Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 7:27:50 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Are these concepts favored by the majority?

quote:

President-elect Barack Obama enunciated his vision for an activist -- and expansive -- government as the best way to address the economic crisis

It is a neutral question, since, it isn't a 'traditional' Republican ideal..
quote:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has long championed the idea that the era of shrinking government ushered in by President Ronald Reagan had ended,

...and it doesn't follow the Administrative practice of the most commonly referenced successful Democratic Administration....
quote:

a stunning rejection of then President Bill Clinton's 1996 declaration in his State of the Union address that "the era of big government is over."


What political philosophy does it use as a model? Are there any historic references of success at any level of use?

Senator Schumer goes further and says; "government does have a role to play in their everyday lives." Do you believe this?

Looking around, and taking some generational responsibility, I understand that we've nurtured a generation of entailment seekers. I've discovered recently that parents don't even feel it their responsibility to feed their children and send them to school expecting the school to provide breakfast, lunch, and an after school 'snack'. I learned this while looking into local calls for spending cuts and expected that 'need' came into play, but no - show up to school and be fed - no qualifier. Shouts of "DON'T STARVE OUR CHILDREN" come from the audience. Here I thought it was a parent's job. Silly me - it's an expectation of government; "a role to play in everyday life".

Is there a majority who are so convinced they can't take care of themselves and their responsibilities that they look forward to abdicating their personal responsibility over their everyday lives over to the government?

An additional $1 Trillion in spending promised to be added to the deficit. What happened to those Nationally and on these boards who claimed that it was unfair and irresponsible for any administration to create a deficit that must be paid by our children?

The first wave of 600,000 more bureaucrats will soon be hired. Obviously based upon the 'plan' their job will be to "play a role in your everyday life"

Who is looking forward to that promise being fulfilled?

Source document for all quotes: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/obama_bets_big_on_big_governme.html

Ciao!
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 7:59:31 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Senator Schumer goes further and says; "government does have a role to play in their everyday lives." Do you believe this?

The only role government has in my life is to stand on the street corner like the benighted bedraggled mendicant that it is begging pitifully for pennies.

In all other respects, I want government to stay very far away from me and mine--preferably so far away as to no longer exist.


_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 8:08:41 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		 

Your angst should be directed towards bush,who literally robbed the store empty ,let the foxes guard the hen house and ruined the capitalist system.Read the news lately?

Not the guy picked to fix the mess.

Do I understand Merc,that you would do nothing and let us possibly slide into economic depression and double digit un-employment?

Are you still one of those who think the "market" knows best?

Pssst,...It was the "market" that made this mess.

Why attack the life guard for trying to resuscitate the victim?

Why no vinegar for the guys who tried to drown the victim?

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 8:16:40 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Three words stand out :

abdicate
responsibility
government

That's the new way. Insurance has contributed, hand in hand witrh government, but in the end the responsibiliy for this mess lies with the people. Welfare is a form of insurance, unemployment is actually called UI in this state, guess what the I stands for. Car liability insurance, mandated by guess who. House insurance. Health insurance/public hospitals.

So as a result we now got people used to it, so they don't have to be valuable at work, nor even work at all, can drive like maniacs and let their kids play with matches. They can live on junk food like hohos and twinkies and then can get a power wheelchair at no cost. Just call the scooter store.

There was a time when you had to produce at work, or starve, you had one car and if you wrecked it you walked. You had to teach your kids not to play with matches (or guns). You knew you had to eat right and live right because otherwise you would get sick and maybe die.

So I totally agree, but what people have done is simply to respond to their environment.

T

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 8:24:36 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59 

Your angst should be directed towards bush,who literally robbed the store empty ,let the foxes guard the hen house and ruined the capitalist system.Read the news lately?

Not the guy picked to fix the mess.

Do I understand Merc,that you would do nothing and let us possibly slide into economic depression and double digit un-employment?

Are you still one of those who think the "market" knows best?

Pssst,...It was the "market" that made this mess.

Why attack the life guard for trying to resuscitate the victim?

Why no vinegar for the guys who tried to drown the victim?


