This just in: American Politics has surpassed prime time TV for the pure entertainment factor.

That is one hilarious budget.

2004-02-02 12:06:55 PM Rayonic: No, Rayonic. I don't want to upset you. You see, I know you're a jut-jawed optimist about the Glorious United States of America and you probably got all maudlin last night during the Stupid Bowl and seeped a few tears onto your shirt collar when you saw the Apache Helicopters and heard the National Anthem and saw Old Glory waving majestically in the ventilation fan-blown breeze of Enron Field...er, whatever the name of the place is now.

So, I don't want to make you fret and dash your touching idealism and violate your charming naivete.

Sweet dreams, Rayonic! Don't let the bedbugs bite!

canyoneer -- Touche on the voucher argument. While it's definitely one for another thread, if you're on the side that you obviously are, it does give credence to your original claim. My only comment on that is, with your reasoning, you'll have to also take issue with Medicare, Pell Grants, community development block grants, and the GI Bill just to name a few, in which all participants may use federal funds to support religious organizations.

Back to the "vote liberal" issue. Without getting too technical, what I described to you (the community college, for example) was something that did actually receive funding through the FY04 Labor/HHS appropriations bill. Democrats who voted against the bill did not receive funding for projects like this in their districts. So the clowns who spent billions making your community safer and cleaner are those who voted for the bill. In this case, 215 Republicans and 0 Democrats.

All I'm really trying to get across is that sure, when you read a story like the one at the top of this thread, it makes the Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress look like fiscal nutjobs. But when you dig deeper, you can find that in reality, it is a far from being only the rich who benefit from federal spending.

Actually, I think anyone making over $500,000 a yr shouldn't pay any taxes at all.

They should also be exempt from Sales Tax at the register.

Each one should also get their very own slave, to solve the unemployment problem, we'll pick from the roles of the recently unemployed. After a brief training class on collar-wearing and whip-making, they'll be fit for their new role in society.

And where will these slaves live? They'll dig their own pit near the residence of the rich person to whom they've been assigned. The rich person will dump their filth into the pit, and the slave will live there.

It's a shame he's going to win another 4 years, no contest. Even more of a shame is that he's actually doing more to cut spending than any of the dem candidates would.

Solution: I've resigned myself to 4 more years of Bush. Could be worse. I'm just gonna go to the polls and vote libertarian everywhere I possibly can. If enough people do that, we could actually maybe get a lib candidate with a chance to win within the next few decades.

/cut spending, cut taxes, not one or the other. both.

Just cause I still feel that the righties deserve some equity for their whole "crying baby" thing and the article is political....



now, lets resume our intelligent discourse.

2004-02-02 12:46:38 PM Roark: I object to tax money being spent on religious hogwash, in whatever guise.

It might surprise you, but I am not a "liberal." I am a believer in effects-based government. Right now, I see a bad future in practical terms if some balance isn't brought back into the government. Certainly, the democrats have almost no solutions to the problems facing us. For example, when Bush recently made his absolutely dreadful immigration proposal, the democrats could only complain that it didn't go far enough! Wow.

But I can only hope they'll resist the republicans out of pure reflex.

Back in the old days, I voted for republicans for president because the democrats controlled Congress. Now, I urge eveyone to vote for the democrat for president because the republicans control the Congress.

If the democrats nominate a blind dog, I'll vote for it over Bush.

BrotherMaynard

I disagree that the gov't has as much to lose as anyone else here. This is the same gov't that can't stop spending and yet can't be truthful about what they are spending it on.

They left out monies for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't think we'll ever know just how much Bush throws in there, if he gets re-elected.

2004-02-02 12:49:07 PM Spacemarinekilla: "It's a shame he's going to win another 4 years, no contest."

I wouldn't be so sure. I think the fedayeen and the Shiites will have a lot to say about it this summer. The election will be decided in Iraq, mark my words.

You know what they say: The bigger you are, the dumber you look.

