patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Still, this goes to show that no matter what Republican policy Obama adopts, the right-wing nutjobs will immediately start hating that policy because it's now infected with black cooties. If Obama came out with eliminating the capital gains tax, the Republicans would call it socialism.

Visualized:

The GOP is like every bunch of aging corporate cranks you've sat in a meeting room with.

socal2 says

Dan8267 - that chart and Max Nutting's hack analysis was debunked 2 weeks ago by both the AP and Washington Post (not exactly right-wing news sources)

Thank you for at least coming back with the right approach to debating this issue. At least now we can have an intelligent discussion of this issue.

But first, I am stating on the record that as someone who clearly does not and has never supported Obama -- hell, I'm his biggest detractor on this site and that's including all the right-wing lies that other people have spread. As I clearly am not pro-Obama, I have absolutely no political motivation to make him look good. If anything, one would expect me to want him to look bad on this issue, particularly since I also completely disagree with the way he handled the depression.

That said, the crux of the argument that the Haver data behind the Maher chart is incorrect is

The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.

OK, fair enough. Let's go with that now for the sake of argument -- it would be nice if someone could confirm that. But what does that change? $150 billion in spending cuts when the spending is $3.8 trillion is only 3.9%. So, add that to Obama's 1.4% and you get 5.3%. By that math, Obama is still spending less than Republican president up to and including Reagan. Only during Reagan's second term did he spend less, but Reagan still spent way more overall.

So even accepting the proposed adjusted to the Haver data, Obama still comes out as a sprendthrift and the only massive spending he did (3.9% / 5.3%) or 66% of his spending increase was to stimulate the economy which is something that every politician Democrat or Republican (including Bush II) was for. And why, because everyone in Washington is a Keynesian who believes that aggregate demand is the cure-all for all depressions. Republican and Democrats do not differ on Keynesian economics.

However, I cannot wholeheartedly accept the assertion that Obama increased spending by 5.3% based solely on the assertion of an associated press article that doesn't include the actual evidence. Normally, I'd give the press some benefit of a doubt, but I have the evidence. I've linked to it.

The archive data I've linked to shows in detail both the revenue and the outlays of the federal government including the totals, the budgeted, and the non-budgeted. It also includes detailed analysis of the data. The data I've gotten from government historians does not count the payback as decrease spending but as revenue. I don't know off the top of my head if it was budgeted or non-budgeted. And my graph is based on that data.

My graph shows Obama -- and to be fair, all presidents -- as spending less than on Maher's graph. However, the relative size of the bars are the same. Obama hasn't spent as much as Bush despite having to continue to pay for wars that Bush started, which quite frankly are what is responsible for the vast majority of the spending increases. Those wars -- note the plural -- are damn expensive. The worse case you can make against Obama is that he didn't cut-and-run, but that's exactly what the Republicans universally said America shouldn't do.

Now I disagree with those wars and never supported them. I only supported strategic strikes to take out Al Qaeda, which was accomplished quickly and inexpensively. But the red states universally supported the wars and wanted them expanded through various surges. Well surges of troops and equipment means surges of spending. War is expensive and provides zero returns (since you can't pillage and enslave anymore, well, at least not enslave).

As such, I don't seen any evidence that Obama is the biggest promoter of spending in all history. The only straw you can possible grasp at is that Obama is the most recent president and since federal spending has been going up crazy since Reagan, inertia is going to force later presidents to spend more than previous ones. The next administration, Republican or Democrat, is almost certainly going to spend more than this one. And the administration after that, Republican or Democrat, is almost certainly going to spend more that that one.

Before you can decrease spending, you have to zero-out the differential, the growth in spending. It's like driving a car. You start at 40 mph and keep accelerating to 60 mph. Before you can bring the car to a stop, you have to first stop accelerating, and then decelerate.

