Feb. 28th, 2008 01:00 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
razorjakSo Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
I knew you would.
This is why the so vague as to be Schrödinger term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was coined instead of the already sufficient and common terms of art "nuclear" "biological" and "chemical" used to describe weapons with special international restrictions. So that you could justify failed foriegn adventures by saying "hey! they had a warehouse with some worn-out cold-war artillery shells with Sarin gas in it! That is exactly the same thing as having nuclear bombs 45 minutes from leveling London with mushroom clouds! And having a "suspended program" is exactly the same thing as having secret labs building atomic bomb components and enriching uranium preparing for a huge terrorist after-market for atomic bombs.
Sarin and Mustard gas hardly qualify.
1. They are primitive.
2. It took 5 men and one liter of Sarin (an artillery shell would hold 5 times as much) to kill 12 people packed into a fucking subway in 1995.
This weapon is not that badass, and it is far from a ZOMG Weapon of Mass Destruction. By way of comparison, 2 high school kids with little planning totally crushed this terror group's high score with hand-guns. The "mass" is missing in the WMD here. 155mm shells filled with, oh I don't know, High Explosive would be much more "mass" than that!
"At least it's not the 'Victory'..."
You're right. It's much more effective to dump our increasingly debt-burdened economy into maintaining an expensive and ineffective presence in a hostile and destitute foreign country.
Yeah, that'll show 'em.
It's not like the region has a history of stubborn violence or anything, so I'm sure we heard the last gasps in 2003, deployed 300,000 Iraqi soldiers 2004 (right after the election it was supposed to be), turned the corner in 2005, stayed the course in 2006, deployed all the reserves in 2007 to victoriously get violence back down to the levels when we were winning back in 2005. Yeah, with failur-er successes like that, we would hate to just hand those shadowy bad-guys their victory.
I believe we had a discussion two years ago where I mentioned the words failure and lies to you. Not much has changed except that our economy is tanking and the national debt is increasing impressively.
I'm sure the terrorists are very impressed with us and our fantastic strategery.
no subject
Sarin and Mustard gas hardly qualify.
1. They are primitive.
2. It took 5 men and one liter of Sarin (an artillery shell would hold 5 times as much) to kill 12 people packed into a fucking subway in 1995.
This is absolute ignorant, disingenuous and utterly wrong.
Mustard gas, a Blister Agent, is a NBC weapon. Specifically a Chemical weapon. Your adherence to WMD as the requirement is in fact you sticking to the poorly articulated requirements that you ascribe to me. (Cognitive dissonance at it's best I suppose.) It is a 1st World war technology. That is still a proscribed weapon according to the terms of the treaty, regardless of purity or age.
Sarin is a Nerve Agent. Specifically in the G-agent class, similar to Cyclosarin, Soman and Tabun. Your equivocation to make it seem less harmful is disingenuous. The delivery system which the Aum Shinrikyo cult used was primitive and poor. I guarantee you that with the same purity of agent, an explosive Chemical Shell, whether binary or unitary would be FAR more deadly over a much larger area. G and V agents are Cold War weapons and are QUITE deadly despite your characterizations to the contrary.
A functional chemical industry able to make pesticides and a foundry/machining complex to make shells is all that is required to manufacture G type chemical agents. Stocks of ANY of those components is a violation of the treaty that iraq was signatory to.
Filled and degraded or unfilled shells themselves, whether unitary (one chamber for a final product) or a binary (two chambers with a function on firing to mix the two components for a final chemical product) are a violation of the treaty.
The NBC weapons presence issue is a Binary function. There ARE or ARE NOT weapons there. The Fact is that weapons WERE found during ODS and the following years. That's a Positive, not a negative. You cannot hand wave that away by saying they were old or poorly kept or a bad design. They were in fact, extant NBC weapons in violation of the treaty. Inspection efforts showed a very clear and consistent to conceal extant programs over the 12 years following the 1st Gulf war war.
