Obama: "Parasites of the World Unite"

[bripat9643]

We have drastically shrunk the military.

REPORT: U.S. Military Spending Has Almost Doubled Since 2001 | ThinkProgress

No, we've almost doubled it.

Perhaps in nominal terms. There may be a sight increase in constant dollars. However, the reality is that since the 1950s, we have drastically decreased the share of the budget going to the military. In those days, military spending took up over half the budget. Teh same goes for military spending as a share of GDP.

What you are doing is cherry picking the data. That's what you always do, and then you claim your theories are "fact based."

First, that was long ago

I was referring to the last ten years. That was not very long ago.

We became the most powerful nation of Earth and achieved the highest standard of living in the world by relying on personal responsibility.

So you think we tried a free market and personal responsibility in the last 10 years? What's the point in discussing anything with someone who is so delusional?

Do you ever post anything on here that is actually true?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, unlike you.

 

[Dragon]

Perhaps in nominal terms. There may be a sight increase in constant dollars.

How much inflation do you think we've had over the last 10 years anyway? Besides, the same report also indicated that defense spending as a share of GDP has increased from 3.1% in 2001 to 4.8% last year.

However, the reality is that since the 1950s, we have drastically decreased the share of the budget going to the military. In those days, military spending took up over half the budget. Teh same goes for military spending as a share of GDP.

True, but the reference in the post I responded to was the last 10 years, not the last 60 years.

So you think we tried a free market and personal responsibility in the last 10 years?

Probably not in the absolute-purist-extreme way that YOU would define those concepts. However, we certainly reduced the federal spending that benefited the middle class and poor over that decade. I remind you that you butted into a conversation between me and someone else whose views aren't quite as extremist as yours are. I was responding to what HE meant, not what YOU would mean.

Perhaps more to the point, we have swung the focus of federal spending and taxing and policy in general away from the middle class and towards encouraging the rich to become as rich as possible, for the past THIRTY years. It hasn't worked out very well.

 

[bripat9643]

How much inflation do you think we've had over the last 10 years anyway? Besides, the same report also indicated that defense spending as a share of GDP has increased from 3.1% in 2001 to 4.8% last year.

We've had 27% inflation since 2001. that's about half of your increase.

True, but the reference in the post I responded to was the last 10 years, not the last 60 years.

As I asked previously, when has the government had a policy of "personal responsibility" or "free markets" in the last 10 years? We haven't had that in the last 100 years.

So you think we tried a free market and personal responsibility in the last 10 years?

Probably not in the absolute-purist-extreme way that YOU would define those concepts.

We haven't had it in any sense of the word. The government spends 50% of the wealth this country produces. there are over 70,000 pages in the federal register. How does that comport with anything resembling the "free market?"

However, we certainly reduced the federal spending that benefited the middle class and poor over that decade.

No we didn't.

I remind you that you butted into a conversation between me and someone else whose views aren't quite as extremist as yours are. I was responding to what HE meant, not what YOU would mean.

So? Why should I give a hoot?

Perhaps more to the point, we have swung the focus of federal spending and taxing and policy in general away from the middle class and towards encouraging the rich to become as rich as possible, for the past THIRTY years. It hasn't worked out very well.

We have done no such thing. The vast bulk of federal spending goes to the middle class. Even most defense dollars go to the middle class.

Your thesis is pure horseshit. Apparently that's what you mean by "fact based:" it's horseshit.

 

[Dragon]

We've had 27% inflation since 2001. that's about half of your increase.

2.7% per year; very well. That still means military spending has increased, not gone down.

As I asked previously, when has the government had a policy of "personal responsibility" or "free markets" in the last 10 years? We haven't had that in the last 100 years.

Since 1911? All right, you've confirmed here that you are an extreme purist in the way you use that word.

We haven't had it in any sense of the word.

Of course we have. Ask around.

So? Why should I give a hoot?

If you don't care if your words are misunderstood and you end up saying nothing at all that's comprehensible by anyone, no reason at all.

We have done no such thing. The vast bulk of federal spending goes to the middle class. Even most defense dollars go to the middle class.

I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. In 2010, the total defense budget was $683.7 billion. Of that, the only portions that could arguably be said to go to the "middle class" (or at least not to the rich) were military personnel ($154.2 billion) and family housing ($3.1 billion). Operations and maintenance cost $283.3 billion, procurement $140.1 billion, RDT&A $79.1 billion.

In addition, the question of who any particular item of spending benefits is broader than the question of who the checks are made out to. In the Iraq war, for example, the checks were mainly made out to military personnel and defense contractors, but the biggest beneficiaries have been U.S. oil companies, who received not a dime of direct military payments.

We have also, since the presidency of Jimmy Carter, but more so under the Republicans who followed him, cut back on enforcement of laws and regulations protecting the right of workers to form a union, resulting in a dramatic increase in the percentage of union elections that feature illegal firings or other illegal union suppression by companies. That has little to do with government spending but it's a clear shift in federal priorities. We have also shifted the tax burden, placing more of it on the middle class and less on the upper income brackets than used to be the case. This again has nothing to do with government spending, but still represents a shift in priorities to favor capital over labor. The free trade agreements with poor countries that we've entered into under Reagan, Bush 1, (especially) Clinton, and Bush 2 -- and now it seems Obama is continuing the practice -- have also benefit capital at labor's expense, but again, this has nothing to do with government spending and can't be measured in those terms.

