Patriotism has the new definition of "wearing a flag lapel pin".Oh, that's good. If SLM starts any bullshit internally with that sort of thing, I'd be very tempted to get a Great Leader pin and wear it instead. (problem is, that's not really the sort of thing that you pick up at the corner store
( ... )
There was indeed an "example letter" that the local CEO sent to his congresspeople. I have no idea what they were doing. What they managed to sound like, though, was:
"Halpx0r! We have been leeching off of the current administration for the past 6 years and we stupidly started budgeting for it instead of just passing it directly to kickbacks to our senior senior executives! If this gets passed we might have to lay some of you off because fuck if the execs are taking a pay cut! They need those millions of dollars a year!"
Every time I think that actually I *might* be greedy enough to be a fiscal Republican (their social policies piss me off regardless), shit like this happens and I'm like "I'd love to be greedy with you people but you must be at least this smart to ride this ride".
I think that what you want regardless is fiscal responsibility (don't spend money you don't have; you'd think this is easy, but why hasn't anyone gotten it right?). Maybe you want fiscal conservatism after that (cut taxes, cut spending). Or maybe you want to be a tax and spend liberal.
I think there are two ways people generally look at fiscal policy. The first way is to make poor people richer, and make rich people poorer (most associated with Democrats); or second, make everyone richer (most associated with Republicans). My problem with the first way is that I don't think we should punish people for their success (punishing corporations is totally okay by me, though); my problem with the second way is that it too often benefits the very wealthy and corporations disproportionately to the meager benefits afforded to the poor and middle class.
Welcome to Not Winning! Enjoy your stay, but be sure to keep your receipts for when you're audited.
Lemme guess? Blowin off a little outrage that you've been avoiding for a while? I feel your pain. Sadly, I dunno what kind of change 2008 will bring. In some ways better, but if it's Hillary? ugh. I wish people would listen to Edwards more. For that matter, I wish Howard Dean hadn't turned into such a spaz 71/2 years ago. >sigh<
In the meantime, I'm taking delight in watching all the moderate republican candidates trying to look conservative for the primaries. After which, I want to see how liberal the winner becomes. Election year hypocrisy should be an olympic sport.
I know it's hard to admit that every political opinion you've supported over the last 7 years has been totally wrong, but it seems like 30% of the population still needs to take that big first step.
Oh, c'mon, like this country would be better off with a President who windsurfs. *rolls eyes*
Sad thing is, I don't see anything getting better. Why buck the YOU MUST LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR machine? Whoever controls it gets a lot of votes. Although said machine is good for a laugh. I really did end up laughing out loud on the T when I read on the zenith of journalism, the Metro, the little one-sentence marginal report that aldermen for a NJ town are inspecting gumball machines for fear that terrorists might poison them.
Funny thing is, I probably know the guys in NJ who're doing the poisoning.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
"Halpx0r! We have been leeching off of the current administration for the past 6 years and we stupidly started budgeting for it instead of just passing it directly to kickbacks to our senior senior executives! If this gets passed we might have to lay some of you off because fuck if the execs are taking a pay cut! They need those millions of dollars a year!"
Every time I think that actually I *might* be greedy enough to be a fiscal Republican (their social policies piss me off regardless), shit like this happens and I'm like "I'd love to be greedy with you people but you must be at least this smart to ride this ride".
Reply
I think there are two ways people generally look at fiscal policy. The first way is to make poor people richer, and make rich people poorer (most associated with Democrats); or second, make everyone richer (most associated with Republicans). My problem with the first way is that I don't think we should punish people for their success (punishing corporations is totally okay by me, though); my problem with the second way is that it too often benefits the very wealthy and corporations disproportionately to the meager benefits afforded to the poor and middle class.
Welcome to Not Winning! Enjoy your stay, but be sure to keep your receipts for when you're audited.
Reply
In the meantime, I'm taking delight in watching all the moderate republican candidates trying to look conservative for the primaries. After which, I want to see how liberal the winner becomes. Election year hypocrisy should be an olympic sport.
Reply
Oh, c'mon, like this country would be better off with a President who windsurfs. *rolls eyes*
Sad thing is, I don't see anything getting better. Why buck the YOU MUST LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR machine? Whoever controls it gets a lot of votes. Although said machine is good for a laugh. I really did end up laughing out loud on the T when I read on the zenith of journalism, the Metro, the little one-sentence marginal report that aldermen for a NJ town are inspecting gumball machines for fear that terrorists might poison them.
Funny thing is, I probably know the guys in NJ who're doing the poisoning.
Reply
Leave a comment