Once again, you have proved that you do not pay attention to details.
HR2295 was passed by the House on 09-29-1993. Gingrich voted YES (as is noted clearly on the link you provided).
While the synopsis does not mention funds for Russia, the bill itself includes the following section:
ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEW INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
SEC. 565. (a) Funds appropriated by this Act under the heading ‘‘Assistance for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union’’, and funds appropriated by the Supplemental Appropriations for the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Act, 1993, shall be available for economic assistance and for related programs as follows:
Section 565 then proceeds to allocate $2.9 billion dollars for various means of "assistance." A PDF file of the bill is available here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr2295rs/pdf/BILLS-103hr2295rs.pdf
Your claim that "the facts reveal that Gingrich does not support and never has supported large government involvement in Americans' lives!" is at best an attempt at brainwashing the public.
Even the liberal wackos at the Huffington Post love Gingrich:
"In his post-congressional life, Gingrich has been a vocal champion for mandated insurance coverage -- the very provision of President Obama's health care legislation that the Republican Party now decries as fundamentally unconstitutional.
"This mandate was hardly some little-discussed aspect of Gingrich's plan for health care reform. In the mid-2000s, he partnered with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to promote a centrist solution to fixing the nation's health care system. A July 22, 2005, Hotline article on one of the duo's events described the former speaker as endorsing not just state-based mandates (the linchpin of Romney's Massachusetts law) but 'some federal mandates' as well. A New York Sun writeup of what appears to be the same event noted that 'both politicians appeared to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/newt-gingrich-individual-mandate-romney_n_861017.html
On 05/14/2011 01:58 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:
This stat that you posted, purportedly "12.9 billion on 09-29-1993, including $2.5 Billion To Russia" didn't happen. Here is the Bill that passed, for $13.51 Billion, and that Gingrich voted for. Note that there was no funds alotted to Russia. The $12.9 Billion that alotted money to Russia, Gingrich voted "Nay" and the Bill did not pass:Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that appropriates $13.51 billion for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for fiscal year 1994.
Highlights:
- Prohibits use of funds for abortions as a method of family planning, or for any program or organization that motivates or coerces any individual to practice abortion, or performs involuntary sterilizations
- Excludes Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Iran, Serbia, Sudan, and Syria from any federal funding
- Bars bilateral assistance funds to any nation that supports terrorism or provides a haven for terrorists
- Prohibits funds to any nation that refuses to comply with the United Nations-imposed sanctions against Iraq, unless the President determines that the provided funds are used in the national interest of the U.S. or benefits the people of Iraq
- Prohibits funds from being used to pay for assessments, arrearages, or dues for any United Nations member
- Bans funds to any government that supplies "lethal military equipment" to any nation supporting international terrorism
- Prohibits funding from programs that entice businesses to relocate outside the U.S. and decrease the number of American employees
- $6.13 billion for the Agency for International Development, including $2.36 billion for the economic support fund, $811.9 million for the development assistance fund, and $603.82 million for assistance to new independent states of the former Soviet Union
- $3.15 billion for the foreign military financing program
- $835.19 million for the State Department, including $670.69 million for migration and refugee assistance, $100 million for international narcotics control
- $360.63 million for international organizations and programs
- $219.75 million for the Peace Corps
Link to Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:hr2295:
Full Text of Legislation (PDF Document)
House Passage: 06/17/1993 : Bill Passed: 309 - 111 (Roll no. 240)
Senate Passage With Amendment: 09/23/1993 : Bill Passed: 88 - 10 (Record Vote Number 287)
House Conference Report Vote: 09/29/1993 : Conference Report Adopted 321 - 108 (Roll no. 467)
Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/30/1993 : Conference Report Adopted: 88 - 11 (Record Vote Number 297)
President Passage: 09/30/1993 : Signed Became Public Law Number 103-87
Sponsor:Rep. Obey, David Ross (D-WI) (out of office)===============================So, once again, I have established that those who claim Gingrich is a "Big Tax, Big Spending, Big Government conservative, are either, (1) Wacko Left, Socialst/Elitist Moonbats with an agenda, or (2) Wacko Right, Conspiratorialist Crackpots with an agenda. In any case, the facts reveal that Gingrich does not support and never has supported large government involvement in Americans' lives!
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
Keith,
It is you who needs to get his facts straight. In four instances the votes you claim as nay or against are not even listed at the links you provided. In another instance you provided an incorrect link. The correct link, however, shows a yea vote. In two others you claim nay votes when in fact yea votes were cast.
INLINE:Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
On 05/13/2011 11:52 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:Hello Jonathan!I love this, "Let's Review":Just some examples of his big government votes:
03-21-1991 - $40 billion - bailout of failed savings and loan institutions;Voted For; And I agree with the vote, this turned out to be profitable for the United States and its taxpayers;
06-26-1991 - $52.6 billion - agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps;Voted Against: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=43&go.x=21&go.y=11
Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
10-05-1992 - $66.5 billion - housing and community development;Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=27&go.x=11&go.y=5
09-22-1994 - $250.6 billion - appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.Your link is bad - this vote not listed.
