I, Heretic

Redstate.org ^ | Nick Danger

[rdb3]

Don an abestos jock strap, quick!

Hey, where is Nick Danger anyway?

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[CaptainKeyword]

this is too long to read but, unless you're being sarcastic in the first few lines, I agree.

boink for later.

[Redbob]

This is a bunch of horse manure.
A big steaming pile, in fact.

Wasteful spending and pork are still wasteful spending and pork when someone with an "R" after his name does it.

[Natty Boh III]

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. An uncontrolled spending spree is fiscal conservatism.

[Ichneumon]

this is too long to read

Short form: "Democrats have always been trying to buy the public's vote by giving them giant free gobs of taxpayers' money, so Republicans are really smart to do the same, and besides, it's not real money anyway since the public debt is just numbers on an accounting sheet."

[jaime1959]

Interesting read. Not sure if I buy into the thesis, especially since it posits that George Chaucey Gardiner Bush could think through something so non-obvious, but it's food for thought.

[sheltonmac]

War is peace. Slavery is freedom. An uncontrolled spending spree is fiscal conservatism.

Orwellian indeed.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

You make some interesting assertions, but I see a few flaws. If "cash is king" as you suggest; then the ability to produce said cash must be meta-king. The Chinese have utilized Americans' (and the world's) appetite for cheap goods to upgrade their infrastructure (and military) which; while they are willing to buy US debt, seems to be a good deal as you outline. But in doing so, they are acquiring the means of production of many things which can be sold for cash. So if I buy your thesis then I also have to see this phenom as one of them acquiring an ever expanding means of cash production. It just so happens that they today have an appetite for US debt, which is hard (for me and many others) to understand. It is also true that the US can just print money, and that's even easier than making cheap goods to sell for money.

Frankly, I think the world is seeing the ease with which the US can simply print money and it is showing up in commodity prices, eg gold and oil

So without going into lengthy discussion, yeah, the juicy game you outline appears to be working for the moment but it's in many ways dependent upon the kindness of strangers, some of whom may well have questionable motives on a long term basis.

As for the OPEC component of generating this magic cash, our ever expanding economy depends in many ways upon cheap [refined] oil. That too apears more and more tenuous as things progress here. I will admit to being very wrong as to the resiliency of the US consumer over the past few years. Today, OPEC accepts our cash for their oil. In some ways, one has to wonder; the Arabs have seen our real estate market double in value, and everybody seems just gag over it. Maybe they feel left out...why shouldn't oil double? Again I say, the game you cite is working just dandy now. It may not always work so well.

[untrained skeptic]

Interesting.

I even agree with some sapects of it.

However, the problem is that the federal government is growing out of control and taking over the responsibilities of the states.

If Louisiana wants to use tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans, that's within their authority to do so. Maybe the federal government should help rebuild some bridges and roads, but a better solution would be to cut most of the federal gas tax, and let the states fix their own roads with gas tax revenues instead of the money all going into the federal government's hands where it gets spent on pork.

There are problems that the federal government needs to throw money at. Border security is an exellent example of this, yet it's getting sidelined while Bush throws money at issues that are outside the responsibility given to the federal government in the constitution.

The federal government needs to shrink significantly, and if the people want more government programs, they should see about getting them implemented at the state level.

[layman]

invest cash in ways that earn a higher rate than we have to pay in interest

OK, but I fail to see how larger bureaucracy payrolls earns any 'rate of return'. Also, when the interest rate required to attract investments in U.S. promissory notes raises to, say 10%, then annual interest on our existing 8 trillion of debt amounts to 800 billion ... nearly $11,000 annually for each family of four ... just to cover the interest. No, like IBM, even nations can go belly up.

[BJClinton]

until the Sun burns out

Or until our credit rating is so bad no one will provide financing to roll over the debt. *shrugs* whatever.

[Rodney King]

Please tell me you are joking.

[jcb8199]

So it's better that the Left gets to spend money, showing people that THEY can get what the people want, rather than using that as a weapon against them--using money so people can see the truth of the Conservative message...

Let the Left continue to use this tool and see what happens to the Conservative voice in Washington--we will be replaced. But, if we use it against the Left, we step in, in their stead, and use this tool, then people will recognize the truth of the Conservative message. It won't be a perpetual spending spree, just long enough to defeat the idea that gov't handouts are the only option. Just watch--once people have their lives back, and things are rebuilt according to the Conservative idea (since Bush and a Repub congress are in charge, largely), people will see that the gov't can provide temporary help, but the only real "fix" comes from the individual--then, buh-bye Leftist ideals...

[Regulator]

Interesting how twisted the contortions get when people try to ignore the obvious and rationalize basically unpardonable behavior.

"It's All Strategery" -- Nick Danger, Since Forever

[Castro]

ping for l8er.

[billbears]

Besides, the Democrats are lying. The minute they got in, they'd start spending like, well, like George Bush and the Republican Congress are spending. But there's a difference: they'd be spending it on their stuff. More social engineering. More government-dependency programs. More crosses soaked in more urine on more government grants.

So trillion dollar healthcare plans are not depending on government? 'Fixing' Social Security isn't depending on government? Pushing for passage of Constitutional Amendments on social issues (clearly a state issue) isn't social engineering? More dollars for federally funded education isn't government dependency and social engineering?

BTW, haven't seen the Republicans offering plans for dissolvement of the National Arts and funding thereof either. How are Republicans better than Democrats again?

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Using their tool, as you put it, is using a socialist redistribution scheme. Slapping a conservative label on it doesn't change that. It hasn't worked anytime it's been tried, ever. This is the flip side of the everybody does it (or the Clintons did it first) defense every time we see a Republican get caught with his hand in the till. Now, this time it's "The Dems buy votes, so why shouldn't we? It's not bad because our intentions are pure."

[jcb8199]

People have had 60 years of this, so, while it is self-evident that the State gov'ts should have the brunt of the responsibility, the population-at-large has been told for decades that it is the federal gov'ts job. So, we play by their rules, we play the game--throw a bunch of money at the problem, and rebuild it in OUR image. THEY got to keep rebuilding in such a way that it kept people dependent on the Fed, and thus perpetuated the idea that the Fed is the only savior. Now, WE get to fix the problem and rebuild it in such a way that there will be no NEED for the Fed to be the savior, as it won't need fixing again! I look at this as a hand-up, not a hand-out. People can rebuild their lives, and will see the Conservative ideology shine thru--albeit by using a Liberal tool. The states will be more beholden to the Fed, and thus more apt to do what the Fed wants, by, say, knocking out the ridiculous trade-union rules that muddy and slow the process; then perhaps by imposing jobs and welfare restrictions that we wouldn't have otherwise gotten; or by relaxing environmental rules so we can actually build another refinery or expand business zones to accomodate better and higher paying jobs; or to rework HUD and Title XI appropriations...

This is the IN we needed. Use their tool against them--sure it costs now, but WE WIN in the long run, as it is OUR vision that will be instituted, the vision of self-reliance and ownership, not the vision of "Need help? Ask the gov't." It seems like the latter right now, but that is only when taken with a myopic view of the strategery.

[sheltonmac]

Let the Left continue to use this tool and see what happens to the Conservative voice in Washington--we will be replaced.

Who honestly believes that hasn't happened already?

But, if we use it against the Left, we step in, in their stead, and use this tool, then people will recognize the truth of the Conservative message.

So, spending more money, expanding government programs and increasing government police powers is the way to get people to "recognize the truth of the conservative message"? Are you serious?

Just watch--once people have their lives back, and things are rebuilt according to the Conservative idea (since Bush and a Repub congress are in charge, largely), people will see that the gov't can provide temporary help, but the only real "fix" comes from the individual--then, buh-bye Leftist ideals.

Right. Bear in mind that Bush and a GOP Congress have given us the biggest, most expensive, most intrusive government in over 30 years. There was more spending and growth in Bush's first four years than in eight years under Clinton. When you allow government to step in and take over, the only result is that people expect more from government.