NationStates Jolt Archive

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan


This text over a pic of flooded
N.O.
That is a bill board some group called
'act for change' is trying to get put up.


There are other similar phrases that
these creeps have said.
Looks like they are getting their (wet) dreams
come true.

the picture, for the interested.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/g/f/norquist_bathtub.jpg

also, the quote and "field marshall" bit seem to come from a may 2001 article in the nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/dreyfuss)

Wonderful.

*kicks self repeatedly*

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan


This text over a pic of flooded
N.O.
That is a bill board some group called
'act for change' is trying to get put up.


There are other similar phrases that
these creeps have said.
Looks like they are getting their (wet) dreams
come true.
This is a silly thing to say. There hasn't been _any_ reduction in the size of government since Bush took office. Budgets are higher and more people are employed by the government. Maybe drowning a few bureaucrats would reduce the size, but that's not likely to happen, either.

Well, I will say this. Bush is an idiot, as much as are the people who want to put that poster up.

Only some people will laugh. Everyone else will have a fucking heart attack.

This is a silly thing to say. There hasn't been _any_ reduction in the size of government since Bush took office. Budgets are higher and more people are employed by the government. Maybe drowning a few bureaucrats would reduce the size, but that's not likely to happen, either.




When they talk of "reducing gov't", the pentagon
and the war department are automatically off the
debate table. You've got to understand this.
That is their and the arms manufacturers that
pay for their candidacies thinking.

This is sick stuff.
Cut the pentagon budget to ZERO.
Then maybe we can get some peace.

Norquist is, from what I've read about him in books and magazine articles, a complete scumbag. His plan seems to be to cut taxes and increase spending (exactly what bush has done), and cause a financial crisis in the US government that will result in dramatic government cuts in social welfare and regulation of industry. Basically return us to the same condition we were in before the great depression and the new deal.

Then we can have all the fun of child labor, unregulated pollution, unsafe workplaces and a massive divide between rich and poor again.

Norquist is, from what I've read about him in books and magazine articles, a complete scumbag. His plan seems to be to cut taxes and increase spending (exactly what bush has done), and cause a financial crisis in the US government that will result in dramatic government cuts in social welfare and regulation of industry. Basically return us to the same condition we were in before the great depression and the new deal.

Then we can have all the fun of child labor, unregulated pollution, unsafe workplaces and a massive divide between rich and poor again.

Do you remember? The "Guilded Age" was the greatest period of American history! Child laborers aplenty, and near-slavery at the hands of mega-conglomerate corporations. Truly wonderful, no doubt!

Wonderful.

*kicks self repeatedly*
Stop that! You'll give yourself hemorroids! ;)

Stop that! You'll give yourself hemorroids! ;)

Nah, not by kicking myself in the stomach :D.

Nah, not by kicking myself in the stomach :D.
Oh. Ok then. Carry on. :D

When they talk of "reducing gov't", the pentagon
and the war department are automatically off the
debate table. You've got to understand this.
That is their and the arms manufacturers that
pay for their candidacies thinking.

This is sick stuff.
Cut the pentagon budget to ZERO.
Then maybe we can get some peace.
First off, eliminating the DoD would be a mistake. That's one of the only valid functions of government.

Second, it would only be a drop in the bucket compared to how much we spend on non-discretionary programs. We'd still be in the hole, thanks to Social Security, Prescription drug benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the different welfare programs.

Last, it would be a clever poster if the Bush administration had ever cut one single dollar or one single job off of the government roles. But they haven't. He's the best Democratic president we've ever had.

...My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.
Grover Norquist 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan...

I thought you folks HATED government, and wanted to institute a global
internationalist anti-nationalistic anarco-socialist sexo-pharmico-topia..?

I would think drowning the capitalist anti-socialist present government would
be a GOOD thing to you..?

Which freakin' side are you on, people..!!?

(( I'm SO confused.. ))

Straighten me out on this,.. PLEASE..!?

This is a silly thing to say. There hasn't been _any_ reduction in the size of government since Bush took office. Budgets are higher and more people are employed by the government. Maybe drowning a few bureaucrats would reduce the size, but that's not likely to happen, either.
I was going to say roughly the same thing. It's a ridiculous assertion to say that Bush is following Norqvist's advice.

