The death spiral has begun: The US can no longer sustain itself.

[DamnYankee]

Bankruptcy is the Democrat's plan, apparently:


In August 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the federal budget deficit would total $7.1 trillion over the 2010-2019 decade-under current law. That outcome would require the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to sunset as scheduled in 2011 and Congress to stop "patching" the alternative minimum tax to minimize its bite. If neither of those things happens, CBO says the cumulative deficit over the decade would jump to $11.1 trillion, more than doubling the national debt. Our economy cannot sustain that rate of debt increase. How can we reverse it? This paper poses a simple question: could incremental reforms of the current tax system raise enough revenue to reduce the deficit to an average of 2 percent of GDP over the last five years of the budget window? We use the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Tax Model to simulate several revenue-raising tax changes, including raising all income tax rates proportionally, hiking taxes only for high-income taxpayers, and either limiting or eliminating itemized deductions to broaden the tax base. We conclude that politically feasible tax increases within the current tax structure cannot generate sufficient revenues to bring federal budget deficits under control. http://www.urban.org/publications/412018.html

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think rising tax revenue as the recession recedes will do a lot to bring the deficit down to more reasonable levels. If more is necessary, then I think it would be politically feasible to pitch an austerity package consisting of spending cuts balanced wtih tax raises.

[DamnYankee]

I think rising tax revenue as the recession recedes will do a lot to bring the deficit down to more reasonable levels. If more is necessary, then I think it would be politically feasible to pitch an austerity package consisting of spending cuts balanced wtih tax raises.
The study shows that taxes can't be raised to generate the revenue necessary. The system is now unsustainable. Nice move Democrats!

[Damocles]

It's time to start printing the "It's the Spending, Stupid!" bumper stickers.

[Topspin]

LOLZ, thanks for that. Please tell me you pussies lost enough faith not to invest your vast earnings in the US stock market as the rich get richer.

[DamnYankee]

Stock prices are rising because the value of the dollar is falling. It now takes more paper notes to buy the same widget. Divest your portfolio from muni- and government bonds if you haven't already.

[Canceled1]

It's time to start printing the "It's the Spending, Stupid!" bumper stickers.


I can't be broke! I still have checks in my checkbook! :eek:

[TuTu Monroe]

I can't be broke! I still have checks in my checkbook! :eek:

Amazingly, many people believe that. SIGH

[TuTu Monroe]

The study shows that taxes can't be raised to generate the revenue necessary. The system is now unsustainable. Nice move Democrats!

Hell no they can't, no matter how high they are. They voted for the goofball.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_30.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSfox000)

[Topspin]

Studies show the stock market does better when a democrats in office. Hope you guy's aren't buying yet. He'll cut spending after he's a shoe in for re-election.

[DamnYankee]

Studies show the stock market does better when a democrats in office. Hope you guy's aren't buying yet. He'll cut spending after he's a shoe in for re-election.
When the dollar is devalued then the price of stocks goes up because it takes more dollars to buy the same widget. You idiot.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's time to start printing the "It's the Spending, Stupid!" bumper stickers.

Yes, raising taxes to levels high enough to completely quell the debt is impossible because people like you oppose raising them that high, so we can only cut spending. It's almost circular logic.

[Topspin]

yes cut the ghestapo military spending by 50%

[DamnYankee]

Stupid idea when Iran is about to have The Bomb.

[cancel2 2022]

Stupid idea when Iran is about to have The Bomb.

It is ironic though that Iran had signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty yet Israel has consistently refused to do so, even refusing to acknowledge their existence in the worst kept secret in the world. Netanyahu cancelled a trip to the US next week because he was scared that he might be asked some awkward questions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8610595.stm

[Damocles]

Yes, raising taxes to levels high enough to completely quell the debt is impossible because people like you oppose raising them that high, so we can only cut spending. It's almost circular logic.
Except it isn't. There is no way possible, even if we took 100% of all earnings from the top 10% (and you know that will never happen) that we could pay this debt. It's just stupid to think that we can raise taxes into prosperity. The most you can do with that is just make sure we all suffer the same amount.

[DamnYankee]

It is ironic though that Iran had signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty yet Israel has consistently refused to do so, even refusing to acknowledge their existence in the worst kept secret in the world. Netanyahu cancelled a trip to the US next week because he was scared that he might be asked some awkward questions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8610595.stm

You don't know why Netanyahu canceled his visit. An equally valid reason is that he doesn't want to be dissed like last time Obama met with him.

Israel would be foolish to sign such a treaty. They are a small country surrounded on three sides by enemies sworn to destroy them, and the fourth side by the sea. Nukes give them great capacity to defend themselves. Iran, on the other hand, is smart to sign it for the very reason that you demonstrate: so pacifists can say that Iran signed the treaty. What you fail to understand however, is that Iran, unlike Israel, has no intention of keeping their promises.

Iran has stated that they intend to destroy Israel, is actively working on a bomb, and there should be doubt in a sane mind that they will use it as soon as they have it.

[/MSG/]

Stupid idea when Iran is about to have The Bomb.
Not really considering we already have about 1000 more then they ever will. We could turn their entire country into the next space station, and our nuclear stockpile wouldn't even be dented.

[cancel2 2022]

You don't know why Netanyahu canceled his visit. An equally valid reason is that he doesn't want to be dissed like last time Obama met with him.

Israel would be foolish to sign such a treaty. They are a small country surrounded on three sides by enemies sworn to destroy them, and the fourth side by the sea. Nukes give them great capacity to defend themselves. Iran, on the other hand, is smart to sign it for the very reason that you demonstrate: so pacifists can say that Iran signed the treaty. What you fail to understand however, is that Iran, unlike Israel, has no intention of keeping their promises.

Iran has stated that they intend to destroy Israel, is actively working on a bomb, and there should be doubt in a sane mind that they will use it as soon as they have it.


You do not know what Iran's true intentions are and the threats to wipe out Israel are just sabre rattling, as it doesn't have the capacity to do so. Anyway what makes Israel so special that they can ignore the world and go their own way. Everyone knows that they have at least 100-150 warheads so what exactly are they gaining by denying what is in the public domain already. Isn't it amazing that North Korea, India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons and have not signed the NPT yet you are more concerned about Iran.

