All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Does it need to be said that cutting taxes while increasing govt spending will not decrease govt spending?

The article suggested "Starving the Beast" doesn't work. But then it admitted that STB has actually never really been tried. STB by definition requires two prongs - tax cuts and spending cuts.

I agree with you that any Republican suggesting you can spend like madmen as Bush has, and still cut govt spending, is being absurd. But thats not STB, and the author of the article shouldn't confuse that sort of spending and taxing (I don't know what to call it) with STB.

STB hasn't been tried, but if it was, it would cut govt spending. That it hasn't highlights the fact that a whole lotta folks calling themselves conservatives are only so until the benefits cut affect them.

It's the notwithstanding-the-last-fucked-up-five-years,-conservative-government-has-never-been-tried meme. What a gas!

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Shit. PJ O'Rourke nailed this issue back in the early 90s in Parliament of Whores. His observation that there is no way to curb wasteful govt outlays without term limits still remains the only true solution to the problem. 99.9% of the waste is generated by people putting the purchase of votes above the charge of their office.

Why not apply the two term limit enforced against the President on every Senator and Congressman?

Fine with me, but aren't the incentives still there even if you have to go through the revolving door a little faster? If you're a player in an industry with concerns that can be addressed by the chairman of a certain committee are you going to not take him for a ride on the helicopter, champagne blow and hos just because he's going to be gone in six or eight years? If you're the chairman of some committee and your time is coming to an end won't you be looking for a soft landing in a private sector gig?

Why not stop pretending that campaign contributions are constitutionally-protected speech? Every candidate gets a nice little lump sum and contributions are banned. Soft money-sponsored PACs and suchlike cannot run "issue ads" in an election cycle. This will happen when the tiny antimatter boots are perfected, but still.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's the notwithstanding-the-last-fucked-up-five-years,-conservative-government-has-never-been-tried meme. What a gas!

To be fair, they were stuck with the surplus Clinton built up during his eight years of peace and prosperity and you can't very well start starving the beast until the cupboards are good and bare.

Starting the wars was a good way to jumpstart the process, however, and they did get us down to zero in record time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
Fine with me, but aren't the incentives still there even if you have to go through the revolving door a little faster? If you're a player in an industry with concerns that can be addressed by the chairman of a certain committee are you going to not take him for a ride on the helicopter, champagne blow and hos just because he's going to be gone in six or eight years? If you're the chairman of some committee and your time is coming to an end won't you be looking for a soft landing in a private sector gig?

Why not stop pretending that campaign contributions are constitutionally-protected speech? Every candidate gets a nice little lump sum and contributions are banned. Soft money-sponsored PACs and suchlike cannot run "issue ads" in an election cycle. This will happen when the tiny antimatter boots are perfected, but still.

I left that flank open because I didn't have any way of protecting it. I can't argue aginst what you've said. I was kind of hoping somebody would write what you did, and then somebody else with more knowledge and understanding would come in and say "No, term limits WILL work."

But at least term limits give us a starting point. In the upheaval caused by their imposition, we'll have at least a few years of confusion before the entrenched corruption reaffirms its death grip.

Your last suggestion is the nuclear option which would of course work. For exactly that reason, it will never be implemented. Were it to even catch steam as an option, I think you'd see people decry it on economic grounds ("If we do that, the Market will tank forever!" "Corporations will all run abroad!").

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Think of it this way- say if a money manager says "fringe we're going to budget you to only $4.00 a day for breakfast." that would be one way to reduce-

but another way is to start only giving you 2 pieces of bacon instead of 3 or 4.

But in our congressional hypo, they are the the person doling out the bacon. Moron.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Think of it this way- say if a money manager says "fringe we're going to budget you to only $4.00 a day for breakfast." that would be one way to reduce-

but another way is to start only giving you 2 pieces of bacon instead of 3 or 4.

But in our congressional hypo, they are the the person doling out the bacon. Moron.

ETA and 2 pancakes and 2 bacons is less than $4.00.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But in our congressional hypo, they are the the person doling out the bacon. Moron.

Hank is pretty smart, but the fact that he has never learned not to pick a fight with you about bacon makes me wonder about his judgment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But in our congressional hypo, they are the the person doling out the bacon. Moron.

uhhh, ltl/dim-one, it's not Congress that needs the reduction, unless you think its pay raises are straining the cofers. The equivalent to "the one needing to reduce" is the Executive and entitlement programs. The chef at your caf PLUS the money manager are Congress.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

ETA and 2 pancakes and 2 bacons is less than $4.00.

Exactly. Tax cuts can work.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. Tax cuts can work.

It's the same price when "2 bacons" is more like "4 bacons." The price does not vary.

Are you saying you want the gov't to get less for its money? Because I maybe could get behind the $5,000 toilet seat thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's the same price when "2 bacons" is more like "4 bacons." The price does not vary.

Are you saying you want the gov't to get less for its money? Because I maybe could get behind the $5,000 toilet seat thing.

the "country" can get by on two bacons- but if it comes to expect 4, then it can get an entitlement mindset, I say to you ms. fringey, let us not fear the inevitable chill and storms of autumn and winter, instead, let us anticipate the rapid growth of
springtime, let us await the rewards of summer. As in a garden
of the earth, let us learn to accept and appreciate the times
when the trees are bare as well as the times when we pick the fruit.

i mean how can you argue that un-needed, indeed unordered, bacon is not the full equivalent of "pork" in a spending bill?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ironweed
If you're a player in an industry with concerns that can be addressed by the chairman of a certain committee are you going to not take him for a ride on the helicopter, champagne blow and hos just because he's going to be gone in six or eight years?

Or you'll wine and dine the staff.

On speech/money, I've never understood how money equals speech under the first amendment, but I'm no con. law scholar.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Or you'll wine and dine the staff.

On speech/money, I've never understood how money equals speech under the first amendment, but I'm no con. law scholar.

Good call on the staff - they like hookers and blow as much as anyone and will probably appreciate it more, being young and probably somewhat less liquid. Staffers everywhere salute you.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ironweed
probably somewhat less liquid.

Especially after the Flower-esque voluminous ejaculations.

Originally posted by Gattigap
Especially after the Flower-esque voluminous ejaculations.

Who would have thought that dry wit could be a symptom of chronic, voluminous-ejaculation-related dehydration? He is in our prayers.