I was going to say roughly the same thing. It's a ridiculous assertion to say that Bush is following Norqvist's advice.
That's not true. There's a neocon stragety called "Starve the Beast". If I recall correctly Norquist is one of it's engineers and cheif proponents. It involves cutting taxes and keeping spending high (just what bush has done) in order to trigger a financial crisis in the federal government that would lead to massive emergency cuts in government spending.

That's not true. There's a neocon stragety called "Starve the Beast". If I recall correctly Norquist is one of it's engineers and cheif proponents. It involves cutting taxes and keeping spending high (just what bush has done) in order to trigger a financial crisis in the federal government that would lead to massive emergency cuts in government spending.

I find it absurd to think that anyone would want to "trigger a financial crisis."

He's the best Democratic president we've ever had.
This is a silly thing to say. Party names are not tied to ideologies. Bush is Republican through and through.

That's not true. There's a neocon stragety called "Starve the Beast". If I recall correctly Norquist is one of it's engineers and cheif proponents. It involves cutting taxes and keeping spending high (just what bush has done) in order to trigger a financial crisis in the federal government that would lead to massive emergency cuts in government spending.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I find it absurd to think that anyone would want to "trigger a financial crisis."
Well, I don't find it absurd at all. I think it's a pretty effective strategy to push through spending cuts that otherwise would never be possible. Also the article I read in the sunday magazine section of the NY times last year made a strong case for that strategy having been already put into effect.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Some conspiracies are real. That's why one can be charged with participating in a criminal conspiracy.

It seems my conspiracy theory's made it to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast

Cut the pentagon budget to ZERO.
Then maybe we can get some peace.
Unfortunatly this will never happen for two reasons.
1. It sounds to much like good sense and would solve certain problems.
2. Because it is an anarcho-communistic-liberal idea...

Bu then your currant regi.. sorry administration would never go for that... Carlyle Group and Haliburton... need I say more?

This is a silly thing to say. There hasn't been _any_ reduction in the size of government since Bush took office. Budgets are higher and more people are employed by the government. Maybe drowning a few bureaucrats would reduce the size, but that's not likely to happen, either.

well we've sort of had a global war (concentrated in Afghanistan/iraq, but probably on elsewhere) to pay for.

the defense spending has skewed the overall spending under Bush.

well we've sort of had a global war (concentrated in Afghanistan/iraq, but probably on elsewhere) to pay for.

the defense spending has skewed the overall spending under Bush.
Didn't Bush cut assistance to your soldiers familys and cut pay to soldiers, cut benefits to veterens etc etc?

Unfortunatly this will never happen for two reasons.
1. It sounds to much like good sense and would solve certain problems.
2. Because it is an anarcho-communistic-liberal idea...

Bu then your currant regi.. sorry administration would never go for that... Carlyle Group and Haliburton... need I say more?

terrible idea

yeah, cut defense budget to $0... and watch the country get hit by terrorists thousands of times, or north korea, or cuba. How naive to think that the bad guys of the world will stop hating us if we stop spending on defense. Our defense is what keeps them from attacking us, why we haven't been struck by terrorism in the US since 9/11.

again, lmao. brilliant!

also, the haliburton/oil argument is invalid.

a)someone has to process the oil
b)iraq still owns the oil
c)could anyone else in iraq do it?
d)even if the answer to C is "yes", by processing the oil, are we not both paying taxes in iraq and employing iraqis? Don't the profits go to iraq, since the oil is in their country?

Didn't Bush cut assistance to your soldiers familys and cut pay to soldiers, cut benefits to veterens etc etc?

ahhh, no. i know he asked Congress for pay/benefit increases for our armed forces. at that point it'd be up to congress to pass it.

That's not true. There's a neocon stragety called "Starve the Beast". If I recall correctly Norquist is one of it's engineers and cheif proponents. It involves cutting taxes and keeping spending high (just what bush has done) in order to trigger a financial crisis in the federal government that would lead to massive emergency cuts in government spending.
That's no conspiracy theory. That's one item on the neo-con policy wish list. The neo-cons are more than just the Bush admin and a lot older, too. They've got lots of titled theoretical plans on how to re-establish that fabled Gilded Age.

But the joke's on them because the world doesn't work the way it did in the 1890s. They don't understand that they are building a house of cards that will certainly collapse on top of them. They'll be China's bitches even more than the suffering American worker.

terrible idea

yeah, cut defense budget to $0... and watch the country get hit by terrorists thousands of times, or north korea, or cuba. How naive to think that the bad guys of the world will stop hating us if we stop spending on defense. Our defense is what keeps them from attacking us, why we haven't been struck by terrorism in the US since 9/11.

again, lmao. brilliant!

also, the haliburton/oil argument is invalid.

a)someone has to process the oil
b)iraq still owns the oil
c)could anyone else in iraq do it?
d)even if the answer to C is "yes", by processing the oil, are we not both paying taxes in iraq and employing iraqis? Don't the profits go to iraq, since the oil is in their country?
Yes, we need a proper military, but no, nobody needs Halliburton except Cheney. It's like hiring a bank robber to make your withdrawals for you. Stupid, crooked, doomed to fail.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

it is a conspiracy of sorts. it is a plan put into action by certain players to achieve a particular end. though they've been rather open about the plan in their own journals. sort of like how they came out and published their plan about going on a few imperial adventures, particularly in iraq, a few years before they got the power to do so. writing these things off as "conspiracy theories" is just kind of silly - they say they want to do these things, and then they proceed to do them. seems fairly cut and dry to me.

Well, I don't find it absurd at all. I think it's a pretty effective strategy to push through spending cuts that otherwise would never be possible. Also the article I read in the sunday magazine section of the NY times last year made a strong case for that strategy having been already put into effect.

I'm not doubting the authenticity of the strategy or its current application, but rather commenting on your diction when describing it.

"Financial Crisis" is a very....charged way of writing it, adding all sorts of connotations.

Second, it would only be a drop in the bucket compared to how much we spend on non-discretionary programs.



You're probably repeating
the government distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent.
1st
of all, Social Security is not included. The trust fund is collected separately.
the military, current & past equals about 1/2 the budget.


http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm



"Current military" includes Dept. of Defense ($427 billion), the military portion from other departments ($106 billion), anticipated "supplemental allowance" ($25 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($85 billion). "Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt. Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated.

terrible idea

yeah, cut defense budget to $0... and watch the country get hit by terrorists thousands of times, or north korea, or cuba. How naive to think that the bad guys of the world will stop hating us if we stop spending on defense. Our defense is what keeps them from attacking us, why we haven't been struck by terrorism in the US since 9/11.

the terrorists.
How is a missile defense system going to stop a box cutter.
uh, ok. bad example. MDS was a bad idea even when the Soviet
Union was around.
Still, you get the point, right?

N Korea? Cuba?
What makes you think they would want to attack the US?
NKorea can't even feed itself. Why? Because they
spend so much on their military. (Is that why we have
so many poverty places such as N.O.?)
It couldn't be because there's a huge force on the other
side of the border that is technically still at war with
them.
Cuba? I could see them being mad at the US gov't for
trying to assassinate Castro like 9 times or something,
and for using biological weapons on their pigs, among
other things. But why would they?



The "bad guys" and the rest of the world will stop hating
us when we stop messing around in their countries.
Be it invasions like Vietnam or Greneda,
assassinating their leaders, overthrowing their democratically
elected gov't like Iran 1953 or Guatemala 1952?,
or rigging their elections like Italy just after WW2 or
Australia in the 70s or rendering Japan a de facto one-party
state by funneling money to their Liberal Democratic Party.
Just because those in power here don't happen to like
their politics.

Our gov't has done all sorts of awful things without our
knowledge or consent. It's disgusting.

it is a conspiracy of sorts. it is a plan put into action by certain players to achieve a particular end. though they've been rather open about the plan in their own journals. sort of like how they came out and published their plan about going on a few imperial adventures, particularly in iraq, a few years before they got the power to do so. writing these things off as "conspiracy theories" is just kind of silly - they say they want to do these things, and then they proceed to do them. seems fairly cut and dry to me.

Sort of like how Aryan racial purity was a "conspiracy" that also happened to be systematically spelled out in Mein Kampf?

Didn't Bush cut assistance to your soldiers familys and cut pay to soldiers, cut benefits to veterens etc etc?ahhh, no. i know he asked Congress for pay/benefit increases for our armed forces. at that point it'd be up to congress to pass it.