It's not like the region has a history of stubborn violence or anything, so I'm sure we heard the last gasps in 2003, deployed 300,000 Iraqi soldiers 2004 (right after the election it was supposed to be), turned the corner in 2005, stayed the course in 2006, deployed all the reserves in 2007 to victoriously get violence back down to the levels when we were winning back in 2005. Yeah, with failur-er successes like that, we would hate to just hand those shadowy bad-guys their victory.
Running away won't help us or any of the allies. We cannot loose, to do so is only going to be because we decided to fail. The most critical strategic goal is destroying Al Quaida's forces in Iraq and showing the Arab World that Iraq saw them up close and turned their backs on them. Witness how the Democrats have in fact stopped talking about iraq because the Success in areas like Al Anbar. Specifically due to the surge which you say is not or will not work. The Surge is in fact working.
Of course if you listen to Obama, the success is because Democrats were elected and that scared the terrorists off.
no subject
Don't presume to lecture me on what the weapons are.
"There ARE or ARE NOT weapons there."
This is true when discussing whether or not there was a treaty violation, but treaty violations were not the administration's stated purpose for invasion, and it is ignorant, disingenuous, and utterly wrong to imply that it was.
When discussing the case given for war, this statement is false dichotomy.
In fact, you make my point. The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is an all-inclusive rhetorical trick where Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld could stand at the podium and talk about impending mushroom clouds, and later say "yeah this toxic chemical that many many orders of magnitude less destructive than an atomic bomb, yeah that is exactly the same thing as the nucs we were scaring the shit out of everyone with before the war." Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, equine excrement.
"We cannot loose [sic],"
Too late.
Don't forget the lies to go with that continued failure.
Incidentally, all of your victory rhetoric gets old after a few years.
no subject
Then don't try to say Sarin is not an NBC weapon because some Japanese Nuts couldn't aerosolize it. If they'd walked throughout he subway with a garden sprayer you'd have seen a ten fold increase in the deaths because people would have had significant lung and skin contact.
This is true when discussing whether or not there was a treaty violation, but treaty violations were not the administration's stated purpose for invasion, and it is ignorant, disingenuous, and utterly wrong to imply that it was.
Then why is that the ONLY thing that the antiwar BDS crowd latch onto? It was one of 14 Points. All of which were largely valid.
no subject
Aaaaaand, I didn't. Read all the words.
"Then why is that the ONLY thing that the antiwar BDS crowd latch onto?"
Because our administration has lied to us, utterly and completely. And, patsies like you continue to back those lies, for reasons that truly escape me.
The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.
no subject
It's a binary question YES/NO. Not this 'NOT really' crap. You want to speak in Absolutes? Then guess what, your absolute position is full of holes.
Were there NBC weapons in Iraq? YES.
The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.
It does when you say there were NO NBC weapons. Again, even unfilled shells are violations of the treaty. Further, there's the whole intent issue with regards to Iraq. And the support for terrorist going into the year 2000. Sweep it under the rug all you want. There's still a big bloody lump that you're going to trip over.
Even if we set aside that any functional programs were closed down or sufficiently hidden (I'd place money on scientists and data along with some production gear going to Syria) there was still intent which the post invasion teams found to be exactly in the direction that supported the case for war. Up to 2003 Iraq was making noises through diplomatic channels that it HAD a NBC program of some sort. It was a bluff, but it still supports authorization for war.
I guarantee you that if Jak was working as a bouncer and had a troublemaker come on to property that he'd seen armed before and the troublemaker gestured in his pocket as if he had a firearm, Jak would use deadly force on the troublemaker and wouldn't give a rats ass about his lack of a real weapon.
To me, the principle's the same. Iraq had warnings, it prevaricated and obfuscated as well as hindered the inspection process and never lived up to terms, when push came to shove and it tried to bluff again, we called the bluff.
no subject
The justification for war was a clear and present danger presented by an active, and possibly already productive, secret nuclear weapons program which was then artificially changed to the meaningless political weasel-term of "Weapons of Mass Destruction," which mystically has been downgraded to small amounts of obsolete chemical weapons. Which is presented as exactly the same thing as nuclear weapons because they are "WMDs" and by false dichotomy Conservative talking points pundits think they can just smugly shout down dissent.