Only a farktard like Bush could love this fell budget plan.

Let's see...kill EPA...fark with other nations...cut taxes...increase spending...give shiatloads of $$$ to a department (DHS) that couldn't secure their own ass after a 5 burrito lunch...spend to the hilt...then get this awesome new deficit.

Yep, sign o' the apocalypse.

Don't vote Republican, they're 'tards. When you see the Elephant logo, just envision the mounds of shiat the animal produces.

We must balance the budget, and deficit spending is not the way to go. Contrary to popular Repub belief, Regain did not prove that deficits are irrelevent.

I don't get it. Why does everyone think this election is already over?

Newsweek had Kerry beating him. His approval rate is barely over 50%. And in 2000, 3.5 million more votes were cast for Nader + Gore.

Nader's not running.

Thankfully, neither is Gore, the least charismatic candidate I may have ever seen.

Put up Kerry the war hero. Factor in a southern VP. Add in Nader's votes and the energized Dem base who came out in record numbers in the primaries, and Bush could easily lose.

Don't be intimidated by Bush's fascist tendencies to think this election is over. !@#$!#@ George Bush's record deficit and fake war. If enough Americans wake up by November, he will be toast.

caiteach:
In other news, the Bush Administration just ruled that mercury isn't a toxin. No, I'm not joking. They just reached that decision in the latest Federal Registrar. So much for sound science.

That really depends. Mercury spilled all over your arm, for example, can't hurt you. Drinking large amounts isn't too smart, but you'd live. It's really methyl-mercury (and other organic compounds) that's toxic, which you won't find in any thermometer or dental filling.

So in a sense mercury, the kind people are concerned about (dental fillings get the most bad rap) is not immediately toxic. Whether it can become toxic after long exposures to the inside of your mouth is subject to debate.

Alexis-

The US government will never default on its debt due to an inability to pay. An unwillingness perhaps, but not an inability. All government spending is in the form of credits to accounts at the Federal Reserve (this is where you get your dollars when your treasury matures) and the government has an UNLIMITED ability to spend dollars. It is nothing more than an accounting transaction for them. As the monopoly issuer of the US$ they will NEVER runout. The reason that Latin America, specifically Argentina, defaulted on its debt is that it is denominated in US$, something that Argentina does not have an unlimited supply of. The debt is nonrecourse so if they end up accomodating their debtors in some way, it is simply that, an accomodation. And dont worry,what most people dont understand is that the Government doesnt need Treasuries to finance spending, it needs them to control interest rates, that is all they do.

poorgirl
I disagree that the gov't has as much to lose as anyone else here.

I believe the collapse of the US monetary fund would devistate people like George W Bush and the rest of the his advisers/cabinet.

This is the same gov't that can't stop spending and yet can't be truthful about what they are spending it on.

I beleive they are spending this money in order to "Starve the Beast". They want to run up the national debt so they can kill off all social programs. Once they do this, all the wild spending will stop. Remember, those bonds are owned my someone..

Step 1) Engage in wild spending, sell bonds to cover costs.
Step 2) Buy lots of Bonds (see step 1)
Step 3) Kill off social programs and send the goverments money to the people who own the bonds.
Step 4) Profit.

canyoneer: It sounds as if you have big problems with taxing the income of rich people so as to redistribute that money to other rich people.

Is my analysis correct?

This basically summarizes my opinion of how shifting responsiblities to the Federal Government only makes this problem even worse.

Mercury will absorb through the skin - http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/eh/ChemFS/fs/Mercury.htm
WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.



WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.

Leonard_Cohen I'm so sorry to hear that your liberal has spread to 100% of your body, I do hope you recover.

Nightsweat
Here's some data I found:

WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.
WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.
WILL EXPOSURE TO MERCURY RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Metallic liquid mercury generally does not absorb very well when it swallowed. Breathing its vapors is very dangerous. When metallic mercury is touched it can slowly pass through the skin.