Run a Google search on the terms "Cuts in Veterans Benefits" "Cuts in Soldier Pay" and "Cuts in Soldier Family Assistance" and you will see for yourself.

Soldier pay is sort of a grey area, becuase most people define a "pay cut" as the difference between the pay of their civilian job and their military pay rate. I don't necessarily think that's a fair definition, but some do.

But Veterans Benefits and assistance to the families of soldiers?? There's plenty there to read up on. All of it bad. :mad:

It's not always Bush who proposes or initially supports these cuts, but if not, it's Republicans in the House who do...and Bush has yet to speak out against such plans from anything I have read.

It always astonishes me when people claim the Republicans are the better party for our military. :(

Run a Google search on the terms "Cuts in Veterans Benefits" "Cuts in Soldier Pay" and "Cuts in Soldier Family Assistance" and you will see for yourself.

Soldier pay is sort of a grey area, becuase most people define a "pay cut" as the difference between the pay of their civilian job and their military pay rate. I don't necessarily think that's a fair definition, but some do.

But Veterans Benefits and assistance to the families of soldiers?? There's plenty there to read up on. All of it bad. :mad:

It's not always Bush who proposes or initially supports these cuts, but if not, it's Republicans in the House who do...and Bush has yet to speak out against such plans from anything I have read.

It always astonishes me when people claim the Republicans are the better party for our military. :(
Then temper what you read with the knowledge that to most politicians a 'cut' is what happens when you don't get the same rate of increase that was in the last budget. Most of these 'cuts' are just that. Sometimes the implementation of some user fees becomes a 'cut', as well.

If Bush had ever actually cut a dollar from the budget, this might be a more clever thread.

the terrorists.
How is a missile defense system going to stop a box cutter.
uh, ok. bad example. MDS was a bad idea even when the Soviet
Union was around.
Still, you get the point, right?

N Korea? Cuba?
What makes you think they would want to attack the US?
NKorea can't even feed itself. Why? Because they
spend so much on their military. (Is that why we have
so many poverty places such as N.O.?)
It couldn't be because there's a huge force on the other
side of the border that is technically still at war with
them.
Cuba? I could see them being mad at the US gov't for
trying to assassinate Castro like 9 times or something,
and for using biological weapons on their pigs, among
other things. But why would they?



The "bad guys" and the rest of the world will stop hating
us when we stop messing around in their countries.
Be it invasions like Vietnam or Greneda,
assassinating their leaders, overthrowing their democratically
elected gov't like Iran 1953 or Guatemala 1952?,
or rigging their elections like Italy just after WW2 or
Australia in the 70s or rendering Japan a de facto one-party
state by funneling money to their Liberal Democratic Party.
Just because those in power here don't happen to like
their politics.

Our gov't has done all sorts of awful things without our
knowledge or consent. It's disgusting.

So has every other nation on the face of the earth. Welcome to the real world where sometimes nations have to do things in...I dare say: their own best interests.

Besides, the Italian election was not rigged...although sometimes I wish it was, maybe then my madrepatria would have been given a much fairer deal then the nazi-sympathizing north.

Aside from that, the Missile Defense program, I think is actually going to get much more important as time passes, judging by China's advances. Although reducing the deficit would protect us more so from the Red Dragon rising in the East.

And if that "huge" (you mean very small) International military presence wasn't there on the other side of the border then artillery shells would be raining down on Seoul faster than you can say Kimche.
North Korea is an immediate, no I don't think immediate really illustrates the urgency and danger involved in the situation, threat to South Korea, and few people realize that Pyongyang's military could shoot some artillery (tubed or otherwise) from well within their border and start knocking out major population centers, such as Inchon.

I don't think the U.S. should go to war with North Korea, the danger to the South Korea people is far too great, but it should definitely be there in force, because when Kim Jong il dies without a successor, the stuff is really going to hit the fan, for precisely the reasons you said "they can't wage a war" they will, and must.

Because the people are starving, the only authority and sense of legitamacy in the land is provided by the military, a military designed to invade South Korea. When the power vaccuum re-materializes they will have no choice in their own minds then to march south and complete the glorious reunification of the choson people.

Now I must go to class, I'll be sure to comment later. Adios.