And finally, I've been complaining about the national debt since 1984 when Reagan was running for his second term after massively increasing the debt. I find it very suspicious that all of a sudden the right is concerned about a debt when it didn't mean anything when Bush II was running it up. I also find it very suspicious that the right opposes military spending, which accounts for 24% of federal spending and 54% of the income tax.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

So, if you are truly for greatly reducing federal spending, which I am, based on the first chart above, the places you need to cut in order are: defense, health care, government pensions, and too some degree welfare. But the big three are about the same size and almost twice what we spend on welfare.

And the thing about defense -- and I use that term very loosely because it's not really defense -- is that we could cut it by 80% and still be spending as much as the next highest spending country, China, which has a population 1.3 trillion or about 4.43 times as many people as the U.S. We would have to cut defense by 95.5% to spend as much per capita as the second highest spending country. But let's just cut it by 80%, and we'll still be spending over 4 times as much per capita as China, and our military is still way ahead of theirs anyway.

By the way, if you think China is a threat that demands military spending, then maybe we shouldn't be trading so heavily with them. Just saying.

To conclude, Obama is not the big spender. In fact Democrats aren't big spenders. The facts clearly show that Republicans way out-spend Democrats. It's just that Republicans put us in debt for that spending instead of taxing for it, which quite frankly is worse. And Republicans are all for spending on the wrong things, things that destroy wealth like war instead of creating wealth like building infrastructure.

Put simply, Republicans aren't fiscally responsible. The facts don't support that claim. And this is coming from someone who paid his own way through college working, and has been debt free since paying off his college/car loans within four months of graduating. I know fiscally responsibility.

Except that Obama's policies were invented by Republicans, and it's only when he adopts them that the Republicans start hating them. That's even worse than the Not Invented Here Syndrome.

Dan8267 says

And no, my data does not count tax decreases as spending.

I stand corrected. Thanks. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the spending increases. For Bush, it was probably mostly the wars, medicare drug spending, and fiscal stimulus. For Obama, I don't know.

I guess they figure that the first year in office, the gov't follows the previous presidents budget? I don't know how that is done.

Your main point that repubs increased spending way more than dems over the last 30 yrs seems pretty well proven. That is really too bad, because I'd rather spend money on dem programs than repub ones.

Wow! Imagine that! One political party lies about the other.

The only significant action Obama has taken to the advantage of US citizens is to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Gosh, that was SO politically risky, right? Everything else is very nearly the same as would have been done by a Republican. Medical system reform that is just the opposite. Financial sector reform that ISN'T.

And Maher said that we've lost no rights? He hasn't been paying enough attention or is being very selectively attentive as there have been all sorts of draconian, Constitution violating laws passed. And just as any Republican president would have allowed, we have now established a huge, police state infrastructure from post 9/11 terrorism fear mongering.

Obama is just as bought and paid for by moneyed special interests as any Republican. And the Supreme Court has now approved full control of our brain-dead political ads by multi-national corporations and the wealthy.

Finally, he has allowed this economic path to be taken, just as would any Republican - bail out the banksters who made huge, bad bets and transfer as much money as possible to them before we hit the exponential debt increase wall again, next time far more catastrophically:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=206992

Excerpt:

The issue before us is simply whether those who intentionally made bad loans and bad bets will be forced to eat them through removing the intentional excess liquidity (which is stealing your wealth and income every single day) or whether you will be forced to cover them as well as suffering the inevitable consequences of the [inevitable, mathematically dictated] contraction.

Approximately $3,000 has been stolen every year for the last four years from every man, woman and child in this country through intentional deficit spending and debasement for the benefit of these banksters, yet the economy has not recovered. We cannot recover that which was stolen but we must stop the stealing now as this theft has and continues to damage the common American every single day it continues.

Dan8267 says

So even accepting the proposed adjusted to the Haver data, Obama still comes out as a sprendthrift and the only massive spending he did (3.9% / 5.3%) or 66% of his spending increase was to stimulate the economy which is something that every politician Democrat or Republican (including Bush II) was for.

Dan - the other problem is that Obama took the monumental stimulus spending in 2009 (proposed by both parties) and used it as the new BASELINE spending benchmark. The stimulus spending in 2009 was supposed to be a one time shot in the arm to "stimulate". Not the new rate of spending going forward for 4+ years.

This is why Nutting and Democrats are using "rate of spending increase" in their analysis to make Obama look better since he is only raising spending about 3% each year on top of the massive spending increase of 2009.

Cloud says

I've been Shreked!!!!

You mean you are starting a second account first claiming to not be "Cloud", but a friend of "Cloud". Then after a while changing the name on the account and claiming to have no knowledge whatsoever of "Cloud"?

I am Cloud.

Abe

socal2 says

This is why Nutting and Democrats are using "rate of spending increase" in their analysis to make Obama look better since he is only raising spending about 3% each year on top of the massive spending increase of 2009.

Who cares about the rate of spending increase, the only number that matters is the spending relative to the economy. As a percentage of gdp federal expenditures have been decreasing since 2009 from 25.5% to 24%. So Obama's increases have been less than the increase in growth. For reference W increased from 18% to 20% his first three years, Clinton decreased from 22% to 20% his first 3 years, Bush I increased from 21% to 22% his first 3 years, Reagan increased from 20% to 24% his first 3 years. Those goddam commie democratic presidents are spending like drunken sailors again. Anyone can see that (at least anyone that listens to faux news all day).

Why is it Obama's fault the Bush spiked the budget his last year anyway?

Speaking of Faux News, why are they the only agency that invites prominant individuals with opposing viewpoints on their programs, while none of the other's do?

YesYNot says

Thanks. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the spending increases.

You could actually extract that data from the charts and tables at http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2012_US_fed and the prior years. It would take a small bit of work, but it's just grunt work and arithmetic. Just keep subtracting years from the URL path.

socal2 says

Dan - the other problem is that Obama took the monumental stimulus spending in 2009 (proposed by both parties) and used it as the new BASELINE spending benchmark. The stimulus spending in 2009 was supposed to be a one time shot in the arm to "stimulate". Not the new rate of spending going forward for 4+ years.

That so does not apply to my graph or Bill Maher's.

The data I provided proves definitively that all Republicans have increased spending fuckloads more than any Democrats since 1980, and that Obama has increased spending the least, even decreasing real spending as opposed to nominal spending.

Again, I don't like any of Obama's economic decisions including the stimulus, but the facts clearly show that on this particular issue, Obama isn't the one ratcheting up federal spending. Why can't Republicans just admit the truth on this one issue? Just to show that you have some grasp on reality.

Honest Abe says

I am Cloud.

Abe

I don't believe that. Cloud's a professional asshole. You can't fake that kind of sexual frustration, and you can't turn it off by logging in under a different name.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/g6kwUBrRjaM

Dan.
Can you find the data to create a pie chart like the one for global military expenditures, and show what amount of protection America gets from others and what amount America spends protecting others?

Can you find the data to show how much America spends in aide (cash, food, whatever) to others and how much aide others send to America? That would be a cool pie chart.

Bap33 says

Can you find the data to create a pie chart like the one for global military expenditures, and show what amount of protection America gets from others and what amount America spends protecting others?

America doesn't protect others except to further it's own political and economic agendas. That's why we fought Iraq twice but let civilians get slaughtered in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Syria.

100% of America's military spending is for our own selfish interests.

Bap33 says

Can you find the data to show how much America spends in aide (cash, food, whatever) to others and how much aide others send to America? That would be a cool pie chart.

Easily done.

Notice that foreign aid accounts for 0.44% of the federal budget, and even less of federal spending since foreign aid doesn't have the option of going over budget.

Notice how tiny that slice is.

Even all foreign affairs put together adds only a mere 0.72%. And that includes things like building oil rigs to suck out other nation's natural resources.

Please read more about this in this Word Press article.