59,
The fact that you chose to not respond to any point and instead attack me and assume my position is very telling.

I'm "attacking" by publishing? That is a very defeatist attitude.

The market? What is that all about? How is that in the equation? Maybe spend some time on projecting the outcome would be a more valuable use of your time, instead of blind, 'follow the leader' acceptance.

Do nothing is what you take from the post? Again, a long way from pointing to what is being planned. Nowhere is my idea included in the OP, but if it were it would be a simple matter of CUTS in welfare, and personal responsibility, and LESS government as President Clinton suggested.

Unfortunately for you, its not President Bush responsible for adding a Trillion to the deficit. Would you like a quote of yours as to how you reacted to the idea of increasing the deficit less than one year ago? Would it be hypocrisy or rationalization?

Forget about the me, the messenger. 59 - stand up and be counted as in favor or against unbridled spending and deficit, business credits, stimulus checks, ALL President Bush actions over the past 4 years, or not.

Tell me how much you'll enjoy living in a US with more daily government involvement in your life. That's the question. My perspective shouldn't affect yours, unless you can't stand as proud behind that ideal.

I have no "angst" only the ability to read and project out the consequence of the 'plan'. If it causes "angst" in you to hear it - well...

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 8:51:10 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		 

Again,when heroic efforts are required,Merc,why "criticize" the Dr.?

He didn`t create the injury.

It`s a legitimate question and not an "attack" on you,per se.

You`re only repeating the righties latest talking points,I understand.Sorry if my question bothered
you.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 9:09:50 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Funny that you mention doctors as the best description I have heard for the ideas Obama mentioned in his speach as Stimulants for the economy was when someone likened the computers for teachers and Laboratories for Jr Colleges were to economic emergency stimulants what vitamin perscriptions are to a heart attack. A general good idea but woefully lacking in immediate pay off.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 9:55:14 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		just think, it all ends July 5th 2009.   hello hyper inflation.  good bye USD

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 11:06:34 AM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline 		Well, with all due respect, an "activist Government" does follow the traditional Keynesian response to a LARGE economic downturn. Although Obama's response may be a bit overwhelming it is not without precedent, and is prescribed by a number of economic analysts. I am not sure that the 600,000 jobs thing might not be an over statement it might very well come to that. To sit and do nothing is not an option when you see the growing unemployment and a general malaise in almost all business activity.Not all the ills can be cured by government as we have discussed before but, to watch as the populace becomes more and more reticent to spend, and the unemployment grows is no time for inactivity. The government cannot be the cure all but, can indeed prompt action by others. I do not think that another round of stimulus checks is the answer, nor do we need more corporate bailouts but, the people in the trenches that work for a living need help, less taxes, an opportunity to support themselves and their families and this is how the present administration hopes to remedy the sick economy.
Owner is correct that the previous administration has left this huge mess and it is Obama's to fix but, without a crystal ball we are all just guessing to a degree. It is his to actually come up with something to help spur the economy back into some growth. I hope with all of my heart his cure fits the illness!

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 11:28:12 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:


Again,when heroic efforts are required,Merc,why "criticize" the Dr.?

Heroic efforts are NOT required.

Simple efforts may be helpful.

Government can never spend money with the effectiveness or efficiency of the private citizen, either individually or corporately. Even Dear Leader's own presumed economic experts acknowledge there are not enough "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects for stimulus in that direction to achieve rapid economic impact. (Not to mention that when urban hubs such as Edwardsville Alabama, population 194, miraculously come up with $375 million worth of such projects, including an alternative-energy "museum", the capacity for such spending to achieve any meaningful impact at all requires an extraordinary suspension of disbelief).

Dear Leader's pontifications and Paul Krugman's let's-pretend economic blatherings to the contrary, government does not create jobs, but destroys jobs, government does not facilitate economic activity but hinders economic activity. Government regulation is the root cause of the current financial fiascoes, and more government regulation will only add to this country's economic turmoil, rather than lessen it.

Yes, in Dear Leader's chosen mythology, FDR saved the US by spending money the government didn't have. In the real world, FDR prolonged and worsened the Depression, and only those generous public servants Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo bailed the US out by starting WWII.

