Print Story Bush Administration Plans For World Peace!
Politics
By wiredog (Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:17:25 AM EST) (all tags)
From The Washington Post: US Federal Budget will have a surplus by 2012! Assuming a sudden outbreak of World Peace. Or maybe The Rapture.

Snippets and comments (some in [] and some in markup) below.



As you may have heard, the latest White House proposal for the federal budget amounts to a bazillion gazillion dollars, give or take a jillion. The great news is that, according to White House calculations, the budget deficit has been cut in half, a feat achieved primarily by running up the deficit to such grotesque levels that the halving of it is like drinking too much and then passing out.

[The average HuSite has no problem understanding that reference!]

The "mandatory" portion of the budget, the entitlement programs, is surging. Health care is a grave concern. Baby boomers are reaching retirement and they're all going to want new hips. ... [Paging Mr Ha. ...]

We must do something,... But this involves discomfort, disappointment, recriminations. Fewer benefits or more taxes. [And who wants that?]

...

Including what we owe to ourselves for our many years of spending the Social Security money that we were pretending to save, the debt stands at approximately $8,821,053,163,042. [I like that "approximately".]

...

Eight trillion 800 billion and change.

Is that a lot? You might want to think about it, since you owe it.

To the Chinese, among others. [The others include the Saudis. Now do you understand US foreign policy?]

THE FEDERAL BUDGET IS FUNDAMENTALLY A DULL AND TEDIOUS SUBJECT, like topsoil erosion, only not as glitzy. The national debt in its wildest fantasies wishes it could be as sexy as global warming. ...

...

[Why is it impossible to balance?] "It's because it is politically much more popular to be for every tax cut and every spending program. That's what this president has done. It takes a while for the folly of this fiscal policy to be revealed," Conrad [D-Somewhere In The Dakotas] said. "The only thing that fixes it is our political will. And the citizenry rising up to tell our elected representatives to stop this."

...

But the citizenry does not rise.

...

In 1979, during Jimmy Carter's [famously liberal, according to conservatives] presidency, federal outlays were 20.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. In 2006 [during the supposedly conservative Bush Presidency], they were 20.3 percent.

...

the dead of winter is Budget Season in Washington.

At this very second, somewhere in town, men and women are examining tables filled with numbers, most of which, out of convenience or perhaps shame, have had the last six zeros deleted. When dealing with items like Social Security and Medicare and the Pentagon, you can get away with lopping off nine zeros. You know you've hit the big time when you can round to the nearest billion.

...

according to OMB, the government has spent $426.8 billion on the war, ... asking for another $235.1 billion ... through the end of the 2008 fiscal year. OMB's five-year budget plan,..., projects only $50 billion for the war in 2009, and no money at all in 2010, 2011 and 2012. It anticipates peace, in short.

...

The hard copy of the president's budget comes in four volumes, the real star of which is the Appendix. It's 1,237 pages, with tiny type and two columns per page.

This is where you learn about obscure budget items such as the Helium Fund, the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Liquidating Account, the White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance ($200,000 to "to revitalize the commemoration of Memorial Day") and the United States Institute of Peace (shouldn't its employees work harder?).

...

Lobbyists know how to get an earmark in the middle of the night when no one's looking. Thus millions might get splurged on a "Bridge to Nowhere" in remote Alaska even as, for example, outpatient war veterans at Walter Reed live in squalor.

...

The scariest person when it comes to the budget is David Walker, the comptroller general at the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. ...

Consider, he says, Medicare's newly added prescription-drug benefit. We'd have to have $8 trillion right now [we don't], invested in Treasury bonds, to cover the gap between what we've promised in that program and what we expect to receive in premiums over the next 75 years, by his calculation. The Social Security gap is $6.4 trillion, he says, and the total Medicare gap is $32 trillion. Overall "unfunded commitments" of the government total about $50 trillion, Walker says.

...

... The Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, [says] federal debt could rise from 37 percent to 100 percent of GDP. And then could keep rising "exponentially."

...

"If you take that $50 trillion," says Walker, "that's $440,000 per household."