In a recent poll (Table 1), people were asked to name the two largest areas of federal government spending. In the poll people said the “Foreign Aid” budget was larger than either “Medicare” or “Social Security.”[1]

Realty: The United States spends only a minuscule amount on foreign aid.

And please educate yourself against these false myths that your tax dollars go to foreign welfare queens. They don't.

Obama may not be the "most radical, leftist" but I think he's losing his mind just like the rightist. There aren't enough psychiatrist to help those in the three branches.

I trust your answers, but the information I requested was not in the last one. On the global scale, like you used for military, how does Americ stack up against everyone else in terms of aide. You know, like when there is a big disater and we come save the day, or the millions we give to other nations .. how much do other nations give us in aide? Thanks.

Bap33 says

how does Americ stack up against everyone else in terms of aide.

OK. Thanks for clarifying the question.

The answer: poorly, unfortunately.

We're dead last in a list of industrialized countries.

Chart from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2010/pages/rich-countries-foreign-aid.aspx

Sweden and Norwegian rock though! They set a great example.

wait a second Dan, on the first chart you went with total numbers on a global scale and on this chart you went with percentage of GDP per entity. To be fair you should produce the same charts again, only with the oposite systems. meaning, produce that military chart using percent of GDP, and produce the aide chart using total numbers. That would only be fair, right? Thanks.

Bap, you need to learn how to do math. The first chart shows how much the U.S. spends on military compared to other nations. As such, absolute dollars makes sense because the strengths of the militaries are proportional to absolute dollars not percentage of GDP.

However, it would be completely meaningless to compare absolute dollars from the richest nation in the world, the United States, with a population of over 300 million people to a small country like Sweden which has a population of 9,379,116. It just would be nonsensical.

A per capita comparison between the two countries would be somewhat meaningful, but if you're comparing generosity, then a per GDP is exactly how you meaningfully compare the two countries.

This should be pretty straight forward.

I am pretty sure your response, or lack there of, indicates that my questions are spot-on and show a possible twisting/spinning/shading of the numbers to fit a particular view. I only figured it this way after I thought about it ... and realized how switching between the two data sets is EXACTLY what the REwhores do with housing numbers .. they use average when it is in thei favor, actual when it's better, national when that is best, and local when it is best. Are you doing the same thing? If not, then just produce the same data using the different sets of input. I can only assume you did already and the results made you chose to counter my request and call me an idiot, vs sharing the data that was revealed. I honestly do not know what the numbers would be, but I have a hunch.

Dan8267 says

absolute dollars makes sense because the strengths of the militaries are proportional to absolute dollars not percentage of GDP

why?

Dan8267 says

However, it would be completely meaningless to compare absolute dollars from the richest nation in the world, the United States, with a population of over 300 million people to a small country like Sweden which has a population of 9,379,116. It just would be nonsensical.

why?

Why is it sensible to compair Sweden with America?

If I have to be a math wiz to understand, then just produce the two simple graphs, just like you did the other ones, only with the other data sets. Then, my poor math skills will not matter. Right? It's just data and info, right? No tilt or slant or political position in play, right? Cool, then, please, if you do not mind, since you do have the skills to do it with little effort, please share the graphs. You seldom hase off any info that is available in a plain fashion, and I apprieciate that. Don't break your streak now!! lol Thanks.

Dan8267 says

Even Nixon doesn't warrant hatred despite being the central crook in Watergate. That level of corruption isn't in the same ballpark, hell even the same sport as human rights violations. As such, Obama and Bush are the only presidents that actually merit hate,

You clearly weren't of draft age or were asleep during Nixon's reign. Vietnam and the Cambodia intrusion ring a bell? The lives lost by the public believing Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war while he expanded it make Obama look like a piker, though I will grant you Bushe's lies to get us into Iraq are on the same level

Bap, I really don't know if I can dumb this down any more. It's a basic math thing.

