"Inflation means the economy gets bigger, right? That's good, isn't it?"

The bill, which maps $612 billion in defense spending next year, shows how lawmakers would rather go home and campaign than wage a prolonged battle in Washington with Bush over Iraq policy

That's leadership in action. But since this lame duck president is so farking popular with the average American it makes sense they wouldn't want to take him on.

Boo, deficit spending.
Hooray, beer!

$600 billion here, $700 billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about some real money.

Anyone feel like telling Congress they aren't playing with Monopoly money?

Nabb1: Anyone feel like telling Congress they aren't playing with Monopoly money?

The sad thing is that, at this point, they are.

So, whose picture is on this $612 billion bill? And where did they pass it, WalMart?

Remove all Republicans: How are the Democrats supposed to take him on with all the Republican stone-walling? We know who is at fault and the last thing we can do is reward them in November. Remember that when you get to the polls.

Why are you refering to? The spineless democrats or the RINOs (Republican in name only) who rubber stamp everything Bush wants.

Quite frankly, the Dems were rewarded in 06 and they have squandered that victory. Do they really deserve to be rewarded for being so spineless. The Republicans certianly don't diserve better.

Probably the best course is to vote out the incumbent if they weren't taking their job of checking executive authority seriously.

Oops, I meant to say, "Who are you refering to?"

Our Cross of Iron

Crosshair: Probably the best course is to vote out the incumbent if they weren't taking their job of checking executive authority seriously.

This right here.

Did anyone get the feeling McCain was insinuating we send $600B abroad in foreign aid while he was clumsily making his oil point?

Every republican I talk to is always complaining about foreign aid until I tell them it's less than half a billion dollars and ~1% of the budget.

If we stop the spending, we not only lose the technology, but the facilities, hardware, and production capabilities, not to mention human resources.

ChuckyV: The bill, which maps $612 billion in defense spending next year, shows how lawmakers would rather go home and campaign than wage a prolonged battle in Washington with Bush over Iraq policy

That's leadership in action. But since this lame duck president is so farking popular with the average American it makes sense they wouldn't want to take him on.

he's got more approval than congress >

Tacoby Bellisbury: If we stop the spending, we not only lose the technology, but the facilities, hardware, and production capabilities, not to mention human resources.

Ah, yes. The fundamentals.

SingletonFactory: $600 billion here, $700 billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about some real money.

Actually, I used that same line by Dirksen last night. "Couple of trillion here, a couple of trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.

Estimated national debt at the end of 2008: 28 trillion dollars. That is equal to $300,000 per taxpayer.

Have fun.

Tacoby Bellisbury: If we stop the spending, we not only lose the technology, but the facilities, hardware, and production capabilities, not to mention human resources.

I'm all for defense spending too, it's the other spending we need to ax...out of control medicare, earmarks, etc.

Bernanke: STOP THE PRINTING PRESSES!! You snapperhead.

You know, all I want is a measly 10 million. It would never even be missed.

Tacoby Bellisbury:

I realize you're a troll, but:

We don't need 600 billion dollars to maintain a good military. The amount of money we've been flushing in Iraq and the war in general is disgusting.

gimpmonkey: ChuckyV: The bill, which maps $612 billion in defense spending next year, shows how lawmakers would rather go home and campaign than wage a prolonged battle in Washington with Bush over Iraq policy

That's leadership in action. But since this lame duck president is so farking popular with the average American it makes sense they wouldn't want to take him on.

he's got more approval than congress >

As a group, sure. But that includes Republicans hating on the democrats and some republicans and the Democrats hating on the republicans and some of the democrats.

The individuals tend to have much higher ratings than Bush.

We could be spending this on real technology, better facilities, since and industries that could improve all human lives. With enough money left over to secure our borders and protect our national sovereignty. You could feed the entire earth for probably many years for a fraction of that budget. You could also foster education programs that would reduce the lure of radical Islam which feeds off of ignorance. You could do so much for good in this world. It shame our leaders are so short sighted.

Lets see...did McCain vote on this bill? No.

Hrm, when was the last time he voted on anything? April.

My, what do you do when someone doesn't do their job? Fire them.

Well we can't cuz this guy's a POW.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Lets see...did McCain vote on this bill? No.

Hrm, when was the last time he voted on anything? April.

My, what do you do when someone doesn't do their job? Fire them.

Well we can't cuz this guy's a POW.

cuz obama's been all over it....

damn dude you're more cynical than i am @@

I love that your tax dollars will pay for me to get my law license wherever I go because my old lady is a Marine.

Semper Fi biatches!

/my tax dollars, too

Tacoby Bellisbury: If we stop the spending, we not only lose the technology, but the facilities, hardware, and production capabilities, not to mention human resources.

