Wednesday, 25 October 2006
|0832 - Zucker gets it exactly right|
Filmmaker David Zucker (of Airplane! fame) made a political ad showing what the Democrats really want. He got it exactly right.
I'm going to be a nice guy and not embed it here. Pop on over to the Pajamas Media site to see it.
current mood: amused
Unfortunately, we've got too many big-government types in the Republican camp these days, too. I don't like having to choose between "big" and "bigger." I want the small government, strong military, pro-nuclear power party.
So do I. There isn't one. We're stuck with the lesser of two evils, and as someone pointed out, that choice is still evil.
I'm not sure it *is* the lesser. If you're going to spend all the money we've been spending, it's better to tax to get money to do it with than it is to just print more money. Add to that the Republican party's incestuous relationship with the religious right, its attitudes towards gays, its anti-science, anti-research, anti-progress stance, and its embrace of the worst aspects of Democrat-style nanny-statism (an internet gambling ban attached to a port security bill!), and the *only* thing it has going for it is a half-assed commitment to fighting Islamism. And it's screwing *that* up, because it can't even bring itself to name the enemy.
Hell, the Dems have even pretty much given up on gun control. If they'd just get serious about national security, picking them over the Republicans would be a no-brainer.
Really, that's the one place where I often disagreed with the libertarian party. They tend to be for a strong military, but they're also for isolationism. Other than that, since they've re-vamped their platform this year I agree with pretty much everything in it. I'm tired of big vs. bigger too. I'm supporting republicans who have a good solid voting record on small government, but voting libertarian otherwise.
I'd find that ad a lot more credible if a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Congress weren't spending money like it's going out of style. Tax-and-spend is more fiscally responsible than cut-taxes-and-spend, and when the Repubs lose both houses in a couple of weeks their fiscal irresponsibility and public surrender of their core platform values are going to be the reason why.
*sigh* I'm sure Jay doesn't want us arguing on his journal, so I'll try and keep it short.
Tax revenue has increased since the taxes were lowered. Tax revenue is at an all-time high. I suspect we would actually have less money to apply to the budget if we had increased taxes instead.
You're right on the spending part. They went a bit nuts the first 4 years of the Bush admin. They should have cut spending to match the dropping revenue from the combined internet bubble burst and 9/11 downturn. Bush has done well on his 2004 fiscal responsibility pledge though. He promised to cut the deficit in half by the time he leaves office. The economic growth has cut it in half in half the time...
Bush has been somewhat fiscally irresponsible, but not to the extent that many people claim he is.
Sigh, there really is no party that is fiscally conservative.
The reason for the good economy? The hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars, mainly from the Chinese. Not tax cuts. If we hadn't of pumped that money into the bungled Iraqi war machine, the economy would be doing even better.
Tax cuts are a bribe to buy votes... it is NOT fiscal responsibility.