October 05, 2004

There You Go Again

The traditional "how are you going to pay for it?" Republican taunt has a ludicrous ring to it these days. I'd have thought it wise for Bush not to "go there," as they say, if he could help it. But he did go there, briefly, in the debate of course:

BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap. Anyway, that's for another debate.

Of course, the superfluous bloated big government liberal social program that Mr. Prescription Drug Benefit is alluding to here is securing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. You know, so it can't be used to blow us up one day.

Anyway, Lee from RightThinking blows his top over Bush-style fiscal conservatism here and here. He gets a lot of grief from "Republican Zombies" in his comments, but he sure has a point.

(via Andrew Sullivan.)

Posted by Dr. Frank at October 5, 2004 04:24 PM | TrackBack
Comments

What other debate is it for?

Posted by: josh at October 5, 2004 05:19 PM

i know you were figuring on there not being an answer, but there is a debate scheduled specifically for domestic issues, i.e. taxes and gay marriage and martha stewart. the last one was about foreign affairs, i believe. or maybe just iraq. i dont know.

Posted by: christ opher at October 5, 2004 05:24 PM

Yep. The last was foreign affairs, the next will be domestic and I think the last is going to be a town hall format.

Posted by: eric at October 5, 2004 05:53 PM

The biggest problem with "spend more on securing Russia's nuclear materials" is that the Russians keep foot-dragging and demanding more money, from what I've been reading.

Almost as if certain Russian interests either 1) don't want the materials secured and/or 2) want to milk the US for every cent they can get along the way. (If Kerry says "I'm going ot do it in 4 years!" either he has another Secret Plan he's not sharing, or the Russians are going to milk us dry because they know they've got him in a bind. Of course, he could always blame Russian non-cooperation, but that would be long after he used the effects of Russian non-cooperation with Bush to his advantage. Unless he has some details somewhere of how he will achieve this magic result, I'm calling rhetorical cheap-shot bullshit.)

Plus it looks like Bush's response was to a whole lot more than spending in Russia. Like Kerry's suggestion that the Federal government fix the nation's tunnels, bridges, and subways. (Certainly subways aren't part of the Interstate or US Highway system, so why they're the Feds' business I can't imagine.)

More relevantly, the analyses I've seen of both candidates' spending plans (based on their promises) vs. their plans for raising money, still seem to put Kerry further in the hole.

It does no good (from a fiscal conservancy standpoint) to raise taxes by N dollars if you spend more than N, compared to the Other Guy... unless what you're spending it on is Very Very Important. I'm not sure throwing money at NYC's subway system from Washington is Very Very Important - can't NYC DIY?

Posted by: Sigivald at October 5, 2004 06:19 PM

If Republicans can be equated to "Zombies", wouldn't it only be fair to say that Democrats are Vampires?

Posted by: Zaphod at October 5, 2004 09:00 PM

"I'm not sure throwing money at NYC's subway system from Washington is Very Very Important - can't NYC DIY?"

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Finally, a thinking man and a realist!

All very good points Sigivald, but I liked the above one the best. Isn't that why states and cities, townships and municipalities to a lesser extent are sem-self governing units of the nation? That at least is what I was taught in Government class back in High-School. The national government having their hands in everything and dictating everything and trying to provide "social" programs and "universal healthcare" reeks of Communism. (*GASP!!!!) I just said the "C" word!!

Posted by: Zaphod at October 5, 2004 09:05 PM

Lee's right to be concerned. But I'm even more concerned on big government bloating up even more under Kerry. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but in this arena it's definitely a choice between one who'll make sure the government is huge, and one that will do his best to make it even bigger. *shrug* At least we have a choice...*lol*

Posted by: Chrees at October 5, 2004 09:20 PM

Hey look, if George W. Bush wants the Federal Government to tell all of the homos in new york city they can't get married, then the Federal Government and spend some money so they can ride around in a nice subway system and rub assholes all day long in comfort.