All of this shows a big shift in government economic policy since the late 1970s, an attempt to return, as much as possible given some institutional and legal features that can't really be changed, to the policy positions that prevailed before the Great Depression.

It hasn't worked out very well. In fact, it's worked out about as well as it did the first time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't have a repugnantcan decoder ring so what do you think?

I think that while the total amount of money we're spending on the government has increased, not decreased, the amount spent on public services beneficial to the middle class and poor has declined -- so in that sense we've tried smaller government. If we'd shrunk the military at the same time, there would be no ambiguity about it.

I also think that we've tried "personal responsibility" in the sense of leaving people at the mercy of the rich and powerful, which is what that usually means.

It hasn't worked very well.

You can't have growth in government spending AND a smaller government.

And how does expecting a person to be responsible leave him at the mercy of anyone?

Taking responsibility actually protects you. Let's start with the best example of not spending more than you make. If people did that then they wouldn't have 90% of the problems they whine about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's wrong with living in a trailer?"

.

Tornadoes!

They're attracted to trailers like ants to sugar.

 

[Uncensored2008]

American Democrats are the true Communists, even the ChiComs and Vietnamese reject their failed economic philosophy

I posited a question to Shallow on Friday, that he has ducked (big surprise!) For decades, the democrats have demanded that the right is just reactionary, that they had no love of Communism, they just supported more government as a safety net and anyone claiming them to be Communists were nutjobs like the John Birch Society. Since Obama, but really since the OWS Shitters, about half of the forum dems, like Shallow, Dragon, et al have come out as openly Marxist. So my question to Shallow was whether he and the other dems had been lying all along and always worked toward establishing Marxism, or whether they had just suddenly converted? Maybe the JBS had it right all along...

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's your opinion, sunny jim, not a definition of merit.

No, stupid **** - that is a matter of fact.

Educate yourself, you simpering moron.

You prove my point.

That you are a mindless troll? Indeed he does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe that a Patriot is loyal to American values, which disqualifies you, Kaz.

So you acknowledge that you are not a patriot, then Fakey Jake?

 

[Dragon]

You can't have growth in government spending AND a smaller government.

Technically, no, but as I said, that's usually code-speak for less government efforts to aid the poor and middle-class. Now, I grant you that ideological libertarians use the term in a more across-the-board manner; you find Ron Paul for example calling for reduced military spending and an end to the "war on terror" and "war on drugs" as well as cutting such things as education and Social Security.

And how does expecting a person to be responsible leave him at the mercy of anyone?

When there is a huge differential in power between the two, calling for "personal responsibility" does exactly that. It means, "we will pretend the two of you compete on an equal playing field and bargain as equals." It's like caging an unarmed 10-year-old with a hungry tiger and saying the boy is "free" to fight the tiger -- may the best predator win. (And you can be sure it will.)

Taking responsibility actually protects you. Let's start with the best example of not spending more than you make. If people did that then they wouldn't have 90% of the problems they whine about.

On the contrary, if people over the 2000s had spent only what they made, the economy would have crashed in 2001 instead of 2008 and we'd have had all these problems much sooner.

The real problem is that people don't make what they spend, not that they spend more than they make.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You can't have growth in government spending AND a smaller government.

Technically, no, but as I said, that's usually code-speak for less government efforts to aid the poor and middle-class. Now, I grant you that ideological libertarians use the term in a more across-the-board manner; you find Ron Paul for example calling for reduced military spending and an end to the "war on terror" and "war on drugs" as well as cutting such things as education and Social Security.

And how does expecting a person to be responsible leave him at the mercy of anyone?

When there is a huge differential in power between the two, calling for "personal responsibility" does exactly that. It means, "we will pretend the two of you compete on an equal playing field and bargain as equals." It's like caging an unarmed 10-year-old with a hungry tiger and saying the boy is "free" to fight the tiger -- may the best predator win. (And you can be sure it will.)

Taking responsibility actually protects you. Let's start with the best example of not spending more than you make. If people did that then they wouldn't have 90% of the problems they whine about.

On the contrary, if people over the 2000s had spent only what they made, the economy would have crashed in 2001 instead of 2008 and we'd have had all these problems much sooner.

The real problem is that people don't make what they spend, not that they spend more than they make.

The economy cannot crash when people are solvent individually.

And if people spend more than they make now then what makes you think they won't spend more than they make if they make more?

 

[Contumacious]

Calling social democracies "fascist" because they share some superficial non-defining characteristics with historical fascist states is absurd. They have none of the features of fascist states that any reasonable person objects to.

Semantics is not the problem.

The substantive effect on the economy and individual rights is the problem.

.

 

[Contumacious]

You are truly an idiot of epic proportions.

Please see my signature.

You might want to consider not wasting bandwidth further with pointless, gratuitous insults that really say nothing bad about the person they're directed towards but do suggest that your mother raised you without any manners and you still need to grow up. Just a suggestion, of course.

There is no "best feature" of Soviet-sytle Socialism. None.

Sure there is, several of them in fact. Full employment, relatively narrow income gaps, high levels of economic security. If the system had literally NOTHING going for it, the Russian people wouldn't have supported it for more than seventy years..

You know Cuba has a similar system. Why the **** don't you relocate?

Cubans were leaving the Country on anything that floated rather than enjoying "Full employment, relatively narrow income gaps, high levels of economic security."