The following health effects can happen immediately or shortly after exposure to high levels of mercury:

Neurological effects, confusion, hand tremors
Chills
Chest tightness, bronchitis, pneumonia
Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite
Bleeding gums
Leg pains and burning sensation in feet
Lung and kidney damage
Skin rashes
Children and infants can develop a specific allergic reaction to mercury.

The following health effects can occur after several years of exposure to mercury (more than 10 ppb in air):

Cancer: There is no evidence that mercury causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: Symptoms can include menstrual problems, possible miscarriages and damage to unborn babies.

Organ Systems: Peoples nervous systems and kidneys are very sensitive to mercury and are easily damaged. Symptoms of damage include blood in urine, shaking, burning pain in legs and feet, sleep disturbance, personality changes, irritability and memory loss.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed. A person's reaction depends on several things, including individual health, previous exposure to chemicals, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking. Its also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten.

Hey mods, can we ge a ban for the poop boy?

Raiders of the Fark: What "fake" war? Did the WTC really not collapse? Did we really not remove Saddam Hussein?

I know technology has progressed, but I'm fairly certain this war is not fake.

I really hope all those people that voted for Nader and Gore show up to vote in the 2004 elections. With all the "new" people Dean is bringing in it should be a sure Democratic victory in 04. But then again surpluses, record unemployment lows, economic prosperity and 8 years of peacetime turned out to be a negative for the Democrats in 2000.

BrotherMaynard

Running up the debt to kill social programs is about the worst idea I've ever heard of. What sucks is that you are right, it would probably either work like a charm, ensuring that many people are farked in the process, or it would backfire, ensuring that many people are farked in the process.

Isn't Dubya great?

nifty! i propose a 50 trillion dollar budget. hey! like the government can afford it either, but since we're pulling figures out of our arses, WTH....

Brother_Maynard: That sounds like the Milton Freidman plan. Since you'll never in a million years convince the "60 Minutes" voter to tear down the Social Security stage and then "biggaty bam" go smoke a bowl through votes, the only other way is to starve it.

Speaking of starving folks, I hear Fidel is about to croak.

Farking_Retard_Facsists. You people aint doing nothing about it but belittling each other. Enjoy.

Johnny_Canuck
Leonard_Cohen I'm so sorry to hear that your liberal has spread to 100% of your body, I do hope you recover.

Well, maybe after the next riding association meeting I might be singing a different tune.

btw I never knew there was a Johnny Canuck comic book, I remember Captain Canuck from the the 70' or 80's.

poorgirl: What's a guy to do when he's handed a horse with two broken legs and bladder infection? The social programs were a bad idea the day they were proposed. Increasing them is like trying to pull yourself out of bucket by the handle.

poorgirl
Running up the debt to kill social programs is about the worst idea I've ever heard of.

I agree. If you want to kill a social program, atleast have the balls to stand up and put it to a vote.

What sucks is that you are right, it would probably either work like a charm, ensuring that many people are farked in the process, or it would backfire, ensuring that many people are farked in the process.

I don't believe the goal to fark over the average person. I believe they truely do feel that social programs are evil, and by destroying them they are helping America. Personally, I find it batshiat crazy.

Isn't Dubya great?

It's more than just Dubya. This is a feeling held by a large faction of the conservative movement. Just do a google search on Grover Norquist.

canyoneer -- Interesting and yes, I am surprised. I can't say that I've ever encountered someone so, well, passionate about our system of checks and balances. You might not want to hear this, but there are quite a few very extreme Republicans in Congress who adhere to a completely strict interpretation of the Constitution who would likely agree with you on many issues. :)

I'm with you on the immigration proposal. Garbage.

Good debating with you today. Time to get back to work.
-R

canyoneer said:

No, Rayonic. I don't want to upset you. You see, I know you're a jut-jawed optimist about the Glorious United States of America and you probably got all maudlin last night during the Stupid Bowl and seeped a few tears onto your shirt collar when you saw the Apache Helicopters and heard the National Anthem and saw Old Glory waving majestically in the ventilation fan-blown breeze of Enron Field...er, whatever the name of the place is now.