Nope, a clear and present danger of nucs != WMD != to Sarin arty shells.
This is a rhetorical trick that amounts to little more than a lie.
The American people were told that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. This was then and is now untrue, and the intelligence that supported the assertions was cynically manipulated to support the assertion of danger.
It was a lie, and you are either a fool or complicit to continue to support and re-tell this lie.
no subject
I believe we had a discussion two years ago where I mentioned the words failure and lies to you. Not much has changed except that our economy is tanking and the national debt is increasing impressively.
Weak but still positive growth numbers are not 'Tanking'. And surely, increasing taxes and expanding the number of people on the dole and social programs would do wonders for making the Federal budget smaller right?
Thanks for playing.
no subject
no subject
2nd, if we could get the Iraqi's to sell some oil to pay for the costs, that'd be great. But the Liberals would scream Bloody murder about Imperialism and Colonialism.
3. We're there. We can't change history. Can you change history? If you can, I'd love to borrow your time machine. Pulling out now, or 5 months ago or 3 years ago would catastrophic. If you say it wouldn't or refuse to admit so you're a fool. It would
And to answer your question obliquely:
Less than Social Security is.
Here's the breakdown:
Mandatory spending: $1.788 trillion (+4.2%)
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
$56.0 billion (+0.0%) - United States Department of Education
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
$35.0 billion (+22.0%) - State and Other International Programs
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$24.3 billion (+6.6%) - Energy
$20.2 billion (+4.1%) - Administration of justice
$20.2 billion (+3.1%) - Department of Agriculture
$17.3 billion (+6.8%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$12.1 billion (+13.1%) - Department of Transportation
$12.1 billion (+6.1%) - Department of Treasury
$10.6 billion (+2.9%) - United States Department of the Interior
$10.6 billion (-9.4%) - United States Department of Labor
$51.8 billion (+9.7%) - Other On-budget Discretionary Spending
$39.0 billion - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending
Non Discretionary Non Legal (Where in the Constitution is Welfare a legal function of congress?) expenditures total 1.527 Trillion Dollars.
The Pentagon AND the GWOT's cost in the same year (FY '07) are ~1/3 of the total social programs that the FEderal Government is expending money on. If we JUST look at the cost of the GWOT's cost in Iraq and Afghanistan then it's only $145 billion. Heck, that's a fraction of the Medicare and Medicaid program. Or that's HUD, DHS and Health ANd human Services rolled together.
Where in the constitution again can you point to where congress is authorized to fund housing? I'm curious to know which article that's under.
no subject
So, you characterize paying for healthcare for the poor as being on The Dole? Interesting.
I know everytime I'm in the emergency room looking at those poor families waiting for treatment I'm thinking, "it's vile that they let these people in here with me, someone who works for a corporation that offers health benefits, they should be on the sidewalk dying, not here in the government subsidized air conditioning with their betters. Hell, if I had my way, my company wouldn't even have to provide health insurance at all, and arbitrary market forces and lack of consumer protections would completely control my health care fate!"
Okay, you are right. If we let Americans die in the street for being poor, then we could fund a War on Iraq and have some change left over.
I fail to see that this is a practical or human answer, but I will agree with you that it is possible.
no subject
Yep, let's just get rid of all those protections for retired people.
Then we could blow up Afghanistan properly instead of fucking it all up, too.
no subject
The Taliban crop up, but we appear to let them gather and congregate, give them a target and then pummel the crap out of them. In an area war all you can do is defend the civilians, rebuild infrastructure and wait for the bad guys to pop up and smash them when they do.
Again, if we could actually make a guarantee that people would get their SS benefits and those benefits were paid for out of a real fund instead of the current ponzi scheme then I'd be more supportive of it.
But it's still not LEGALLY something the federal government should be in the business of. I don't know about you, but I'm not planning on getting a cent of my Social Security Benefits. Continuing to tell people they will is utterly disingenuous.
no subject
If we had concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan instead of pulling resources to invade Iraq, we might have stabilized the local government once and for all instead of letting the Taliban regroup and counterattack. We had the opportunity to hold them down and consolidate, but now the Taliban controls 10% of the country while the Al Malaki government controls 30% of the country and the tribes control the rest. Meanwhile we are reduced to begging NATO for a few scraps here and there to get any reasonable combat forces at all to fight, because everyone is floundering in Iraq.
"Again, if we could actually make a guarantee that people would get their SS benefits and those benefits were paid for out of a real fund instead of the current ponzi scheme then I'd be more supportive of it.
But it's still not LEGALLY something the federal government should be in the business of. I don't know about you, but I'm not planning on getting a cent of my Social Security Benefits. Continuing to tell people they will is utterly disingenuous."
It LEGALLY something the government can do. The Constitution does not have any opinion at all on government entitlements. I would agree in principal that the government shouldn't be feeding housing and clothing those characterized as lazy free-riders, but that is not the truth of the matter.
When we look at entitlement cuts that get proposed, they are consistently cuts of pennies compared to dollars of military extravagances and it's all deficit spending.
In any case, all the Dole talk is horseshit:
1. Social Security benefits were promised and people were forced to pay into it, which they did in good faith. The majority of those who collect are now in a poor position to support themselves and find new employment. They must be paid, so give up on getting rid of that $600 billion expense.
2. Unless we are just going declare health care a privilege of the rich, and kill off those who are poor, we must have a social safety net for medical care of the poor and the old, as well as additional care for children of the poor (who are not yet lazy Dolesters, and could possibly be encouraged to be productive members of our economy). Preventive care costs much much less than emergency care, so unless we are going to deny emergency care to the uninsured, a medicare/medicaid program is not only necessary but pragmatic.
So, there you are left to cut out of the $176 billion or so that is left, while making emergency funding requests for $150 billion mid-year for the Iraq war.
It's not the Dolsters that are the problem with our economy. It's the jingoists.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Further, I would argue that there's likely a LOT of waste and inefficiency just due to the size of the system.
I don't think we had that much expenditure on social programs coming out of the Great Depression. We certainly didn't spend that much on social programs during WWII or afterwards.
no subject
no subject
A lower dollar means that our exports are in fact cheaper for sale overseas. That means our businesses are in fact MORE able to compete on the world market in spite of our increased costs for running industry in the US (Labor unions, payroll taxes, administration costs, federal state and local regulation compliance costs).
It also means we're a more desirable destination.
The rising yen and Euro are in fact indicative of severe problems in THOSE economies. Europe's economy is really stagnant. Their currency values are rising due to inflation in those markets of their currency.
If it gets too bad, it could spell disaster for those economies and a subsequent rebound in the US economy. However it's NOT the negative indicator you seem to think it is.
no subject
I love you for giving me this present.
< sarcasm >
I have seen the light! You are totally right, it is all those slackers on the Dole that is emptying the US coffers!
Let's look at the entire budgets of those evil liberal departments of the Executive, shall we (2008)?
$67.650 Billion - Department of Health and Human Services
$55.995 Billion - Department of Education
$35.201 Billion - Department of Housing and Human Development
$10.610 Billion - Department of the Interior
$7.200 Billion - Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------
$176.656 Billion for Liberal Slackers and Losers
Huh.
Interestingly, it is less thatn the Interest we are paying on our National Debt that all of your lovely cut-taxes-deficit spending is granting us. Current interest will cost us $281 Billion this year.
Hell, one mid-year emergency spending bill for the troops could completely pay for all this liberal big-government poppycock.
How about we look at those Conservative Small Government activities that you are soooooo fond of, shall we?
$481.406 Billion - Department of Defense
$145.200 Billion - Additional for the War on Terra
$34.998 Billion - Department of State
$39.418 Billion - For the underfunded Department of Veteran Affairs
$.340 Billion - Office of the President
$34.288 Billion - For that new, Republican small-government innovation that is rocking the world with its effectiveness and competence, the Department of Homeland Security
-------------------
$735.650 Billion* - The cost of world Jingoism**
* Not including the $150 or so Billion dollars more we will get hit with by the middle of the year (like we have every year) to Support the Troops (tm).
** I am not including War on Terra efforts coming from the Department of Justice ($20.181 Billion)
Or, are you proposing that we get rid of those Social Security entitlements that were paid into by the men that fought real wars? You've spent a lot of time standing on their shoulders comparing our current misadventures to World War II, are you going to fuck them over now because social security has been dishonestly raided instead of being the separate fund as it was always promised?
If so, you will save $608 Billion.
Go ahead and say that all those old people are the problem. I want to see you say that.
no subject
Let's look at the entire budgets of those evil liberal departments of the Executive, shall we (2008)?
$67.650 Billion - Department of Health and Human Services
$55.995 Billion - Department of Education
$35.201 Billion - Department of Housing and Human Development
$10.610 Billion - Department of the Interior
$7.200 Billion - Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------
$176.656 Billion for Liberal Slackers and Losers
Huh.
Aren't you forgetting a few line items?
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$481.406 Billion - Department of Defense
$145.200 Billion - Additional for the War on Terra
$34.998 Billion - Department of State
$39.418 Billion - For the underfunded Department of Veteran Affairs
$.340 Billion - Office of the President
$34.288 Billion - For that new, Republican small-government innovation that is rocking the world with its effectiveness and competence, the Department of Homeland Security
-------------------
$735.650 Billion* - The cost of world Jingoism**
Thanks for the intellectual honesty. Are you intentionally rolling the entire cost of the Defense Department, the State department, Veterans Affairs and other segments of the Discretionary spending into the War on Terror? How honest of you.
Because Even BEFORE the WAR on Terror...
The Department of Veteran's Affiars had a budget of $45 Bil in 2001 and the DOD had a budget of $281 Bil in 2000 and $293 Bil in 2001. ACtual spending in 2007 for the VA was $72.6 Billion for the VA and $548.8 billion for the DOD.
In 1962 the DOD accounted for 46.9% of the Federal Budget. It accounted for 15 percent in 2000. The Department of Health and Human Services accounts for 21.4% today. Explain that please.
A great deal of the Federal Military budget relates to maintenance of existing systems and development of new systems. Those new systems need to be brought online to replace hardware which has reached end of life regardless of it's use in Iraq or not. Or, are all those things baby killing implements to you as well?
Half of it is construction of facilities for the military and replacement of old facilities. We still have barracks buildings that were built in WWII. I guess if they were prisoners it would be cruel and unusual punishment but since they're not, you figure it's only just that the 'imperialist war mongers' live in such decrepit facilities?
Or, are you proposing that we get rid of those Social Security entitlements that were paid into by the men that fought real wars? You've spent a lot of time standing on their shoulders comparing our current misadventures to World War II, are you going to fuck them over now because social security has been dishonestly raided instead of being the separate fund as it was always promised?
You're going to call Funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs Jingoism and you're laying that sort of shit on me? How nice of you. Why don't you just spit on Jak and be done with it. He's a vet and I guess in your book is an imperialist jingoism perpetrating baby killer. Or perhaps you'd like to rephrase your statement above?
Here's a fact for you. Social Security under the current scheme is not guaranteed. When the Republicans proposed a system where it WOULD be the Democrats screamed bloody murder. My mother died at age 55. Me and my sister never saw a cent of that money. My mother never saw a cent. Social Security under the current scheme is a ponzi scheme and nothing more. It's a tax. Nothing else. Statements from the Social Security Administration not withstanding.
We've got a Democratically controlled congress. They haven't cut spending, they increased it. Have the fixed Social Security? No they have not.
No matter how you argue it, the social programs take the lions share of the Federal Budget. If you were so concerned about cutting it, you'd be looking to cut the pork with the $20 Billion of pork and perhaps trying to trim down some of the social programs.
no subject
You forget that I am a vet, and I am proud of my service.