When comparing the military spending of the U.S. to other countries, it only makes sense to compare absolute dollars, absolute number and quality of planes, aircraft carriers, tanks, etc. Because when you fight wars, absolute numbers determine victory and defeat. Do you really not understand that?

When comparing foreign aid, it makes no sense to use absolute dollars when comparing a country with a population of 300 million to a country with a population of 9 million. One would expect, if the countries were equally rich, that the country with 300 million would give 33 times as much as the company with 9 million. Again, it's a math thing. Do you really not understand that?

Furthermore, since the two countries are probably not equally rich, it really makes sense to compare their foreign aid as a percentage of GDP when determining how generous they are being. Do you really not understand that?

If the point you want to make, bap, is that 300 million Americans contribute more to foreign aid than 9 million Swedes, than point made. It's a stupid, meaningless point, but point made. 300 million people can do more than 9 million. Wow, that's profound.

Why don't you just come out and state the thesis you want people to accept, and then we can debate that particular thesis based on its merits and the evidence. I'm not avoiding your questions, I'm just trying to figure out what your hidden agenda is.

rdm says

You clearly weren't of draft age or were asleep during Nixon's reign. Vietnam and the Cambodia intrusion ring a bell?

Certainly Vietnam and Korea were unjust wars and a massive wastes of life, and the draft was unethical and not applied to the politically connected.

However, even that evil does not come close to torture, secret prisons, sexual humiliation of prisoners of war, kidnapping non-combatant civilians, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, and all the other evils passed under Bush and Obama like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

So, unfortunately, I have to say that America over the past 12 years has done worse things than it did during the 1960s and 1970s. The evil has been taken to a higher level.

However, I do understand why some people hate Nixon and Johnson for their roles in Vietnam. It's just that having lived through Bush and Obama, it's adjusted my sensitivity levels from overexposure.

Dan8267 says

However, even that evil does not come close to torture, secret prisons, sexual humiliation of prisoners of war, kidnapping non-combatant civilians, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, and all the other evils passed under Bush and Obama like the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

Disagree, just because you didnt live through it doesn't mean it wasnt worse. It may seem that way, as it is in the fading past but having lived through both I would think Nixon equal Bush is a reasonable comparison (Nixon was much smarter, Bush more of a front man for the neo-cons). Nixon equal Obama or Obama worse then Nixon is not even a close call, Nixon far worse (we are not comparing domestic policies) in actions affecting civil liberties and war. If you study what went on in the Vietnam theater of war and in this country: the use of napalm, agent orange defoliating large areas of the country, carpet bombing of North Vietnam, Mai lai and other massacres the vast majority unreported. I would suspect that more civilians were killed in one week of Nixon's peak "effort" then Obama has killed with his drone strikes in his entire term and I will throw in actual terrorists into the pot.

Regarding civil liberties talk to the people in the antiwar movement about how well their civil liberties were respected, in a word they were not. The FBI had files on thousands of antiwar and civil rights activists. At Kent State people demonstrating against the war were killed and crippled for life, has that happened under Obama, or Bush for that matter? (it was national guard so Nixon doesn't get direct blame but they were protesting his secret invasion of Cambodia). I do not feel killing an American in a terrorist camp in Yemen is on the same level to killing 4 kids protesting the war in Ohio. If you do then we will have to disagree. A big difference in perception is that the public, due to changes in communication tech. has more access to what is actually occurring. In Nam no one had cell phones with video capability to post on the internet in near real time, even so what has filtered out over the years is horrific. All this aside from his attempts to directly subvert the electoral process with his Watergate shenanigans.

rdm says

You clearly weren't of draft age or were asleep during Nixon's reign. Vietnam and the Cambodia intrusion ring a bell? The lives lost by the public believing Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war while he expanded it make Obama look like a piker, though I will grant you Bushe's lies to get us into Iraq are on the same level

I was of draft age, I lucked out with a high lottery number. The Vietnam war involvement peaked in 68, nixon took office in 69. He took his time winding it down, but he did wind it down. Even with going into Cambodia he did not expand it.

The 69 Cambodian incursion was far far too late, but a very good idea. There should have also been a Laos incursion. Letting the NVA have a huge inviolate sanctuary just over the border was always a stupid idea. There were huge amounts of materials destroyed and large amounts of NVA killed. NVA operations dropped dramatically for 3 years, probably saving a lot more American lives than were lost in the actual incursion.

From a military point of view the operation was a big success. The NVA was shattered and wasn't able to mount a large military operation again until the Hue offensive in 1972. Like every defeat suffered by the NVA in the Vietnam war, the NVA just rolled back, rebuilt and waited for the US to stand down again.

From a political point of view it was a disaster. People could now clearly see that Johnson and McNamara had been lying about Vietnam for years. Protests against the war went ballistic.

For the Cambodians it was worse than disaster. Since no one bothered to tell the Cambodians it was coming the incursion was a total shock that destroyed confidence in the Cambodian government, led to civil war, and eventually the Khmer Rouge. With allies like the US who needs enemies?

rdm says

Disagree, just because you didnt live through it doesn't mean it wasnt worse.

Obviously.

But what was the 1970s equivalent of Gitmo?

I suspected this was a geezer forum...

rdm says

the use of napalm, agent orange defoliating large areas of the country, carpet bombing of North Vietnam, Mai lai and other massacres the vast majority unreported.

True, point taken. But don't we have to include Johnson in the list of the guilty as well? He escalated the war. Perhaps even Kennedy deserves some blame for starting the war.

I think the big difference between the 1960/70s and today is that today people openly accept torture as ok. At least back then no one advocated torture. During the past 12 years, a third of Americans actively wanted to torture prisoners including waterboarding them and using dogs to eat them alive.

rdm says

Disagree, just because you didnt live through it doesn't mean it wasnt worse. It may seem that way, as it is in the fading past but having lived through both I would think Nixon equal Bush is a reasonable comparison (Nixon was much smarter, Bush more of a front man for the neo-cons). Nixon equal Obama or Obama worse then Nixon is not even a close call, Nixon far worse (we are not comparing domestic policies) in actions affecting civil liberties and war. If you study what went on in the Vietnam theater of war and in this country: the use of napalm, agent orange defoliating large areas of the country, carpet bombing of North Vietnam, Mai lai and other massacres the vast majority unreported.

I don't think this is valid. Nixon inherited a much larger, more active, far worse war. Most of the actions you mention were implemented by Johnson. Nixon continued on, but did wind it down. In the same 4 years as Obama has wound down Iraq. But the Iraq war was much smaller and had been simply an occupation for 6 years when Obama took over. Nixon took over a much larger hot war just after the peak. If you actually did live in the times then you know that. Nixon could have done much better, but I don't think the comparison is valid at all.

There is just no comparison in civil liberties, none at all. The civil liberties violations by government agencies of the 60's was egregious, but not systematic . The FBI and CIA went rogue, but once it became public there was real outrage within congress and the white house. If you really lived then you will remember the Church committee and hearings. That's where FISA came from in the first place.

To compare the FBI and CIA secretly opening peoples mail with actively passing laws that totally invalidate the bill of rights and calling them equal is beyond my comprehension. Are you serious or is this some type of humor?

Kent state was just a fuckup of panic and confusion, not a violation of civil rights. Sometimes people just screw up without it being a grand statement.

rooemoore says

I suspected this was a geezer forum...

The polite term is historically experienced.

bob2356 says

The civil liberties violations by government agencies of the 60's was egregious, but not systematic .

That's kind of my take on the comparison, too. It seems that in the 1960s, state governments had systematic violations of civil rights, but the federal government's violations were more the exception to the rule. And the federal government certainly didn't violate human rights and brag about it as if it were a good thing. That changed in the start of the 21st century. Human rights violations became acceptable.

my bad, I thought you could do the graph with little effort. I never figured to change your mind, only open it up just a taste.

