"DSK" wrote in message

I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place,


Maxprop wrote:
If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better
place," then you're probably right.

One of the things that strikes me about your political statements is how
utterly hypocritical they are.

Is "increasing the size of government" a bad thing? If so, then why do
you support President George W. Bush, who has increased the size 7
expense of gov't considerably? You speculate that Kerry might do
something that Bush has already done, and condemn Kerry... hypocrisy,
nyet?

In response to yours, Vito's and thunder's comments, there is a huge
difference between expanding the size of government and overspending. Yes,
W has set a new precedent in spending, especially for a republican. I'm
hardly pleased with that. Even the conservative side of the congressional
aisle is disturbed by his spending habits. But spending is reversible.
Budgets can be balanced. Fiscal responsibility is incumbent upon any
president and congress. So is holding the size of government to its present
or an earlier level.

Beyond the Dept. of Homeland Security W hasn't expanded government as much
as some presidents have in the past. Ultimately Homeland Security should
encompass the CIA and the NSA and a few other less-prominent agencies under
one roof. Once the fallout settles in the intelligence reorganization,
which will certainly happen during the next four years despite who occupies
the oval orifice, the net size of gummint may be the same, or possibly even
less. But even if it grows, it will be by necessity and not by political
whim.

Government-sponsored health care--socialized medicine, essentially--would
eclipse nearly every other bureaucracy now in existence. It has been
estimated that Hillary's plan would have increased the size of government by
roughly 1/7 to /1/5 of its prevailing size in the early 90s. And once
instituted, such bureaucracies don't go away. Ever. And if you check the
records, you'll also discover that such agencies almost always self-expand
and cost increasingly more every year. They become huge, fund-sucking
monsters, spinning off subsidiary agencies to facilitate various aspects of
their own operations. And we taxpayers end up paying for it. Forever.

Hypocrisy? It might be, only if one is unable to differentiate between
expanding government and overspending.

Max