just more informed.

I truly believe that America's salvation relies on third party voting, whether it be from the third party itself or the Dems and Reps fearful of loosing their power actually start listening to the people instead of the lobbyist's as well as honor their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Kinda disconcerting
It troubles me a little that anyone who reads political commentary would miss the sarcastic tone of Loyal Democrat's post. May I suggest that when the knee starts jerking, one might want to push back from the keyboard for a moment of reflection before allowing the fingers to descend onto the keys.

The Bush twins . . .
Can we now just admit that George W. Bush (and his tax raising father) were perhaps more than just a bit sleazy? Finally? Because these two fools have jacked up spending beyond any conceivable limit that would have previously been considered by a Republican. Sure, one was a war hero, the other talked a good game, but guess what -- that heroism does not go so far when one considered that our little sons and daughters and brothers will be paying through the nose for the Bush boys' excessive govt. largesse. So toast a glass to these fine, honorable men. And think about what will come down the road if we cannot finally find somebody with integrity to draw the line on govt. spending.

LD strikes again
A couple of you took the bait... LD likes to amuse herself/himself fabricating liberal platitudinous pablum just to see what frothing at the mouth s/he can engender... motive unclear... no sarcasm per se, just irony for gotcha humor. Everybody is entitled to get caught once...

Show the numbers
Stossel is wrong about Clinton. By any measure of government growth, Reagan outdid him. Percentage rate of growth of government spending, percent rate of growth of the federal payroll, what have you.

(I'm not sure this is true, but somebody should look it up.)

Two political parties.
One is the spend party and the other is the spend even more party. I don't know which is which but I suspect that whatever party in power is the spend even more party.

OPM
When it's not your own financial security on the line you're much more inclined to engage in risky behavior because you don't have to bear the burden of failure. After a while, living off OPM(other peoples' money) becomes more addicive than crack and crystal meth combined. As long as the pushers in Congress trade taxpayers' cash for continued tenure in the halls of power, we're screwed.

liberalgoodman
I'm not sure it's true either, but if I were to make the statement "[b]y any measure of government growth, Reagan outdid him", I'd present some supporting facts or links to facts. In other words, I agree that "somebody should look it up". "Somebody" would be you.

(Please note that I am neither attacking nor defending liberalgoodman's assertion, but requesting supporting data.)

Scamnesty: the ultimate largesse
Be afraid-- be VERY AFRAID! Congress, pushed relentlessly by the Conpiracy Of Evil, is poised to create a path to Scamnesty for 12-20 million ILLEGAL aliens. With "chain migration," that will mean MANY MORE millions of indigent poor-- and the permanent morphing of America into an entitlement government welfare state. The public trough that Stossel warns about will become a voracious, inexorable black hole devouring all that has made America great.

If you listen to the pro-ILLEGAL alien arguments by members of the Conspiracy Of Evil, they are like low-hangin' fruit to refute:

1) Disingenuous premises:
the "undocumented workers" are generally hard working, good people who simply want to feed their families and do those jobs that Americans won't do that America must have done.

Reality Check:
ILLEGALS are too often both poor and undereducated-- a formula for DISASTER if they are allowed to naturalize. They drive down wages, and they ARE taking good jobs-- America does not save at all! A relative few hoteliers, contractors, meat processors, and other law-breaking employers milk them for lesser wages, then the TAXPAYERS GET STUCK with the crimes, barrio blight, drugs, gangs, sullied schools, and welfare costs. Bilingual education is a scam and a failure. ILLEGALS are at least 3x as likely as legal residents to be incarcerated for serious crimes:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html
http://www.amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/HispanicsReport.htm

2) We should respect their "rights" and put those who have a job on a path to citizenship and require the payment of back taxes, learning English, and paying a $2,000 fine.

Truth Check--
HOGWASH! We owe them NOTHING! NO THING! We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card ASAP for ANY non-citizen to function here period-- to work, get a license, attend school, rent an apt., pass go, etc. Make them repatriate to apply for it, then vet them thorughly to see who might come back on an interim basis to work. There should be NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER between having been here ILLEGALLY and later gaining citizenship. Token fines and back taxes are a farce! Some would charge them a $2,000 fee when their ANNUAL cost to taxpayers (per Heritage) will be $22k just in net govt. services used alone for a family headed by an uneducated, poor ILLEGAL?!?

Why is this such a vexing problem? Because different powerful users with ulterior agendas salivate over ILLEGALS --> the PC "elite" left sees poor, malleable voters (40 acres and a mule redux) who will assure big entitlement government for the Big Brother elites to control; miscreant employers see cheap labor that the taxpayers are forced to subsidize; the scandal-plagued Catholic Church sees replacement contributors; self-serving national pols see hispanic votes in key states; the well-heeled like their cheap domestic help-- and THEIR children will not have their private schools ruined by them; finally the latino groups quite simply indubitably seek the Reconquista-- the morphing of America into Mexicomerica.

Middle America MUST unite and stop Scamnesty which is again pending in Congress. You can learn more and/or get involved to save America at the sites below. First, an easy way to reach the OFFICIAL contact info for your Senators and Representatives to oppose the pending Scamnesty Bills:

http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm

BOOKMARK IT AND BARK AT THEM OFTEN! It IS EASY-- just a few clicks!!!