We do not need heroic government. We need simple government. We need less government.

My hope is that Dear Leader will fall flat on his face, that Queen Nancy and Helpless Reid will be so preoccupied with conquering the Executive Branch that they will forget to actually pass laws. Since we are not likely to get less government, the next best thing is paralyzed and ineffectual government.

_____________________________



(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 12:04:32 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		the 700 bln $ bail out was the point of no return.  our fate is sealed.    not so much that they approved it- but did so with NO oversight.

the money is illegal as the constitution says only congress can coin money and it must be silver and gold.   so fake money renders the debts as fake.

1. a stroke of the pen by the prez could null the derivatives.... which JP morgan has over 100 trl of.

2.  the govt could suspend mandates that they passed down to the states and counties.  the states and counties could follow suit.

3. we could re-continue Kennedys order 11110, which began to issue silver - not the fed res.

4. we could have a 2 tier % rate.

5. we could shoot the men who swindled us before they flea to non-extradition countries.



(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 12:34:53 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Again,when heroic efforts are required,Merc,why "criticize" the Dr.?

He didn`t create the injury.

It`s a legitimate question and not an "attack" on you,per se.

You`re only repeating the righties latest talking points,I understand.Sorry if my question bothered
you.

59,

Again where's the "criticism"? Where is the right/left perspective? Where's the slant?

Apparently, similar to your position on the deficit it makes a difference to you "who did it" and who does it in regards to the promised spending plan. I'd ask why, but agenda based acceptance seems the obvious answer.
This is directed to what is being planned, and it's consequence. I see it as worse than any possible. More government, 600,000 bureaucrats, unbridled spending, and more rewarding failure. Worse - it uses President Bush's ideas regarding "stimulus" - just more so. Surprised to see you defending it so much.

Sidestepping a direct question seems to be your forte not mine. You want more government in your life - say so, or not. Must be difficult for you to face the reality you see presented. You think daily government involvement in the lives of its citizens represents "heroic efforts"? I think it represents exactly what it is, a move to socialism, unless you can answer the question I asked, is there any other name for it?

Go on - surprise me - actually respond directly.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 3:24:34 PM   
awmslave


Posts: 599
Joined: 3/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Do I understand Merc,that you would do nothing and let us possibly slide into economic depression and double digit un-employment?

The size of government should be optimal to perform duties listed in US Constitution. US government size is obviosly in excess.
I find new administration approach scary. They may bancrupt US within a short period of time. There is no obvious evidence that huge government spending program (that by the way lacks clear vision of sustainable economic recovery) helps economy in major way. It surely did not help to get out of Big Depression in 1930-s. I would recommend rather to introduce major structural changes (mostly through tax policies, reformed regulations, penalties, labor policies) into economy and end stupid trade policies. These things would cost some money but not trillions and would produce results.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 4:37:52 PM   
MmeGigs


Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Even Dear Leader's own presumed economic experts


You really piss me off.

I really want to understand where people who disagree with me - you included - stand on issues and I try to be open minded, but your insistence on this assinine "Dear Leader" crap inclines me to dismiss pretty much anything you have to say.  It's clear that you've got some kind of stick up your ass and are unwilling to look past it to find solutions to the problems that we're facing.

Get over your bad self.  If you're the least bit interested in finding acutal solutions to the problems that face us as a nation, you'll acknowledge that there are differences of opinion on these issues that need to be addressed, and that any solution will need to address these concerns. 

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 6:25:11 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		With borrowing over $1.3 Trillion this past year alone at the federal level. With throwing over a $1 Trillion at wall street and spending what will be trillions on a devastating and utterly unecessary war...ALL BETS are OFF.

Yes, I do believe that you meant to write entitlement seekers. Either way posts like this make me cringe. It is more than a bit surprising that such a discussion vis-a-vis govt. involvement in ANYTHING doesn't start out with "After dishing out a $1 Trillion to wall street....what do you think about govt. feeding our kids at school, or rebuilding their schools, or financing health care or....and on and on and on...and that the culture of welfare and dependency should now be enthroned.