[ZappasGuitar]

Stupid idea when Iran is about to have The Bomb.

They will have The Bomb?!?

OHMYGAWDRUNFORTHEHILLS!!

Iran has ONE nuke...however will we defend ourselves since we only have 2,000-3,000 NUKES OF OUR OWN!

He bombs us, we lose some citizens and immediately turn his country into fused glass...eos!

I, unlike gutless Rightie Chickenhawks, am not afraid of other countries having nukes. They will NEVER have as many as the USA and we will wipe out anyone who detonates one on US soil.

[ZappasGuitar]

Except it isn't. There is no way possible, even if we took 100% of all earnings from the top 10% (and you know that will never happen) that we could pay this debt. It's just stupid to think that we can raise taxes into prosperity. The most you can do with that is just make sure we all suffer the same amount.

REALLY??

There's "no way possible"?

Well then game over man, why the hell hasn't the rioting started yet if there's no way to stop this?

Or is this just the latest example of standard issue Rightie doomsday Hyperbole?

[cancel2 2022]

REALLY??

There's "no way possible"?

Well then game over man, why the hell hasn't the rioting started yet if there's no way to stop this?

Or is this just the latest example of standard issue Rightie doomsday Hyperbole?

Sooner or later the US will have to face up to spending cuts and higher taxes, there is just no other way around it. We are having to face up to the same thing here as have the Irish and Greeks already.

[ZappasGuitar]

Sooner or later the US will have to face up to spending cuts and higher taxes, there is just no other way around it. We are having to face up to the same thing here as have the Irish and Greeks already.

So then there IS a way out, and all I've been hearing is the same old dire Rightie hyperbole...just as I thought.

[cancel2 2022]

They will have The Bomb?!?

OHMYGAWDRUNFORTHEHILLS!!

Iran has ONE nuke...however will we defend ourselves since we only have 2,000-3,000 NUKES OF OUR OWN!

He bombs us, we lose some citizens and immediately turn his country into fused glass...eos!

I, unlike gutless Rightie Chickenhawks, am not afraid of other countries having nukes. They will NEVER have as many as the USA and we will wipe out anyone who detonates one on US soil.

We don't even know if they have one nuke, actually from their perspective it makes good sense to keep the west guessing as it is less likely to be attacked that way. The example of Iraq weighs heavy on the minds of the Iranians.

[DamnYankee]

You do not know what Iran's true intentions are and the threats to wipe out Israel are just sabre rattling, as it doesn't have the capacity to do so. Anyway what makes Israel so special that they can ignore the world and go their own way. Everyone knows that they have at least 100-150 warheads so what exactly are they gaining by denying what is in the public domain already. Isn't it amazing that North Korea, India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons and have not signed the NPT yet you are more concerned about Iran.


"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_ma p.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_transl ation


Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

I tend to take either translation at face value.

[DamnYankee]

Not really considering we already have about 1000 more then they ever will. We could turn their entire country into the next space station, and our nuclear stockpile wouldn't even be dented.Wouldn't it be nice to have a series of alternative options?

[Damocles]

REALLY??

There's "no way possible"?

Well then game over man, why the hell hasn't the rioting started yet if there's no way to stop this?

Or is this just the latest example of standard issue Rightie doomsday Hyperbole?
Dude, the math itself shows that it just isn't there. We can't continue to add spending and think "Just Raise Taxes" will fix it. We need to cut spending.

In order to "grow" into our deficit, we'd have to have at or above 10% growth per year for 75 years. Not kidding. I'll see if I can find the article...

[asaratis]

Obama's plan appears to be the creation of catastrophic crises that only the Democrats can resolve. It matters not what is good for the country as long as Democrats are in power.

[ZappasGuitar]

Dude, the math itself shows that it just isn't there. We can't continue to add spending and think "Just Raise Taxes" will fix it. We need to cut spending.

In order to "grow" into our deficit, we'd have to have at or above 10% growth per year for 75 years. Not kidding. I'll see if I can find the article...

I'll take your word for it, we can't just raise taxes. Nor do I think we should do that alone. We are going to have to cut spending somewhere, create new incoming revenue streams and target loopholes that allow so many to avoid paying.

[Annie]

Dude, the math itself shows that it just isn't there. We can't continue to add spending and think "Just Raise Taxes" will fix it. We need to cut spending.

In order to "grow" into our deficit, we'd have to have at or above 10% growth per year for 75 years. Not kidding. I'll see if I can find the article...

Damo, is it this one?

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/03/the-20-percent-solution/


The 20 Percent Solution
MAR 3, 2010 10:11 EST
BUDGET DEFICIT * NATIONAL DEBT * NEW NORMAL
House Republicans Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence want a constitutional amendment to limit government spending to 20 percent of GDP, its rough historical average. In their Wall Street Journal op-ed, H&P admit, significantly, that America cannot grow its way out of its debt problem:


Can we tax our way out of this problem? No. In order to pay for what we are on track to spend under current law, taxes would have to double. This would crush our economy and condemn future generations to a far lower standard of living. That is not an option. Can we grow our way out? Unfortunately, no. Although pro-growth policies like simplifying the tax code and lowering rates are critical components of any solution, they alone are insufficient. Mr. Walker estimated it would take double-digit economic growth every year for the next 75 years in order to close the fiscal gap.

Me: They don’t say how the government should hit that 20 percent goal, given the expected rise in entitlement spending. But it does provide a marker. They aren’t arguing for small government as much as typical government, at least overall. But hitting that 20 percent would require a radical transformation of US domestic economic policies. Both Social Security and Medicare would be transformed, particularly the latter. Nothing typical about that.

[cancel2 2022]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_ma p.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_transl ation
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

I tend to take either translation at face value.

Of course you will, because it suits your agenda. Just as during the Cold War no doubt all Russians were damn Commies who were intent on taking over the world.

[cancel2 2022]

Dude, the math itself shows that it just isn't there. We can't continue to add spending and think "Just Raise Taxes" will fix it. We need to cut spending.

In order to "grow" into our deficit, we'd have to have at or above 10% growth per year for 75 years. Not kidding. I'll see if I can find the article...

So as I've already said it is going to require a combination of cuts and higher taxes. The party's over, so get used to the new austerity.

[DamnYankee]

Of course you will, because it suits your agenda. Just as during the Cold War no doubt all Russians were damn Commies who were intent on taking over the world.Nice attempt at deflection. But why wouldn't you take the Iranian government at its word?

[TuTu Monroe]

You don't know why Netanyahu canceled his visit. An equally valid reason is that he doesn't want to be dissed like last time Obama met with him.

Israel would be foolish to sign such a treaty. They are a small country surrounded on three sides by enemies sworn to destroy them, and the fourth side by the sea. Nukes give them great capacity to defend themselves. Iran, on the other hand, is smart to sign it for the very reason that you demonstrate: so pacifists can say that Iran signed the treaty. What you fail to understand however, is that Iran, unlike Israel, has no intention of keeping their promises.

Iran has stated that they intend to destroy Israel, is actively working on a bomb, and there should be doubt in a sane mind that they will use it as soon as they have it.

Israel is the only real friend we have in the ME. I don't blame Netanyahu canceling his trip with the arrogant bastard we have for a president.

Iran has been lying to us for years and they can't be believed now under any circumstances.

[DamnYankee]

Israel is the only real friend we have in the ME. I don't blame Netanyahu canceling his trip with the arrogant bastard we have for a president.

Iran has been lying to us for years and they can't be believed now under any circumstances.

Little Mahmoud is a liar just like Saddam was a liar. Only a fool would trust either one.

[cancel2 2022]

Little Mahmoud is a liar just like Saddam was a liar. Only a fool would trust either one.

Saddam said he had no WMD and history has proved him to be right. So why should we believe the intelligence on Iran?

[cancel2 2022]

Nice attempt at deflection. But why wouldn't you take the Iranian government at its word?

I don't take them at their word but then again why do you believe that they are intent on building nuclear weapons when there is no incontrovertible evidence?

[DamnYankee]

Saddam said he had no WMD and history has proved him to be right. So why should we believe the intelligence on Iran? He said he didn't when he did, then he said he did when he didn't. Which time did you believe him?

[DamnYankee]

I don't take them at their word but then again why do you believe that they are intent on building nuclear weapons when there is no incontrovertible evidence? To require such a high standard of evidence when so many people are at risk is rather irresponsible, isn't it?

[cancel2 2022]

To require such a high standard of evidence when so many people are at risk is rather irresponsible, isn't it?

To unleash wars based on dodgy intelligence isn't just irresponsible, it is criminal.

[DamnYankee]

To unleash wars based on dodgy intelligence isn't just irresponsible, it is criminal.
I was arguing to maintain the current military budget, and against cutting it by 50%. Nice straw man though.

[cancel2 2022]

I was arguing to maintain the current military budget, and against cutting it by 50%. Nice straw man though.

Oh sorry, and there was me thinking that you were advocating yet another war.

[DamnYankee]

Oh sorry, and there was me thinking that you were advocating yet another war.
To be prepared for war reduces the chances of it.

[/MSG/]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a series of alternative options?
And those options don't exist with a military at 50%?

[DamnYankee]

Not all of them. Besides, our service members don't get paid enough already.

[apple0154]

Bankruptcy is the Democrat's plan, apparently:

http://www.urban.org/publications/412018.html

No, bankruptcy was the Repub plan. That's why they spent while cutting taxes. They didn't/don't believe in government programs so their plan was to bankrupt the government so the government couldn't offer social programs. What better way to prevent a government medical plan? When there's no money, there's no money. Or so they thought.

But Obama didn't play their game. He got health care passed. Now the government has the obligation of funding it. Now, when budget time rolls around it's no longer a question of whether the government can afford a medical plan. It has to afford it.

So, the medical plan goes to the top of the "payment list". Now the government is obliged to find the money for things it is not obliged to do like...oh, I don't know....like buying the latest military equipment from their friends? Having military bases in allied countries for the last 60+ years? Paying someone to pick up garbage in a National Park while complaining there is a custodial shortage at the local hospital? Erecting a monument in the Town Square when that money could be used for medical insurance? Tax breaks for businesses?

The focus of questions have shifted. Should taxes be raised to pay for park maintenance, monuments, unnecessary military hardware, overseas bases, ........

Now, any and all non-obligation expenditures will be scrutinized. Health care is no longer an option.

Paradigm: "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them"

That is the change, the paradigm shift, if you will.

[DamnYankee]

No, bankruptcy was the Repub plan. That's why they spent while cutting taxes. They didn't/don't believe in government programs so their plan was to bankrupt the government so the government couldn't offer social programs..... Although I agree that the Republicans spent too much I don't agree that was the agenda. I think they were just plain stupid.

[apple0154]

Although I agree that the Republicans spent too much I don't agree that was the agenda. I think they were just plain stupid.

Oh, no. They weren't stupid. They had a plan. Just like the plan to invade Iraq long before they took office.

Run out the money and then make it look like any tax increase would be the result of any implemented social policy. They figured it was a win-win situation. People would be against any tax increase so they would oppose any social policies.

Obama called their bluff. Now medical is the government's responsibility and that responsibility will continue to increase over the years and like every other country once the citizens get used to government medical coverage it's here to stay.

Obama was brave. He went ahead with it anyway.

[Socrtease]

Very interesting what is and is not considered military spending. There is a good article in Slate about the FY 2009 Military budget.

What's Really in the U.S. Military Budget?
Much more than the oft-cited $515.4 billion.

http://slate.com/id/2183592/pagenum/all

It's time for our annual game: How much is really in the U.S. military budget?

As usual, it's about $200 billion more than most news stories are reporting. For the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget, which President Bush released today, the real size is not, as many news stories have reported, $515.4 billion—itself a staggering sum—but, rather, $713.1 billion.

Before deconstructing this budget, let us consider just how massive it is. Even the smaller figure of $515.4 billion—which does not include money for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—is roughly equal to the total military budgets of all the rest of the world's nations combined. It is (adjusting for inflation) larger than any U.S. military budget since World War II.

But this is simply the Pentagon's share of the military budget (again, that part of it not related to war costs). Since most reporters writing about this are Pentagon reporters, that's the part of the budget that they consider their turf.

However, the Office of Management and Budget's documents focus on a broader category called "National Defense," which also includes $16.1 billion for nuclear warheads and reactors under the Department of Energy's control and $5.2 billion for "defense-related activities" at other agencies (mainly the FBI). There is also $4.3 billion for mandated programs (most having to do with military retirement and health care for victims of radiation sickness).

So, that brings the total, so far, to $541 billion. ("National Defense," by the way, does not include programs in the Department of Homeland Security; that's another story.)

Then there is the $70 billion emergency war supplemental that the Pentagon is requesting for FY 2009. (In one sense, it is strange that they're requesting this upfront; supplementals are usually submitted in the middle of the year, to cover unanticipated expenses. In another sense, it's refreshing that Robert Gates' Pentagon—as opposed to Donald Rumsfeld's—is making no effort to disguise what will definitely be needed.)

Now we're up to $611 billion.

Finally, as the Pentagon's budget documents note up front, in the "Summary Justification," Congress has yet to approve $102 billion left over from the supplemental for FY 2008. And so—in terms of how much Congress is being asked to authorize this year—that brings us to $713 billion.

But let's delve into the Pentagon's base line figure—the $515.4 billion that has nothing directly to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's in there? Do the U.S. armed forces really need that much for the everyday maintenance of national security?

About a quarter of that sum—$125.2 billion—is for personnel costs: understandable. Another third—$180 billion—is for operations and maintenance of equipment (a bit more mysterious, since this is apart from the O&M costs brought on by the war). But a larger sum still—$184 billion—is for what the Pentagon calls "major weapons systems."

This includes $45.6 billion for military aircraft, including $6.7 billion to buy 16 more F-35 stealth planes. The F-35 is still in its early stages; the Pentagon has, to date, spent only about one-tenth of what it estimates to be a $300 billion program. It's not too late to ask if we need such a costly, sophisticated fighter jet, given that air-to-air combat is not likely to be a major element of future wars and, to the extent that it might be, we're way ahead—in numbers and technology—of any prospective foe. Or let's accept the proposition that China's air force is going to be a formidable rival by the year 2020: Do we need to tear full-speed ahead on the F-35 now? Could we slow the program down and see how things shape up?

The budget also allots $16.9 billion for Navy shipbuilding, including $4.2 billion for a new aircraft carrier, $3.2 billion for a new DDG-1000 destroyer, and $3.6 billion for a new Virginia-class submarine. (The Navy is also pushing up, from 2012 to 2011, the year when it starts to build two of these subs annually, instead of one.) Again, where's the imminent danger, what's the rush?

There is another $12.8 billion for missile defense, despite the numerous foibles that still plague that program (along with the occasional, but not so significant, successful test).

And there is $3.6 billion for continued research and development into the Army's trouble-ridden Future Combat Systems program. (According to the Pentagon's budget documents, the estimated "initial deployment" for this system has now slipped to 2015, and its projected cost has risen to $160 billion—second only to the F-35 in the list of most expensive programs. Only about $20 billion has been spent so far; it's not too late to bite the bullet.)

What efficiencies is the Pentagon taking to accommodate these technological risks? The "Overview" section of the Pentagon's budget document contains a section called "Program Terminations." It reads, in its entirety: "The FY 2009 budget does not propose any major program terminations."

Is it remotely conceivable that the Defense Department is the one federal bureaucracy that has not designed, developed, or produced a single expendable program? The question answers itself.

There is another way to probe this question. Look at the budget share distributed to each of the three branches of the armed services. The Army gets 33 percent, the Air Force gets 33 percent, and the Navy gets 34 percent.

As I have noted before (and, I'm sure, will again), the budget has been divvied up this way, plus or minus 2 percent, each and every year since the 1960s. Is it remotely conceivable that our national-security needs coincide so precisely—and so consistently over the span of nearly a half-century—with the bureaucratic imperatives of giving the Army, Air Force, and Navy an even share of the money? Again, the question answers itself. As the Army's budget goes up to meet the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force's and Navy's budgets have to go up by roughly the same share, as well. It would be a miracle if this didn't sire a lot of waste and extravagance.

Congress exposes this budget to virtually no scrutiny, fearing that any major cuts—any serious questions—will incite charges of being "soft on terror" and "soft on defense." But $536 billion of this budget—the Pentagon's base line plus the discretionary items for the Department of Energy and other agencies—has nothing to do with the war on terror. And it's safe to assume that a fair amount has little to do with defense. How much it does and doesn't is a matter of debate. Right now, nobody's even debating.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently that, quite apart from the wars, the nation should get used to spending 4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. This isn't an unreasonable sum in terms of what the nation can afford. But the same could be said of many other functions of government. It has very little to do with what the nation needs. The $515.4 billion in the base line Defense Department budget amounts to 3.4 percent of GNP. Is that not enough? Should we throw in another $85 billion to boost it to 4 percent? The relevant question, in any case, should be not how much we spend, but what we buy.

[ZappasGuitar]

Very interesting what is and is not considered military spending. There is a good article in Slate about the FY 2009 Military budget.

What's Really in the U.S. Military Budget?
Much more than the oft-cited $515.4 billion.

http://slate.com/id/2183592/pagenum/all

It's time for our annual game: How much is really in the U.S. military budget?

As usual, it's about $200 billion more than most news stories are reporting. For the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget, which President Bush released today, the real size is not, as many news stories have reported, $515.4 billion—itself a staggering sum—but, rather, $713.1 billion.

Before deconstructing this budget, let us consider just how massive it is. Even the smaller figure of $515.4 billion—which does not include money for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—is roughly equal to the total military budgets of all the rest of the world's nations combined. It is (adjusting for inflation) larger than any U.S. military budget since World War II.

But this is simply the Pentagon's share of the military budget (again, that part of it not related to war costs). Since most reporters writing about this are Pentagon reporters, that's the part of the budget that they consider their turf.

However, the Office of Management and Budget's documents focus on a broader category called "National Defense," which also includes $16.1 billion for nuclear warheads and reactors under the Department of Energy's control and $5.2 billion for "defense-related activities" at other agencies (mainly the FBI). There is also $4.3 billion for mandated programs (most having to do with military retirement and health care for victims of radiation sickness).

So, that brings the total, so far, to $541 billion. ("National Defense," by the way, does not include programs in the Department of Homeland Security; that's another story.)