Some say that it does no good to contact Congress... don't believe it! Middle Americans like you derailed Kennedy-McQuisling Scamnesty in the House last year! BUT the Conspiracy Of Evil is determined to cram ILLEGALS down America's throats, so we MUST BE RELENTLESS in expressing our righteous indignation to stop Scamnesty. We won the first battle, but we MUST NOT LOSE THE WAR! Congressional staffers track the feedback... I get letters and e-mails back from Congresspersons who do not even represent me addressing my specific concerns. YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Other good sites are below [the first one is GREAT -- a well-organized group trying to save America from myopia... it has prepared e-mails addressing proposed legislation you can customize and/or just send to your elected representatives!]:

http://www.numbersusa.com/index

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20530
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=opposeamnesty&s_src=K0613&s_subsrc=olk0604&printer_friendly=1
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/
http://www.amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/HispanicsReport.htm
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back906.html
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html
http://www.libertygunrights.com/NAUFactSheet.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back704.html
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/middecade/
http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070110a.html

FOLKS, THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE, CULTURE, COMMON LANGUAGE, SOCIO-ECONOMIC STABILITY-- INDEED THE AMERICAN WAY IF LIFE ITSELF-- ARE IN DIRE JEOPARDY!

That "cheap" labor is nothing of the sort! Per Heritage, EACH household headed by an undereducated, ILLEGAL alien will cost taxpayers $22k a year in deficit taxes versus services used alone! And that is just the tip of the iceberg of their total costs! GET INVOLVED TO STOP THE INVASION NOW FOLKS-- BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! AMERICA WOULD BE A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE! May the Force be with you!

Libertarian Principles
Are the only thing that can save this country from financial ruin and socialist domination.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the cajones to do the right thing, which is to shrink the government, shrink the beauracracy, and establish a pay as you go system.

LGM
I take it there was actually nothing of substance in Stossel's article to dispute.

That must be why you made up something to argue about.

John Stossel
forgets that some of those people getting US Treasury checks every month are military retirees. Does he have a problem with that?

Also, it's not the size of the federal government, but how invasive it is into the everyday lives of the citizens.

Obviously, the more citizens in the USA, the bigger the government. Democrats love to increase not only the size but the scope of the federal government.

Democrats insist on taking family law away from the states and giving jurisdiction to the feds. The abortion issue is one example.

Mrs. Bill Clinton even tried to nationalize health care. That's another example. The Democrats are silently cheering Hugo Chavez as he slowly nationalizes all private sector businesses in the name of socialism.

We all know how well that worked out in the USSR, don't we.

Is it lack of cajones?
Or, is it simply a case of being able to win?

It is sad that a true conservative cannot win an election in this country. The public aren't smart enough to realize that when they are getting "free" services from the government, they are actually paying multiple times the actual price in taxes.

We would have an amazingly prosperous country, without any deficit or national debt to worry about (Although, I think national debt is way overhyped. Most Americans understand the concept of borrowing money to use for investment purposes) if all of our leaders were strict Constitutionalists. With the exception of his ridiculous stance on the war on terrror, Ron Paul is right about getting back to the Feds actually following the Constitution.

Reagan spending vs. Slick Willie's
Reagan spent on the miltary to break the will of the USSR and end the Cold War-- he did both. Clinton was simply there when military spending was reversed in the wake of the Cold War. Slick Willie was indeed his usual disingenuous self when he made the statement about the era of big govt. being over-- he and Shrillary are like many card-carrying liberals-- they are self-anointed "elites" who want to rule the madding crowd with YOUR tax money. Hillary Care showed their true colors. It was the Republican class of '94 (not RINOS who followed later) which gave us balanced budgets, crime control, etc... Slick was along for the ride and took the credit.

Military spending has ancillary benefits (providing tech jobs, R&D, and allowing us to intimidate the he11 out of foreign threats-- see Gulf War) that social welfare "entitlement" spending never does. We have spent > $6 TRILLION on the war on poverty, only to destroy families and foster an entitlement mentality and culture and make things WORSE. Maybe LBJ meant well, but Reagan was right-- govt. is NOT the solution to our (social) problems... govt. IS THE PROBLEM.

We preach Peace but spend for War
Geez, love to come on and see the extreme rantings from the right! Quoting the Heritage Foundation for facts is like asking this Administration to identify threats to our Country...

I still find it interesting that even when you exclude the cost of Iraq, the US Military budget is $500B, more than all other Countries combined! #2 on the list is Britian at $45B...

We give more tax dollars each year to Lockheed than we do to programs fighting World Hunger!

While HUD, Health & Human Services etc. Budgets went down anywhere from 1 to 3% from 2005 to 2006, non Iraq Defense spending went up 20%...

I guess on a positive note unlike the Stock Market which is cooking thanks to employment and revenues overseas, most of the Defense money employs Americans...

Too bad High School dropout rates are exploding all over America, we may have to offshore Defense...



Closet Socialists
Many people today who receive government checks would fight you if you called them socialists.

Off the top of my head there are three social spending programs that have to be eliminated from this conversation; social security, military pension and civil service pension. All the people in these groups had a contract with the government that they fullfilled and the government owes them. The retirement program I want is the congressional retirement program, but that's for anther day.

Most of the rest of the receipiants are candidates for voting for a socialist system. While they won't admit it they would scream if it was removed and there are always politicians and do-gooders who are willing to keep them happy to either keep there power or make themselves feel good. But we all know this.

I've ofter thought that we need a system wherein those who believe in the nanny state can support it and those who don't won't have to. If you believe in supporting criminal aliens or able bodied but lazy people or loose women or whatever other socialist program exists just check the appropriate box and you would receive a bill from the government. Wild fantasy, huh?



Kool-Aid Man
Can you dispute any of those facts from the Heritage Foundation?

Okay, so you have nothing of substance to actually add. Thanks for entertaining us!

And, by the way, can we quit with the "drinking the Kool-Aid" crap. Educated people know that it should be "drinking the Flavor Aid"!

Lodestar Nancy Reagan was not that great
A president! She and her husband prove once again timing is everything...You with blinders just do a WMD and make up facts as needed...

Ronnie stopped Big Government regulation!! (Never mind the deregulation of AT&T, trucking and the airlines started in 1977 and 1978 under Carter)

Ronnie's Tax cuts created real growth in tax revenue!! ( whoops! average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.)

Ronnie took down the USSR! (not enough space to cover but while Ron was doing sound bites, the Pope was walking through his home Country of Poland fanning the flames of dissent.)

What Ronnie had, other than a penchant for huge deficits, was a flair for the dramatic...An Actor standing in front of America as if he were still in front of the Camera...Not a bad thing, but not worthy of godliness...



bporter fact is you are an idiot
Now that I threw out that fact, can you dispute it?

There are facts and there are agendas..Nothing prevents me fromm saying my statement is fact, except I know it has an Agenda...Heritage foundation has an agenda...MoveOn has an agenda...

So do Heritage and MoveOn present facts or agendas?

The only fact that seems apparent is Conservatives appear to hate this Country...

Whine about Illegals, whine about gays, whine about teachers, whine about judges, whine about the liberal media, whine about Social programs...Take a look at talk radio...

Each and every day there are approx. 300 hours of Conservative whining for every 1 hour of Liberal whining...

Take a minute to thank the Liberals who ensured you can freely whine for that many hours a day in public!

Ridiculous stance?
"With the exception of his ridiculous stance on the war on terrror, Ron Paul is right about getting back to the Feds actually following the Constitution."

The war on terror has created an entirely new, huge and expensive beauracracy, the Department of Homeland Security, which has become a massive pork barrel disaster, giving money to rural sheriff's drepartments for ATVs and other ridiculous expenditures. In addition, the Constitution calls for our military to provide for the common defense, not prolonged offensive military adventures across the planet that are not even wars declared by Congress.
Excessive military spending is just as counter-productive as excessive social spending, but too many conservatives fail to question any dollars that are spent on "defense." That makes just as irresponsible financially as socialists.

Redstatesredkoolaid
Ohmygod, I DID NOT KNOW the Pope brought down the USSR. Thank you for telling us. And the Pope thanks you, too, albeit from his grave.

replies to the misguided
Kraut writes:
"Off the top of my head there are three social spending programs that have to be eliminated from this conversation; social security, military pension and civil service pension."

reply:
Actually, this sounds OK but is deceptive... civil servants, especially "double dippers," are egregiously overpaid; they have their own self-invested equivalent to S.S. which makes the latter seem like a joke. The 2 highest per capita income counties in America are in suburban Washington-- bingo!

As for S.S., the ORIGINAL premise and promise might have been OK in theory, but the funds now paid to recipients are substantially transfer payments from current earners-- not saved and invested earnings of the beneficiaries. The greatest true tax most wage earners pay are the 15+% total S.S. and medicare extractions. There IS NO trust fund-- current payroll extractions go mainly to fund the War in Iraq, etc. Washington morphed a government-forced retirement plan into a welfare program when it created the "common fund" under LBJ. Recipients recover all that they paid in in less than two years, albeit it is not their funds they receive.

Military pensions sound noble, but can begin over 20 years before other retirement benefits flow-- at staggering cost. Why?! Retirement raises can exceed those of active military because of the double dippers in Washington making those rules.

Redstatesredkoolaid writes:
"What Ronnie had, other than a penchant for huge deficits, was a flair for the dramatic...An Actor standing in front of America as if he were still in front of the Camera...Not a bad thing, but not worthy of godliness..."

reply:
Whoo-wee, this post was such a screeching leftist
screed of platitudinous pablum that it is silly prima facie... I teach college econ-- tax cuts have a lag impact, but those by JFK, Reagan, and even blind-hog luck Dubya all produced economic growth because they leave some funds in hands who otherwise pay all the taxes which are invested and make real things happen.

As for Reagan's gifts, above all else a President must stand for things that people believe matter-- Reagan mattered, and so did the things he stood for. The envious left loves to talk about his being an actor as if to diminish him-- he was indeed a tough act to follow.

smokeykhan writes:
"The problem is not with these people that want to come work here for whatever wages they can get, the problem is with government run social programs and the thousands of regulations pertaining to employer/employee relationships.
The inner-city ghetto culture supported by the inflow of welfare money and illegal drug revenue is a much greater threat to our "AMERICAN HERITAGE, CULTURE, COMMON LANGUAGE, SOCIO-ECONOMIC STABILITY-- INDEED THE AMERICAN WAY IF LIFE ITSELF". People that cross the borders looking to make a living by working hard is the American way of life."

reply:
NO-- people crossing the border are breaking the first of a number of laws (see also identity theft, tax fraud, welfare cheating) and bringing and permeating pandemic social problems like a cancer-- crime, drugs, balkanization, gangs, barrio blight, ethnocentricity, school deterioration. An advanced economy CANNOT benefit on balance from an influx of the great unwashed, indigent, uneducated... as for the ghetto ripoffs, see my post at 8:32 a.m... as for my transfer post, there is no direct link-- you are free to read what you choose.




No hope
Most of the US population is dominated by control freaks and thieves. Years of indoctrinating that govt is good and everything outside of govt is bad has created this. Attack of anything that requires a morale decision is the norm. The goal is to have the govt become god. We are headed to hell. Maybe that's why govt dominant types are pushing global warming. They want to be in hell as fast as they can.

Kool-Aid Man
Yes, I can dispute your claim.

I know that your subject line should have read "bporter, fact is you are an idiot." My ability to use correct punctuation shows that I am smarter than you are. Unless you want to claim that you are also an idiot, I think that I have disputed your claim. I can also present two college degrees, received with highest honors as further proof.

However, your analogy is ridiculous. Idiot is a relative term. It has no empirical value or meaning. In other words, IT IS OPINION. Fact are facts.

