Dex, you really need to watch out for the whole "fascist pigs who don't know that they're fascist pigs because they think that they think like Jesus" thing.
No, no. The congress would still be in charge of putting the Federal Budget together. It's just that there would be no debate over putting something *IN* the budget. Someone want it in there? Wham, it's in there. It may be in there as #1,294,312... but it's in there.
We just go down the list until we run out of money and if we don't get to #1,294,312 (and we won't), we don't.
I remember when the argument was "there is no proof that this ever happened!" until Delmar Pickett Jr. surfaced and stood by his story (which was broadcast in 1971).
Now it's become the first couple of sentence fragments in your first paragraph.
One idea re: taxation that I thought was pretty interesting was put *EVERYTHING* you want the government to do on a list. Absolutely everything. If you think that the government ought to purchase Grateful Dead cds for tweens? Put it on the list!
We have the list prioritized and work our way down it. I imagine that Defense, Medicare, and Social Security (in whatever order) are the top 3. Then we move to #4 if we still have money. Then we move to #5 if we still have money. And, when we run out of money, we stop.
If we make it to #1,294,312 (which is where I imagine the Greatful Dead cd idea might be) and we still have money? Great! We can buy the cds for tweens! Box of Rain! "Walk into splintered sunlight, Inch your way through dead dreams to another land. Gotta get down to the bus stop. Gotta catch my bus. I see my friends!"
If, however, we run out of money at #8, then #9 isn't going to get funded.
Some years we make it to #20.
Some years we don't. Maybe most years we don't.
We can experiment with tax rates and see how many numbers we get. Raising rates gets us here... lowering them gets us there... maybe the laffer curve is more like a sine wave and there are little peaks and troughs all over the thing. Experiment! Find out! And if we don't have enough money to pay for #20, we don't have enough money to pay for #20.
Anyway, I know that that is a pipe dream... but, as pipe dreams go...
"I can understand people wanting a beer. Maybe a glass of wine. But *RUM*? *WHISKEY*??? *BOURBON*???? *VODKA*????????? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????????"
I've suggested treating drugs after prohibition the way we treated alcohol after prohibition.
Does that not count as a third way because anybody who thinks that we changed the way that alcohol was treated after prohibition doesn't understand that people regularly died of alcohol poisoning and of alcohol tainted with wood alcohols in the 1700s?
We're not talking about "before the pure food and drug act", Blaise.
We're talking about government agents kicking down doors and shooting dogs in the name of prohibition.
Getting rid of prohibition is something that this country has done once before. Getting rid of it then was a good thing (though, granted, not an unqualified good).
Getting rid of prohibition a second time would also be a good thing. Focusing on the things that would make it not an unqualified good is one thing. Focusing on the days before the pure food and drug act when *NO ONE IS SUGGESTING WE GET RID OF THE PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT* is weird.
For what it's worth, "Ye Olde Republicke" anagrams out to "Libeler Decoy Puke".
I mean, erm, yeah, I know. I was pretending to be irrationally opposed to whatever he wrote without regard to any particular truth regarding his current or previous positions.
I'll quote Thomas Sowell here. It seems appropriate enough.
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
The DEA is a fire at this point, Blaise.
Worse than nothing.
The bad things that will pop up after Prohibition is repealled are lesser evils to the bad things that Prohibition *CREATED*.
But, if you insist, I'd be down with drugs being treated similarly to beer/wine/liquor.
In the same way that we don't really worry about folks stealing rubbing alcohol from grocery stores, we'll be able to put Sudafed back on the shelves.
It does easy stuff for the first few years and *THEN* does the hard stuff. They can enact his plan and it's toothless... and then, two years later, they can enact an *IDENTICAL PLAN* which will do nothing. And again. And again.
A plan that doesn't kick in for a couple of years ain't a real plan.
So are there people who, AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART BECAUSE IT IS VERY MUCH THE PART THAT I SAW AS THE RELEVANT VACUUM BEING CREATED, kick down doors and shoot dogs?
Or does the government still do that there?
Or, given the lack of the equivalent of a DEA, does the door-kicking/dog-shooting vacuum languish unfilled by either government or corporation?
On “How Responsible Are You for Where Your Taxes Go?”
Dex, you really need to watch out for the whole "fascist pigs who don't know that they're fascist pigs because they think that they think like Jesus" thing.
It's really, really, really pernicious.
"
"Blessed are the bombdroppers."
"
No, no. The congress would still be in charge of putting the Federal Budget together. It's just that there would be no debate over putting something *IN* the budget. Someone want it in there? Wham, it's in there. It may be in there as #1,294,312... but it's in there.
We just go down the list until we run out of money and if we don't get to #1,294,312 (and we won't), we don't.
"
I remember when the argument was "there is no proof that this ever happened!" until Delmar Pickett Jr. surfaced and stood by his story (which was broadcast in 1971).
Now it's become the first couple of sentence fragments in your first paragraph.
"
Do you agree with the premise or do you disagree with it?
"
One idea re: taxation that I thought was pretty interesting was put *EVERYTHING* you want the government to do on a list. Absolutely everything. If you think that the government ought to purchase Grateful Dead cds for tweens? Put it on the list!
We have the list prioritized and work our way down it. I imagine that Defense, Medicare, and Social Security (in whatever order) are the top 3. Then we move to #4 if we still have money. Then we move to #5 if we still have money. And, when we run out of money, we stop.
If we make it to #1,294,312 (which is where I imagine the Greatful Dead cd idea might be) and we still have money? Great! We can buy the cds for tweens! Box of Rain! "Walk into splintered sunlight, Inch your way through dead dreams to another land. Gotta get down to the bus stop. Gotta catch my bus. I see my friends!"
If, however, we run out of money at #8, then #9 isn't going to get funded.
Some years we make it to #20.
Some years we don't. Maybe most years we don't.
We can experiment with tax rates and see how many numbers we get. Raising rates gets us here... lowering them gets us there... maybe the laffer curve is more like a sine wave and there are little peaks and troughs all over the thing. Experiment! Find out! And if we don't have enough money to pay for #20, we don't have enough money to pay for #20.
Anyway, I know that that is a pipe dream... but, as pipe dreams go...
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
It looks like the whipping would have stopped before it really got started.
On “Three In One: Jukebox, Bleg, and Open Thread”
Knights of the Old Republic!
Seriously. It'll blow you away.
On “Do a Plurality of Mississippi Republicans Want to Ban Interracial Marriage?”
Sigh. And we just had a discussion about that word too.
Surely your vocabulary is good enough to point out someone else's social failings without resorting to the scatological!
On “How Responsible Are You for Where Your Taxes Go?”
I'm looking up "stuff that helps".
Yep, that ain't in there.
On “Do a Plurality of Mississippi Republicans Want to Ban Interracial Marriage?”
Asperger's Syndrome has upsides.
"
It was either that or Hitler. I decided to mix it up.
"
Yeah, one wonders why they don't get with the pogrom.
On “Several Things That Aren’t Happening Here.”
This should have you chortling all day: My cousin works for the department of transportation in Michigan.
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
You're using bathtub gin as an excuse to keep prohibition.
"
"I can understand people wanting a beer. Maybe a glass of wine. But *RUM*? *WHISKEY*??? *BOURBON*???? *VODKA*????????? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????????"
"No, Mister Ness. I am not."
"
I've suggested treating drugs after prohibition the way we treated alcohol after prohibition.
Does that not count as a third way because anybody who thinks that we changed the way that alcohol was treated after prohibition doesn't understand that people regularly died of alcohol poisoning and of alcohol tainted with wood alcohols in the 1700s?
"
We have to kick down doors and shoot dogs because, hey, the opposite is anarchy?
If only there were a third option!
"
We're not talking about "before the pure food and drug act", Blaise.
We're talking about government agents kicking down doors and shooting dogs in the name of prohibition.
Getting rid of prohibition is something that this country has done once before. Getting rid of it then was a good thing (though, granted, not an unqualified good).
Getting rid of prohibition a second time would also be a good thing. Focusing on the things that would make it not an unqualified good is one thing. Focusing on the days before the pure food and drug act when *NO ONE IS SUGGESTING WE GET RID OF THE PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT* is weird.
On “Several Things That Aren’t Happening Here.”
For what it's worth, "Ye Olde Republicke" anagrams out to "Libeler Decoy Puke".
I mean, erm, yeah, I know. I was pretending to be irrationally opposed to whatever he wrote without regard to any particular truth regarding his current or previous positions.
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
Let's have Obama try to figure a way out.
Right after he finishes the third war.
"
So do they kick down doors and shoot dogs or not?
I'll quote Thomas Sowell here. It seems appropriate enough.
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
The DEA is a fire at this point, Blaise.
Worse than nothing.
The bad things that will pop up after Prohibition is repealled are lesser evils to the bad things that Prohibition *CREATED*.
But, if you insist, I'd be down with drugs being treated similarly to beer/wine/liquor.
In the same way that we don't really worry about folks stealing rubbing alcohol from grocery stores, we'll be able to put Sudafed back on the shelves.
And, hey, not as many dead dogs.
On “Are the Ryan Budget’s Spending Cuts Credible?”
Here's my problem with Ryan's budget.
It does easy stuff for the first few years and *THEN* does the hard stuff. They can enact his plan and it's toothless... and then, two years later, they can enact an *IDENTICAL PLAN* which will do nothing. And again. And again.
A plan that doesn't kick in for a couple of years ain't a real plan.
(See Congress's Affordable Care Act.)
On “A Confession of Bias, Followed by a Bunch of Stuff You Should Probably Ignore”
So are there people who, AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART BECAUSE IT IS VERY MUCH THE PART THAT I SAW AS THE RELEVANT VACUUM BEING CREATED, kick down doors and shoot dogs?
Or does the government still do that there?
Or, given the lack of the equivalent of a DEA, does the door-kicking/dog-shooting vacuum languish unfilled by either government or corporation?
Because that was the question that I asked.
(I can quote it for you, if you'd like.)
On “Are the Ryan Budget’s Spending Cuts Credible?”
This is where we get to puff up and ask with trembling voice: "DO YOU WANT THE ELDERLY TO DIE???"
(If your answer is "no", I am afraid that I have some very, very bad news for you.)