I am however, ashamed of those that compare the senseless and unnecessary invasion of Iraq to the necessary and righteous invasion of Europe in WWII.
And if we are going to bask in the glory of their achievements, then we damn well better keep our promises to them too.
no subject
It's not apparent from your breakdown of the federal government and it's expenditures.
To you, why is jingoism attached to the entire non-social/welfare discretionary spending of the US Government? Specifically to the VA AND the DOD. A great deal of Veterans Administration benefits are being paid out to Veterans of the Cold war, Vietnam, Korea and other smaller actions. Or to people that are just retired and never saw a lick of combat but still risked their lives. A great deal of operations are utterly unrelated to anything resembling jingoism and are entirely beneficent for the world at NO significant value to the US.
Yet we still do it. To me, seeing an MEU, a Carrier group and a Maritime Preposition Squadron rushing to the Indian Ocean was a sincerely proud moment. What does that all mean to you? Do you think the Navy should have a bake sale to fund critical parts for Jets or do you think they people who are jobless should be told you have 9 months to get a job or your on your own?
I emphatically disagree that connection to the DOD can be distilled down to 'Jingoism' and I think you should be ashamed for the characterization. You can lay that shit on the Department of State but leave it of the Military.
I know a lot of OIF/OEF vets that would have a serious set of words to exchange with your characterization that they're unjust. Especially the ones that have more than one tour into the Sandbox or the Stan under their belts.
Pay our Bills
I use the term Jingoist, because from previous conversations that is what you have proven yourself to be, by jingo!
This tone started from your faulty economic logic that less taxes and more money into the military will fix our economic woes and that there are fat and lazy free-riders on the Dole who are dragging the country down.
The fault is is that the unnecessary invasion of a country that was not a clear and present danger, and was absolutely known not to be one, but for the falsified intelligence, is an extraordinary expense that must be paid for. "Economic Conservatism" as you appear to like to use it, is a misnomer because it is not conservative to pay for huge grand new expenses on the credit card and then blame all the bills that have been building up for years.
And you blame lazy Dole-sters. In the case of Social Security, you mean retired citizens who have paid their dues based on a promise. Are you going to tell them that the promise was a lie and we aren't going to pay them what is owed now? Especially now that they cannot plan for retirement anymore?
Again, we can let people die in the street, and just step up and say "medical care is the exclusive privilege of the corporate employee* and the rich." That would be more honest.
So, yes we are paying over $1 trillion in cash entitlements to our old, and medical benefits to our old and our poor (especially poor children). It's also been well known that these operating costs are part of the budget, and in 2000 we not only were paying our operating costs, but we had a budget surplus that was starting to pay off a very small portion of our enormous debt. We were paying our bills.
Now on a whim and a lie, we have invaded Iraq and embedded ourselves in a foreign occupation and counter-insurgency in an expensive and fruitless war without end, dumping treasure in bucket-loads to impressively drive armored vehicles all over a foreign desert and occasionally shoot at stuff.
There goes our budget surplus.
Oh- and we cut the government's income at the same time, based on the fiction that the economy might grow faster**.
Now we are ever-so-conservatively spending more money than we are making, and we are blaming old people for being old, and poor people for being sick for the huge debts we are running up on the credit card.
No. That's all bullshit.
And you know, I would be less pissed off if we were at least accomplishing something useful in Iraq, but we aren't. Failure and lies, and getting violence back down to a completely unacceptable bloodbath is quite the achievement, actually, but I'm beyond caring. It's too late, because your boy, the incompetent one who just lied about the recession, fucked it up.
So, spare me your "I know people who are patriots, shame on you" bullshit, and save your conservative talking points. They get more and more ridiculous every year.
* Until corporations can shed the regulations requiring them to provide health care.
** The "it will pay for itself" fiction is based on preposterous numbers that leave out many known realities and costs, making it entirely impractical, and failing to demonstrate that such growth was not possible without tax cuts.
Re: Pay our Bills
(no subject)
From:Pathetic
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:TANSTAFL
Address the point SIR.