If a crazy man told you that healthy grass was green, would you refuse to believe him because he is crazy? If an organization presents actual numbers that are based on government data, does it make any more sense to ignore them because you don't like the organization?

Kraut
Good point about SS - its less of a system of redistribution and more of a government sanctioned scam. They took one generations money forcefully but promised to repay it later, but squandered the funds and now intend to "rob Peter to pay Paul." The gov't owes SS recipients, military and civil pensioners, it does not owe anyone else a dime.

Not happy
There is a fundamental ideological difference between those that are "conservative" and those that are "liberal" in terms of governmental intervention. Now, the descriptions of these two broad categories are generalities, not meant to apply to every conservative nor to every liberal.

That said, true conservatives like limited government - at all levels - and look to government to provide for the common defense and welfare. Bush is not a true conservative. For those of you who continue to spout that conservatives are simply neocons, Bushies, right-wing nutcases, please get a grip.

Liberals generally believe that the government should be the arbiter of polite society and should help those less fortunate - for whatever reason. Basically, neither of these objectives in and of themselves are bad, it is the fact that (from what my Mom always said) the road to he11 is paved with good intentions. It is extremely difficult to legislatively draw the necessary line in the sand between those who get benefits and those who don't.

The fact that government is now involved in more than 50% of the population's lives (as described by Stossel) is simply unacceptable. It is the size as well as the scope of government that is the problem. While the current debate about the role of the Federal Government has been raging since the First Constitutional Congress, we are no closer to resolving the philosophical differences. Unfortunately, the states have ceded too much power to the Federal government and there needs to be a fundamental shift to bring governance back to the local level. As they say, all politics is local.

A nation is only a nation as long as it protects its borders and controls the influx of new citizens. Current legal immigration regulations are complex and time consuming. The fact that some big corporations are looking for "cheap labor" does not excuse their illegal hiring of illegal immigrants. The CEO's and other management members of those corporations should go to jail. (And I say that as a high ranking corporate officer.) This perceived need for cheap labor can easily be addressed by making the acquisition of work visas for unskilled workers easier to obtain and embedding significant penalties to both those who overstay their visa and for employers who hire illegals.

There should be no amnesty and there should be no bending on our enforcement of Federal immigration laws. Locales that purport to be "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants should immediately lose any and all federal funding as they are flouting federal law. Law enforcement at any level should have the authority to deport illegal immigrants upon their identification.


military and civil service..
are not part of the welfare state. Thinking they are, confuses the government's role as employer and its role as government. Many democrats in the past have deliberately confused these roles in order to expand the welfare state. For example, I remember one democrat congress-woman pushing for free day-care for active duty military, with a view towards extending it as a federal entitlement for everyone later. Military and civil service pensions are earned benefits and delayed compensation--not welfare. Please don't confuse the two.

kool-aid man
You are a prime example of why liberals should not in charge of anything important. While you rant and screech, you fail to grasp anything the author of this column wrote. Who said anything about preaching peace? If you're preaching to the choir, what good is that? The problem w/ that is the ones not wanting peace are the same ones that attacked us. I guess that fact went right over your head. If you bothered to read and comprehend what is written on Heritage, rather than assume its automatically wrong, you would actually learn something. Or maybe you just prefer going through life ignorant of anything but what your moveon.org crowd tells you. Yes, we do spend quite a bit on defense, and with good reason, we have a big country to defend as well as our interests around the world. W/o our defense spending through the yrs, Europe would have fallen to the Soviets a long time ago. They can afford to spend less because they know we will come to the rescue if they are attacked. The point of this article is that gov't spending needs to come down drastically, and reduce the size of gov't. If you can't see that through you liberal googles, then you need your eyes checked.

Mr. Stossel
I agree govt. is far too large however, I also agree some of it , not all though, was warranted. Remember we created some of it in response to terrorism. I see the libtards are on this board in full force today. Love the Reagan comments, pity you didn't check your facts. You guys lack so much objectivity and you wonder why people think your a bunch of ignoramus'.

we need a revolt
The Republican party really needs to return to its limited government roots and abandon Bush "drunken sailorism."

I am a pretty doctrinaire libertarian, but I would be willing to make compromises with the Bible thumping social conservatives on other issues if a common cause could be found on the most important issue - putting more money and freedom in our hands, and out of the government's. (Sorry Laura Ingraham you whiny $#)(%, life is not the #1 issue, and neither is Jesus)

I think that if the Republicans could for once stay together and on message, a lower tax less intrusive government platform could win elections in a majority of states outside of the coastal liberal/immigrant bastions.

Reply to Lodestar
Partial answer to your illegal immigrants rant:
Using data from the Census Bureau's current population survey, Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy group in Washington that favors more limits on immigration, estimated that 3.8 million households headed by illegal immigrants generated $6.4 billion in Social Security taxes in 2002.
Most immigration helps Social Security's finances, because new immigrants tend to be of working age and contribute more than they take from the system. A simulation by Social Security's actuaries found that if net immigration ran at 1.3 million a year instead of the 900,000 in their central assumption, the system's 75-year funding gap would narrow to 1.67 percent of total payroll, from 1.92 percent - savings that come out to half a trillion dollars, valued in today's money.
Illegal immigrants help even more because they will never collect benefits. According to Mr. Goss, without the flow of payroll taxes from wages in the suspense file, the system's long-term funding hole over 75 years would be 10 percent deeper.
As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.
While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.
Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide "the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security."
It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job.
Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book - with payroll tax deductions.
Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.
The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.
In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.
In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.
Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.
"Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.
Other researchers say illegal immigrants are the main contributors to the suspense file. "Illegal immigrants account for the vast majority of the suspense file," said Nick Theodore, the director of the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "Especially its growth over the 1990's, as more and more undocumented immigrants entered the work force."

To be continued I have to go back to work and contribute my share of taxes.

