tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post3664352192943442091..comments2024-03-18T17:42:24.279-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: Class ActDave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-83455310273914734322012-10-13T12:29:04.577-04:002012-10-13T12:29:04.577-04:00John and Jerry,
We cannot know for certain, but wh...John and Jerry,<br />We cannot know for certain, but whether it is ignorance, arrogance, or a blend of the two, he parrots the Right wing talking point in order to "mobilize resentments" against the demonized half of the American people.<br /><br />He is a divider, not a uniter. For Obama to behave similarly he'd have to say the rich are all class warring, greedy, crooked, me-first-America-last Scrooges.<br /><br />But no, Obama is a "Marxist" America-hater for merely wanting the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy. <br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-14079134421171098802012-10-13T12:06:39.892-04:002012-10-13T12:06:39.892-04:00You may be right, John, or he thought the people h...You may be right, John, or he thought the people he was talking to were that ignorant and that his statement would get their approval...and their money!Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-7051831116757810722012-10-13T11:42:47.866-04:002012-10-13T11:42:47.866-04:00Dave,
Before he was caught on tape, and before h...Dave, <br /><br />Before he was caught on tape, and before he flipped, he still betrayed the fact that he knows the 47% number, but has no clue who they are. I think he genuinely believed that 47% of Americans were people on welfare collecting food stamps. I think he genuinely never considered that he too does not pay taxes on the bottom margin of his income, and some of the 47% only make that bottom margin, so he is getting the same benefit they are, no difference. I think he genuinely did not consider tax shelters, loop holes, etc., and the some of that 47% are millionaires. <br /><br />In other words, he heard a number, was completely ignorant of what it meant or indicated, and had so little understanding of the issue, an issue that does not concern him and that he literally does not care about, that he jumped to a completely illogical conclusion. <br /><br />John Mystehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16263634313238599515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-3814830461051291422012-10-12T21:26:17.925-04:002012-10-12T21:26:17.925-04:00John,
I think the fact Romney wants to have it bot...John,<br />I think the fact Romney wants to have it both ways indicates arrogance more than ignorance.<br /><br />He only had to flip because he was caught on tape. Like with most Republicans, there's no compassion for the less fortunate.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-14895794921788110762012-10-12T19:22:00.522-04:002012-10-12T19:22:00.522-04:00Who are the 47%. Fox Business did a breakdown here...Who are the 47%. Fox Business did a breakdown here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/09/27/who-is-47-not-paying-taxes/?intcmp=obnetwork" rel="nofollow">The 47 Percent by Category</a><br /><br />28% are people with jobs, but who earn so little they are not taxed. It is the bottom marginal tax rate, which effectively comes out to be zero. Romney also pays 0.00 on this portion of his income. The bottom margin is not taxable and no one pays it, not the poor, not the middle class, not millionaires. <br /><br />10.3% The next largest group is the elderly, who were already taxed when they were working.<br /><br />The breakdown does not specifically mention it, but The Heathen Republican accidentally informed me that a portion of the 47% are millionaires. <br /><br />Romney rejects all of these people was useless drains on society, not out of meanness, I think, but out of pure ignorance. He simply does not understand taxation. He earns his wealth via long term capital gains, where the top marginal rate is 15%, the same top marginal rate for someone earning 34,000.00 per year.John Mystehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16263634313238599515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-74665280621505228382012-10-05T13:35:49.351-04:002012-10-05T13:35:49.351-04:00Mitt Romney: "My life has shown that I care a...<b>Mitt Romney</b>: "<i>My life has shown that I care about 100 percent**, and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life.</i>"<br /><br />**Unless he's kissing the asses of wealthy donors...which is 100 percent of the time. <b>;-)</b>Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-69062353886967699492012-10-05T12:10:01.285-04:002012-10-05T12:10:01.285-04:00Ahem. Meanwhile, for those of you who agreed with ...Ahem. Meanwhile, for those of you who agreed with Romney, now you can disagree...again.