That fact alone stands atop the debate about welfarism, liberal spending. The whole question of what money is spent through govt. on whose behalf no matter who benefits...is now rendered moot. The right is the capitalist wing of politics and the left is labor...simple as that now. (actually 40-50 years)

Once the capitalist as reflected in this blatent socialism for the investor class, and 'feeding him expensive dinners' to wall street before our children or a modicum of health care for them and he having his pain felt, govt. can feel and should feel...everybody's pain.

(in reply to MmeGigs)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 7:10:49 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


Again,when heroic efforts are required,Merc,why "criticize" the Dr.?

Heroic efforts are NOT required.

Simple efforts may be helpful.

Government can never spend money with the effectiveness or efficiency of the private citizen, either individually or corporately. Even Dear Leader's own presumed economic experts acknowledge there are not enough "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects for stimulus in that direction to achieve rapid economic impact. (Not to mention that when urban hubs such as Edwardsville Alabama, population 194, miraculously come up with $375 million worth of such projects, including an alternative-energy "museum", the capacity for such spending to achieve any meaningful impact at all requires an extraordinary suspension of disbelief).

Dear Leader's pontifications and Paul Krugman's let's-pretend economic blatherings to the contrary, government does not create jobs, but destroys jobs, government does not facilitate economic activity but hinders economic activity. Government regulation is the root cause of the current financial fiascoes, and more government regulation will only add to this country's economic turmoil, rather than lessen it.

Yes, in Dear Leader's chosen mythology, FDR saved the US by spending money the government didn't have. In the real world, FDR prolonged and worsened the Depression, and only those generous public servants Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo bailed the US out by starting WWII.

We do not need heroic government. We need simple government. We need less government.

My hope is that Dear Leader will fall flat on his face, that Queen Nancy and Helpless Reid will be so preoccupied with conquering the Executive Branch that they will forget to actually pass laws. Since we are not likely to get less government, the next best thing is paralyzed and ineffectual government.

Makes me laugh to read such from someone who is so obviously unaware of the events going on right around him. You are in a make-believe world...blind to the heist put upon our treasury, our taxes and our children into the capitalist propaganda of get govt. out of business. What unmitigated bullshit.

It is precisely because the capitalist has purchased this bailout through the plutocracy (again...78-80% against any bailouts) that all idealogical debate and denegration of FDR and the left...is way OFF the fucking table. If you truly were objective and particularly with the change in banking laws...FDR SAVED capitalism. The FDIC was the biggie there...socialized single payer bank insurance. FDR tried to bring a little transparency and dare I say...honesty to capitlaisn and banking. He capitalist still tried to buy his way out...dragged kicking and screaming al the way to law.

Public stock corporatism has not created one new net job in 50 years...in THIS country. Public corporatism and in general is a job KILLER.  Corporatism does not serve society or its collective goals...it serves only the investor and those that get out before they get financially raped by management.

Repubs have added to spending, the deficit and the federal govt. payroll and the federal govt.'s overall presence in Americans lives exponentially more than FDR did....the result of which presents us with some of the biggest problems ever in this country's history. The only exception was the internment of any Americans of Japanese decent...during a world war.

What prolonged the depression was the fed cut off the money supply and got FDR to conscript gold...putting almost half the population in abject poverty even if working and 25% (1 of 4) able bodied adults out of work.


(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 9:27:32 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		I'm sorry MS hasn't created a job
Exxon hasn't created a job
Wallmart hasn't created a job.

The fact that you use the term net job still doesn't make the statement true.
We import workers from other countries every year to fill corporate jobs  and having had near full employment along with the still although far less quickly growing workforce says net job creation has occured.

I'm not saying that corporate wlefare is the solution, hell I was against the bailouts and remain so for the most part. although the need to prime the mump after stopping the bleeding isn't lost on me.

Government spending is by it's very nature less efficient than private spending. The government friction certainly exceeds the private corporate friction when moving money.
I much prefer the idea floated out of Texas of the national tax holiday Including income tax SS tax and medicare tax for 6 months as a truely immediate priming of the economic pumps eliminating the friction of government by leaving the money with the people who earned it. and it only matches the numbers proposed to be filtered through the government in the current scheme.