A New Party
I hope that every American knows that the only reason that we have these two inept polical parties is because WE won't stop voting for them. Govenment spending is out of control and the Republicans are just as bad (if not worse) than the Democrats. Until we stop voting for these idiots, we are never going to fix the problem. It seems to me that the only group out there who REALLY wants to cut spending and balance the budget permenetly are the Libertarians (which Mr. Stossel here is a member). I know that they take a very hands off approach to social issues and that scares the Religious Right. But lets be honest for a second, if the pandering to the Religious Right is going to keep Republicans in power, we're not going to have a Capitalist Republic much longer to argue about abortion in. This has to stop now. In 10-15 years, the baby-boomers are going to retire and destroy this country with their social security and medicare. The window is closing and we either need to make a stand now or get ready to enjoy socialism.

TK
I believe that killing an unborn child is murder. So, apparently, does Laura Ingraham. As such, we believe that sanctioned murder of innocents is something that needs to be ended. You are free to disagree.

However, how does calling someone who has a different opinion than you a whiny %@#$@ enhance your argument?

On your other points, I agree. I do not consider myself a libertarian. I consider myself a Constitutionalist. We both agree that the government needs to get back to doing only what it is supposed to. Maybe if it limited itself to what is mandated by the Constitution, it might even be able to do it with some level of efficiency.

Bporter
It was not necessary, but I have a personal, albeit indirect, problem with Laura Ingraham. I used to be an avid listener of the John Bachelor program on ABC talk radio in the NY market. He was replaced by Ms. Ingraham and I cannot stand her program.

All she does is whine about the liberal elites, give lectures on her love for Catholicism (to which she has converted as an adult - nothing worse than a convert, to any religion) and pretty much preach incessantly, turning a political talk radio format into a religious one.

As a libertarian, NOT a social conservative, her program offers me nothing of interest 90% of the time - and in the 10pm - 1am time slot it is the only real option for politics on free radio in NY.

People like her who cannot separate her personal religion from her public politics are what alienate many like myself from the Republican party, or at least the religious wing of it.

WOW!!!
Must be a great piece--it contiunes to amaze me how far and wide comments roam. For me it is a learning process--I am unqualified to match wits with the great talents. I am ex-military draw no pension--I do draw SS and do not consider myself a socialist. I do resent the growth of government intereference in my life--what I can eat--where I can smoke--etc

Government and more of it
The only thing government is good at creating is more government.

Guilty & a comment to TONY
Because the government long ago spent the money my employers and I gave them to provide some security for me in my old age, I'm guilty of living off the dole because I cash my social security check? I only ask that the young people paying me today via the transfer payments lay the blame where it belongs, on the political class not me.

TONY: You forgot to include that the government tells you what kind of car to drive and what you can do with your own real estate.

THE TROUGH
SAY THERE ALL YOU TROUGH FEEDERS OUT THERE IN PUBLIC LAND, FEELING GUILTY?

HERE'S THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM THAT MR. STOSSEL IS APTLY POINTING OUT, THE I GOT MINE ATTITUDE, THE REFUSAL TO ELECT PUBLIC SERVANTS THAT ARE QUALITY PUBLIC SERVANTS, THE LACK OF EDUCATION TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION YOU ARE TO VOTE ON AND IT'S ULTIMATE COST AND CONSEQUENCE.

YES WE HAVE FOR MANY OF US PAID INTO THE PUBLIC TROUGH FOR YEARS ON END AND DURING ALL THOSE YEARS WE KNEW THAT THE PROBLEMS IT WOULD CREATE WERE GOING TO SHOW UP AND COMPOUND THEMSELVES, THEIR HEEEEERE! SO NOW WHAT?

IT'S NOT TO LATE, IF THE FRENCH, OF ALL PEOPLE, CAN ELECT A PROCLAIMED CONSERVATIVE THEN DO YOU NOT THINK THAT A NATION SUCH AS OURS CANNOT PERFORM THE SAME FEAT, HAVE WE NOT DONE IT BEFORE? LET'S DO IT AGAIN AND THIS TIME WE PUT IN A CONGRESS THAT DOES NOT ACT LIKE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GIVE OUR MONEY AWAY TO THIER PET PROJECTS. I AM A BIT TIRED OF THAT BUNCH OF DEAF, BLIND GROUP OF SELF IMPORTANT ROYALS CALLED LEGISLATORS AND SUPPORTING COURTS THAT CREATE, MANDATE AND DICTATE LAW FROM THE BENCH. GET WHAT I AM SAYING HERE YOU GUILT RIDDEN TROUGH FEEDERS?

WE CAN STILL TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN BUT WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY IT IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED, THE WORLD HAS CHANGED, OUR POPULATION HAS ALSO. SO WHY NOT OUR MEANS TO FURNISH THE TAXPAYERS A BANG FOR THEIR BUCK???????

Another Libertarian Weighing In
I agree with the previous comment about Ron Paul's position on the war on Islamofascism. The Libertarian position is that federal government's primary role is to protect the citizens from foreign attack. But much of the party has some kind of intellectual disconnect that suggests that unless the enemy army is assembling en masse at our border, we don't do anything to prevent an attack. The last Libertarian nominee, Mike Badnorack, held the same position, and I consequently voted for Bush.

Waiting for congress to officially authorize a war, when it is quite apparent that the enemy is already engaged, is suicidal. So, I ask my hard-core, Ron Paul-supporting, Libertarian fellows: Do you really want to confront Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Allah knows who else at the Super Bowl or in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other offshore locations. I'd rather the collateral damage be theirs versus ours.

So, yes Bush facilitated another boondoggle with the Dept of Homeland Security, and yes there is potential for bureaucratic abuse there, but I vote for hunting down and killing all the bad guys, preferably on their turf, while we do our best to prevent the machine from spying on private citizens. I think we can do both.