Then there is the $70 billion emergency war supplemental that the Pentagon is requesting for FY 2009. (In one sense, it is strange that they're requesting this upfront; supplementals are usually submitted in the middle of the year, to cover unanticipated expenses. In another sense, it's refreshing that Robert Gates' Pentagon—as opposed to Donald Rumsfeld's—is making no effort to disguise what will definitely be needed.)

Now we're up to $611 billion.

Finally, as the Pentagon's budget documents note up front, in the "Summary Justification," Congress has yet to approve $102 billion left over from the supplemental for FY 2008. And so—in terms of how much Congress is being asked to authorize this year—that brings us to $713 billion.

But let's delve into the Pentagon's base line figure—the $515.4 billion that has nothing directly to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's in there? Do the U.S. armed forces really need that much for the everyday maintenance of national security?

About a quarter of that sum—$125.2 billion—is for personnel costs: understandable. Another third—$180 billion—is for operations and maintenance of equipment (a bit more mysterious, since this is apart from the O&M costs brought on by the war). But a larger sum still—$184 billion—is for what the Pentagon calls "major weapons systems."

This includes $45.6 billion for military aircraft, including $6.7 billion to buy 16 more F-35 stealth planes. The F-35 is still in its early stages; the Pentagon has, to date, spent only about one-tenth of what it estimates to be a $300 billion program. It's not too late to ask if we need such a costly, sophisticated fighter jet, given that air-to-air combat is not likely to be a major element of future wars and, to the extent that it might be, we're way ahead—in numbers and technology—of any prospective foe. Or let's accept the proposition that China's air force is going to be a formidable rival by the year 2020: Do we need to tear full-speed ahead on the F-35 now? Could we slow the program down and see how things shape up?

The budget also allots $16.9 billion for Navy shipbuilding, including $4.2 billion for a new aircraft carrier, $3.2 billion for a new DDG-1000 destroyer, and $3.6 billion for a new Virginia-class submarine. (The Navy is also pushing up, from 2012 to 2011, the year when it starts to build two of these subs annually, instead of one.) Again, where's the imminent danger, what's the rush?

There is another $12.8 billion for missile defense, despite the numerous foibles that still plague that program (along with the occasional, but not so significant, successful test).

And there is $3.6 billion for continued research and development into the Army's trouble-ridden Future Combat Systems program. (According to the Pentagon's budget documents, the estimated "initial deployment" for this system has now slipped to 2015, and its projected cost has risen to $160 billion—second only to the F-35 in the list of most expensive programs. Only about $20 billion has been spent so far; it's not too late to bite the bullet.)

What efficiencies is the Pentagon taking to accommodate these technological risks? The "Overview" section of the Pentagon's budget document contains a section called "Program Terminations." It reads, in its entirety: "The FY 2009 budget does not propose any major program terminations."

Is it remotely conceivable that the Defense Department is the one federal bureaucracy that has not designed, developed, or produced a single expendable program? The question answers itself.

There is another way to probe this question. Look at the budget share distributed to each of the three branches of the armed services. The Army gets 33 percent, the Air Force gets 33 percent, and the Navy gets 34 percent.

As I have noted before (and, I'm sure, will again), the budget has been divvied up this way, plus or minus 2 percent, each and every year since the 1960s. Is it remotely conceivable that our national-security needs coincide so precisely—and so consistently over the span of nearly a half-century—with the bureaucratic imperatives of giving the Army, Air Force, and Navy an even share of the money? Again, the question answers itself. As the Army's budget goes up to meet the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force's and Navy's budgets have to go up by roughly the same share, as well. It would be a miracle if this didn't sire a lot of waste and extravagance.

Congress exposes this budget to virtually no scrutiny, fearing that any major cuts—any serious questions—will incite charges of being "soft on terror" and "soft on defense." But $536 billion of this budget—the Pentagon's base line plus the discretionary items for the Department of Energy and other agencies—has nothing to do with the war on terror. And it's safe to assume that a fair amount has little to do with defense. How much it does and doesn't is a matter of debate. Right now, nobody's even debating.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently that, quite apart from the wars, the nation should get used to spending 4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. This isn't an unreasonable sum in terms of what the nation can afford. But the same could be said of many other functions of government. It has very little to do with what the nation needs. The $515.4 billion in the base line Defense Department budget amounts to 3.4 percent of GNP. Is that not enough? Should we throw in another $85 billion to boost it to 4 percent? The relevant question, in any case, should be not how much we spend, but what we buy.

I just got one question...

Why do you hate America?

Because every single penny that is spent in "defense" of this country is necessary!

Every. Single. PENNY.

How else can we guarantee that the suits that run all those defense contractors will be able to afford a third summer house...uuuhhh...ummmm...I mean guarantee that the people of this nation are safe if we don't simply rubber stamp every single request for financing that comes across the president's desk?

[DamnYankee]

Oh, no. They weren't stupid. They had a plan. Just like the plan to invade Iraq long before they took office.

Run out the money and then make it look like any tax increase would be the result of any implemented social policy. They figured it was a win-win situation. People would be against any tax increase so they would oppose any social policies.

Obama called their bluff. Now medical is the government's responsibility and that responsibility will continue to increase over the years and like every other country once the citizens get used to government medical coverage it's here to stay.

Obama was brave. He went ahead with it anyway. Obama is a radical socialist and Obamacare will be found to be unconstitutional and thrown out. America is on the verge of bankruptcy and we are about to enter in a period of inflation that will make the Carter years look tame. The American people aren't stupid, and in November we'll see a lame-duck Democrat congress desperately try to pass still more socialist legislation before they get replaced by Republicans who kicked their asses in the elections. Obama will be a one-term President, and history will see him as a failure.

[apple0154]

Obama is a radical socialist and Obamacare will be found to be unconstitutional and thrown out. America is on the verge of bankruptcy and we are about to enter in a period of inflation that will make the Carter years look tame. The American people aren't stupid, and in November we'll see a lame-duck Democrat congress desperately try to pass still more socialist legislation before they get replaced by Republicans who kicked their asses in the elections. Obama will be a one-term President, and history will see him as a failure.

Have you considered writing for a sci-fi magazine?