(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 9:53:43 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

I'm sorry MS hasn't created a job
Exxon hasn't created a job
Wallmart hasn't created a job.

The fact that you use the term net job still doesn't make the statement true.
We import workers from other countries every year to fill corporate jobs  and having had near full employment along with the still although far less quickly growing workforce says net job creation has occured.

I'm not saying that corporate wlefare is the solution, hell I was against the bailouts and remain so for the most part. although the need to prime the mump after stopping the bleeding isn't lost on me.

Government spending is by it's very nature less efficient than private spending. The government friction certainly exceeds the private corporate friction when moving money.
I much prefer the idea floated out of Texas of the national tax holiday Including income tax SS tax and medicare tax for 6 months as a truely immediate priming of the economic pumps eliminating the friction of government by leaving the money with the people who earned it. and it only matches the numbers proposed to be filtered through the government in the current scheme.

I said NEW NET jobs. MS, Exxon et al have created jobs for those already laid-off by corp. America. The same corp. America has 'created' 2 million and by some estimates 7 million jobs OUTSIDE the US. (since you mentioned it, IBM and Exxon in a refutation of the value of corp. America is spending $24 billion in their cash...NOT in new markets, not in expanding existing markets i.e....not creating jobs. No, they are doing what ? They are doing what capitalists as corporatists always do, buying there own paper back. I think they call this paper...stock.

My whole point is that on idealogical grounds, the economic debate between right and left is and has been for decades...reduced to labor vs capital. Kinkroids...like Warren Buffet (the crown prince of capitalism) was quoted as saying that "if there is class warfare in this country...my class is winning."

I say they are winning and winning big. Not only do they make the profits...the taxpayer takes the risk. That risk is now what...a couple trillion dollars. Get a grip...have some perspective.

With all due respect Archer...things like tax holidays only replicate the 'Great Roman grain handout' and become expensive short term fiscal gadgets...that are a blip on the entire economic radar and seek only to feel our short term pain.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 1/9/2009 10:09:42 PM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/9/2009 10:27:32 PM   
Lorr47


Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

The first wave of 600,000 more bureaucrats will soon be hired. Obviously based upon the 'plan' their job will be to "play a role in your everyday life"


That is the most frightening sentence I have read in years.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? - 1/10/2009 1:53:15 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

Well, with all due respect, an "activist Government" does follow the traditional Keynesian response to a LARGE economic downturn. Although Obama's response may be a bit overwhelming it is not without precedent, and is prescribed by a number of economic analysts. I am not sure that the 600,000 jobs thing might not be an over statement it might very well come to that. To sit and do nothing is not an option when you see the growing unemployment and a general malaise in almost all business activity.Not all the ills can be cured by government as we have discussed before but, to watch as the populace becomes more and more reticent to spend, and the unemployment grows is no time for inactivity. The government cannot be the cure all but, can indeed prompt action by others. I do not think that another round of stimulus checks is the answer, nor do we need more corporate bailouts but, the people in the trenches that work for a living need help, less taxes, an opportunity to support themselves and their families and this is how the present administration hopes to remedy the sick economy.
Owner is correct that the previous administration has left this huge mess and it is Obama's to fix but, without a crystal ball we are all just guessing to a degree. It is his to actually come up with something to help spur the economy back into some growth. I hope with all of my heart his cure fits the illness!

True, the fact that Paulson and Company have twisted the banks arms to get them to renegotiate mortgages and solidfy their value rather than buying mortgages outright reflects in large part the fact that that the personnel with the experience to sort out these complicated transactions on the taxpayers behalf simply don't exist - the entire regulatory arm of the government has been gutted - we've lots of new homeland security staff and border guards, but few people who understand the complexities of modern economics - our glorious leader expounding the depth of his grasp on economics:

“There’s no question about it. Wall Street got drunk — that’s one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras — it got drunk and now it’s got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments.”
– George W. Bush, speaking at a private fundraiser, Houston, Texas, July 18, 2008

Other people do his thinking for him, he's busy.



(in reply to SilverMark)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Activist & Expansive Government - Mandate? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094