I missed the beginning... tuned in during the second quarter. Did they really do that, though? With the anthem and the helicopters and the flag? (The roof opens up, by the way.)

Man, after watching that patriotic opening -- and seeing the "Patriots" win, no less -- I'm surprised you didn't go hang yourself out of depression. "Damned Americans, why won't you listen! You're doomed! You're all DOOMED!"

All you need is an obsession with over-interpreting the Bible, and you'll be ready to stand on a busy street corner with a sign reading "Leviticus 13:12" or somesuch.

2004-02-02 01:09:23 PM BrotherMaynard

I beleive they are spending this money in order to "Starve the Beast". They want to run up the national debt so they can kill off all social programs. Once they do this, all the wild spending will stop. Remember, those bonds are owned my someone..

Read David Stockman's book. He was Reagan's budget director early on in that administration. It's the exact tactic he accused Reagan (and later Bush) of using. For some reason the liberal media didn't talk this up too much.

Nightsweat: true, small amounts can get inside you, but it will be inert, and eventually leave your body. Exposure to high levels can cause certain symptoms... but the question "is mercury toxic" is like asking is a knife wound fatal. Yeah, sometimes, depending on the situation. But if you got some mercury on you I wouldn't go around expecting to die any minute.

2004-02-02 01:13:52 PM setaanbomb: No. I believe government should work for the general benefit of the citizens of the nation. It should work through democratic processes to reach the fairest consensus of what that general benefit is.

Let's use the traffic signal as an example: At some level, the government collects taxes to purchase and install and maintain traffic signals. These benefit all by regulating traffic flow and making transportation safer.

But, the benefits of this traffic signal are not evenly distributed, are they? For example, a rich man who owns a fleet of delivery trucks that helps his business flourish uses the traffic signal to his benefit more than a fellow who drives through it only twice a day on his way to and from his job with a different company. Meanwhile, the rich man's vehicles working to enrich him pass through the intersection safely many times per day.

So, shouldn't the cost of purchasing and installing and maintaining the traffic signal be distributed in proportion to the benefit derived from its existence and usage? Shouldn't the rich man pay a little more for the traffic signal than the other fellow? After all, the rich man gets more benefit out of it.

Here is an example of a government function that benefits all, but benefits certain members of society disproportionately. Let the rich man, who reaps greater utility, bear more of the cost. And since he makes so much more money, his share of the cost represents a relatively smaller percentage of his income.

I'd say the rich guy is getting out of the deal pretty favorably, all things considered.

setaabomb

//Raiders of the Fark: What "fake" war? Did the WTC really not collapse? Did we really not remove Saddam Hussein?//

You're kidding, right? You have to be kidding with this. Tell me this is a parody of the Bush doublethink. Tell me you can actually tell the difference between who attacked us on 9-11 and Iraq.

For the record I was 1/2 a mile from the WTC on 9-11. I had friends die. I smelled the burning odor for a month afterwards in my apartment. I nearly signed up to go to war in Afghanistan.

And it offends me when keyboard warriors such as yourself can't learn how to read a freakin' map and understand that we just invaded a country that never attacked us, never tried to attack us, and posed no threat to us.

Just so you can feel macho and like you have a big johnson in your pants after 9-11.

setaanbomb

I'm not saying increase them, but to put this country in so much debt that it can't get out of it unless you kill certain programs is a bad excuse.

BrotherMaynard is right, they should at least have the balls to put it up for a vote. I for one don't mind some of the programs, though why I care, I don't know, SS won't be there when I retire, but there are some ways to fix the system without completely farking the country into hell's debt otherwise.

Here is an excellent article that appeared in the Sacremento Bee regarding Tax Policy the problems with a progressive tax policy and poor investment opportunity.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12009

Short Short Version: If the 'rich' are taxed more than the 'non-rich' you better hope all conditions either stay the same to maintain the number of 'rich' people or improve the so the 'rich' get richer or more people join the 'rich' bracket.