And a few random thoughts:

Though the Pope did indeed embolden the citizens behind the iron curtain so that they were able to take advantage of a weakened USSR, I think it is fair to also assert that Regan's SDI (derisively known as "Star Wars") program forced the soviets into a spending war that they could not win. So, even if the technology derived from SDI produced minimal results (someone else will have to address that), bankrupting the USSR and thus causing them to crumble under their own weight was far superior to the anticipated nuclear confrontation, methinks.

And though I have no scientific data before me, it is my observation that civil servants, lobbyists, and government contractors are overwhelmingly liberal. I attribute this to two factors: the first is self interest - keeping the libs in ensures that their jobs will be reauthorized, and second, the civil service recruits heavily from Ivy League schools who are famous for their socialist views. So, civil servants beget more civil servants by voting for those who favor more government programs.

Finally, I agree with the others who have stated that it is the socially conservative agenda that prevents the fiscally conservative agenda from moving forward. As long as the Republicans continue appease the “family values” crowd, the rest of us who don’t share those values are much less likely to get on board. I usually vote Libertarian without hesitation for that very reason; I only voted for Bush in the last election because I believe that until we hunt down and kill every last jihadist, we are living under the constant threat of another attack.

Where is John Galt?
It's true, the producers will not tolerate having to support non-producers forever. I am pursuing my PhD in biochemistry, and I'm pretty convinced that sometime in the near future, the consumers will win again and nationalize our health care industry. That is why I don't want to help cure disease and prolong human life beyond the current level. It makes no sense for hardworking scientists and doctors like me and my colleagues to save the lives of ungrateful panhandlers who would just as well turn around and sue the hand the feeds them rather than thank them for all their time, effort, and investment. We need real conservatives who have read the Constitution and understand our nation is one of individuals, not the collective to lead us into the 21st century.

NEWT in '08!

reply to AuntPityPat
[the original Aunt Pity was rightfully appalled by unwanted invaders!]

If you are going to try to defend ILLEGAL alien costs, for heaven's sake do NOT cherry pick data from the Center For Immigration Studies. Actually, the lion's share of their data demnonstrate OVERWHELMINGLY the STAGGERING all-in costs of ILLEGALS, mainly because they come here poor and undereducated, not to mention unskilled and speaking a foreign language:

http://www.cis.org/
http://www.cis.org/topics/costs.html
http://www.cis.org/topics/wagesandpoverty.html

see also, e.g.:
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTUyZjY3NzExYjIxODU0NmVmYWE4MTAxNTZlOWJkNDk=

It is fool's gold alchemy to talk of what ILLEGALS have contributed to S.S. to date... Presidente Jorge has already secretly agreed to send BILLIONS south to Mexico, and the
mother load of unfunded S.S. liabilities will actually be paying current ILLEGALS S.S. once Congress grants them Scamnesty. The estimated unfunded liability just for the 12 million already here per Heritage and CIG will be about $3 TRILLION for S.S. alone!

When the PC left prattles on about Middle Americans "ranting" about ILLEGALS, we say let them go back where they BELONG, ang the he11 in line to be CONSIDERED to emigrate to America LEGALLY-- just like everybody else has and does. It is socio-economic SUICIDE for an advanced economy to allow the undereducated, indigent, culturally disparate to invade and pervade, especially when they bring with them pandemic social problems (drugs, gangs, crime, illegitmacy, et al).

Galltegfa
Agreed. Additionally, I do not think that a libertarian domestic policy is incompatible with an aggressive, pre-emptive foreign policy. In fact, taking the fight to the bad guys is probably the best way to preserve a libertarian society at home.

Conservatism
Are we really the conservatives anymore? We're not trying to preserve the status quo, we're trying to ditch the rampant socialism and political correctness. Ladies and gentlemen, we're the LIBERALS!

Big Government To Get Bigger
If anyone is hoping that the next election is going to solve the problems of this great nation, I urge you to think again! The two parties are in total control, and they got to that point by rigging the election process to assure themselves power.
We, the rightful heirs of our founfing fathers and the true owners of this country have sold our birthright for a bowl of porridge called entitlements and pork barrell spending.
We need to recognize that if we elect another Democrat OR Republican in 2008, we will get more of the same. These elite hypocrites, having convinced themselves as well as us they only they are capable of governing the nation, resort to pure partisanship because they do not fear accountability. Leadership is nowhere to be found.
It is time for us to take back the reins of power from these do nothing, let's get re-elected, power hungry partisans. It is time to reassert our authority and exercise our responsibility as free men who govern themselves.
As a candidate for President in 2008, I urge you to visit my website, joeolivaforpresident.org. In it you will find a way to turn this around before it is too late and we lose all of our freedoms, or enough of them to no longer be able to say we are a free people. It is most important not to elect any of these elites in '08. I hope you will find the beginnings of common sense and a sense of purpose at my site. Check it out, you will not be disappointed, hopefully, inspired. Thanks, Joe

Hipybikr
I just looked at your page on taxes. I recommend that you read the "FairTax." Implementing the FairTax will get rid of all 100,000 IRS employees. If I read your proposal correctly, your plan does not do that. In the spirit of todays discussion, I think most of us agree getting rid of extra government employees is a good start. And I can think of no one who doesn't work there who wants to keep the IRS. If you need a copy, I'll send you one.

Not surprising

"The Washington Post reports ominously: 'In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier.'"

This isn't ominous. This should be expected with the turnover in Congress; left-leaning individuals and organizations who before did not have a market for their lobbying efforts (or at least not a productive market) now see potential. Comparing these registrations in the sixth year of an all-Republican government to the first year of a newly Democratic Congress is simply not a valid comparison.

