Grave Satirical

Fuss Budget

From the Idiots What Brung You Enron: 2006 Goverment Budget (via AP)
Line Item: Printing Costs, 2006 Federal Budget, first edition: $10 Million.

15 replies on “Fuss Budget”

i don’t think you get royalties for suggesting that we eat the rich- no matter how deliciously well-marbled they are- unless you include a recipe.

No plan for setting the elderly adrift on ice floes and letting polar bears eat them has ever gone over well with voters, although my people tell me the numbers look good.

Soilent Green has been using my image on their packaging for 15 years and all I ever got out of it was Samuel Beckett’s knucklebones.

Psst… remember that the money for Social Security is not there because Bush stole the SS trust fund to pay for taxcuts.
Now Bush is looking around for ways not to pay it back.
You may recall the story of the man who worked 30 years at a company, only to be told the company was letting him go a month before his retirement, and the bosses were getting raises. This is the same sscam on a national scale.

I believe that’s “sosul security.”
If you can’t get the pronunciation right, how will you ever have credibility?

It’s been time for some time for moderate republicans, McCain, Snowe, Chaffee*, Specter, Bond, Collins, at least, to revolt against the beggaring of the country. These are the people I blame for four more years of Bush. These are the people who could make a difference but have chosen to sit idly by while the real nuts systematically dismantle our nation, our imperium, and our civilization. And for what? So they don’t lose their seniority and chairmanships? The chance to have lunch with the President? You’re Senators! You’re not supposed to kowtow to that bitch! Careerist bastards.
*He did squeak once.

You know, Enron commited acts of terrorism in the name of profit.
People died beause of Enron’s fake power crisis.

“These are the people I blame for four more years of Bush.”
i’m sorry, but you are as wrong as wrong can be. you can place the blame squarely on the shoulders of, what i assume, is your own political party. the fact that The Zombie With No Appeal came that close to beating George is a testament to how beatable W was. nominate someone with a pulse, and the election goes the other way.

I have no political affiliation. I agree that John Kerry was not ideal. However, this was not an ordinary election. This wasn’t about which party controls the White House, this was about whether civil society and good government might live on. I don’t see this as a partisan issue. The above mentioned Republican senators KNOW that Bush is, because of evil, greed, stupidity, or damned bad luck, doing untold damage to the fiscal health of this country. In fact, it is only as an independent that I can be so disappointed by Republicans.
I hated [hated!] Clinton but at least he gave us a surplus and took concrete steps to keep rogues from acquiring nuclear materials. The last president I think was actually suitably concerned with the well-being of this nation was GHWBush who put responsible economics above his own re-election. [I did dislike many of his other policies but must admire this fundamental dedication to sound administration]. Of course as Jr’s gang continues their madcap mongol ride over our nation I sometimes think that maybe even Ronald Reagan possibly had good intentions. Luckily that insanity passes.

I’ll be honest, I really felt that this madcappery would be a lot more slapstick fun rather than fear of an apocolyptic nuclear holocaust.
It’s all ‘lick bush’ jokes until a few countries are off the map forever.

i despise politcians, and have yet to be impressed by one. it seems to me that the same thing that gives them urge to run for office, gives other, less presentable types the urge to sodomize farm animals or defile teddy bears.
i try to spin things in my mind to the betterment of the world. i hope iraq becomes a happy place where the iraqi people can enjoy the wonderful freedoms we have- like porn, video games and on-demand fried chicken, but i give W no credit. maybe, if he had layed out his plans to rid the world of saddam because he was a horrible, murdering bastard i might feel differently. but that seems like a good by-product of an entirely different agenda.
i didn’t mind clinton so much. although his failings in rwanda will remain in the fore of my mind. i think it was you who pointed out all the other fucked up places in the world where people are killed or imprisioned for their beliefs. why aren’t we doing more in those places? maybe we are, i don’t know. i’m not very smart.
the thing that drives me crazy is the propensity of the more liberal among us to equate this administration with, say a fascist regime. bush is hitler or rove is goebbels…blah blah. i appreciate that this rhetoric can be persuasive, but it gets abused by people who really haven’t had to face a thousandth of the repression that these movements inflicted. telling howard stern that he can’t say ‘cock’ on the air isn’t the same as having your tongue cut out for speaking against the government.
dumb rant over.

Nazis? No. Profound damage? Yes.
‘Ultimately the colossal, indirect excuse is made that, without the perpretrator’s previous cognizance, remote aims of significance for world history have been promoted….But the counter-questions arise: What do we know of aims? And, if such existed, could they not have been obtained by other means? And does the destruction of universal morality by successful crime not count at all?’ – Jacob Burckhardt, 1870
To be fair, in the next paragraph: ‘Above all, it is permissible to divest barbarism of its dangerousness, its potential power of aggression.’
But still further: ‘In any case, the means of subjugation and containment used by the previous barbarism should not be surpassed.’

Comments are closed.