The easiest way to cut the deficit is to end the obscenely bloated Military Industrial Complex. We can keep a functioning army and top level military at about 1/2 the cost we're currently spending.

But that would cut off all the funders of the Republican Party. And God forbid that happens.

So the rest of us will continue to pay the billions to the Texas war machine.

Maybe Jefferson was right. Maybe we do need a revolution and a new government.

a_cure_for_gravity

I've never read Stockman's book. But I did read his interview in the Atlantic. The one where he said that supply-side economics was just an excuse to give more money to the wealthy. The truth is, anyone who pays attention can see it's happening. It's just that the average American doesn't pay attention.

I'm watching the government do stuff like this, especially the money for Iraq to be asked for AFTER the elections and the probe into US intelligence whose report is slated to come in AFTER the elections, and I'm just crossing my fingers, rocking back and forth in my chair, closing my eyes, and saying, "Please don't be stupid, Americans. Please don't be stupid."

Vote 3rd party in local elections. Vote for anyone who supports instant runoff elections.

BrotherMaynard

When it comes to monetary policy, they have as much to lose as everyone else.

Yes, hooray for crony capitalism, right?

i remember hearing something about some people that refused to pay war taxes. hm.

2004-02-02 01:38:16 PM Rayonic: "Man, after watching that patriotic opening -- and seeing the 'Patriots' win, no less -- I'm surprised you didn't go hang yourself out of depression. 'Damned Americans, why won't you listen! You're doomed! You're all DOOMED!' All you need is an obsession with over-interpreting the Bible, and you'll be ready to stand on a busy street corner with a sign reading 'Leviticus 13:12' or somesuch."

Haha. Read you like a book, didn't I?

"Hang myself out of depression."

Haha.

canyoneer: That's why you have tolls and turnpikes. Those that use are those that pay. The guy that only uses them twice a year pays no where near what the guy that uses them twice a day would pay.

Raiders of the Fark: Holy Nos. I was in the WTC on 9/11. Save your cryparty for the next Dean Meet-Up. The war isn't fake no matter how many times you publish the lie on the Internet.

I actually love the fact that the peace at any pricers will call for the head of a dictator if he is burning too many fossil fuels but will look the other way the dictator is putting humans into tree shredders. If there were a better ways to handle Saddam in the post 9/11 world the people with those ideas are either mute or never wished to share them.

setaanbomb

Short Short Version: If the 'rich' are taxed more than the 'non-rich' you better hope all conditions either stay the same to maintain the number of 'rich' people or improve the so the 'rich' get richer or more people join the 'rich' bracket.

Given that the US has a 300+ year history of the rich getting richer and more numerous, That should be a good plan.

ProgrammerCat
Yes, hooray for crony capitalism, right?

Right or wrong, it's the way the world works.

Most of it is earmarked for education and environmental protection, right?

Sadly, yes.

/flame on!

iollow,

The rule specifically deals with merucry emitted from coal fired power plants. That mercury eventually setlles down into waterways where it is converted into the more toxic methyl-mercury by bacteria in the environment. There are an estimated 60,000 children/year in this country that develop learning disabilities as a result of mercury exposure.

The reason the Bush Administration is doing this is to skirt around requirements in the Clean Air Act for controlling toxic air emmissions, which we allow them to release a much weaker rule onj controlling mercury emissions than what is required by law.

Raiders of the Fark: Good idea. We'll cut military spending, call our troops home from Korea, Japan and Iraq and the world will live in peace, harmony and love.

Are you prepared to answer to critics of such policy when the North Koreans roll into Seoul?

Are you prepared to answer to critics of such policy when North Korea attacks Japan?

Are you prepared to answer to critics of such policy when hundreds of thousand of people are killed because the United States abanoned them to save a couple hundred billion to please the Kucinich itch?