Bush speaks out

[SteamWake]

Ho boy cant wait to see where this goes !

Originally Posted by The Washington Times

Former President George W. Bush, outlining plans for a new public policy institute, on Thursday said America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector, declaring that too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.

Seems like common sense to me.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...onomic-growth/

[Dowly]

[Oberon]

Can't argue with it although I dare say there are those who will spin it all out of control from both sides.
Free markets work better when they are free, but there's always the risk that they'll be stupid, but that's what happens, the Victorians called it the hangover after the drink, boom times are followed by hard times, it's the cycle of economics. We'll pull out of this slump within the next couple of years and then by 2015-20 we'll be back in boom times until the next slump.

[SteamWake]

Pull out of the slump?

I'm not so sure when the feds are taking steps to ensure that we dont.

[Rockin Robbins]

Could this be a prime case of the wrong guy on the right side. He reminds me of Bernard...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Could this be a prime case of the wrong guy on the right side. He reminds me of Bernard...

I think Bernard is the right guy on the wrong side

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by The Washington Times
Former President George W. Bush, outlining plans for a new public policy institute, on Thursday said America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector, declaring that too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.

Not to piss anybody off here, but wasn't he the one that massively restricted personal freedom for the sake of national security?
I'm not an American, but from the outside I had that impression sometimes. I can see why some people are concerned about what Obama is doing at the moment, but it really annoys me when "freedom" to some seems to mean "economic freedom" almost exclusively. There's more to it than that.
Just my 0.02€

[SteamWake]

I dont know about 'massivly restricted' but some measures were put in place yes.

After all we had just been attacked on our own soil by terror... Im sorry a 'man made disastor'.

The mindset at the time was to protect ourselves from letting something like that happening again.

Frankly these 'massive restrictions' did not effect me personally at all. Then again I have nothing to hide.

But homeland security is not the main issue here. The issue is the intrusion of federal goverment into the private sector.

[August]

Originally Posted by Shearwater

Not to piss anybody off here, but wasn't he the one that massively restricted personal freedom for the sake of national security?

The US President doesn't make laws, that's the job of Congress. He just signs what they create.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I dont know about 'massivly restricted' but some measures were put in place yes.

To name a few of the more controversial ones out there on the Patriot Act alone:

Sec. 203 Articles B and D: Allows information from probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government involved in security.

Sec. 206: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices; thereby eliminating the need for separate court authorizations for a suspect's cell phone, PC, etc.

Sec. 215: Allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations.

Sec. 218: Allows for the easier launching of foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches.

Sec. 213: Allows "Sneak and peek" search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target beforehand.

Sec. 805: Expands the existing ban on giving "material support" to "traitors" to include "expert advice or assistance."

And thanks to supporters of it, it was passed back through Congress and signed back into law by him in 2006. So we're stuck with this crap for several more years. At least Obama was proposing that some of the sections inside be cut or broadened more to prevent misuse in the future (though we're all still pretty pissed that he's not attempting to repeal it). Whether or not the politicians will agree, none of us are at true liberty to say.

Originally Posted by SteamWake

After all we had just been attacked on our own soil by terror... Im sorry a 'man made disastor'.

And that justifies damning some of the more precious liberties we're supposed to have as inalienable rights according to the Framers? People were scared, I can understand that. But for all those who accuse now Obama and his office of invading their rights by proposing (mind you, proposing) that the federal government be more active in the regulation of private businesses, why weren't you doing the same (or more) when the Patriot Act was brought up and passed? I'm curious.

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The mindset at the time was to protect ourselves from letting something like that happening again.

Sure was.

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Frankly these 'massive restrictions' did not effect me personally at all. Then again I have nothing to hide.

You know, I've been hearing a lot of people say the same thing- yet for some reason they had no problem with the Patriot Act allowing the government the ability to almost completely ignore privacy laws, but they have a problem with HR45 asking them simply to list the firearms they own on their 1040 federal tax form (see Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009).

Originally Posted by SteamWake

But homeland security is not the main issue here. The issue is the intrusion of federal goverment into the private sector.

But it is an issue. A very relevant issue considering that it pertains to the integrity of the man speaking.

Originally Posted by August

The US President doesn't make laws, that's the job of Congress. He just signs what they create.

And in signing makes what they create law. He could have vetoed it, but he signed it. Twice. And now it is in action. For the second time. Thankfully, people are starting to go back and look at it and ask that it be amended at the very least to keep the government from misusing it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Thankfully, people are starting to go back and look at it and ask that it be amended at the very least to keep the government from misusing it.

None of that invalidates the need to pass it in the first place. Has Congress EVER passed a set of laws of similar scope that DIDN'T need further amendment?

[Freiwillige]

Our forefathers :"Give me liberty or Give me death!"

Bush "Give up your liberty or were all gonna DIE!"

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

After all we had just been attacked on our own soil by terror... Im sorry a 'man made disastor'.

The mindset at the time was to protect ourselves from letting something like that happening again.

I don't disagree, and it seemed reasonable at the time. And iirc, a lot of these measures were initiated by the administration - not only by laws.But I to me some of the measures simply overshot the mark (either in their extent, or in their duration) - as I said, I'm not an American, and I probably only have a vague idea of how the terrorism of 9/11 (I don't mind calling a spade a spade) affected US citizens emotionally.
The 2004 elections show that the majority believed Bush was right back then, and the people who praised Obama in 2008 could well have done the same four years earlier with Kerry if they really wanted to get rid of Bush. I like Obama and I didn't like Bush, but they're only politicians (and probably not very exceptional ones at that). Neither one of them is worth the effort of getting at each other's throat (not targeted at you or anyone here; I'm just thinking of the Bush = Hitler / Obama = Messiah bs).

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Frankly these 'massive restrictions' did not effect me personally at all. Then again I have nothing to hide.

Yes, but the question isn't only: What do you have to hide? But also: What do you have to show?

Originally Posted by SteamWake

But homeland security is not the main issue here. The issue is the intrusion of federal goverment into the private sector.

Yes I see, but as I said, there has been massive government intrusion before, only on a different level. It boils down once again to the question of what the government should and shouldn't do I guess.
Sometimes I regret that I wasn't signed up in the Bush years already
But I think I'm spent for now

Edit: Seems like Stealth Hunter has already said what I posted just now But hey, I already had a beer

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

After all we had just been attacked on our own soil by terror... Im sorry a 'man made disastor'.

These are dangerous times. When we are afraid, we want to be protected, and since we can not protect ourselves against such horrors as mass murder by bombers, we are tempted to run to the government.

A government that is always willing to trade the promise of protection for our freedom, which left, as always the question: how much freedom are we willing to relinquish for such a bald promise?

- Gerry Spence From Freedom to Slavery (1995)

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by August

None of that invalidates the need to pass it in the first place. Has Congress EVER passed a set of laws of similar scope that DIDN'T need further amendment?

Well actually it does. It's a violation of privacy; not to mention the legal processes of the Constitution as far as warrants, searches, etc. are concerned. Simply put, the Framers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what these people and Bush had done. For a man who has such problems with the government invading into his life and the lives of his fellow citizens, you gladly would defend an act which states that allows them to conduct searches without notifying their quarry first.