You equated the DOD, it's employees, it's budget and the VA along with other departments as Agents of Jingoism. You were vet are you an agent of jingoism?
This tone started from your faulty economic logic that less taxes and more money into the military will fix our economic woes and that there are fat and lazy free-riders on the Dole who are dragging the country down.
The fact is that Since Before WWII the Percentages of the Military Budget as compared to the total Budget has SHRUNK consistently. From OVER HALF of all expenditures to less than 20% on a routine basis.
Meanwhile social programs and other functions NOT authorized under the Constitution have expanded to over 60% of the budget. Even if you take Social Security and it's funding source OUT of the equation the Federal Budget both mandatory and non mandatory ARE LARGER than the consistent military Outlays.
You want to make complaints about people not getting enough funding? Explain to me why hastily constructed barracks buildings from WWII are STILL housing troops today?
Again, let me state, the Social Programs in the Federal Budget have Ballooned to be the lions share of the Federal Budget. I do not deny that there are needy people I do however STRONGLY disagree that EVERY SINGLE APPROPRIATION is going to pay for people who are destitute and
The people profiled numerous times as 'victims' of Katrina who STILL don't have some sort of self support methods and don't seek it are PROOF of that fact. New Orleans was IMPORTING labor for the reconstruction efforts from other states.
The fault is is that the unnecessary invasion of a country that was not a clear and present danger, and was absolutely known not to be one, but for the falsified intelligence, is an extraordinary expense that must be paid for. "Economic Conservatism" as you appear to like to use it, is a misnomer because it is not conservative to pay for huge grand new expenses on the credit card and then blame all the bills that have been building up for years.
Now on a whim and a lie, we have invaded Iraq and embedded ourselves in a foreign occupation and counter-insurgency in an expensive and fruitless war without end, dumping treasure in bucket-loads to impressively drive armored vehicles all over a foreign desert and occasionally shoot at stuff.
So your contention is that Prior to the Iraq invasion everything was good and that the amount of spending was on target all things considered? That the Budget Deficit is ENTIRELY the fault of the War in Iraq. Is that your contention?
If so the numbers don't bear that out. The 2001 Deficit swing started under the Clinton Administration. Bush didn't set the FY2001 budget, Clinton did. The down swing starts just prior to 2001. That's a combination of factors, the economic downturn expanded federal budget spending and all exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks.
Another way to look at it is percent of GDP and Gross Numbers.
Here's Military Expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Notice that when Military spending was a Significantly LARGER portion of our federal Budget the Differences between Gross and Public Debt were much closer together. Even coming out of the great depression. However, when you look at the expansion in the 80s and 90s, the federal spending on all fronts expanded while the military expenditures shrank (peace dividend) in proportion to federal budget size.
Let me say that again. Military Expenditures have trended down, consistently over the past 40 years with the occasional upsurge and drawdown again. You cannot blame the budget deficit on Military expenditures and operations. They're JUST not that big a fraction any more. It's domestic spending which has ballooned. Even if you look JUST at discretionary expenditures, Military expenditures have STILL gone down since 1962.
(no subject)
From:TANSTAFL PT II.
Excoriate my position all you want. You still haven't provided any substantial evidence to support your contention. All you're doing is blowing smoke.
Oh, and here's a clue we were never out of debt under Clinton's administration. HE just got us a budget surplus for a time. Mind you, we were spending military procurement dollars on operational functions in the Balkans where we're STILL INVOLVED. Is that a quagmire? More than 10 years of operations?
And you know, I would be less pissed off if we were at least accomplishing something useful in Iraq, but we aren't. Failure and lies, and getting violence back down to a completely unacceptable bloodbath is quite the achievement, actually, but I'm beyond caring. It's too late, because your boy, the incompetent one who just lied about the recession, fucked it up.
I'm glad you're behind the US troops 100%. If you were paying attention, you'd know that things were actually getting better. Even Mookie has decided to buy into the system.
Nothing like a fair weather friend. How about you change your name to Edith Keeler? It'd be more apt.
Re: TANSTAFL PT II.
From: