So you’d rather have your savings account emptied to pay Haliburton et. al. rather than provide social services and environmental protection in this country? Just how much money is being poured every day into that black hole in Iraq?
The Republican party has always cloaked itself in the mantle of fiscal conservatism, while claiming the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. It is ludicrous to maintain that posture now in light of the reverse Robin Hood policies of the last six or seven years. I would be delighted to argue for Democratic fiscal policies, should the Republican party ever return to its stated platform. I wouldn’t agree with the Republicans, but would at least respect their intentions. Now, however, the party leaders only embody selfish hypocrisy.
Actually, I’d rather not have it emptied at all and get to keep it. I don’t want it spent on the continuation of a clusterfuck that we should have never gotten into in the first place along with associated war-profiteers. I also don’t want it going to government controlled social services or environmental groups. The US government has routinely shown that they could fuck up a one car funeral. I wouldn’t trust them to save a leftover piece of pizza let alone the planet.
Neither party is wearing the white hat when it comes to prudent spending. Both sides spend like some poor redneck who just won the lottery. More pork runs through congress than you find in a hog farm. Laws should be passed that eliminate the addition of pork-laden riders on bills. Make the government run more like a business and stay in the black. If they were smart, they could actually turn a profit.
It won’t happen though. No matter who wins in ’08, we lose because it never changes. The Who said it best:
I think the best results we can hope for is a split between the two branches-- one party in the WH and the opposite party in control of at least on house of Congress. As much as Clinton gets credit for creating a surplus, I think it was the split party rule that made it possible. And while I’m somewhat concerned about total Democrat rule after 6 years of total Republican rule, the Senate is split pretty closely so that it will be hard for the Dems to ramrod legislation thru in the way the Republicans did when they had a 55 or 56 seat majority (can’t remember the exact number).
I would normally be very reluctant to vote for a Dem in '08 with that party in full control of Congress, but given the above I don’t worry so much. Unless the Republicans can pull a rabbit out of their hat, I’ll be backing one of the Dems, even if it’s Hillary. (I don’t much care for her, but we could do much worse and I think she will be an OK president even if she won’t be a great one.)
To be fair, roughly half the population of your average mental ward is marginally saner than RON “BRING BACK THE GOLD STANDARD!” PAUL.
edit: oh, and Giuliani’s open laughter at Paul and smug look on his nasty little troll face during the debate made me watch to reach through the TV screen and punch him in the face.
Sorry, but LIES!!! Carville and his ilk are notorious for their fabrications. From the Congressional Budget Office July 31, 2007 report on Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations (pdf file)
bolding mine.
Obviously it is still a shit load of money being dumped in this bullshit pissing contest but at least let’s be honest about how much is being wasted.
I edited to say that I wasn’t referring to you but to the people who made the quotes. If we are going to be outraged by the amount of money we are squandering, I just want us to be accurate.
Why do you keep chanting that? Just because the gold standard is unpopular among Keynesians doesn’t mean that proponents of it are somehow dumb.
Frankly, it makes you look dumb when you keep implying that people from David Hume to Alan Greenspan are idiots. The only objective reason for opposition to the gold standard is its tendency to exacerbate recessions due to falling prices of goods with rising savings. On the other hand, there are many positives in favor of it, including its suitability for globalization and industrialization. But the main reason Keynesians oppose it is because it makes it harder for governments to subsidize economic growth by increasing the supply of money. Something of worth has to actually be produced. And so they beg the question by assuming that arbitrary government interference in the economy is a good thing.
Just because you keep flailing your arms and screaming that Ron Paul is crazy doesn’t make it so. Economists from von Mises to Hayek to Rothbard to Kirzner (and notable others) have all advocated for the gold standard. If you have some secret knowledge to impart, let’s be hearing it. Otherwise, please cut it out.
Until they got into office, yeah. Fact is though, America lives on an all-pork diet. Bridges get built, 9-1-1 centers get funded, police and fire departments get training and equipment, parks, roads, town halls and community centers get built, all because of “pork” Try and take it away. None of em can or will get rid of it. Pork elects politicans.
If a bill is going through congress for funding a new federal emergency center and Congressman Smith from North Dakota is able to get it placed in Bismarck, more power to him. He brought the pork home.
If, however, Congressman Jones from Maine is able to attach a rider on the bill for funding the Smedley Herzog, Jr. Memorial Bridge and Scrotum Washing Center then I think it is wrong and should not be allowed. A spending bill should contain funding for the relevant legislation only and not be allowed to include any items the congresscritters want to slide in so they can curry favor with their constituents and lobbyists.
Keep? Got a link for any other time I’ve ever mentioned Ron Paul in any capacity on this board?
Besides, he’s got plenty of other nutty Libertarian ideas to go around. That one just makes a catchier slogan. Really, it seems like Iraq withdrawal is the only sane thing he has going for him.
(sorry this is a Wikipedia quote, but I’m having trouble finding a primary source, which is insane because I remember this being discussed somewhere elsenet.)
That’s like saying the only thing Ellie Mae Clampett had going for her was her body. Iraq withdrawal is something a president can actually do. All the stuff you’re scared of, it can’t even happen.
I, for one, would love it if the current political climate were just about deeply held partisan beliefs on policy. And while that’s certainly part of it, I think policy is actually a relatively minor part. For example, many Democrats are angry because they think Iraq was a bad idea, but in far larger part because of the corrupt and incompetent administration of the war which has little to do with matters of policy. Even those that agree with the policy have disagreed with the personal statements and actions of various administration members. And it goes well beyond Iraq. I haven’t done this, but I’ll bet that if you dig up the last 50 pit threads against various Republican politicians you’ll find that policy disagreements are not actually what we’re bitching about. It’s disagreements about the character of these “leaders.”
That said, I don’t think all of the Republican candidates fit that critique. With Romney, for example, I mostly just disagree with his policy. Giuliani, less so. He’s a demagogue. For example, even though he knows better, he calls Ron Paul ignorant for pointing out that what every terrorism expert believes (that the US presence in the Arabian Peninsula inflames terrorism). Now Rudy Giuliani knows good and well that the various government reports on 9/11 have said as much. But his feigned shock plays well with Republican voters. It’s that sort of bullshit that I think a good majority of the complaints on this board are about. If only it were just about policy.
