Recently, Liberal politicians in Washington have been using two streams of thought to justify their legislative priorities. One, that we as a nation are in the midst of a depression, and two, that we need a government driven solution, (a’ la a new New Deal) to stimulate our economy out of this depression.
As a conservative, I reject these notions. I will admit that our economy has seen better days, however, I think that it is important to remember what President Reagan often told us; that America’s best days aren’t behind us, but ahead of us. Liberalism’s success feeds on the fear and depression of the American public. I am not willing to contribute to their successes.
Secondly, I am fervently against the 885 billion “economic stimulus” bill that is being forced into action by the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats. The key to any government driven “stimulus” package is federally employed public works programs. It may sound good when they say that we will save our economy by building roads, bridges, and schools.. However, don’t be mislead.
The problem with public works programs are that they don’t last. It is all good and dandy to provide workers with temporary jobs, but what happens when the projects are finished? Will we be in the same mess then that we are in now? The sad answer is yes. Our congressional leadership would do well to consider this before they fashion any sort of stimulus bill.
The bottom line is that we don’t need more government to solve our problems for us, we need less government. For an administration that is supposed to represent something new and fresh, this so called “new New Deal” looks awfully familiar. Do we really expect these 20th century ideas to help us with our 21st century problems? I sure don’t.
To my great interest, democratic voters seem to be making the worst mistake that anyone could be possible of making, which is, going about the process of making Hillary Rodham Clinton their presidential nominee. With her usual “do anything to get what I want” mentality, Sen. Clinton has nearly trumped Barack Obama’s momentum by winning the state primaries of both New Hampshire and Nevada. Somehow, Sen. Clinton has tapped into all of the traditional democratic demographics, and actually convinced people to vote for her. (either by way of crying, or by some monotone stump speech.) To be candid, I don’t understand how she fools these poor people.
Regardless of how she might manage to secure the nomination, a whole smorgasboard of both problems and possibilities are presented to the Republican Party in the event of a Clinton nomination. Firstly, conservatives don’t need to underestimate Sen. Clinton’s ambition. It would be a huge mistake to write her chances off just on the fact that she is unlikable. Hillary Clinton doesn’t play by the usual “friendly face” rules, she will say anything or do anything to get elected. After all, in a family where convicted perjury doesn’t bring about consequences, honesty isn’t naturally a very high priority.
On the other hand, conservatives,( Or should I say “Vast Right Wing Conspirators”?) have a ton of ammunition to use against the Clinton’s. I’m not talking about the usual 1990’s talking points, but the inevitable fact that the Clinton’s will always screw themselves over in the end. We should also bring to light that Sen. Clinton really doesn’t have any experience. I don’t know how she gets away with passing off that she is actually qualified to be president. Because aside from her time in the senate, what qualifies her? Where are these “35 years” of experience coming from? I just don’t see what she is talking about.
Recently, Liberal politicians in Washington have been using two streams of thought to justify their legislative priorities. One, that we as a nation are in the midst of a depression, and two, that we need a government driven solution, (a’ la a new New Deal) to stimulate our economy out of this depression.