.

we need a name!
I have noticed a lot of posts recently by libertarians who agree with the overwhelming majority of libertarian principles, but part ways with CATO and other purists on foreign policy.

So what can we call us libertarians who favor a strong government when it comes to foreign policy and national defense, and a proactive war against Islamism?

I wish we could just call ourselves Republicans...

Stossel and Me
Stossel is a genius, and he's a critical figure in the restoration of conservatism. Instead of shouting at liberals, we need to explain as conservatives why we believe what we do. Stossel does it brilliantly, in simple, compelling words. The rest of us need to learn from him. In my column tomorrow (click on name above) I'll continue my series of on what conservatives must do to start winning again. Come visit!

steve

Trough, Trougha, Troughus
There's no doubt the public trough is getting larger, but then, so is the population. Unfortunately, the percentage is off. By itself, the trough is bigger than it need be to protect and provide for the citizenry. Big Daddy government is looked to for protection against the vicissitudes of life. Long ago, our families and neighbors took care of such things, now we look to the government. In most cases, welfare is a necessity since the families and neighbors no longer provide the sustenance for the needy individuals. There are hundreds of reasons for this, from missing Dads to illness. So, we can't cut the trough completely.

My belief is that subsidies and grants need to be drastically reduced. Billions of taxpayer dollars can be re-directed if we do that. Re-directed to other areas and back to the taxpayer.

We need to change Congressional Rules to state that a spending bill of any type must pass with a 2/3rds vote. No riders should be allowed on these bills. If the pork---excuse me, of course I mean the additional funds---are necessary and proper, then they can fly alone.

The trough would really shrink drastically, wouldn't it?

NO ONE NEEDS TO VISIT STEVE
HE ADDS NOTHING BUT SPAM

Galltegfa
I agree with your lib servants line but not all defense contractors. Remember, the libs cut defense spending and the number of troops. Less of both mean less money for these contractors. I would therefore say they would want good repubs in. Makes sense if you think about it.

eastlake joe
[Galltegfa from home computer here] I agree that not all defense contractors are libs; however, I happen to know several employees of defense contractors who were betting the farm on Kerry in the belief that his election would somehow loosen the federal purse strings and ensure that their contracts were renewed. I cannot fathom the logic that brought them to that conclusion, but these are the same people who want us to boycott Exxon in the belief that it will lower gasoline prices.

I know several defense contractors
who weren't even defense contactors, but shell companies run by friends of Duke Cunningham. And if it wreren't for an inquisitive reporter from the San Diego Union(you know, the dreaded MSM), they might still be subverting the defense appropriations process.

GWB
[Galltegfa from home computer here - I know, I have no life] Let's just for the sake of argument concede that what you say is true and we somehow brought 9/11 on ourselves: Do you believe that we should let Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the independent Jihadists build their numbers and hatch their plots against us without attempting to prevent them from succeeding?

Even if we did somehow provoke these otherwise gentle, peaceful people into taking out 3,000 of our civilians, we cannot allow people of a similar mind to attempt another such strike. They have been unambiguous about their intentions to either put us all under Sharia law or kill us, so I'm inclined to pre-empt them.

And for my money, that means hunting down every last one of them and killing them. They have shown that they mean business by sawing off the heads of their infidel captives, so clearly there is no reasoning with them.

I also happen to believe that taking Saddam out was necessary. No one challenged the idea that he was in the process of building or acquiring WMD, and he'd already used them on the Kurds and the Iranians, so there was no reason to think he wouldn't do it again.

Our action to take him out in 2003 was justified in his failure to comply with the terms of the ceasefire after Gulf War I. And I can't imagine that anyone thought letting him keep Kuwait was a good idea, so he sealed his own fate when he publicly supported the terrorists. Even Clinton's intel people advocated regime change, so this was not an idea Bush II cooked up.

So, as far as I'm concerned Iraq is the main front in the war on Islamofascism. Al Qaeda is now one of the key players in the hostilities there, as are the Syrians and the Iranians. And again, whether they were originally minding their own business before we got into Iraq or not, they have entered the fray and opposed us. We cannot leave that unanswered, lest we invite more of the same.

The most basic principle in human psychology is "Rewarded Behavior Gets Repeated." If we do not eliminate the enemy - even if we picked this fight, which I don't believe we did - we must finish it victoriously and unequivocally or more of our civilians, our kids, grandkids, wives, and loved ones, will be killed.

And for what it's worth, I think these people are vicious religious fanatics who belong to a cult of death. They have shown that they will sacrifice their own children as suicide bombers for their cause. They will let their daughters burn alive before letting them be seen uncovered. They will mutilate their women's genitals for some twisted reason. They will stone their wives to death if they somehow dishonor their families. They will saw off the heads of infidels to demonstrate publicly how barbaric they are. I see no reasoning with them; I see no negotiating or coming to terms with them; I see no reason to give them a chance to harm me and mine if I can prevent it.

So, whether we bungled our foreign policy along the line somewhere, their reaction is far out of proportion. We now can only protect ourselves and our loved ones by totally destroying this enemy.

Taliesin
"So, whether we bungled our foreign policy along the line somewhere, their reaction is far out of proportion. We now can only protect ourselves and our loved ones by totally destroying this enemy."

It may be out of proportion to you but with Iran we overthrew their popularly elected head of state and installed a despot. What does twenty years of oppression call for? How about we respect their sovereignty for once, it would keep them less radical and save us another unnecessary war. Just because individual bombers are suicidal doesn't mean that the nations are suicidal. How many people support the war and how many fight it? Why should we expect that to be much different over there.

Then we continually intervene in the Arab Israeli conflict. It provides the US with absolutely no benefit. What has Israel ever done for us? Spy on us, accept our welfare dollars, why are they such a great ally? Why is alliance with Israel so much more beneficial than neutrality in the Arab Israeli conflict. We fund both sides, favor one, and do nothing but open ourselves up for more terrorism.