Posted by: christ opher at October 5, 2004 09:21 PM

Yeah, guys, that's where small government conservatism has taken us in this glorious age of fiscal restraint: throw mass quantities of pork at everything except municipal subway sytems.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at October 5, 2004 09:31 PM

The Vice Presidential debate tonight will be a joke, but I'll probably watch it anyway. Edwards is going to eat Cheney alive for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Posted by: Zaphod at October 5, 2004 11:08 PM

i wasn't being sarcastic. i may have typed "and" instead of "can", but im dead serious. if george bush's idea of limited government includes amending the constitution to keep gay people from marrying, it should also include expanding areas of government that actually help people. no one is complaining about them spending money on developing a new type of bunker-busting NUKE, but they repair a few switchblade rips on the D train and you start bellyaching!?

Posted by: christ opher at October 5, 2004 11:10 PM

Christ,

I know I'm going to sound like a pompous jerk...but I find myself cringing every time I read a posting from Zaphod. It is quite possible he slept through parts of his high school government class (though that in itself doesn't account for all of his misstatements).

The Federal government does fund local transportation projects - including subways. Look up the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (aka TEA 21). States, counties, and ESPECIALLY municipalities are ill equipped to fund massive transportation/public works projects. Your federal tax dollars should be building and maintaining this country's transportation infrastructure - not merely building weapons of mass destruction (or bunker busting nuclear weapons).

If you haven't heard of TEA 21, it's the son of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Who was President in 1991? George H.W. Bush! He knew the value of investing in silly things like subways. Now does Senator Kerry's suggestion that this country invest in transportation rather than war still sound far fetched?

And another thing...George W. is waging a multi-billion dollar war while cutting taxes. Does that make sense? No. You can't have it both ways Zaph. If you want this war, YOUR tax dollars have to pay for it... George W's legacy? A failed war. A multi-TRILLION dollar deficit (after President Clinton erased the last deficit). Tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. And somehow half of the registered voters in this country are still planning to vote for him. How sad is that?

And about same sex marriage... Why is this even on the radar for the Republican party? Hate seems to rank high on the party platform these days.

Posted by: jfrancis at October 6, 2004 12:09 AM

You're right JFrancis, I had no idea about the ISTEA,(as I'm sure MOST people don't) I was agreeing with Sigivald's assertion, so score 1 for you. I'm not a politician, just a common shmuck with a 4 year degree in Computer Science trying to give my thoughts on the subject. Why bash me though? Is it because I have a conservative point of view? Who cares about gay marriage? Let God sort it out later on. Oh well, it'd be nice if we could all get along but we can't so...Que sera sera.

Posted by: Zaphod at October 6, 2004 12:46 AM

Zaphod,

I did kind of bash you, huh? Sorry about that. Truly I apologize for going over the line with my last posting. Patience is evidently not one of my strong points. Don't take it personally. I've been bashed in this space a few times. I'm probably a better person for it. Maybe not.

As for your "conservative point of view" - I fully respect your right to cherish any view you choose. I'm just baffled. Traditional conservative values generally stressed fiscal accountability and didn't have anything to do with what went on in the bedroom. The latest batch of conservatives don't seem to have a problem with spending like there is no tomorrow (in this case, the war in Iraq)...without trying to balance the budget (usually accomplished by raising, rather than lowering, taxes). That is not conservative behavior; it's irresponsible behavior, plain and simple. The deficit will be passed onto the next generation...and the one after that. The lesson here: If you cut taxes, you must cut spending. You can't cut taxes and increase spending (on war or anything else) and still be a fiscal conservative. Agreed?

As for gay marriage...I'm all for it! Why the heck would anyone want to pass a constitutional amendment banning it? Contrary to W's fear, gay marriage does not "threaten the sanctity of the institution." I think somebody may not be completely comfortable with his sexuality. That's cool with me, too. I just hope we don't see a day when hatred and homophobia are constitutionally validated.