Is the Republican Party doomed? The Whigs were replaced by the Republicans over the issue of abolition of slavery. Fairly quickly, too. Could the Republicans be going the way of the Whigs? Have our lip-smackingly self-satisfied President and his toadying clique of yes-men destroyed any chance the Republicans have of being more than a regional party catering only to the social conservatives in the Deep South? That's the question Andrew Sullivan is asking.

Overview:

Add them up. We witness another horrifying suicide bombing in Iraq... U.S. attorneys were leaned on by Republicans ... to bring cases against some Democrats - and the ones who refused were then fired. The vice-president's closest aide has been found guilty of perjury ... The guiltier parties - Rove and Armitage and Cheney - are still in power. We now see shameful neglect of injured veterans under the very noses of the defense secretary. On the intellectual front, we have now seen a conservative icon reveling in bigotry in full view of the national media ... Any one of these stories individually is damaging. Together, they exert a hurricane-strength storm on the Bush administration and the conservative movement.

...They are ruthless operatives who abuse the system for partisan ends (DeLay and Domenici). They are nasty bigots (Coulter) or theocons sympathizing with Islamists (D'Souza). They are perjurers (Libby) or cowards (Rove). Our future fiscal health is far, far worse than it was in 2000 [see above]. Climate change looks more and more real and they have no serious policy to deal with it.

Now realize that no major Republican candidate has the backing of the base and the elites. ... The eclipse of old-style, limited government, realist, inclusive conservatism [my sort] by the new pro-torture, left-baiting, homo-hating, debt-building, war-losing apparatchiks of the Rove machine could lead to most moderate Republicans and Independents voting Democrat or staying home next year. ... this feels to me like an implosion. ... Only once the GOP wakes up and realizes it has become a nasty rump of Dixie will some see how deep the damage of the Bush years goes.

One thing I suspect, though. Only Hillary can save them now.

More...

... back in the 60's and 70's, the Democrats wasted money and started wars (which was why I chose to register Republican). Now that war and waste have become the mantra of Republicans...[he's now a Democrat]

Loss of Soft Power

Under George W. Bush, the United States has become more disliked in the world than Kim Jong Il's evil dictatorship. That is, of course, an insane degree of anti-Americanism. ... While Bush and Cheney have ground America's hard power into the sands of Anbar, they have all but destroyed America's soft power across the world. It's quite a legacy they leave.
His Type Of Conservativism
I'm a believer in individual freedom, small but strong government, free speech, free trade, secular politics, and the pursuit of happiness ...

...So call me a Tory Whig, if you must. There are more of us around than you think.

< So that's what a decent download feels like! | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Bush Administration Plans For World Peace! | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
In other words he is a f**king liberal by cam (2.00 / 0) #1 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:25:19 AM EST
call the spade a spade for chrissakes. Liberalism is a proud and noble political philosophy.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic


Sullivan says that. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:37:42 AM EST
A liberal of 100 years ago, perhaps. Most people who call themselves liberals are really leftists.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

Not really by cam (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:22:23 AM EST
social democracy and pluralistic governance are arguments within liberalism. The main difference between enlightenment conservatism (Burkean) and enlightenment liberalism (Jeffersonian) is that liberalism allowed for the rationalistic leap, where reason could divine an idea that must be implemented for the idea alone. Conservatism repudiates that requiring the past (or empiricism outside of tradition).

The US form of government would not have occurred without the rationalistic leap which is why John Dean argued that the US Republic has robbed American conservatives of antiquity (unlike Australian conservatives who argue that Australia is incomplete without mingling with its British heritage).

The other side of the coin is that conservatism without the adoption of an idea for the sake of it, is inevitably static and just a rechurn of the past. Mired in such a pattern it lacks any instinct for social progress. Obvioudly monarchy is repugnant these days, so conservatives have hard arguments with themselves. The 'right' (I hate that term) has tried to come to terms with that by adopting economic liberalism (or economic rationalism as it used to be known in Au) and seen that as driving progress - while leaving society and culture static.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Correction by The Fool (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:21:14 AM EST
Most people who call themselves liberals just think that Republicans are idiots. (At least in the USA.)

This encompasses a fairly broad range of the political spectrum.


[ Parent ]

Why do you hate America! by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #2 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:27:56 AM EST
Most of the Republican base seems to have severe problems with seeing reality, though if they're all convinved Rapture is near, who cares about the future.

