Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    cuba..., 2004-09-14 07:14:04 | Main | why that "high minded discussion of geopolitics" turns up missing in 2004..., 2004-09-15 10:50:22

    big goverment or bigger, bankrupt government:

    take your pick:

    A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan. ...

    The White House has declined to provide a full and detailed accounting of the cost of the new agenda. The administration last week provided a partial listing of the previously unannounced proposals, including "opportunity zones," that totaled $74 billion in spending over the next 10 years. But there was no mention of the cost of additional tax cuts and the creation of Social Security private accounts. ...

    The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include $2.3 billion in spending cuts from virtually all domestic programs not mandated by law, including education, homeland security and others central to Bush's campaign.

    Let's hear it for a paper actually looking at party platforms - that's, like, analysis relevant to the election. Somebody up top must have fucked up to let this slide through.

    Anyway, things to remember about how Bush spends your money: Bush's "war on AIDS" involved slashing US contributions to Global Fund aids relief (and funnelling 15 billion into state sponsored religious campaigning - this is how Israel ended up with Hamas folks), and his administration is now saying homeland security and education are the next targets, meanwhile we waste over 50 billion on defunct Cold War defense programs despite all Rumsfeld's talk about 'transforming the military'. Kerry, I've been told, is the man you want to have pick which budgets to slash, but John Kerry tells me I've been told wrong, because he's as fucking balls-in-apeshit bonkers as everybody else in Washington. Being fucking balls-in-apeshit bonkers is awesome!

    Johnny loses fbiab points, though, for increasing funding where it's actually needed. Where's the fun in drastically increasing insurance-industry corporate welfare to prop up a failing healthcare system (or, actually, nationalizing catastrophic healthcare insurance - in which case savings are supposed to be somehow - "automatically" it says - passed on to consumers: that's the magic of markets! Like how the productivity gains of the past 20 years have automatically been passed onto labor through... stagnant real wages...)? What I really want is more hitech, balls-in-apeshit bombers to sell to our future targets.

:: posted by buermann @ 2004-09-14 11:06:46 CST | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info: