NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a saying in DC that I can't attribute, but it goes like this "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon your talking real money". So it goes with our Republican government. This has become especially bad in the aftermath of Katrina, with everyone tripping all over themselves to show how much they care and how they don't hate black people. Of course, they are caring with our taxes, rather than with their own wallets, but that doesn't matter in DC. It still shows how much they care about us all.

When President Bush announced last Thursday that the feds would take a lead role in the reconstruction of New Orleans, he in effect established a new $200 billion federal line of credit. To put that $200 billion in perspective, we could give every one of the 500,000 families displaced by Katrina a check for $400,000, and they could each build a beach front home virtually anywhere in America.

This huge expenditure is just the latest in a long list of Republican efforts to buy out the Democratic platform of free money for everyone. Federal spending, not counting the war in Iraq, was growing by 7% this year, which came atop the 30% hike over Mr. Bush's first term. Surely the grassroots Republican base is outraged at spending like this. Aren't they? They don't seem to be, because they keep sending the same spendthrifts back to DC.

Todd Aiken from Missouri tried to attach an amendment to the latest spending bill that would force a 2.5 percent cut across the board. The Republican leadership wouldn't even let the amendment have a vote. Their excuse was that there was no waste that could be easily identified and cut.

The outrages go on and on. The education bill, the prescription drug benefit, the highway bills... There's no end in sight. Not as long as we keep electing Republican majorities to all the branches of government.

How long before this latest New Deal bankrupts the country? I just don't see how we can keep up this pace.

The problem is that most people are stupid and need to be eliminated in mass. Then, when we've finished with the bodies the intelligent people can all live in a thinking objectivist society, free from anything more than a minimalist government with next to no taxes and waste. The problem is that Objectivists can't initiate violence, and so such a world can't be created without convincing some non-Objectivists to build a Utopia and then eliminate themselves from it.
[/pointless pipedream]

In seriousness, the problem is that Democrats are just as bad if not worse than Republicans, so there probably is no peaceful way to fix the political situation. However, it isn't bad enough for a revolution, so unless things go one way or the other we're all going to be rather stuck.

The problem is that most people are stupid and need to be eliminated in mass. Then, when we've finished with the bodies the intelligent people can all live in a thinking objectivist society, free from anything more than a minimalist government with next to no taxes and waste. The problem is that Objectivists can't initiate violence, and so such a world can't be created without convincing some non-Objectivists to build a Utopia and then eliminate themselves from it.
[/pointless pipedream]

In seriousness, the problem is that Democrats are just as bad if not worse than Republicans, so there probably is no peaceful way to fix the political situation. However, it isn't bad enough for a revolution, so unless things go one way or the other we're all going to be rather stuck.
Sorry, I can't go along with the revolution idea, although the rest of you are welcome to discuss it. Who was it, de Tocqueville maybe, that said a democracy would last as long as it took for the majority to realize that they could use it to pay themselves? Something like that, anyway.

It's not that I'm newly disillusioned with the Republican party. They've always been just a lighter shade of socialist than the Dems. I'm just getting fed up with all they spend, then claim to like smaller government.

Sorry, I can't go along with the revolution idea, although the rest of you are welcome to discuss it. Who was it, de Tocqueville maybe, that said a democracy would last as long as it took for the majority to realize that they could use it to pay themselves? Something like that, anyway.
Actually, that was my point, though it seems I took a very weird route to get there. Basically, the only way I can see the U.S. being fully reformed is for the government to be scrapped, its current rulers permanently removed from the process, and a new (much more limited) system to be put into place.
However, if your complaint is deficet spending the best way to fix that is to prevent Congress from knowing how much money they've got that year and force them to write the entire budget in percents (leaving 10-15% of all revenue aside for flexibility and possible emergencies). If a particular program is short this year, tough nuggets, either it gets more percents, or the peoples gets a rise in taxes.

There's a saying in DC that I can't attribute, but it goes like this "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon your talking real money". So it goes with our Republican government. This has become especially bad in the aftermath of Katrina, with everyone tripping all over themselves to show how much they care and how they don't hate black people. Of course, they are caring with our taxes, rather than with their own wallets, but that doesn't matter in DC. It still shows how much they care about us all.
*evil laugh*

The socialists have won! Your "conservative/libertarian" ideology is powerless!

