September 29, 2005

And When You Gaze Into The Abyss of Government Power, the Abyss of Government Power Gazes Back Into You
— 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.

Posted by: Ace at 10:14 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

1 As the demotivational poster noted.
Power.
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)

2 O.T.: Roberts already told his first lie. He said the questions at the hearings were civil.

Posted by: at September 29, 2005 10:36 AM (2c2wR)

3 There was a time when Democrats were strong on national defense, and tough on commies. They blew that and gave it to the Rs, and may never get it back.

Republicans throwing Federal Gonzo Bucks™ around like confetti should take note.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 29, 2005 10:44 AM (pzen5)

4 http://anncoulter.org/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=78

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)

5 Contrarily: I'm not ready to go all the way down this guy's line of argument, but I think he has at least as much of a point as ABP.

Posted by: someone at September 29, 2005 10:53 AM (6Swlb)

6 The inclination to buy the people's love with spending is the eternal politician's disease. It is the like the parent incapable of truly connecting with their child who instead seeks to control the child by spoiling it, just writ large. So long as the masses submit to be treated as children there is no reason this should ever change. The only solution I see is creating greater structural limitations on the government's ability to collect and spend public funds.

Posted by: epobirs at September 29, 2005 11:37 AM (Tf4ol)

7 The Ann Coulter comparison to Ronald Reagan was very good, but ...

... 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)

8 It's sad but true. We need to take away the checkbook. Bush is so detemined to show he is JUST AS CARING as Democrats, he can't say no to the big puppy dog eyes of ANYONE and ANY BILL asking for $$$$$.

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)

9 I know how to get government spending to drop through the floor: repeal the 19th amendment.

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)

10 That was beautiful, Andrea (snif, snif).

Posted by: geoff at September 29, 2005 02:07 PM (pSxN9)

11 I'm thinking more along the lines of RWS. The biggest criticism of Republicans, and Bush in particular, is that they just don't care. It's a crock of shit, but don't try to argue with someone who is in an alternate reality.

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/)

12 Everyone used to bemoan "legislative gridlock" when there was a split house/senate.

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)

13 One can count the number of real Republicans in Congress today with the fingers on one hand, and have multiple digits left. Republicrats (or Democans) rule the roost, and Hell won't have it if someone thinks in terms of saving what is ultimately my, and your, money.

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)

14 ACE: Sorry pal to disagrre with you on this one. Please remember that we are facing a problem called DEFLATION. Since I have been a successful stock brocker for more decades than I want to admit, I limited my carreer risk in the stock and bond markets by diversified my investments (buying real estate and only very limited stock and bond exposure).This worked very well for four decades, but in 2001 I decided to sell all my real estate for fear of a depression. The Republicans have a long history of fostering DEFLATION starting form their first Presidential win in 1860. From 1865 through the 1890's there was continued deflation. That is the time William Jennings Bryan ran for the Presidency with the slogan do not crucify us on a cross of gold-- meaning that the dollar should be backed by two metals rather than one so there would be less deflation. The deflation meant that when you bought a farm, the farm land went down in value and it was harder and harder to earn the same dollar. This continued until the Democrat President Wilson came in and we had World War !. by 1919 the infaltion rate was 12 % and the interest rate topped out at 21%. The Republicans came back into power and by 1929 the inflation was 1% to 2%. Ultimately we ended with another flurry of deflation known as the GREAT DEPRESSION. Please note that there had been many depressions before this one, but this was the worst and longest lasting. The Democrats came back to power from 1932 to 1952 and inflation topped out at 12% in 1948. In 1952 through 1960 the Republicans controlled things and inflation was 1% to 2% . From 1960 to 1968 the Democrats took control of the Presidency and once again inflation took off wtih higher interest rates following. Repuiblicans controlled the presidency from 1968-1976, eventually ending with 4% inflation and 8% interest rates. 1976-1980 Democrats controlled the Presidency and inflation went from 4% to 13%, the interest rate topped out at 21%. 1980-1992 Republicans controlled the Presidency and once again inflation dropped to 2% and the interest rate went down as low as 3% in 1992. The reason that the Presidency matters is that the President has the power toVETOE , which acts as a limit on spending.. Bush has vetoed no bill and that is why spending is so high. In 1998 Japan went into an 18 year depression. Their real estate is worth less now than it was in 1973 and their stock market went from 38,800 in 1988 to 12,000 plus in 2005. Greenspan saved us from a depression by dropping the interest rate to 1 % and having Bush goose the economy with huge tax cuts. This deflation is caused by not printing enough money. Inflation is caused by printing too much money. In this case since Germany (12% unemployment and falling stocks and falling real estate values), France (11% unemployment andfalling stock prices) and Japan are all suffering some form of deflation, we here in the U.S. get wash backs. Japan's interest rate is so low that you could borrow 1,000,000 Yen and you'd only pay 2,500 yen a year!!! Even so they've not yet come out of their depression. Finally consider this thought: the recession of 1981-1983 was caused by 21% interest rates. the recovery was brought about by lowering the interest to 8%. the 1991-1992 recession was caused by raising the interest rate to 10%. the recovery 1992-93 was caused by lowereing the rate to 3%. The recession of 200-2002 was caused by raising the interest rate to 6 1/2%. The recovery was brought about by lowering the interest rate to 1%. This is perilously close to the Japenese deflation scenerio. If our nest recession is caused by super low interest rates (5% or less), The Federal Reserve will no longer be able to stimulate the economy. The conclusion: we need much high inflation than we presently have in order to avoid the possibility of another depression.

