September 29, 2005
— Ace Anklebiting Pundits notes that, yes, Power Corrupts.
It would at least be nice if more Republican officeholders made a pretense of resisting the corruption of power.
I'm sorry, but today's GOP seems to have a theory: Democrats spent an awful lot, but we'll spend even more, mostly just to continue buying off our constituents with pork projects they don't even particularly want. And we'll get away with it-- because ten or twenty years ago we were known as fiscal disciplinarians, budget hawks, and general tight-wadded pricks. This reputation will continue to insulate us against the naked fact that what was for Dan Rostentowski and Tip O'Neill a mere wet dream is in fact the 2004 budget we passed.
Guys-- we're not that stupid. I mean, stupid, certainly, but that stupid? Only on off days.
I remember a time when Woody Allen was actually funny. That doesn't mean I rushed right out to buy a ticket to Hollywood Ending.
In the words of Janet Jackson -- Miss Jackson if you're nasty -- what have you done for me lately?
It hurts to say but it's true. And it's time we began saying it, loudly. Bill Clinton showed much more fiscal discipline than George Bush.
Was he forced to do that by a Republican Congress? Partly. But it seems that the Republican Congresses that restrained him did so out of partisanship, not principle, because when a Republican is President, they want to spend like it's going out of style.
Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
But It Rocks Absolutely, Too.*
*Batteries not included.
Posted by: Mikey at September 29, 2005 10:21 AM (O9Cc8)
Posted by: at September 29, 2005 10:36 AM (2c2wR)
Republicans throwing Federal Gonzo Bucks™ around like confetti should take note.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 29, 2005 10:44 AM (pzen5)
Ann Coulter slices like a fuckin' hammer. I'm sick to fucking death of dipshit Republicans.
HEY GUYS! They will HATE you ANYWAY! Have them hate you for a REASON!
Posted by: rho at September 29, 2005 10:49 AM (0141D)
Posted by: someone at September 29, 2005 10:53 AM (6Swlb)
Posted by: epobirs at September 29, 2005 11:37 AM (Tf4ol)
... since 1980 there has been another generation born, raised and educated on the mother's milk of nanny statism.
The sad truth is that now pork cutters are less electable than "sensible" spenders given the nanny state culture of the US population. That needs to be changed by removing the socialist agenda from media, schools and academia. If you can't get it done there then insisting on it in government is just counter productive. It can be argued that the sensible spenders have the best shot at turning the cultural tide.
Otherwise the only possible cure is turning government back over to the Democrats and hope they screw it up so bad that people reelect fiscal conservatives someday. If that's what you're willing to do, count me out.
Posted by: boris at September 29, 2005 12:02 PM (S+qVM)
Maybe it's his teenage daughter's fault. I know. They wear you down until you just hand over the wallet. Maybe he is just doing with the govt what he does with them, spoiling them cuz he loves 'em so much.
But we all know, it just makes 'em more a brat and they don't appreciate a damn thing.
Have I taken this metaphor too far??
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at September 29, 2005 12:29 PM (F+bg5)
I'm serious. Take the vote away from women. Sure, this will bite for the minority of women who are actually politically aware and intelligent, but the majority of women's instinctive impulse to gather and hoard is what drives the soccer mom spend-more-money-on-the-nanny-state vote, when they aren't voting for the most spineless candidate because he looks like he wouldn't frighten their children, or if they are single, voting for the one with the best hair. The fact that women vote has meant that most politicians now spend most of their time trying to please women, who generally don't like things that make loud noise or smell bad -- like industry and war.
Think about it, guys. Isn't most of your spending outlay done in the cause of impressing some woman? Except for the occasional expensive male toy (a speedboat here, a sports car there), don't most of you find contentment living simply on very little? How many women find the idea of going off into the non-electrified, non-hot-watered wilderness to camp and hunt wild animals and/or fish attractive for a rare outing, never mind at regular yearly intervals? How many women think of leftover pizza as a nutritious full-course meal? How many men buy "accessories" to "decorate" their bachelor pads -- I don't mean beer can pyramids, I mean fifteen-dollar bundles of dried reeds from the Phillipines that you can stick in a vase. How many men own a vase?
Women are the ones men buy increasingly fancy homes, with Roman tubs, "art niches," and deco railings for. Women are the reason men buy new cars every few years -- because the little woman isn't going to endure that rattletrap with the door you have to wire shut, she doesn't care if it's a classic, and you can't put a baby seat in the back of a pickup truck. Give a man a fishing pole and he'll catch a fish for dinner. Give a woman a fishing pole and she'll look at it, give you the fish eye, and tell you to get on the phone NOW and make reservations or you'll never see her again. Want to stop the spending on "pork," or as I like to call it, "accessories"? Take the vote away from women. They'll still whine and try to influence men behind the scenes, but giving them the vote didn't stop this behavior as was once naively thought would happen -- it only increased the obnoxious sense of entitlement women already have.
Yes, I know these are generalizations, and that there are some politically savvy women out there, but I would think that they would be willing to give something valuable up for the good of their country; or else they're no more serious than the majority of women.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 29, 2005 02:04 PM (ELCzF)
Posted by: geoff at September 29, 2005 02:07 PM (pSxN9)
So how do you show you care? By spending, of course. And undermining everything else you say you stand for.
Posted by: Chrees at September 29, 2005 03:20 PM (ofjz/)
I, on the other hand, loved "gridlock" because I undrestood it for what it is -- the electorate's only practical means of minimizing spend short of a revolution -- congressional paralysis is the best we can ever hope for because politicians are politicians and nothing will ever change that.
This country NEEDS "gridlock" and it needs it now. The only real thing to argue about is which chamber of congress we are willing to give up to attain it.
My own personal preference is for the house since the Senate gets to confirm judges and ratify treaties and such.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 29, 2005 03:50 PM (X+OCl)
I hate to admit Purple A is right, but with a split Congress and/or legislative/executive, gridlock would result and there would be fewer chances for my congressmen (and yours) to steal all of us blind.
Barney Frank had the gall to accuse the Repubs in general of an air of thievery. When's the last time he voted against the Big Dig? Or any of the myriad bills paying for the off-ramps to nowhere in Boston? Is Tubby Teddy that big a threat to him and everyone else in the Congress? (Well, maybe. If he can leave a live hooker to die and get away with it, what chance do the whores in the halls of congress have?)
Bottom line: The only way I see is to create gridlock so the press can accuse Repubs of not caring (golly, Dad, aren't they doing that now?) and the Repubs can get back to caring about how much The Man is going to steal from us each year.
And it would be nice if someone, somewhere, would campaign on "enumerated powers". Such a concept.
Posted by: Carlos at September 29, 2005 05:14 PM (/RF5n)
Posted by: john at September 29, 2005 06:18 PM (bQ4nJ)
Posted by: The Warden at September 29, 2005 06:24 PM (Zxtyv)
Moonbat warning: Screed like formatting and length detected. Content non-parsable.
Posted by: at September 29, 2005 06:29 PM (X+OCl)
Can you guess how much I'm trusting your number crunching skills right now?
Posted by: VRWC Agent at September 29, 2005 06:48 PM (ovnMC)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 30, 2005 02:23 AM (ELCzF)
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at September 30, 2005 04:09 AM (F+bg5)
Posted by: S. Weasel at September 30, 2005 04:26 AM (rasT+)
They imagine long-winded arguments are persuasive. They never cease to be amazed that anyone could possibly continue to disagree with them after they've presented their case.
And they just love the sound of their own voice.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 30, 2005 04:29 AM (pzen5)
I can smell 'em a mile away.
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 30, 2005 05:18 AM (uSomN)
Uh, what were we talking about?
Posted by: Brian at October 02, 2005 12:10 PM (P443o)
Posted by: Kralizec at October 02, 2005 10:35 PM (wVbao)
Yea, I think I agree.
They don't realize that the only real currency in the worst case scenarios are powder, and lead.
Gold has no real intrinsic value other than some modest industrial applications. All the rest is just based on vanity and a common belief system that it must be worth a lot.
Pretty easy to imagine a Mad Max scenario where a 50lb bar of gold is worth about a half dozen rounds of .22LR...maybe less.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 02, 2005 11:36 PM (X+OCl)
Mac Video Converter
Mac Mp4 Video Converter
Mac iPhone Video Converter
Mac iPod Video Converter
Video Converter for Mac
Mac Video to AVI Converter
Posted by: yujinxiang at March 25, 2009 10:48 PM (x6PsB)
Posted by: Kelvin76 at October 22, 2009 07:42 AM (O+eSX)
Kitchen Blinds | Patterned Roller Blinds
Posted by: Blinds at January 24, 2011 02:52 AM (VdMvr)
Posted by: Facesex davet kodu at March 03, 2011 09:34 AM (Ugovd)
62 queries taking 0.9528 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.