It's not that I'm newly disillusioned with the Republican party. They've always been just a lighter shade of socialist than the Dems. I'm just getting fed up with all they spend, then claim to like smaller government.

Republicans? "Lighter shade of socialist?" :D:D:D

That would make Tony Blair a die hard commie

*evil laugh*

The socialists have won! Your "conservative/libertarian" ideology is powerless!


I always had faith in Trotsky.

But on a less important note - you must realise that every time a Republican government comes in on an even slightly bumpy economy they cut taxes. Firstly to win the election & secondly to stimulate demand. In the meantime they also have much higher government bills due to welfare etc during the downturn.

They are therefore unpopular & usually (this is certainly not confined to the US - see UK under Thatcher) go and pick a fight with someone as well to get a bit of national pride going again. At the very least they increase spending on police, military & border control) This also costs money. More expenditure & less income = big doo doo around the corner!

You will find that centre-left governments tend to be more fiscally tight and/or tend to get voted in at the bottom of a recession so that they get the glory for the upswing.

Haha. We don't care how we get power (more international revolutionary ramblings etc.)

But seriously, get my point?

Republicans? "Lighter shade of socialist?" :D:D:D

That would make Tony Blair a die hard commie
If income redistribution is socialistic, then color us pink. I guess it wasn't just a coincidence that the states Bush won were colored red.

All of the real fiscal conservatives are in the Libertarian Party.

Of course, we knew this already...

$400,000 beachfront? Maybe in Oregon, then you won't be able to afford to live. Houses around here sell with the house and an extra 30 square feet of property for $2-300 thousand.

All of the real fiscal conservatives are in the Libertarian Party.

Of course, we knew this already...
It's amazing how the Myrmidonisias of America didn't see it like that too. I guess, as Maddox would say, abortion was just that fucking important.

All of the real fiscal conservatives are in the Libertarian Party.

Of course, we knew this already...
P.J. O'Rourke had a good rant of his own recently ...

"Politics is evil. Ten years ago I thought politics was misguided. But the events of the past decade—indeed, of the past 10 or a dozen decades—have proven me wrong. The sum and substance of politics was expressed in the 1860s by Nicholas Chernyshevskii, a prescient Russian radical: 'Man is god to man.' And politics violates the other nine commandments as well. Politics could hardly function without bearing false witness. Likewise, without taking the Lord's name in vain. This is especially true given that, in politics, the Lord who is so loosely sworn by is Mankind. In the modern era politics has taken the place of mere tyranny. The result has been more killing in one century than in all the preceding centuries combined. Covetousness and stealing define redistributive politics. Without redistribution politics would have no political support. Graven image is as good a name as any for the fiat money by which politics operates. Politics' insistence upon involvement in every human activity, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is more anti-Sabbatarian than golf. The Social Security system is no way to honor thy father and thy mother. And as for adultery, there was, and there may be still, Bill Clinton... Observe our national politics. Observe politics around the world. Observe politics through the ages. Does it look like God's handiwork? When it comes to having a role in politics, that would be the Other Fellow." —P.J. O'Rourke

A little off topic, but anything he writes is worth reading.

P.J. O'Rourke had a good rant of his own recently ...

A little off topic, but anything he writes is worth reading.

Indeed. It does you good to have a great laugh every now and again.

Outbuy everyone--including home industry.

Say the I have a twenty grand. Joe wants to build up his house a bit, and buy a few guns for self defence, but he's already spent all his money paying for his kid to go to college, so he needs a loan. Jane, Steve, and George want to invest some money into their small businesses.

Joe comes to me and tells me that he wants to borrow 20,000 dollars, and that he'll pay me back over two years at 10% interest. I accept, we sign a contract, and I'm happy because in two years I'll have 24,500 dollars or so.

Now Jane comes to me. She wants 10 grand to be able to have enough money to start a restaurant. Unfortunately, I gave it all to Joe, so she can't make her restaurant. No new entrepenuer.

Ditto with Steve. He wants 3 grand to buy a car to get to this new job he has been offered, which will double his salary. Too bad, all the money went to Joe. No new surplus income to boost the economy.

Same with George. He wants 7 grand, to put towards a purpose of a painting machine in his auto shop, which he figures will pay for itself in seven or eight paint jobs. Unfortunately, all the money went to Joe. No new capitol for George.

That's the same sort of thing that is going on with the government and borrow-and-spend. The government borrows the money--and the money for borrowing is GONE. Nobody else can borrow it, and it will not do anything for the economy, since it will be dumped into government programs, war machines, welfare, education, roads, etc.

Good for the people the government borrowed from? Sure, they get paid back with interest. Good for the government in the short term? Sure, they get the moneyto throw at their programs. Good for the economy over the next thirty years? Hell no! No loans, means no investment, means no economic growth, means underemployment of resources and people, means a depression, and down and down and down, until you're sitting in a depression holding your US hundred dollar bill that's worth about three Euros.

Bah, Lord Acton said it best.

Anyway, once people are in power, they soo realize that the best way to stay there is by handing out freebies to the people who put them there: Then shoring that majority up with handouts to the undecided.

And we are at fault too, for indulging in such mawkish behaviour every time something vaguely unpleasant happens. The slightest thing is a tragedy, and we demand that our politicians play their role by charging in with the peoples checkbook, to right the wrongs &c. None of us have the balls to questions it.

Remember, Plutarch warned: "The greatest destroyer of the people's liberty, is he who bestows undeserved bounties upon the populace."

Who was it, de Tocqueville maybe, that said a democracy would last as long as it took for the majority to realize that they could use it to pay themselves? Something like that, anyway.
This is what you're looking for, and a damn good quote as well (one of my faves):

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage."
~ Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

Of course, I don't want to even consider the inflation this kind of spending will cause. We're pumping dollars in faster than we can restrict the supply, and that is going to result in elevated inflation until the deficit is controlled.

Cutting taxes is fine, but you also have to cut spending. This Administration's economic policy is seriously flawed.

Of course, I don't want to even consider the inflation this kind of spending will cause. We're pumping dollars in faster than we can restrict the supply, and that is going to result in elevated inflation until the deficit is controlled.

Cutting taxes is fine, but you also have to cut spending. This Administration's economic policy is seriously flawed.

Yeah, well you can cause inflation with a balanced budget too. It's a money supply question. One which Greenspan seems to ignore in favor of paper growth.

Yeah, well you can cause inflation with a balanced budget too. It's a money supply question. One which Greenspan seems to ignore in favor of paper growth.

We're flooding the world with dollars...effectively, an amount equal to 10% of US GDP is being deficit spent with our trade and budget deficits. Now, a trade deficit is a sign of solid growth, but when you have roughly 1 trillion dollars flowing in to the world market yearly, it's going to be very difficult to control that with any tightening. This doesn't include the $1 trillion in tax cuts flooding the US economy.

Greenspan overreacted in 2001-2003, just as he did in 2000 (an event which likely pushed the economy in to definite recession rather than a moderate slowdown).

We're flooding the world with dollars...effectively, an amount equal to 10% of US GDP is being deficit spent with our trade and budget deficits. Now, a trade deficit is a sign of solid growth, but when you have roughly 1 trillion dollars flowing in to the world market yearly, it's going to be very difficult to control that with any tightening. This doesn't include the $1 trillion in tax cuts flooding the US economy.

Greenspan overreacted in 2001-2003, just as he did in 2000 (an event which likely pushed the economy in to definite recession rather than a moderate slowdown).

Half of our budget deficit is to ourselves - as is about half the national debt - so you can ignore it.

But yes, our deficit is far too high.

Insofar as the trade deficit is concerned, the dollar is way overvalued against many of our trading partners, so it doesn't actually hurt the US. Trade balance is only half of the equation. If people are selling things to you at a price lower than PPP indicates, then the country is actually experiencing a windfall in accrued wealth. So no problem,

My main objection is that internally, the money supply is far too loose, allowing for arbitrage in speculative bubbles.