5 ms·
The less money they have, the less stuff they can do. Iran-Contra, anybody? And the president that was in charge was a small government hero. And since radic
by mehwoot 13y ago
The less money they have, the less stuff they can do.
Iran-Contra, anybody? And the president that was in charge was a small government hero.
And since radical downsizing won't happen voluntarily, as both political parties are corrupt and incompetent, the only way I can see this happening is for the government to continue borrowing and spending money into oblivion, which will ultimately trigger an economic default. At that point, there will be no money for new secret programs.
Ah yes, starve the beast. That's working out well.
- notdrunkatall 13y agoExcept they never starved anything. Government expenditures did not decline in any meaningful way.
- ubernostrum 13y agoIt's almost as if there's a trend that people who go on and on and on about their commitment to "small government" principles suddenly abandon those principles the moment they're in power.
- notdrunkatall 13y agoIt's almost as if every politician does precisely that.