<br /><br />Romney: ‘47 percent’ remarks were <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/romney-47-percent-remarks-were-completely-wrong/2012/10/05/a346beaa-0ed8-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics" rel="nofollow">‘completely wrong’ </a> <br />“Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right,” Romney answered. “In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.”<br /><br />That's our Mitt. We all agree, and disagree, with him. Bless his cold little flip-flopping heart.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-17656842762539892192012-10-01T04:02:25.282-04:002012-10-01T04:02:25.282-04:00Free0352: "You can't argue with crazy.&qu...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>You can't argue with crazy.</i>"<br /><br /><br />You can argue with blind obedience.<br /><br /><br />"<i>The September 11th 2001 attacks were not perpetrated by black helicopter riding Illuminati dudes involved in a vast and super complicated conspiracy.</i><br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />They <i>also</i> weren't pulled off by nineteen hapless Arabs who commandeered four commercial airliners, who then precisely struck three targets.<br /><br />Of course bin Laden was behind it! That's what your government told you.<br /><br /><br />"<i>But of course none of these facts which everybody with an IQ over 7 knows...</i>"<br /><br />Everybody, at one time, knew, <i>for a fact</i>, that the world was flat -- until new information became available.<br /><br /><br />"<i>...so you make up a fairy story that places blame on the people you hate.</i>"<br /><br />I don't hate anybody. I've already told you this before. (You have major comprehension problems.)<br /><br />I didn't make <i>any</i> of this up.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Crazy people will say crazy things.</i><br /><br />People with blind obedience will follow their leaders to fascism. Now, <i>that's</i> a fact! <br /><br />Hey, are you up yet? Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-44838734273978956452012-09-30T23:38:14.866-04:002012-09-30T23:38:14.866-04:00Well, actually it's not so clear
Yes it is. O...<i>Well, actually it's not so clear</i><br /><br />Yes it is. Oh I forgot, you're a twoofer.<br /><br /><i>So, it's contrived and false. There's no real threat. It's made up and not real.</i><br /><br />I forgot, you're a twoofer.<br /><br />You can't argue with crazy. I can tell you 100 times what everybody to include 99% of Liberal Democrats knows. The September 11th 2001 attacks were not perpetrated by black helicopter riding Illuminati dudes involved in a vast and super complicated conspiracy. It was perpetrated by Islamic Radicals who trained to do it in Afghanistan, with the support of the Afghan government which at the time was the Taliban. And that is a clear act of war. Being at war, you have to fight until one side is either killed off or surrenders. That in this instance will take a long time. But of course none of these facts which everybody with an IQ over 7 knows, will make any difference to you. By accepting the attacks were perpetrated by Islamists you will then have to admit we have to fight and that George Bush and **Ghasp** Dick Chaney <i>were right</i>. This is unthinkable to a guy like you, so you make up a fairy story that places blame on the people you hate. Republicans and Rich People. Never mind that yes, every single Republican and even 99% of Democrats accept the truth, that truth gets in the way of your delusions. Its like showing a person the empirical evidence the Earth wasn't created in six days, faith and delusion trumps evidence. Its like showing someone Barack Obama's birth certificate, and yet the person insists Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Sometimes you just have to accept you're talking to a crazy person. Crazy people will say crazy things.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-58756903060846784002012-09-30T23:35:13.335-04:002012-09-30T23:35:13.335-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-73257729486150771552012-09-30T19:25:08.864-04:002012-09-30T19:25:08.864-04:00Free0352: "He can't [declare war], only c...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>He can't [declare war], only congress can.</i>"<br /><br />Of course. Hence, the quotation marks. <br /><br /><br />"<i>Clearly the Taliban was harboring Al'Queda.</i>"<br /><br />Well, actually it's <i>not</i> so clear. That's the government's storyline, though. <br /><br /><br />"<i>Define effectively.</i>"<br /><br />How about "for all practical purposes". In other words, they're no longer the perceived threat they once were. <br /><br />In other words, why are we (still) fighting the Taliban?<br /><br /><br />"<i>Stupidity isn't a terrorist act.