Posted by: john at September 29, 2005 06:18 PM (bQ4nJ)

15 Dear Lord, my eyes!!!

Posted by: The Warden at September 29, 2005 06:24 PM (Zxtyv)

16 ACE: Sorry pal to disagrre with you on this one....

*siren*

Moonbat warning: Screed like formatting and length detected. Content non-parsable.

Posted by: at September 29, 2005 06:29 PM (X+OCl)

17 In 1998 Japan went into an 18 year depression.

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)

18 Hey, at least I used paragraphs.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 30, 2005 02:23 AM (ELCzF)

19 Seriously, why can't moonbats make a point briefly?

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at September 30, 2005 04:09 AM (F+bg5)

20 Don't knock it, RWS. Hence we can spot one at a glance without having to, you know, read any of it. Long, unformatted comments are the green ink of cyberspace.

Posted by: S. Weasel at September 30, 2005 04:26 AM (rasT+)

21 Well Sparkle, they think they're brilliant, or at least smarter than you.

They aren't.

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.

That's delusional.

And they just love the sound of their own voice.

That's narcissistic.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at September 30, 2005 04:29 AM (pzen5)

22 Sorry guys. That's not a moonbat. That's a goldbug.

I can smell 'em a mile away.

Posted by: spongeworthy at September 30, 2005 05:18 AM (uSomN)

23 Hollywood Ending was pretty good actually.

Uh, what were we talking about?

Posted by: Brian at October 02, 2005 12:10 PM (P443o)

24 If we're suffering deflation, why haven't I noticed falling prices?

Posted by: Kralizec at October 02, 2005 10:35 PM (wVbao)

25 That's not a moonbat. That's a goldbug.

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)

Posted by: yujinxiang at March 25, 2009 10:48 PM (x6PsB)

27 The expectations for teacher candidates are often low within schools of education where clear standards derived from objec- tive measurement have not been upheld. ,

Posted by: Kelvin76 at October 22, 2009 07:42 AM (O+eSX)

28 If we're suffering deflation, why haven't I noticed falling prices?
Kitchen Blinds | Patterned Roller Blinds

Posted by: Blinds at January 24, 2011 02:52 AM (VdMvr)

29 thnks

Posted by: Facesex davet kodu at March 03, 2011 09:34 AM (Ugovd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
94kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 2.3436 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.2669 seconds, 265 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.