Finally you appear to have no knowledge of the historical backround I provided in my last post. If you are unaware of those important events, how can you even make educated decisions on foreign policy? Your gut is not your brain. And no we have no place in fighting Shiites, they didn't take out the towers. Our enemy is Al Qaeda, Iraq was a planned diversion. Bush may have advocated a "humble" foreign policy and no nation building but he stocked himself with advisers that cheered Clinton's intervention into Kosovo and were advocating massive intervention into the middle east before 9/11, praying for a reason. The War on Terror is a sham, the War on Al Qaeda is what we should be fighting. I really get sick and tired of these people who advocate "permanent revolution" with complete ignorance of our current geopolitical, military, and economic situation. Also the fact that they neglect the big supporters of Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. If one realizes this they cannot help but see complete stupidity in stirring up the Shiites, especially when we need them to stabilize Iraq.

Talking points and utopian dreams do not win wars. Democracy spreading is Bush's League of Nations.

The Public Trough
In the city I live in, Half the city is on some form or other of Government Assistance.

reply to George W. Bush
Whoo-wee... better watch out about speaking inconvenient truths about the M.E.! The Thought Police here might get you... "where your opinion counts"-- unless you challenge certain putative verities!

lodestar
"We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card ASAP for ANY non-citizen to function here period"

I agree with you on most things, but you are flat out wrong about this. The only IDs that are soon coming our way are for US. It's called the REAL ID Act. It was passed long ago and it will be implemented very soon. All of us will have NATIONAL ID CARDS, complete with biometrics, with our information stored in a national database. Ever heard of "papers please?"

As far as identifying the illegal aliens, lodestar. We have means available right now. Some states need to tighten up on the IDs that they give out. For example, birth certificates. Some states use tamper-resistant paper that is extremely hard to duplicate. The issuance of Social Security cards also needs to be tightened up. There have been instances of THOUSANDS of people using the same exact social security number for services (i.e. freebies, that are coming out of yours and my pockets) and work. A mechanism exists today to verify whether a SS number is valid. All anyone has to do is check it.

No, we do not need national identification cards. They stand against everything a free society is all about.

Taliesin
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

Saddam and Al Qaeda were sworn enemies. So, in order to go after Al Qaeda, we depose their sworn enemy? This make sense to you?

We had plans to invade Iraq and cause a regime change as far back as 1998. Read Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

Read, "A Clean Break". A plan that the neoconservatives developed for Israel, many of whom are now in our foreign policy, http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

Our current actions in the Middle East are doing nothing more than convincing a whole lot of other Middle Easterners', that the Islamic crazies were right all along. We are creating one heck of a lot of additional enemies that we previously did not have. There's nothing like a common enemy to bring once disparate people together.

George W Bush
I second Lodestar's comment. GREAT post!

utahnotmormon
Ah... but RON PAUL does. ;-)

Recap of the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo&eurl=

Ron Paul for President '08 -- "Hope for America"
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom
http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

His new book on foreign policy:
http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=2

"There is one and only one voice in Congress for a foreign policy of freedom, and it belongs to Ron Paul, who has stood alone for freedom for many years. Ron is the seemingly impossible: a voice for reason and truth in a den of thieves." -- the Mises Institute

GWB & Liberty
I don't care whether Saddam had a direct hand in 9-11 or not. He publicly supported our terrorist enemies, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to conclude that he would have supplied some terrorist organization with the means to do severe damage to us if he could; he already had a track record.

I think when Bush declared "Bring It On" he was inviting the terrorists of all Islamic stripes into the killing field. So, Bush made Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism, and good for him. I also think that our desire to limit collateral damage has hampered our opportunity to kill off as many of the terrorists as we could have.

I think our letting the Abu Grab incident get blown out of proportion was a PR disaster, especially knowing what the enemy is capable of. It really makes the case for taking no prisoners; however, there is much intelligence to be acquired from them that might shorten the war, so I have no problem doing whatever it takes to get them to talk. If you have a problem with that, imagine what lengths you'd go to save the life of your own family members, because, by extension, that's what this war is all about.
Would you let one of your family members die at the hands of one of these savages because it's not nice to make them stand on a box naked? Or it's not nice to run a little AC through them? I bet everyone would do whatever it took to spare their own from such a fate, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

I think Bush's biggest failure in this whole endeavor is the PR war. He has let the MSM get a free pass on how they've portrayed the war, and naturally it has not been to his benefit. Had the administration prosecuted a few leakers for treason, I suspect the MSM would have been a little more careful in its reporting.

But I think Bush knows that since he's not running for reelection, he can pretty much do what he wants as long as congress funds the war, and he apparently doesn't care what the press says about him; he's committed to his mission and he's going to see it through.

Either you believe that the Islamofascists are out to impose Sharia over us all or you don't. I do. And I don't believe this struggle will be over until we finish them all off.

Galltegfa
Yes, he's committed alright. He's committed, along with the other socialist-globalists, in putting the final cap on the destruction of our country.

Keep on cheering...


george w bush
The enemy of civilization is not Al Qaeda, pal, it is ISLAM. Al Qaeda is merely a tiny part of this cancer on mankind, born in violence and spreading same for 1500 years now. History at its basis is the story of competing ideologies fighting each other in a Darwinian universe. The battle against Islam is no different. Over the centuries and millennia to come Islam either will or will not win. With enough blind people like you around, it will.

Agree with Galltegfa
I agree with your comments Galltegfa.



"I'm not sure this is true, but somebody should look it up."--LGM

This is why Liberals are so dense and jump to wrong conclusions all the time, they do not bother to look at or search for the facts.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.