</i>"<br /><br />If it were, <i>you'd</i> be highly suspect.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Tell that to the Minute Men.</i>"<br /><br />Are there any still alive?<br /><br />By the way, the Minute Men predated the Continental Army. They were militia, as I originally stated.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Many [revolutionary militia] were indeed insurgents, but not terrorists.</i>"<br /><br />Exactly. So why do you fault the Taliban for attacking the occupiers of their country? You'd do the same, wouldn't you?<br /><br /><br />"<i>Terrorism is a tactic...</i>"<br /><br />Yes, I already made that clear previously.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Likely so. So what?</i>"<br /><br />So, it's contrived and false. There's no real threat. It's made up and not real. Therefore, as a voluntary member of the armed services, you're complicit in the scheme.<br /><br /><i>That's</i> what!<br /><br /><br />"<i>I'll agree with that statement the day the Taliban strongholds are in ruins and its members are dead.</i>"<br /><br />It's already the longest occupation in U.S. history. Obviously, <i>all</i> the money and <i>all</i> the superior weaponry, and the "best trained military in the history of the world" (your egotistical words) can't beat a bunch of hooligans. They chased the Soviet Union out, and they'll chase <i>you</i> out. Why? Because you'll <i>never</i> win against a people defending their homeland. Their heart is in it; yours isn't.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-90878002573650306582012-09-30T17:48:43.207-04:002012-09-30T17:48:43.207-04:00Sounds like Bush never "declared war"
H...<i>Sounds like Bush never "declared war"</i><br /><br />He can't do that, only congress can. Congress granted that authority to the President on <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf" rel="nofollow">September 14th 2001.</a> The language specifically states-<br /><br /><i>That the President is authorized to use all<br />necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,<br />or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,<br />or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,<br />or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent<br />any future acts of international terrorism against the United States<br />by such nations, organizations or persons.</i><br /><br />Clearly the Taliban was harboring Al'Queda. So nuff said.<br /><br /><i>Hasn't al-Qaida effectively been removed from Afghanistan?</i><br /><br />Define effectively. There are still Al'Queda in Afghanistan, though not as powerful as they once were. There are lots of Taliban in Afghanistan, and they all need to die or be captured before this war will end. They only thing they have cooperated in is the killing of Americans, both civilian and military.<br /><br /><i>I suppose, now, if one is in disagreement with the mythical "war on terror", one is also a terrorist?</i><br /><br />Stupidity isn't a terrorist act.<br /><br /><i>Does that seem democratic to you?</i><br /><br />Me calling you an idiot does not involve Democracy. <br /><br /><i>When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army.</i><br /><br />Tell that to the Minute Men.<br /><br /><i>They were just a bunch of ill-equipped and poorly trained local militia</i><br /><br />In the small arms department they were <i>better equipped</i> than the red coats. Many of the militia were veterans of the French and Indian war and kept their muskets. Many held Kentucky long rifles which were the most technologically advanced small arm weapons systems of the era- and were used to great effect during the revolution as an American armed with one could pick off individuals at 300 yards where a redcoat could only hit a man at 50. <br /><br /><i>. I believe one could even refer to these Americans, who were rightfully defending their country, as "insurgents".</i><br /><br />Many were indeed insurgents, but not terrorists. I don't think you know what terrorist means. Terrorism is a tactic, its attacking civilians to intimidate a government. Some Americans did this, and they would be terrorists. The Continental Army nor the militia did so.<br /><br /><i> I'm sure the British had their own terms to describe them</i><br /><br />I believe the term they used was "Subjects to The Crown in rebellion."<br /><br /><i>What do you think?</i><br /><br />I think you'd have a point if the Continental Army had crashed a 747 into the Tower of London - but they didn't. Nor anything equivalent for the time period.<br /><br /><i>Like I've mentioned several times before, the "war on terror" opens the floodgates to perpetual war</i><br /><br />Likely so. So what?<br /><br /><i>, you already know my feelings about it. Leave it. Now.</i><br /><br />I'll agree with that statement the day the Taliban strongholds are in ruins and its members are dead.