Would it really be nice if we all got along? I would probably lose interest in this blog if we goose stepped in unison.

Posted by: jfrancis at October 6, 2004 02:06 AM

The cost of Foreign Policy is an issue for a foreign policy debate.

Posted by: josh at October 6, 2004 05:39 PM

I'd rather duck walk than goose step (if that's OK)... at least when I feel like channeling Chuck Berry.

Posted by: Chrees at October 6, 2004 08:14 PM

Duck walking it is. Hail! Hail Chuck Berry!
I suppose moonwalking would be permissible, too - but I wouldn't be as enthusiastic about it.

Posted by: jfrancis at October 6, 2004 08:29 PM

"As for gay marriage...I'm all for it! Why the heck would anyone want to pass a constitutional amendment banning it?"

Oh, I don't know. Preserving one of the last pillars of Judeo-Christian civilization might have something to do with it, but hey, we're much too "enlightened" for that kind of stuff these days. Right? We've outgrown that kinda stuff?
What are you, the wisest human being in the history of the world? Traditions couldn't possibly have any basis for existence. It's all a big heterosexist plot by rich white males or something?

Anyway, Kerry's points are rather moot, Dr. Frank, it's not a debating club but a sales pitch for leadership. And that dude ain't fit to be dog catcher.

Posted by: JB at October 6, 2004 09:02 PM

"Oh, I don't know. Preserving one of the last pillars of Judeo-Christian civilization might have something to do with it, but hey, we're much too "enlightened" for that kind of stuff these days. Right?"

No, just too pious to take that whole "separation of church and state" thing too seriously. I mean, the Constitution's good and all, but there isn't enough Jesus in it. Somebody fetch me my Amendin' pen...

Posted by: DHarveyOswald at October 6, 2004 09:59 PM

I don't recall such a verse in the Bible, but I'm sure that at the time "gay" was synonomous with "happy" not homosexual. The only line I can remember said "man shall not lie down with man nor beast", "man" not meaning "mankind" but "male". Either way,
Like I said before, let them do as they will and in the end God himself shall decide their fate, not you or I.

Posted by: Zaphod at October 7, 2004 12:04 AM

i think he was making fun of you,my friend.
almost funny but otherwise completely pointless.

in other words worst episode ever

Posted by: justme at October 7, 2004 12:45 AM

JB,
As for "preserving" Judeo-Christian values, that seems like a job for the Judeo-Christians. Nobody says you have to consider gay people to be married, or that their relationships can ever be considered whatever you take marriage to mean. In the eyes of the law, though, marriage is not a a "sacred bond," it's simply a contract. What is sacred is for people to determine.

Posted by: josh at October 7, 2004 01:57 PM

Blasphemy and hereticism is just soooooooo becoming of people. It always makes me want to listen to their point of view. sigh :(

Posted by: Zaphod at October 7, 2004 05:44 PM

I'm not sure where I blasphemed or showed myself to be a heretic. Do you belong to the church of the law?

Posted by: josh at October 7, 2004 07:05 PM

ahh...formulate an opinion eh? let's talk
about formulating opinions as opposed to spouting
them,which is what i feel like you where just doing. Formulating implies to think about,to ponder,to mull over,not just to balk at the impossible. We used to think it was impossible
to fly,along with a great many astronomical things
in the world.

Posted by: just me at October 7, 2004 07:20 PM

"Blasphemy and hereticism is just soooooooo becoming of people. It always makes me want to listen to their point of view. sigh"

Funny, I feel the same way about intolerance.

Posted by: DHarveyOswald at October 7, 2004 07:30 PM

Sorry about the confusion Josh, I was referring to the following:

almost funny? almost? who are you to judge me? just you, that's right. now as for what the bible says - it also says man was here on the sixth day of the earth's creation. and some holy ghost raped a lady. and all of the earth's creatures (two of each) were put on a big old boat by one old man and they sailed around for a long time until the flood was over and then repopulated the world. if you want to check with that book of "facts" before you formulate an opinion, you are on your own.

Posted by: Zaphod at October 7, 2004 09:27 PM

Okay then, scratch what I said about intolerance. My biggest beef with the proposed ban on gay marriage is that I have yet to hear a single justification for it that isn't religious in nature. That would make the constitutional amendment itself unconstitutional. Which I have a problem with. Our country may have been founded on Judeo-Christian values, but our government, by design, was not.

Posted by: DHarveyOswald at October 7, 2004 10:00 PM

I could care less if they wanna get married. St. Peter has a list of all the naughties and nices and when the time comes, they'll see if they made a "monumental mistake" or not. Hopefully hey'll repent and pay their pennance, be forgiven and be judged on the other facets of their life, but if not then they must reap what they have sowed.

Posted by: Zaphod at October 7, 2004 11:41 PM

"Sorry about the confusion Josh, I was referring to the following:

almost funny? almost? who are you to judge me? just you, that's right. now as for what the bible says - it also says man was here on the sixth day of the earth's creation. and some holy ghost raped a lady. and all of the earth's creatures (two of each) were put on a big old boat by one old man and they sailed around for a long time until the flood was over and then repopulated the world. if you want to check with that book of "facts" before you formulate an opinion, you are on your own."


I realized that about 30 seconds after clicking post. What's the right way to handle that situation? My faux-pas.

Posted by: josh at October 8, 2004 01:50 PM

God Bless christ opher....

Posted by: Zaphod at October 8, 2004 05:28 PM


you started out so well...that was sort of like formulating,trying to take the true meaning of words...that was thinking...searching...pondering what might actually be the truth. now what i believe it also takes is prayer to have personal revelation about things you are having trouble with,but usually people that that don't put that much merit to the bible don't like that answer.

so...i will instead debate your defination of rape,a thing i never do. in my understanding its also much more of a violent thing,which i don't imagine the holy ghost would be doing. i also think that if mary knew that she would have baby jesus she's probably be pretty okay with it.

Posted by: just me at October 8, 2004 06:40 PM

But nobody asked her, did they.

Posted by: josh at October 8, 2004 06:49 PM

?

Posted by: josh at October 8, 2004 06:49 PM

Hey Chirstopher, I used to be like you, a flaming Athiest. I know some of the biblical stories are a bit hard to swallow, to say the least. Then as I got a bit older I began to think this way: "I'm not a rapist, murderer, molester and I try to do the right thing so, I'm pretty much living by the rules of the Bible anyway. What harm would it do for me to stop blaspheming and denouncing the Bible and it's followers? What harm would it do to get an hour less sleep on Sunday and attended Church?" On the same token I know you're thinking, "oh, I don't want to go to Church, they'll try to convert me, they'll tell me how rotten I am and how much I've sinned, they'll shame me and make me feel guilty." That's not the case with all Churches, you'll have to ask around and find a kinder and gentler Church. You may also ask, "What good would it do?" Well, let me tell you this: Let's just pretend for a moment that your "wizard in the sky" is real. Would you want an eternity of happiness or of torment and pain? I know I've sinned in the past and will continue to do so, but by accepting God and asking for forgiveness, the keys to Heavan shall be granted to you. You have free will, so do as thou wilt, but this is just a bit of food for thought.

Posted by: Zaphod at October 8, 2004 07:08 PM


okay you guys,just one more thing because we are WAY off topic here,i think i shouldn't have said anything.

the problem is you are thinking of this in a purely physical sense. now i'm not good at remembering scriptures nor do i have them at hand but i don't think it was quite that way. this is a *gasp* miracle we're talking about,nobody had
sex as we know it with anybody and i think that's
kind of a needed factor if you're calling it rape.
i could be wrong though i suppose.

define young,i'm certainly past highschool myself.

Posted by: just me at October 9, 2004 07:58 PM