[DamnYankee]

Have you considered writing for a sci-fi magazine? No. Are you considering historical fiction?

[asaratis]

No, bankruptcy was the Repub plan. That's why they spent while cutting taxes. They didn't/don't believe in government programs so their plan was to bankrupt the government so the government couldn't offer social programs. What better way to prevent a government medical plan? When there's no money, there's no money. Or so they thought.

But Obama didn't play their game. He got health care passed. Now the government has the obligation of funding it. Now, when budget time rolls around it's no longer a question of whether the government can afford a medical plan. It has to afford it.

So, the medical plan goes to the top of the "payment list". Now the government is obliged to find the money for things it is not obliged to do like...oh, I don't know....like buying the latest military equipment from their friends? Having military bases in allied countries for the last 60+ years? Paying someone to pick up garbage in a National Park while complaining there is a custodial shortage at the local hospital? Erecting a monument in the Town Square when that money could be used for medical insurance? Tax breaks for businesses?

The focus of questions have shifted. Should taxes be raised to pay for park maintenance, monuments, unnecessary military hardware, overseas bases, ........

Now, any and all non-obligation expenditures will be scrutinized. Health care is no longer an option.

Paradigm: "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them"

That is the change, the paradigm shift, if you will.

The government is not obligated to fund anything. Congress usually does though. I think if the Republicans get control of the House, they can defund the health care control bill and tell Obama Zombies to go pound sand. I hope so anyway.

[apple0154]

The government is not obligated to fund anything. Congress usually does though. I think if the Republicans get control of the House, they can defund the health care control bill and tell Obama Zombies to go pound sand. I hope so anyway.

One can always hope.

[/MSG/]

Not all of them. Besides, our service members don't get paid enough already.
Yes, all the options still exist. And you're half right. Officers get more money then they deserve, enlisted don't.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Except it isn't. There is no way possible, even if we took 100% of all earnings from the top 10% (and you know that will never happen) that we could pay this debt.

Not in one year. We really don't need to pay it all off and uber-fast; if we could keep a balanced budget the debt would eventually become minuscule in comparison to our economy.

[Topspin]

Hey tom, your talking to the sofa warrior king of the 300!!!
Once he steps outside though he wants no parts of any wars. LOL

[Damocles]

Not in one year. We really don't need to pay it all off and uber-fast; if we could keep a balanced budget the debt would eventually become minuscule in comparison to our economy.
Only if we grew in the double digits for about 70 years would we be able to make it "minuscule", did you read the article that Annie posted?

We have, for the past 60 years, never paid even one dime towards any of our debt. Zero, nada, not one iota. We pay the interest and borrow more each and every year.

[Topspin]

and non of it matter to neotoos until Obama got in. The SORE LOSERS are comical and I hope to God they keep it up. Wait until about Sept 2010 to actually decide on a real strategy. Then it's to late.

[Damocles]

and non of it matter to neotoos until Obama got in. The SORE LOSERS are comical and I hope to God they keep it up. Wait until about Sept 2010 to actually decide on a real strategy. Then it's to late.
If none of it mattered then all those "neotools" would have got out and voted for McCain. It mattered. No R stood a shot because people were sick of it.

[Topspin]

the neotools did vote for Mcfossil. It was the youth vote and the independents that won it for Obama.

[cancel2 2022]

Obama is a radical socialist and Obamacare will be found to be unconstitutional and thrown out. America is on the verge of bankruptcy and we are about to enter in a period of inflation that will make the Carter years look tame. The American people aren't stupid, and in November we'll see a lame-duck Democrat congress desperately try to pass still more socialist legislation before they get replaced by Republicans who kicked their asses in the elections. Obama will be a one-term President, and history will see him as a failure.

There is a bigger danger of deflation than inflation.

[DamnYankee]

There is a bigger danger of deflation than inflation.
According to whom?

[Topspin]

There is a bigger danger of deflation than inflation.

wow Southern coward's rant was a racist rant straight out of the KKK talking points for morons on the go.

[cancel2 2022]

According to whom?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B94GM20091210

http://www.bloombergutv.com/news/latest-business-news-us/33516/fed-may-keep-rates-at-zero-in-2010---.html

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/fed-bernanke-deflation-inflation-reflation-printing/9/14/2009/id/24469

[TuTu Monroe]

the neotools did vote for Mcfossil. It was the youth vote and the independents that won it for Obama.

They will also be the reason he will lose in the next election.

[Topspin]

They will also be the reason he will lose in the next election.

Obama will win by a bigger margin, as your bullshit about him being a muslim terrorist is brought back up and beat over your ghestapo loving head.:pke:

[Damocles]

the neotools did vote for Mcfossil. It was the youth vote and the independents that won it for Obama.
Inane, ignoring the fact that many of those independents voted Bush, some twice (some of them four times) may make you feel better, but what swung the vote to Obama wasn't the kids, it was independents who were pissed at the status quo in DC and who were promised open government, unhidden agendas, lobbyists kicked out of one branch of the government... None of which has happened, in fact it has been quite opposite.

[TuTu Monroe]

Obama will win by a bigger margin, as your bullshit about him being a muslim terrorist is brought back up and beat over your ghestapo loving head.:pke:

A muslim terrorist? Are you on crack?

[Topspin]

Inane, ignoring the fact that many of those independents voted Bush, some twice (some of them four times) may make you feel better, but what swung the vote to Obama wasn't the kids, it was independents who were pissed at the status quo in DC and who were promised open government, unhidden agendas, lobbyists kicked out of one branch of the government... None of which has happened, in fact it has been quite opposite.

oh yeah, I very scared independents are going to turn into racist overnight, I was born at night just not last night!

[DamnYankee]

Topspin is liberal because he's afraid of personal responsibility.

[cancel2 2022]

Only if we grew in the double digits for about 70 years would we be able to make it "minuscule", did you read the article that Annie posted?

We have, for the past 60 years, never paid even one dime towards any of our debt. Zero, nada, not one iota. We pay the interest and borrow more each and every year.

No doubt all the right wingnuts will never stop bleating but the defence budget will have to cut, there are too many bases and too many useless programmes.

[christiefan915]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_ma p.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_transl ation
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

I tend to take either translation at face value.

Iranians and others have been chanting "death to America" for decades and we're still standing. I take those comments as posturing.