Foreign Aid:
06-27-1990 - $15.7 billion for fiscal 1991;Your link is bad - this vote not listed.06-20-1991 - $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993;Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=1406-25-1992 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993;06-17-1993 - $13.0 billion for fiscal 1994;Voted Yes - http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14
09-29-1993 - $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia;Nay: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14
Well, you got one right!
08-04-1994 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1995.
Yea: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=26821&type=category&category=32&go.x=20&go.y=14
=========Get your facts correct Jonathan, which means staying off of the Moonbat and Crackpot sites that you and Michael seem to enjoy so much!On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
Keith,
Holding Gingrich out as a defender of small government by accepting what he says as opposed to what he has actually done does not seem very bright on your part.
Gingrich had mediocre Conservative Index ratings:
96th Congress: 85
97th Congress: 77
98th Congress: 74
99th Congress: 80
100th Congress: 80
101st Congress: 57
100nd Congress: 60
103rd Congress: 78
Just some examples of his big government votes:
03-21-1991 - $40 billion - bailout of failed savings and loan institutions;
06-26-1991 - $52.6 billion - agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps;
10-05-1992 - $66.5 billion - housing and community development;
09-22-1994 - $250.6 billion - appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.
Foreign Aid:
06-27-1990 - $15.7 billion for fiscal 1991;
06-20-1991 - $12.4 billion for fiscal 1992 and $13 billion for fiscal 1993;
06-25-1992 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1993;
08-06-1992 - $12.3 billion for the IMF.
06-17-1993 - $13.0 billion for fiscal 1994;
09-29-1993 - $12.9 billion, including $2.5 billion to Russia;
08-04-1994 - $13.8 billion for fiscal 1995.
I could likely spend most of the day finding his pro-big government votes.
On 05/13/2011 01:20 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:To prove my point, I will take the time to refute another one of your dumb, "cut and paste" posts.As usual, Michael took an article from a Moonbat, Tom Woods, who quotes another Moonbat, Bob Wenzel, in their bashing of Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the crux of the articles amount to nothing other than some name calling, specifically that Mr. Gingrich is a weasel.Let's review:First, Woods cites Wentzel's "brief" article as being somehow "sharp" and "insightful". Here's what Wentzel said, according to Woods, the, "brief, sharp insightful" article in its entirety:"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter,The Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.
A Gingrich snippet:
The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policies
Aside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government."========Obviously, both Wentzel and Woods are either just total ignoramuses, and/or they are purposely attempting to besmirch Mr. Gingrich's long record and established policy of smaller federal government. For example, here is a speech from just two months ago, on Mr. Gingrich's policies on smaller, limited federal government:"We need to declare our independence from trying to protect and defend failed bureaucracies that magically become ours as soon as we are in charge of them. We appoint solid conservatives to a department and within three weeks they are defending and protecting the very department that they would have been attacking before they got appointed.I think that there are two grave lessons for the conservative movement since 1980. The first, which we still haven't come to grips with, is that governing..."
Source: Speech at 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 9, 2008
- Change the mindset of big government by replacing bureaucratic public administration with Entrepreneurial Public Management so government can operate with the speed, effectiveness, & efficiency of the information age.
- Balance the federal budget and insist on a lean government, low tax, low interest rate economy to maximize growth.
- Insist on congressional reform to make the legislative branch responsive to the needs of the 21st century.
Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org, “Issues” Sep 1, 2007 ============= I could go on and on showing and demonstrating Mr. Gingrich's belief that our federal government is out of control, and that both Woods and Wentzel are Moonbats. As a matter of fact, why don't you Google both men and see what their credentials are? You will find that they are not qualified any more than you or I, to be espousing their misinformation.So, the point being, is that the next time you cut and paste an article that you expect some kind of thoughtful feedback on, maybe you should start trying to post a little more thoughtful cut and paste articles?--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Watch host Steve Samblis every Friday as he brings you the top three newly
released movies of the week.
http://click.lavabit.com/es317zgkwbdtcdhd83676dnqtnqnqdrh9rezkdn8sz1ri83n9hry/
--
Freedom is always illegal!
When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free."Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Find: Web Services. Review & Compare!
http://click.lavabit.com/ccoof4qaak15r1w1r5igya3rthn4fhxxb3h1n1wq5ch6br7qawxy/
--
Freedom is always illegal!
When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free."Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.Find: College. Review & Compare!
http://click.lavabit.com/44mk5zf8fewzqdpjtiaqzeu7rapprs8k6ig341a8a6rbgki3o3ty/
--
Freedom is always illegal!
When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free. "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
No comments:
Post a Comment