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-9457913088485512702012-09-30T09:25:27.817-04:002012-09-30T09:25:27.817-04:00Free0352: "I'm not sure what is unclear t...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>I'm not sure what is unclear to you in [Bush's] statements.</i>" <br /><br />From Bush's speech: "<i>The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.</i>"<br /><br />and...<br /><br />"<i>Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaida who hide in your land.</i>"<br /><br />Sounds like Bush never "declared war", in and of itself, but rather held the Taliban accountable as accessories to "the crime" through their harboring of "terrorists", and expected their cooperation.<br /><br />Hasn't al-Qaida effectively been removed from Afghanistan? It would appear <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/?iref=mpstoryview" rel="nofollow">they've cooperated</a> and have since split ties with the alleged perpetrators of 9/11. So, why are we still there again?<br /><br />The real gem from Bush's speech...<br /><br />"<i>Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.</i>"<br /><br />I suppose, now, if one is in disagreement with the mythical "war on terror", one is also a terrorist? Doesn't that cast a wide net? Does that seem democratic to you?<br /><br /><br />"<i>The Continental Army? No.</i>"<br /><br />When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. They were just a bunch of ill-equipped and poorly trained local militia fighting the most powerfully armed and professionally trained army in the world. I believe one could even refer to these Americans, who were rightfully defending their country, as "insurgents". I'm sure the British had <i>their own terms</i> to describe them. I'm positive, though, that they weren't called "Taliban". Possibly they were "terrorists" in the eyes of their invaders. What do you think?<br /><br /><br />"<i>These things take time.</i>"<br /><br />Like I've mentioned several times before, the "war on terror" opens the floodgates to perpetual war, which it successfully has. It's really an ingenious and clever plan when you think about it, akin to the "war on drugs". Without specifying a particular country, or race, or culture, but instead targeting a "tactic", it has conveniently and effectively created "war ad infinitum". The possibilities are limitless. No wonder you're pleased to be an infantryman. You know you'll always be employed. <br /><br />Tool!<br /><br /><br />"<i>But I'm sure, you being an early riser and all, you could simply enlist and go Rambo and win the whole thing for us overnight.</i>"<br /><br />Yup, I'm up at three o'clock every weekday morning. Like I said, I'm already in fourth gear by the time you get around to "first formation". Hey, give me your phone number, and I'll give you a wake-up call if you like.<br /><br />No, you'd never see me enlist. That's for young conservative wannabes like yourself. As for Afghanistan, you already know my feelings about it. Leave it. Now.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-84986126751290457522012-09-30T02:51:39.441-04:002012-09-30T02:51:39.441-04:00You'll have to show me the transcript, or vide...<i>You'll have to show me the transcript, or video, of that speech.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech.htm" rel="nofollow">Coming right up.</a><br /><br /><i>"The United States respects the people of Afghanistan - after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid - but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people; it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaida who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."</i><br /><br /><i>" Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."</i><br /><br />George Bush, September 20, 2001.<br /><br />I'm not sure what is unclear to you in those statements.<br /><br /><i>Just out of curiosity, do you consider the revolutionists who founded this country, terrorists?</i><br /><br />The Continental Army? No.<br /><br /><i>As big as the U.S. military is, it's still unable to beat a ragtag group</i><br /><br />These things take time. Again George told you that back in 2001 when he said-<br /><br /><i>"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo 2 years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.<br /><br />Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen."</i><br /><br />If we wanted to simply <i>kill</i> all the Afghans, that's a simple enough task that we could accomplish in about 1 second. We do have ICBMs. Instead, we are using counter insurgency tactics because we are a humanitarian country and do not wish to indiscriminately wipe out the entire country, but apply violence in a surgical manner. That takes longer.<br /><br />But I'm sure, you being an early riser and all, you could simply enlist and go Rambo and win the whole thing for us overnight. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-34460672747828336952012-09-29T13:52:40.897-04:002012-09-29T13:52:40.897-04:00Free0352: "I'm suggesting we make it un-m...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>I'm suggesting we make it un-mandatory.</i>"<br /><br />Sure, suggest all you want. I <i>suggest</i> you get a part-time job. Too many 'boomers are expecting their checks on time. <b>;-)</b> <br /><br />You're not working hard enough.<br /><br /><br />"<i>That trust fund has been at beast [sic] breaking even for decades and is now dead broke and will stay that way.</i>"<br /><br />Yet your link tells an entirely different story. Did you bother to read it?<br /><br /><br />"<i>We're the third largest country in the world, its largest economy and act as its world police. This makes sense, this isn't a point.</i>"<br /><br />And you still refuse to concede to my point: As big as the U.S. military is, it's <i>still</i> unable to beat a ragtag group of horse-riding bandits and religious extremists. As previously mentioned, I hope we never have to fight a <i>real</i> army. We'll be in trouble.<br /><br />Perhaps starting your day earlier would help. <br /><br /><br />"<i>They only announced it in September 2001 on national TV, by the President, in front of a joint cession of congress and the SCOTUS.</i>"<br /><br />You'll have to show me the transcript, or video, of that speech. I don't recall him saying we've "declared war" against them; only Al Qaida. Although, I suppose, with the mythical "war on terror", everybody's a potential enemy of the corporate-state, even me. It easy to neatly define an enemy as a tactic. At some point or another, it can easily define <i>anyone</i> -- even jaywalkers (or protesters).<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, do you consider the revolutionists who founded this country, terrorists?<br /><br /><br />"<i>bok bok bok</i>"<br /><br />Hey, it's true. I start my day earlier than you. <br /><br />Maybe you should think about doing the same.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-33880699606866757522012-09-29T12:42:19.826-04:002012-09-29T12:42:19.826-04:00Are you aware that discretionary spending is optio...<i>Are you aware that discretionary spending is optional as part of fiscal policy, in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory?</i><br /><br />Yes. Also I'm suggesting we make it un-mandatory.<br /><br /><i>Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund </i><br /><br />That trust fund <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/" rel="nofollow">has been at beast breaking even for decades and is now dead broke and will stay that way.</a> So stop repeating the lie. There is no account somewhere with every one's social security money in it. The boomers raided it and spent it. Its gone.<br /><br /><i> the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. As long as we have a creditable United States of America, those t-bills are as good as gold</i><br /><br />Well, <a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/sp-further-us-credit-downgrade-possible-if-fiscal-trajectory-worsens-127092898/143474.html" rel="nofollow">so those bills are as good as dogshit.</a> In fact, social security is that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. That is the textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme. You've been had, admit it.<br /><br /><i>The U.S. spends 41% of the worldwide expenditures on defense</i><br /><br />We're the third largest country in the world, its largest economy and act as its world police. This makes sense, this isn't a point.<br /><br /><i>No, we didn't.</i><br /><br />Wow, we have an embassy there!? Who knew, do we have those in other countries too? WHAT DO YOU MEAN OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE THEM IN THIS COUNTRY!? Oh wow, its the New World Order! Get your tin foil hats!<br /><br /><i>I didn't know we had declared war on the Taliban. I must have missed that headline.</i><br /><br />Yes you must have. They only announced it in September 2001 on national TV, by the President, in front of a joint cession of congress and the SCOTUS. He got a standing ovation.<br /><br /><i>That's sleeping-in for me. I've finished my second cup of coffee by then.</i><br /><br />bok bok bok<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-61862084975360252152012-09-29T08:45:34.037-04:002012-09-29T08:45:34.037-04:00Free0352: "You are aware discretionary spendi...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>You are aware discretionary spending is only part of over all spending right... and that entitlements are NONdiscretionary spending right?</i>"<br /><br />I am.<br /><br />Are you aware that discretionary spending is optional as part of fiscal policy, in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is <b>mandatory</b>? (As is your military retirement "entitlement" programs.)<br /><br />In case you weren't aware (which I'm beginning to believe you aren't), Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund which is maintained by the U.S. Treasury. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government t-bills. I know your side always argues that this special trust fund holds no economic significance and is fictional, or just an accounting trick at best, but I argue that it has <i>very specific</i> legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. As long as we have a creditable United States of America, those t-bills are as good as gold. <br /><br /><br />"<i>It ain't losing.</i>"<br /><br />The U.S. spends 41% of the worldwide expenditures on defense (with the next closest being China, at 8.2%), and the best you can do is fight to a draw! A tie! That's pathetic...<br /><br />God help us if we ever have to fight a <i>real</i> enemy.<br /><br /><br />"<i>We left Iraq dude.</i>"<br /><br />No, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143863722/with-huge-embassy-u-s-still-a-presence-in-iraq" rel="nofollow">we didn't</a>. (Is that what your commanders told you?) As previously mentioned, the Green Zone is very much still there, protected by United States-financed mercenaries. It's my guess it has the largest presence of CIA anywhere in the world, second only to McLean.<br /><br /><br />"<i>As for Afghanistan, we haven't killed all the Taliban yet.</i>"<br /><br />I didn't know we had declared war on the Taliban. I must have missed <i>that</i> headline...<br /><br /><br />"<i>First formation is 0445.</i>"<br /><br />That's sleeping-in for me. I've finished my second cup of coffee by then.<br /><br />No wonder you guys can't win a war.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-61961807195296214142012-09-27T23:02:06.731-04:002012-09-27T23:02:06.731-04:00You must have missed the most important part, thou...<i>You must have missed the most important part, though. DoD spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen to between 53% and 54% in recent years.</i><br /><br />You are aware discretionary spending is only <i>part</i> of over all spending right... and that entitlements are <b>NON</b>discretionary spending right? So what you're basically doing, is complaining about a fraction of a fraction.<br /><br />I think I may be just good enough at math to figure out you suck at it.<br /><br /><i>So, taking out both of these men equates to a "win"</i><br /><br />It ain't losing.<br /><br /><i>Then what the fuck are you still doing over there...?</i><br /><br />We left Iraq dude. As for Afghanistan, we haven't killed all the Taliban yet. <br /><br /><i>Define, exactly, "total spending".</i><br /><br />All the money the government spends.<br /><br />And if for a definition, I liked you an easy picture. Go stare at it till your brain works.<br /><br /><i>Infantryman is the easier career</i><br /><br />Come try it for a day. Double dare you. First formation is 0445.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-38021960320634947992012-09-27T17:13:27.350-04:002012-09-27T17:13:27.350-04:00Infantryman is the easier career. You have no res...Infantryman is the easier career. You have no responsibility, you are taken care of totally by the government, and you only have to do what you are told. Sounds like Romney's definition of the 47%. Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-46467930573019602202012-09-27T16:20:21.960-04:002012-09-27T16:20:21.960-04:00Yes, Jerry, thank you. I understand this and am su...Yes, Jerry, thank you. I understand this and <i>am sure</i> he does also. As is typical with conservatism <i>and</i> libertarianism, he always tends to "fudge the numbers" in order to misrepresent the real situation. <br /><br />Remember, he's a tool. He's as much a part of the dismantling of the middle-class as the politicians who are bought-off by the banking cabal and the multinationals. He's a "foot-soldier" for the corporate-state. <br /><br />Despite his words, he's far from being a "humble infantryman".Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-76148277807977952862012-09-27T15:49:55.886-04:002012-09-27T15:49:55.886-04:00JG,
Your reference to discretionary spending is im...JG,<br />Your reference to discretionary spending is important. Free's numbers are based on total spending, but SS and Medicare are paid with employee contributions and premiums, and are not paid out of taxes. Remove SS and Medicare expenditures and Free's numbers go up significantly.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-50389675562122364082012-09-27T14:09:25.184-04:002012-09-27T14:09:25.184-04:00AH ah ah.... Free Said, ??
//I wouldn't say I&...AH ah ah.... Free Said, ??<br />//I wouldn't say I'm an expert.//<br /><br />you just say you know 150% more than anyone else, everyone else is wrong....and you are more qualified to tell everyone else they are wrong. Oh, boy....you is one funny rascal alrightie!okjimmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11013002335848390765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-45823238136145802902012-09-27T14:08:21.391-04:002012-09-27T14:08:21.391-04:00Free0352: "I know you get confused. Just reme...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>I know you get confused. Just remember, I'm here to help...</i>"<br /><br />I forgot, you're <i>also</i> an expert budget analyst and a math genius. <b>;-)</b> <br /><br />You must have missed the most important part, though. DoD spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen to between 53% and 54% in recent years.<br /><br /><br />"<i>...but since we aren't fighting in Iraq anymore I imagine it will be a few points lower.</i>"<br /><br />Well, U.S. combat troops <i>might not</i> be fighting, but mercenaries on the government payroll sure are. Plus, the upkeep on the massive Green Zone must cost a pretty penny. <br /><br />But, wait, I forgot! Bush said oil revenues would pay for that war...<br /><br /><br />"<i>I dunno, you'll have to ask Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden about that.</i>"<br /><br />So, taking out both of these men equates to a "win". Then what the fuck are you still doing over there...? {Oh, I remember, you're occupying their lands and allowing resource confiscation by the multinationals. How could I forget?) <br /><br /><br />"<i>Fun fact, 70.6 percent of total spending is on Welfare Entitlement.</i>"<br /><br />Define, exactly, "total spending". While you're at it, define "welfare entitlement", just so we're talking apples-to-apples.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-51210837203336250672012-09-27T04:49:27.808-04:002012-09-27T04:49:27.808-04:00Oh and if you're wanting sources, you can go r...Oh and if you're wanting sources, you can go read the budget bs they put out yourself. I'm not doing your homework for you. <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg/450px-Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg" rel="nofollow">Here's a pie chart.</a> That should get you started. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia does a pretty good job of breaking down that shit for ya.</a><br />Fun fact, 70.6 percent of total spending is on Welfare Entitlement. And funny enough, that doesn't count the VA.<br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-74032703885884360492012-09-27T04:43:16.910-04:002012-09-27T04:43:16.910-04:00The highest ever percentage of the budget since WW...The highest ever percentage of the budget since WWII was in 2010 when we were 18.7 percent of total government spending. Granted, the government hasn't passed a real budget in over 1000 days so its tricky to get real numbers. I know you get confused. Just remember, I'm here to help ;)<br /><br />Best guess for 2011 is we spent 13.5 percent of the budget last year. Nobody really knows what 2012 will look like since we don't have a budget, but since we aren't fighting in Iraq anymore I imagine it will be a few points lower.<br /><br /><i> I agree, what do they do?</i><br /><br />I was definitely talking about the POS in the trailer park or in the HUD house or in the projects. But it goes double for the Bail Out Brigade and the subsidy whores. I can't think of anything they do that justifies the millions we throw at them. The Dept of Agriculture actually pays my old neighbor NOT to grow shit. Thats fucking insane.<br /><br /><i>You're always making wild, off-the-wall, assumptions</i><br /><br />Really? How many years of law school have you completed and how many judges have you clerked for? How many judicial opinions did you help write? <br /><br /><i>I guess you've trained so well, you can't win any wars.</i><br /><br />I dunno, you'll have to ask Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden about that. <br /><br />Oh wait... you're a twoofer I almost forgot.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.com