[Damocles]

No doubt all the right wingnuts will never stop bleating but the defence budget will have to cut, there are too many bases and too many useless programmes.
Works for me. Let Europe start depending less on our troops, our anti-missile technology, willingness to help out in Europe and elsewhere... and more on their own.

[christiefan915]

A muslim terrorist? Are you on crack?

No, he's being honest. This is what the radical wing of your party looks like.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us"

[cancel2 2022]

You do not know what Iran's true intentions are and the threats to wipe out Israel are just sabre rattling, as it doesn't have the capacity to do so. Anyway what makes Israel so special that they can ignore the world and go their own way. Everyone knows that they have at least 100-150 warheads so what exactly are they gaining by denying what is in the public domain already. Isn't it amazing that North Korea, India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons and have not signed the NPT yet you are more concerned about Iran.

People like A Q Khan pose the biggest threat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603730.html

[cancel2 2022]

No, he's being honest. This is what the radical wing of your party looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us

My God, they make the wingnuts on here seem positively tame.

[cancel2 2022]

Works for me. Let Europe start depending less on our troops, our anti-missile technology, willingness to help out in Europe and elsewhere... and more on their own.

First off, I would agree that Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries need to spend more on defence. France and the UK spend around 2.5% of GDP as against the 4% spent by the US.



As to the missile shield, it is not wanted by Europe, it is just another incredibly expensive white elephant dreamed up by the military industrial complex and Bush. The article below details the reasons why it will not work, it only needs updating to say that Romania is now hosting the missiles instead of the Czech Republic and Poland.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/military-spending-worldwide/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE54J52020090520

[DamnYankee]

Iranians and others have been chanting "death to America" for decades and we're still standing. I take those comments as posturing. How convenient.

[Damocles]

First off, I would agree that Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries need to spend more on defence. France and the UK spend around 2.5% of GDP as against the 4% spent by the US.



As to the missile shield, it is not wanted by Europe, it is just another incredibly expensive white elephant dreamed up by the military industrial complex and Bush. The article below details the reasons why it will not work, it only needs updating to say that Romania is now hosting the missiles instead of the Czech Republic and Poland.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/military-spending-worldwide/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE54J52020090520
M'eh... The missile defense that we currently set there works better and will stop the med. range missiles that Iran may try to launch, however that was just another piece of what we do there that is expensive and something that maybe the people who live there should do for themselves...

The reality is that those nations can spend less because we supplement their defense with our presence. As I said, I'd be happy to stop that. While cuts in defense wouldn't be popular among my party or among conservatives in general, every single one of us will have to tighten that belt just a bit on some of our favorite things. It is simply irresponsible, if not directly immoral, to force people who aren't even born to pay for our largess.

[asaratis]

Not in one year. We really don't need to pay it all off and uber-fast; if we could keep a balanced budget the debt would eventually become minuscule in comparison to our economy.When the total income of the Treasury isn't enough to cover the interest on the debt, the Treasury is in a death spiral. Duh!

Adding taxes on the people and companies that are struggling to be a part of the tax-generating GNP is just plain stupid. What is needed is a reduction in spending.

A reduction in military spending is the most ridiculous consideration among the many proposed. The military supports a lot of private enterprise, mom and pop stores, JOBS in the private sector...by way of creating a big demand for goods and services. Just ask the citizens of any little town where there's a big base of military equipment and personnel. Business is good.

Close a base...devastate a community of hard working Americans (when the base is here) and businesses that supply the base with staples.

Where the spending cuts should begin is in the size of the government roster of non-military employees. Make government jobs available to those that are willing to maintain the jobs based on performance rather than tenure. Fire the incompetent and the excess labor...let them seek jobs in the private sector.

[Topspin]

Intel earnings way up
JP Morgan earnings way up
yeah this is what a death spiral looks like. Ok

[DamnYankee]

How is the US going to pay its debt?

[apple0154]

How is the US going to pay its debt?

By charging countries for protection.

Let's connect the dots. Selling protection. A President from Chicago. An offer they can't refuse.

It's time to read a little '30's Chicago history. The solution is there.

[DamnYankee]

And if they don't pay?

[Topspin]

How is the US going to pay its debt?

taxing rich aholes like you:good4u:

[DamnYankee]

taxing rich aholes like you:good4u:
I've already come up with a plan to shelter the profits from our businesses when we sell them. Your filthy hands won't touch any of it, I'll be retired and living in Switzerland. :)

[Topspin]

I've already come up with a plan to shelter the profits from our businesses when we sell them. Your filthy hands won't touch any of it, I'll be retired and living in Switzerland. :)

I'm not sure if anybody would think you weren't a greedy bastard and a moron

[DamnYankee]

I'm not sure if anybody would think you weren't a greedy bastard and a moron Capitalist greed is good; only a moron would think otherwise.

[TuTu Monroe]

How is the US going to pay its debt?

The rich are renouncing their citizenship and moving out of this country. Thanks Obama.

[Topspin]

Capitalist greed is good; only a moron would think otherwise.

you got me on that one, I just hate that tea bagger

[DamnYankee]

The rich are renouncing their citizenship and moving out of this country. Thanks Obama.

I have an friend who's closer to retirement and thinks that they are going to try to tax home equity. Thus he's re-financing, cashing out and putting it into offshore investments. These aren't wealthy folks with teams of tax attorneys, so its never hard to figure out how to keep what you've earned.

[Topspin]

I have an friend who's closer to retirement and thinks that they are going to try to tax home equity. Thus he's re-financing, cashing out and putting it into offshore investments. These aren't wealthy folks with teams of tax attorneys, so its never hard to figure out how to keep what you've earned.

another tea bagging moron:gives:

[apple0154]

And if they don't pay?

Ve av vays of dealing vit dos folks!! :cof1:

[apple0154]

The rich are renouncing their citizenship and moving out of this country. Thanks Obama.

:cheer: Canada welcomes rich females!! :cheer:

[ZappasGuitar]

The rich are renouncing their citizenship and moving out of this country. Thanks Obama.

Prove it...

[ZappasGuitar]

A muslim terrorist? Are you on crack?


No, he's being honest. This is what the radical wing of your party looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us

How about that?

You provide the proof Tutu is full of it and SURPRISE...once again the gutless run for cover to embarrassed to respond and without so much as an "I was wrong."

[DamnYankee]

Ve av vays of dealing vit dos folks!! :cof1:Exactly. That's called fascism.

[apple0154]

Exactly. That's called fascism.

No, it's called paying ones bills. If a country requests military aid and it's supplied then they owe for that service.

[Topspin]

Intel earnings way up
JP Morgan way up
what do you know they will pay more taxes. lol

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Intel earnings way up
JP Morgan way up
what do you know they will pay more taxes. lol

Fascism pays.. Lots of crime is profitable. The moral repugnance is really the issue here.

[TuTu Monroe]

When the total income of the Treasury isn't enough to cover the interest on the debt, the Treasury is in a death spiral. Duh!

Adding taxes on the people and companies that are struggling to be a part of the tax-generating GNP is just plain stupid. What is needed is a reduction in spending.

A reduction in military spending is the most ridiculous consideration among the many proposed. The military supports a lot of private enterprise, mom and pop stores, JOBS in the private sector...by way of creating a big demand for goods and services. Just ask the citizens of any little town where there's a big base of military equipment and personnel. Business is good.

Close a base...devastate a community of hard working Americans (when the base is here) and businesses that supply the base with staples.

Where the spending cuts should begin is in the size of the government roster of non-military employees. Make government jobs available to those that are willing to maintain the jobs based on performance rather than tenure. Fire the incompetent and the excess labor...let them seek jobs in the private sector.

Ah, but they wouldn't make nearly as much money in the private sector.

[asaratis]

Ah, but they wouldn't make nearly as much money in the private sector....and they would actually have to WORK at keeping their job instead of having it guaranteed under some government tenure plan or some idiotic UNION rule.

[Topspin]

Tax collection will be way up shortly. Corp profits were up 335% in 2009.

[DamnYankee]

No, it's called paying ones bills. If a country requests military aid and it's supplied then they owe for that service.And if they don't pay?

[apple0154]

And if they don't pay?

Then the service is stopped.

[DamnYankee]

Then the service is stopped. What happens if they then get invaded?

[apple0154]

What happens if they then get invaded?

Their loss.

[Topspin]

The rich are renouncing their citizenship and moving out of this country. Thanks Obama.

No shock your still here, why are you not rich?:pke:

[DamnYankee]

Their loss. Where's your compassion?

[midcan5]

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/01/newsflash-ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-you-idiots/

What comedy this crying for the rich brings forth from the conservative wingnuts. LOL Do you buffoons know any rich people or are you all so brainwashed you think they make a big difference? I know many and believe me they help little.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm


"The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families. In any case, in terms of how counter-productive they are, there is no automatic preference for spending reductions rather than tax increases."
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-30-01sfp.htm)

Let them all move - ain't gonna happen they need to make money here. LOL

[apple0154]

Where's your compassion?

They could cede sovereignty and become a part of the US.

What do you think of that idea?

[DamnYankee]

They could cede sovereignty and become a part of the US.

What do you think of that idea?
If they are not willing to pay for our services, why would we want to make them part of the US?

[apple0154]

If they are not willing to pay for our services, why would we want to make them part of the US?

One world government. Empire building.

Isn't that the Repub plan?

[DamnYankee]

One world government. Empire building.

Isn't that the Repub plan? Why are you asking me? I'm a Conservative.

[apple0154]

Why are you asking me? I'm a Conservative.

Aren't Conservatives Repubs?

[DamnYankee]

Aren't Conservatives Repubs? The GOP is certainly closer to the conservative ideal than the Democrat Party, but no, not necessarily. There are plenty of GOP politicians who are liberal in one policy or another.

[apple0154]

The GOP is certainly closer to the conservative ideal than the Democrat Party, but no, not necessarily. There are plenty of GOP politicians who are liberal in one policy or another.

So who is your ideal candidate?

[DamnYankee]

So who is your ideal candidate? The one who follows conservative policies.

[apple0154]

The one who follows conservative policies.

Any names come to mind?

[DamnYankee]

Any names come to mind? I voted for Allen Keyes for President in 2008. He's pretty close to the ideal candidate.

[apple0154]

I voted for Allen Keyes for President in 2008. He's pretty close to the ideal candidate.

So one could say you're a believer in Keynesian economics. :D

[DamnYankee]

So one could say you're a believer in Keynesian economics. :D
Leave out the n, then yes. :)

[Topspin]

I'd vote for Paul if he got the nomination

[apple0154]

Leave out the n, then yes. :)

Is this the guy you voted for?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-vQCE8mnpE&feature=related

[DamnYankee]

Is this the guy you voted for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-vQCE8mnpE&feature=related Yes. Isn't he inspiring? :)

[apple0154]

Yes. Isn't he inspiring? :)

Inspiring? Surely you jest!

[DamnYankee]

Inspiring? Surely you jest! Not at all. He's a great speaker, and his intelligence far surpasses all others in that room. Nor is he a push-over, as seen in his exchange with the moderator.

[ZappasGuitar]

Not at all. He's a great speaker, and his intelligence far surpasses all others in that room. Nor is he a push-over, as seen in his exchange with the moderator.

So the fact Keyes is batshit crazy doesn't enter into your decision making?

The guy's an unscrupulous carpetbagger who would move wherever he thought he might get elected.

[ZappasGuitar]

Yes. Isn't he inspiring? :)

It certainly does explain somethings when it comes to you and your beliefs. The nut doesn't fall far from the crazy tree, does it?

[DamnYankee]

So the fact Keyes is batshit crazy doesn't enter into your decision making?

The guy's an unscrupulous carpetbagger who would move wherever he thought he might get elected.


It certainly does explain somethings when it comes to you and your beliefs. The nut doesn't fall far from the crazy tree, does it?

Is "appeal to ridicule" all you have? If so, you've lost the argument before it started.

[ZappasGuitar]

Is "appeal to ridicule" all you have? If so, you've lost the argument before it started.

How many different times has Mr Keyes set up shop somewhere simply so he can get his name on some local ballot?

[DamnYankee]

How many different times has Mr Keyes set up shop somewhere simply so he can get his name on some local ballot? How does repeating "appeal to ridicule" further your argument?