FWIW, my hips are okay,and I'm not sure surgery would help me, as it's more of a systemic thing.




WIPO by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #3 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:34:12 AM EST
WAR IS PEACE



IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:30:59 AM EST
There's Joe average American in a nutshell.

[ Parent ]

Sorry. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #5 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:45:28 AM EST
Why do the Republicans need to suck up to the Gay Political Agenda?
Why do the Dems need to do the same, for that matter?

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.


By gay political agenda by cam (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:24:46 AM EST
you mean political equality? Universalism is a important liberal principle. Otherwise you end up with political aberrations like a monarchy, a dictator, a tyrant or Guantanamo Bay and Naura.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

In America, gay people can vote as they wish. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:53:01 AM EST
Universal suffrage is political equality.
They simply don't have the numbers to pass their pet legislation, but they love to whine about dis-enfranchisement.

If I woke up one morning and found myself on Planet Gay, I'd keep quiet and find the quickest route to where I felt like I fit in socially and politically. I wish they'd do the same.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

Politics is the administrative side by cam (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:02:49 AM EST
of the legal system, the only reason we tolerate politics/democracy is because it is a less arbitrary and less discriminate legal system than ones based on monarchy, autocracy or tyranny. Political equality encompasses legal equality as well. Political equality is more than just voting - something that is only valid in a democratic system.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

I was referring to America, by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:52:50 AM EST
where we have the right to vote. My comment was framed in your mention of a "democratic system."

The democratic practice of voting for laws and lawmakers is the bedrock of this "legal equality" you speak of.
The gay folks who want changes in legal equality are free to vote their conscience, but without popular support, their agendae will not come to fruition.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

Nowhere did I say "democratic system" by cam (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:44:35 AM EST
... in my reply to you. What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority - or tyranny of the mob in less kinder terms. The point of liberal democratic systems and republicanism as a liberal political technology is to ensure that the minority accepts majority will, but does so, with the knowledge that the minority is secure in their rights. This is why universalism and political/legal equality become so important in a representative system. Otherwise it becomes another vehicle for discrimination, arbitrary government and tyranny.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Q: for you by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:33:06 PM EST
Let's say that all the straights moved out of Vermont and there was a massive influx of gay people to the state, then the new-found majority passed all manner of gay-friendly legislation.

Do you think that the State of Vermont, as part of the Union, would significantly suffer at the hands of other States?

If you don't, which is my position, then I see a way for a sizable minority to establish some real political power.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

So you are arguing that not only should by cam (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:47:57 AM EST
representative democracy be tyranny of the majority, but even in a political sub-unit, where there is a majority, that majority must suffer the tyranny of the minority as well?

That is a pretty pure view of discrimination. For that kind of political opinion you should just make them sit on the back of the bus and be second class citizens. Then you wouldn't have to deal with such quaint ideals as rights, justice or equality.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

re: Vermont by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:16:09 AM EST
where there is a majority, that majority must suffer the tyranny of the minority as well?

No, I didn't say that. Everything's peachy inside Vermont, in my example.
I'm asking if you believe other States would take action against Vermont and if so, how?
Would this be a threat to Union?

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

Of course it isnt a threat to the union by cam (4.00 / 1) #31 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:32:08 AM EST
unless people in Washington State decide it is their business to tell people in Vermont how they must live their lives and how they must conduct their politics.

Federalism is a good form of organisation for a reason.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

ahh you were saying to the immediate parent by cam (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:46:19 AM EST
Not many Republicans are gay by theboz (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:29:14 AM EST
Instead, they prefer to molest children. The Repubes are just jealous that the gays are more legitimate than they are.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

let me write that down. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:41:54 AM EST
Repubs. prefer. to. molest. children.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

It was an unholy union of text and pulped wood that the Ancients used to distribute their blogs.
[ Parent ]

50 trillion by clover kicker (2.00 / 0) #6 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:18:29 AM EST
That's a hard number to understand, how many transport planes of $100 bills is that?

For that matter, how many Fenway Parks full of $100 bills?



Don't know by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:39:52 AM EST
but here's a good indication of what $87 billion is like.

[ Parent ]

To answer by wiredog (4.00 / 3) #11 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:41:51 AM EST
A $100 bill weighs 1 gram. So we're talking 500 million kg. 120,000 kg is the capacity of the C5 Galaxy aircraft.