The larger the population, and land mass, and global economic impact, and global net worth, and percentage of freedom, then that much more effort should and must be made to secure those things. Simple.

The amount of cash aide we recieve from others $0. The amount we give away to other nations >$0. Until such time as you share the graph, I'll just keep the figures simple.
The amount other's spend to arm and train tha UN $X (added together). The amount we spend >$X. Again, I'll leave that alone until you show real numbers.

Don't be a hater Dan. America is the greatest place on Earth, and will be that much better when Holder goes to prison and Barry goes back to Chi town.

Dan8267 says

. But don't we have to include Johnson in the list of the guilty as well?

Your original point was that only Bush and Obama were presidents deserving of hatred, but absolutely Johnson got us deeply in the mess that killed over 50K Americans and millions of people in South East Asia ( no accurate numbers) , perhaps he deserves more blame than Nixon. We don't really know what Kennedy would have done but I think it probable he would have followed much the same course as Johnson.

Bap33 says

my bad, I thought you could do the graph with little effort

I would never do a graph that I thought was meaningless. Math is important to me.

Bap33 says

I never figured to change your mind, only open it up just a taste.

I'm always willing to change my mind about anything at any time, but I need a good reason.

You still haven't even stated what you want me to change my mind to.

Bap33 says

The larger the population, and land mass, and global economic impact, and global net worth, and percentage of freedom, then that much more effort should and must be made to secure those things. Simple.

Not sure what "percentage of freedom" means, but at least for population and land area...

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should be spending five times as much as China on the military. It means we should be spending less than China. Remember, China has about 4.3 times and many people as the United States, 1,338,299,512 vs. 311,591,917. China is also about the same size as the United States.

Not sure how you can meaningfully measure "global economic impact" nowadays since all major corporations are international with no allegiance to any nation.

Bap33 says

The amount of cash aide we recieve from others $0.

We're the richest country in the world. We shouldn't be receiving cash foreign aid from other countries. Does this really upset you? Is it some indignity to you that less than half a percent of federal spending goes to feed and vaccinate starving foreigners? Is that really what crawls up your ass? I hate to tell you what bankers and land speculators are costing you.

Bap33 says

The amount other's spend to arm and train tha UN $X (added together).

I have no idea. I doubt I'd be able to find a breakdown that goes to "arms and military training", but I'll look up the total U.N. funding by nation. Again, I have no idea what it is, but I don't see how it's relevant to anything.

Found this at http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/intorg/un/fiecun.html

The United Nations (UN) is funded by its member states through compulsory and voluntary contributions. The size of each state’s compulsory contribution depends mainly on its economic strength, though its state of development and debt situation are also taken into account.

Just found this. Not relevant to your question, but I found it interesting. I'll put that in another thread.

So far, this is the closest I could find. I don't know what constitutes "operational activities". Source: http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/1982046.06771469.html

Finally something to build a graph on. U.S. Gets as Much as it Gives to the U.N.

The United States, which pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular annual budget of 1.8 billion dollars, has arrogantly demanded a dominant voice in management and administration -- primarily because it is the biggest single financial contributor to the world body.
…
In 2002, the United States received 24 percent (194.3 million dollars) of all U.N. contracts, which totaled 812.6 million dollars. In 2003, the corresponding figures were 21.8 percent (194.5 million dollars) out of a total of 891.8 million dollars.

In 2004, the United States took in 24.1 percent (315.8 million dollars) of all U.N. contracts, amounting to a total of 1.3 billion dollars. In 2005, the percentage was 20.4 percent (331.0 million dollars) out of total U.N. purchases of 1.6 billion dollars.

Also,

The newspaper exposed an NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, that outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities; the memo said that the NSA was seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council -- the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.

For such improper and illegal spying activities directed from Washington, it is very convenient to have the U.N. headquarters located in New York City, he noted.

"Perhaps the U.S. government should be assessed a special user fee in recognition of this convenience," Solomon added.

Interesting. Anyway, at least now I can give you that graph you wanted.

Yep, you see that blue area in the graph above? What, no? Oh yeah, because it's so small. Well, that's the slice of the pie that the United States spends on funding the U.N.

To put that miniscule amount in perspective, the Iraq War cost $255 million per day or $1.8 billion a week. That's right, a week's worth of war cost us as much as the U.N. costs in an entire year for everybody. Our part of the annual U.N. budget is 37 hours, 16 minutes, and 14 seconds of the Iraq War. That's enough time to watch the Harry Potter movies twice or what I call a weekend.

So anyway, what was your point? Although the U.S. is the largest funder of the U.N., we account for less than a quarter of its funding, and what we spend on the U.N. is the tiniest fraction of our federal spending, and we get lucrative contracts in return as well as the ability to spy on others and force our will on other nations. How is the U.N. a bad deal for the U.S.?

Bap33 says

Don't be a hater Dan. America is the greatest place on Earth…

I don't hate the U.S. I hate the people who run it. I want to make the U.S. a better place. That's why I point out our flaws and their solutions. The first step to solving any problem is acknowledging its existence.

That said, it's meaningless bullshit and unfounded arrogance to say that American is the greatest place on Earth. We're not the most educated, the healthiest, the most equitable, the most free by a long shot. We are the richest, but not the country with the highest median income.

In any case, if you want America to become the "greatest place" -- whatever that means -- you have to be willing to acknowledge, in detail, its failings so that you can change them. Whitewashing a country's history or current state does not make it a better place.

rdm says

Your original point was that only Bush and Obama were presidents deserving of hatred, but absolutely Johnson got us deeply in the mess that killed over 50K Americans and millions of people in South East Asia ( no accurate numbers) , perhaps he deserves more blame than Nixon.

I'm certainly not one to defend either Nixon or Johnson. I dislike them both. I can only say that they don't invoke the hatred that Bush and Obama invoke in me.

Perhaps it's because I didn't live through that period. Perhaps its because the evils done by Bush and Obama are more overt and accepted. Perhaps it's because I really thought America was past being the bad guy when the cold war ended and I was optimistic about our role in the world in the 1990s.

All I can say for sure, is that it's my gut reaction that Obama and Bush are more evil than Nixon and Johnson. That's only my opinion, so of course, you are free to disagree with it. But it's not exactly much of a disagreement considering we both hold all four presidents in such low esteem.

On a scale of 0 to 10, I rated both Johnson and Nixon a 3, and both Bush and Obama a 1. Note that I used a hyperbolic scale. bob2356 thought that Nixon should be much higher. Perhaps you should try to convince him otherwise.

Note: I notice that in my post two ago, the "operations contributions" from the U.S. in the tables is greater than the U.N. operating funds. I think that the operations contributions are charity contributions for things like the UN Children's Fund.

In case you are having trouble accessing the PDF link -- it's flaky -- I'll post it at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4B1gmdDSYeddTZ2elBMXzFqNVU

thanks Dan.

Dan8267 says

Perhaps its because the evils done by Bush and Obama are more overt and accepted.

I think this is it, there has been little reaction in the masses to what you feel are "evils". On some subjects like drone killings and Gitmo there is still pretty broad public support. Others such as NDAA and Patriot Act are greeted with a collective yawn because they don't or at least aren't yet directly affecting anyone or anyone anybody knows. Even the wars are being fought by a tiny segment of the population who volunteer to do it. I dont personally know anyone that has been to either Iraq or Afghanistan this was not the case during Vietnam.

Just to clarify my position I dont think Obama or Bush or Nixon are/were evil. I do hold Bush in very low esteem. One is hard pressed to find much of anything positive in what he did in 8 years. I will be voting for Obama because he is a better choice on many domestic issues than Romney and I think a little less likely to get us into a war with Iran.