Not HR! But seriously, the technology is useless. I have friends who work for defense contractors. What they're producing is science fiction from 10 years ago. Spider robots? Laser speakers and microphones?

These sorts of things are only theoretically useful, and incredibly expensive. The practicality of the technology is completely divorced from the current war. We're building shiat to fight people with money - Russian, maybe Chinese or Indian. None of it stands a chance against an IED.

Not to mention that all the money flowing into this research and development of badass choppers and aircraft carriers and whatever goes away from simple things like body armor for the troops.

We're like a household who spends $3000 on a stove, but can't afford to buy food to cook it in.

PUFTAS:
We don't need 600 billion dollars to maintain a good military. The amount of money we've been flushing in Iraq and the war in general is disgusting.

No. What's disgusting is that the DoD doesn't budget for war. They just ask Congress for more, and they get it every time.

ChuckyV: The bill, which maps $612 billion in defense spending next year, shows how lawmakers would rather go home and campaign than wage a prolonged battle in Washington with Bush over Iraq policy

That's leadership in action. But since this lame duck president is so farking popular with the average American it makes sense they wouldn't want to take him on.

Seriously? Is this satire?

I came here for the mockery of earmarks in said bill.

Anybody know of some Farkworthy examples?

/knows difference between tactic & strategy

PUFTAS

Just because you post that, doesn't mean it's true. Clinton NEVER ran a "real" surplus. Just because you keep repeating a lie, doesn't mean its true.

Short version: Clinton only ran a "surplus" using Enron type accounting tricks.

Long version: Here is a good writeup on the issue.


The Clinton Surplus - A Myth Equal to that of Saddam's WMD (new window)

Clinton's surplus was nothing more than an accounting gimmick. Granted, I have given him credit for his responsible economic approach. He didn't increase spending that much at all. But he never DECREASED SPENDING. No modern president has ever decreased spending. They all suck.

Let's break down Clinton's second term.

National Debt

1997 - $5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 - $5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 - $5,656,270,901,633.43
2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86

$261B in debt was added during Clinton's second term. You cannot add debt and have a surplus. A true surplus means a reduction in the overall national debt.

Here's how the accounting gimmick works. There's two types of debt: public debt and intragovernmental holdings. Let's break those numbers down in Clinton's second term.


Public Debt

1997 - $3,789,667,546,849.60
1998 - $3,733,864,472,163.53
1999 - $3,636,104,594,501.81
2000 - $3,405,303,490,221.20

Intragovernmental Holdings

1997 - $1,623,478,464,547.74
1998 - $1,792,328,536,734.09
1999 - $2,020,166,307,131.62
2000 - $2,268,874,719,665.66

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

Public debt comes from tax revenus minus payouts generated from payroll/SS taxes. Intragovernmental holdings are from the general budget, which is generated from income/corporate/capital taxes.

There was a $230B surplus announced in 2000, but it was not a true surplus. If you take a look, those are SS surpluses. There never was a surplus in intragovernmental holdings (income tax revenue) EVER.

Let's break down the 2000 'record' surplus.

$3.405T - $3.636T = +230B surplus
$2.268T - $2.020T = -$248B debt

230 - 248 = -$18B debt

The SS surplus was due to Americans paying more in payroll taxes than the beneficiaries received. They were regressively taxed into a 'surplus' while true debt was being added at the same time. Clinton could not control the general budget, which is for the DoD, DoJ, DoT, and all the other departments. Intragovernmental holdings, generated by income taxes, increased This means he increased taxes and spending. How responsible is that? Not quite as irresponsible as Dubya, but pretty farking dumb.

Let's see how this would pan out for the future. Intragovernmental holdings (government debt) increased by an average of 9% annually under Clinton. The 'surplus' aka the public debt decreased by an average of 9.69%. The public debt was barely decreasing more than the government debt was increasing. It would have take over a century for a .69% difference to neutralize the other side. Without a decrease in government spending, debt payment is impossible

/FYI, the last real budget surplus was in 1960.

PUFTAS: I realize you're a troll, but:

We don't need 600 billion dollars to maintain a good military. The amount of money we've been flushing in Iraq and the war in general is disgusting.

not funding it = fking stoopid

gimpmonkey: Hrm, when was the last time he voted on anything? April.

cuz obama's been all over it....

He's voted on many bills since April.

Ted Kennedy didn't even have a diagnosis of cancer the last time John McCain voted in the Senate. Ted's had that, surgery, radiation, chemo, speaking at his convention, and still managed several Senate floor votes since April.