So figure 4200 flights to transport it all.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]

Whoooo-weeee by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #32 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:58:48 AM EST
Good thing we invented file transfers or the US would never be able to make it's monthly interest payments to China, Japan and Saudi Arabia.  Imagine what the late fees would be like on that kind of scratch! 

[ Parent ]

Yeah, well by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #13 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:04:47 AM EST
At least we don't have a tax-and-spend liberal like Bill Clinton in office! If you think the deficit is bad now, imagine if he were still in power!!

In seriousness...the Republican party needs a reboot. In 2004 I decided not to vote for a Republican, no matter how reasonable, until the entire party gets its head back.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman


It needs to unalign with the Christians by debacle (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:31:27 PM EST
But then what?

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]

Well by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:27:31 PM EST
For one, it needs to renounce deficit spending.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]

Then realign with the vast atheist voting blocks? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:06:41 PM EST
That seems like a recipe for success. Why, I bet there are several hundreds of untapped atheist voters out there. Godless Americans are the new soccer moms.

[ Parent ]

You're much smarter than that by debacle (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:08:05 PM EST
Don't be so facetious.

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]

Sadly, I don't believe I am. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 2) #28 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 02:04:15 AM EST
Seems to me that the Republicans have done little but pay lip service to the religious right.

Sure, they clipped funding to stem cell research, but that left it open for state funding. Now Republican governors in several states are happily funding stem cell research out of state coffers.

And, of course, there's the whole abortion thing. But that's a red herring. Neither party ever had enough clout to force an amendment to the Constitution and the real battles will be fought out in the courts, so any "position" any politico stakes out in the matter is simply so much campaign advertising. For all Bush and Co.'s pro-life posturing (or the posturing, pro-life and pro-choice, of presidents before him) we've essentially maintained the post-Roe v. Wade status quo.

The gay marriage issue was a joke. Despite the media hyper-ventilation, it was a non-starter. They never had the numbers in Congress and in the state legislatures to pull it off. It was, again, a fun little show for the right-wing Christians.

What I'm saying is that right-wing Christians are to the Republicans what African-Americans are to the Democrats. Both groups get a lot of lip service and pandering, but, in truth, the party just wants them to show up on voting day and then quietly line up behind the party leadership.

Every major policy push by Bush has not been for the right-wing Christians, but for the real engine of the Republican party: big business. If you want to find the pernicious root of Bush's crappy policies, you should look there instead of the liberal boogeyman that is the religious right.

[ Parent ]

Why isn't lip service enough? by debacle (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:41:55 AM EST
Lip service and smoke and mirrors got them the votes in 2000, 2004, and will probably still get them the votes in 2008. The Democrats may be in good position but they are still fighting an uphill battle, and one which I am not sure they can win.

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

[ Parent ]

It is enough, which is why it is silly to stop. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:43:14 AM EST
If my mass media overlords are right, apparently the Elephant Party is facing a bit of a mutiny among the fundamentalist friends. The current crop of hopefuls doesn't seem to be to their liking and, as fundies only come out when they feel they've got a candidate to support (they tend not to vote rather than vote for what they feel is the lesser of two evils), Republicans could take a major hit if they lose them.

This is bad new for the Republicans, because I earnestly believe that they are still very much in the running for the next election. For Democrats to win, they'll need to expand their voter base. For Republicans to win, they just need to keep their party together enough to repeat the second Bush election. For that repeat, they need the Christian right.

Which brings us back to my original comment. I believe purposefully unaligning themselves with the Christian right would be a strategically unsound move. I find it doubtful that, in the immediate aftermath of the Bush administration, Republicans can capture a significant portion of the centrist, swing vote. However, they would stand to lose a vote that either goes their way or simply doesn't come out on election day. For the cost of some public song-and-dance routines, they get to keep a large, pro-Republican vote that, if history is any indication, may just be enough to win regardless of their recent track record.

[ Parent ]

if I understand this correctly by dr k (4.00 / 1) #15 Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:18:52 AM EST
a flu pandemic would be good for the debt. On the other hand, it would be bad for the housing market.

:| :| :| :| :|



Bush Administration Plans For World Peace! | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback