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
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
He's already boring me again.
I'm probably done now.
Pathetic
emotional talking pointsfacts?So nice of you to stick to logical fallacies and NOT actually address points I bring up. Both of you.
If you can't answer simple questions like cite the article in the Constitution authorizing such and such expenditures you have no business pillorying my points. You can't refute, so you stoop to bullshit, emotional arguments and ad hominems.
And the Constitution is NOT a 'whackjob talking point. If you think it is, you're just pathetic.
no subject
Your statement about the Constitution is preposterous, and you invoke it like the Bush administration has not done more to undermine that document than any administration in our lifetimes.
Fine.
Article 1, Section 8,
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
A lawyer you are not. Don't quit your day job.
Entitlements are not strictly forbidden by the Constitution, "the general welfare" is meant to be enterpreted, and Congress bills that get signed in to law, meaning that if there is a welfare law that passed by a congress and a president, then it is fucking Law, ergo not illegal.
I'm done. You need medication, and I clearly need to get out more.
no subject
I have been trolled again, I fear. I feel dirty.
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
Your affectation of smarmy politeness doesn't impress me.
You're high-handed Coultier-style of discourse is fundamentally insulting, and I am predisposed to lack respect for you based on our previous engagement. If I recall you promised me a dismissive "Good day to you, sir!" which I kind of hoped was permanent.
As for the rest, post graphs all you like. The fact is that
1. The hobby of blowing shit up overseas costs money.
2. Deposing Saddam Hussien eliminated exactly zero clear and present threats to the United States.
3. The case for invasion of Iraq, sold to the American public and the world, was entirely fabricated.
4. Efforts in Iraq distracted from useful efforts against Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, resulting in the current resurgence of Taliban, which has the local commander begging NATO hat-in-hand for more troops (which the US cannot provide due to Iraq)
5. The budget surplus in 2000 was squandered on tax-cuts, which was not a terrible decision at the time, except that it completely shirks that responsibility of our government to reduce the national debt. And, before you start, the preposterous "it will pay for itself" story is bullshit and has been debunked thoroughly
6. After lying to the American people to go in to Iraq, billions of dollars out of an already deficit budget were dumped into Iraq, doing it on the cheap. This of course backfires, so every year a do-or-die budget request gets made begging for billions more "or you are not supporting the troops."
7. Every year for 5 years, we were told that it was getting better in Iraq and we were almost there, but all the statistics no matter how they were manipulated spelled "bloodbath." The surge was too little, too late. But most importantly? Iraq was a waste of effort to begin with, except as a means to forward a domestic agenda of Conservative power, so claims can be made of war-time powers. Because, having tanks rolling around the desert looks a lot more like a war than the in-the-shadows fearmongering horseshit that is the War on Terra(tm).
8. Having been lied to for 5 years, the administration has no credibility, and neither due Coultier-esque talking-point jingoists smuggly waving the flag and using the troops as a shield for their irrational rhetoric.
9. Having burdened the country with this enormous expense of an unnecessary invasion, and a completely mismanaged and seemingly perpetual occupation, now you have the gall to blame poor people for having TVs.
First of all, that $608 billion in entitlements doesn't go to Catrina victims in FEMA trailers, it goes to retired people. Secondly, a simple review of US demographics will demonstrate that not only was an increase in SS outlays completely predictable due to aging baby-boomers, but we are only just getting started.
You blame welfare, but invoke Social Security. You raid the social security insurance payment as "just a tax" but refuse to pay benefits that people have been paying into for their entire lives. And you know, that you don't like SS is fine with me. What is dishonest, is that you equate SS to low-income housing and welfare which is a lie.
You are saying "war war war support the war!" But you are not serving and you will not spend a dime to support it yourself. Instead, you want you way and you will just blame the poor (inaccurately) and threaten the old to try to divert the discussion from the fact that the Bush administration has been entirely dishonest and irresponsible across the board.
No amount of flag-waving, fear-mongering, blaming Bill Clinton, quoting irrelevant bullshit, and painting a pretty face on the economy sucking is going to get your credibility back.
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.
I will say again:
#1 Clinton = don't care.
Shut up about it.
#2 Fucking stop waving the flag at me and hiding behind the "you aren't supporting the troops" line.
My statements explicitly pointing out the justification for the invasion of Iraq were proven to be cynically false, and that continued operations there are absurdly expensive and completely ineffective for any useful foreign policy objective are not hurting the soldiers you love hiding behind.
And while I am on that subject, go ahead and correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that you are not now nor have you ever been a serving member of the military. You seem ever so eager to risk other people's necks, ride on top of their successes, and hide behind them crying that any disagreement with you (and the senseless amateurish failed policy of the neocons and the Bush administration) is disgracing the soldiers, spitting on them and calling them baby-killers. This is simply childish, and I know damn well who I would be resenting if I were still in the service, and it wouldn't be hippies or people sick of the war, it would be chicken-hawks like you standing on my dick.
#3 I never stated any such position*, but you insist on making pedantic pointless statements that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said or believe you nattering tit.
And then you have the gall to say if you are paying attention.
One of us isn't paying attention, but I think I'll join you because engaging with neo-con fan-boy mouthpieces like you is much like masturbating with a cheese-grater. Mildly amusing but mostly painful.
I still fail to see why people like you pray at the house of spin and talking-points, but clearly I will get no insight from someone I suspect could not pass the Turing Test.
* That Clinton paid the debt. This is ludicrous in the extreme, and most importantly, completely irrelevant to anything I have ever said or implied. Pay attention.