John McCain doesn't even campaign on the weekends, and hasn't found time in his schedule to vote in the Senate since April.

gimpmonkey: damn dude you're more cynical than i am @@


McCain voting record (new window)

TheMaskedUnit:


from your profile
Irregardless of whether the foilage was effected by the homicide bombing of that hockey goldie last week, after I get an expresso I'm going to the liberry to get a book about noocular physics by my favorite arthur and I'll literally explode if it's checked out.

I hate when people use that word, its effing redundant, and in my estimation makes YOU a hypocrite for assuming I am an idiot. I sir, do not work at the Redundant Department of Redudancy. good luck with that whole 'law' thing...i'll be out breaking it.

Here's how the military-industrial complex does it. You put a submarine base here, a rocket factory there, a helicopter factory over there, all fifty states, ok? And you let the congresscritter in each area go cut the ribbon and rave about how he brought jobs to his district, so he keeps getting elected over and over.

Does anyone really think a congresscritter is going to vote to de-fund military spending if it could boomerang and close a job making situation in his district? And jeopardize his congresscrittership?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone?

Lawnchair: gimpmonkey: John McCain doesn't even campaign on the weekends, and hasn't found time in his schedule to vote in the Senate since April.

Together with the campaign underspending, these things almost make it seem a secret deal's been cut to throw the fight.

Tacoby Bellisbury:

not funding it = fking stoopid

Nobody is saying not to fund it (now that we're there, we hardly have a choice). Just that 600 billion isn't needed. Here's a great article on how much taxpayer money has been wasted over there.

The Great Iraq Swindle - How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the US Treasury

This administration is going to go down as the most corrupt in US history.

military keynesianism at its finest

Britney Spear's Speculum: McCain voting record (new window)

In spite of everything else, McCain has effectively removed half of the voice of Arizona in the Senate by not ever showing up to vote. And according to 538 he's polling 94% in that state.

That's some fine voter apathy, Lou.

moothemagiccow: Did anyone get the feeling McCain was insinuating we send $600B abroad in foreign aid while he was clumsily making his oil point?

He was speaking of the amount of money we send abroad in exchange for the oil we purchase from people (like the Saudis) who don't like us very much.

Every republican I talk to is always complaining about foreign aid until I tell them it's less than half a billion dollars and ~1% of the budget.

Except that McCain wasn't referring to foreign aid -- he was referring to the amount of money drained out of our economy annually to purchase oil. So your point about foreign aid is irrelevant.

New prediction, Remove all Republicans will be outed as HOV. He is soi over the top he has to be an alt.

Alien Robot: moothemagiccow: Did anyone get the feeling McCain was insinuating we send $600B abroad in foreign aid while he was clumsily making his oil point?

He was speaking of the amount of money we send abroad in exchange for the oil we purchase from people (like the Saudis) who don't like us very much.

Every republican I talk to is always complaining about foreign aid until I tell them it's less than half a billion dollars and ~1% of the budget.

Except that McCain wasn't referring to foreign aid -- he was referring to the amount of money drained out of our economy annually to purchase oil. So your point about foreign aid is irrelevant.

Spin that shiat.

I read the bill. It's essentially for buying lots and lots of airplanes. Like, a LOT.

Crosshair: Remove all Republicans: How are the Democrats supposed to take him on with all the Republican stone-walling? We know who is at fault and the last thing we can do is reward them in November. Remember that when you get to the polls.

Why are you refering to? The spineless democrats or the RINOs (Republican in name only) who rubber stamp everything Bush wants.

Quite frankly, the Dems were rewarded in 06 and they have squandered that victory. Do they really deserve to be rewarded for being so spineless. The Republicans certianly don't diserve better.

Probably the best course is to vote out the incumbent if they weren't taking their job of checking executive authority seriously.

I agree with most of this. I'd like to see some of the more responsible people, like senators with lots of experience on the Foreign Relations Committee (Lugar should inherit Biden's position), Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (Kerry, Boxer and McCain mos' def), Small Business Committee (Kerry, Snowe), etc., kept around for awhile. Hopefully after January, we can start having some science and some foreign relations again.

/Some hot, passionate foreign relations.

SingletonFactory: $600 billion here, $700 billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about some real money.



Nice one.

moothemagiccow: Not HR!

You can't spell "who cares?" without HR.

/ Dilbert, I think

TheMaskedUnit: I love that your tax dollars will pay for me to get my law license wherever I go because my old lady is a Marine.

Semper Fi biatches!

/my tax dollars, too

You won't hear me complain about it.

You become a lawyer, make more money, pay more in taxes.

Circle of life.

"Ahh, billions of dollars, is there anything you can't do?!"

pdkl95: "Ahh, billions of dollars, is there anything you can't do?!"

Cure the common cold?