patrick.net

yes, it was. Thanks for taking the time. I'd disagree though with the statement "Freemarket and liberalism tend to be good impulses" as I see morality as being independent of these systems, but the rest is fine by me.

Charles Hugh Smith has an interesting take on it:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/normalized-pathologies10-10.html

elliemae says

welfare moms

Related, I for one am amazed we're still able to discuss 'welfare moms' as being a scourge on society after our gov has dropped Trillions on the banking system and corporations. I'd love to see a comparison of what the 'welfare moms' "cost us" to what the continuous gifts to corporate america do.

As far as continuing support for 'welfare moms' it actually doesn't bother me that much at all when I know that I live in a society that keeps me generally safe and secure and I have opportunities to develop and grow. Its a small price to pay for all the benefits. Besides, who knows, it may be me there one day and I'm eased by the knowledge that there's some sort of support system in place.

Welfare should be workfare. Got kids? Let some of the welfare moms watch all the kids while the rest do public work. I would have no problem with that.

It appears no one here is aware that welfare was reformed in 96. Lifetime benefits is 5 years, although each state is free to implement more or less than this.

Getting people upset about welfare is an amazing way to get them to ignore the real budget problems, like the ridiculous military spending and all the pork that congressmen send back to their districts.

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I'd like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn't we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn't quite make sense to me.

My problem is that I'm a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here).

Honest Abe says

BTW, it was recently reported that America is now less free than Britain…the country we fought to obtain our freedom from, UGH.

LOL, who reported that ? Was it Colbert again or that other dude with his million moderate march ? I dont think we obtained freedom from Britain, we obtained a whole frickin country from Britain. We the people decided how much freedom we wanted right ?

which one of you wants to be the one to tell this guy, Drew, he's not going to get help if you can possibly block it? I'm sure we can easily get his contact info. Just let me know, I'll pass the info to you so you can tell him personally:

http://www.wimp.com/homelessnessanyone/

and Abey, you're aware I assume that Israel is basically one of the biggest charity cases for the US, right? Shall we quit them, in your educated opinion?

Honest Abe says

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I’d like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn’t we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn’t quite make sense to me.
My problem is that I’m a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here).

That's nice but the truth is welfare and foreign aid are such a small part of the budget that they represent little more than a rounding error in defense spending. Ranting about them while ignoring defense is illogical.

Honest Abe says

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I’d like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn’t we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn’t quite make sense to me.
My problem is that I’m a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here).

Your problem is that you act as if welfare spending (and foreign aid, really?) is the big problem, and it isn't. I'd be all for killing all of those programs -- but they're NOT the priority. They're a tiny part of the budget. We need to focus on places where we actually spend money.

Here is where the federal government collects money (2010 est):
$1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
$940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
$222 billion – Corporation income taxes
$77 billion – Excise taxes
$23 billion – Customs duties
$20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
$22 billion – Deposits of earnings
$16 billion – Other

Here is a list of where we are spending:

Mandatory:

$678 billion – Social Security
$453 billion – Medicare
Total: $1.13T

"Welfare"
$290 billion – Medicaid
$200 billion - other (WIC, etc.)
Total: $490B (I'll say $500B to be generous)

Military:
$700B - DoD / War on Terror
$250B - Iraq/ Afghanistan appropriations
$52B - VA
$42B - DHS
Total: $1.1 T (and this doesn't even include indirect spending by other agencies)

Everything else:
$1.1T (includes "bailouts", interest on debt, and all other federal agencies)

So, lets recap:

Social Security + Medicare + Military spending = $2.23T (63% of spending)
Total revenue = $2.3T

So, we DO NOT COLLECT ENOUGH REVENUE TO PAY FOR SS, MEDICARE, AND THE MILITARY.

If we exclude social security and medicare, since they're funded separately, we have a slightly better picture:

- $1.44T revenue
- $2.7T spending

Now, the military would account for 40% of the budget. The remaining 60% could be reduced, yeah -- but probably less than half of it. You're still screwed.

Yeah, go ahead and get rid of welfare. Slash the various federal agencies.

You still have a huge deficit.

You must, must, must address the big 3 as a top priority. There is absolutely no hope of a balanced budget without cutting at least one of the programs dramatically. You could reduce all other spending to zero, and still have a deficit (because of interest on the debt). The country would collapse in on itself and you'd STILL have a deficit!

Only one of those programs is considered discretionary
Only one of those programs lacks dedicated funding

you're right - we're spending too much money on the military for wars we can't win.

hmmmm ... no army = invaded (more than just what mexico has done for the past 30 years)

no gov mandated welfare = no vote buying = no wealth transfers = freedom to give how and where you wish = ACCOUNTABLITY to the supporting public from those who access their support.

hmmm tuff choice.

since the very basic need for a society to survive is safety, DEFENSE has a VERY LOGICAL position in a budget. Creating an entire nation of cradle to grave tit-hangers hooked on dope, and/or hooked on porn, is not good for a society to survive.

Here's the thing folks, the freedom to choose a path is only here becasue we have big guns and use them. If you feel more drugged-up breeders, and invaders, need more money, give them yours ... all of yours ... and then you will feel better. I want to spend my money on secruity, like the founding fathers intended.

Reading comprehension is hard to obtain.

I'm not suggesting ending all military spending. I am suggesting cutting it b y at least half.

Kevin says

I’m not suggesting ending all military spending. I am suggesting cutting it b y at least half.

$500B / $50,000 per job = ten million jobs go bye-bye.

Better hope Honest Abe doesn't cut the social safety net on these newly-unemployed people. Ouch.

I understand the numbers involved. But, one item is needed, and one item is not. The difference could only be in what one views as a need and what one views as a want.

The fact remains, you MUST have security before you have the luxury of any wealth transfer welfare system. You must have security before you can hold elections, pass laws, enforce laws, build jails, schools, churches, roads, trains, whatever society requires ... the very very very first thing needed is a secure environment.

Some low-lifes here in Sunnyvale just slashed my convertible roof to steal my ~$50 iPod Nano. I'm now with Bap -- send them all back. : )

Actually my preferred solution is that Mexicans can only live in towns with Spanish names.

Younstill don't get it. The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don't need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

And military spending is a shitty form of job stimulus. Far too much money gets spent on physical material cost and private profits. You'd be way better off employing teachers at free universities or people to build high speed rail lines.

Bap33 says

I understand the numbers involved. But, one item is needed, and one item is not. The difference could only be in what one views as a need and what one views as a want.
The fact remains, you MUST have security before you have the luxury of any wealth transfer welfare system. You must have security before you can hold elections, pass laws, enforce laws, build jails, schools, churches, roads, trains, whatever society requires … the very very very first thing needed is a secure environment.

You can't really consider more than a small amount of the U.S. military budget to be defense (i.e. security); a huge amount of it is offense ("power projection"). For comparison, China spends a little under 100 billion on its military. Lets say for our own defense we need to spend double, triple that - this still would allow us to slash our own military budget (over 650 billion) by more than half.

Kevin says

Younstill don’t get it. The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don’t need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

Believe me most people "get it", they just like being able to consider USA as the military superpower able to go where it wants, and take what it wants. You don't invade and occupy countries and control strategic resources, using the Coast Guard and whatever Minutemen you can convince to muster up when they feel like it.

Kevin says

The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don’t need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

Why doesn't Obama "CHANGE" things? Last I checked, he's expanding the war in Afghanistan, isn't closing down any "army bases in Japan" or anywhere else in the world? When do you think this "change" thingy is going to kick into gear?

Hey, hey...don't make us consciously acknowledge it.

I'd much prefer to think of it as defense only, against you know the axis of evil and so on.

Probably most of us see it like that, as necessary for defense, that is for who knows what might arise. It's a scary world out there, especially when push comes to shove over natural resources. Sort of a, "hey somebody has to do it."

And then we prefer not to think about the side benefit (cost) that meanwhile it gets used for manipulating strategically (but perceived as bullying) and even as justification for small wars that seem mostly about putting our military resources to use, and justifying corporate welfare to the defense industry.

I know it's not that simple. I just hope that we can get to where a group of leading countries share more in the responsibility and the cost of defending the world against "evil." When too much of it lies on us, we are bound to let special (powerful) interests have too much say in how our military power is used.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
- Maj. General Smedley Butler in "War is a Racket"

RayAmerica says

Kevin says

The military budget is more than twice as big as it needs to be to provide security. We don’t need to be fighting two wars in the middle east, maintaining army bases in japan, or building f16s to keep invading armies out.

Why doesn’t Obama “CHANGE” things? Last I checked, he’s expanding the war in Afghanistan, isn’t closing down any “army basis in Japan” or anywhere else in the world? When do you think this “change” thingy is going to kick into gear?

You got me. My best guess is that he's a coward like most democrats and is afraid to face an attack ad about how he's soft on "defense". Obama for the most part is a middle-of-the road weenie, hardly a radical.

Bap33 says

hmmmm … no army = invaded (more than just what mexico has done for the past 30 years)
no gov mandated welfare = no vote buying = no wealth transfers = freedom to give how and where you wish = ACCOUNTABLITY to the supporting public from those who access their support.
hmmm tuff choice.
since the very basic need for a society to survive is safety, DEFENSE has a VERY LOGICAL position in a budget. Creating an entire nation of cradle to grave tit-hangers hooked on dope, and/or hooked on porn, is not good for a society to survive.
Here’s the thing folks, the freedom to choose a path is only here becasue we have big guns and use them. If you feel more drugged-up breeders, and invaders, need more money, give them yours … all of yours … and then you will feel better. I want to spend my money on secruity, like the founding fathers intended.

That is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Invaded by who? Russia can barely invade Georgia. China hasn't managed to cross the 100 mile wide Formosa straight to take back Tawain even after 70 years of intense desire to do so. Who's left? Will we have Cuban troops marching down Pennsylvania ave.? Oh right, I forgot about that massive North Korean navy invasion force. The only serious threat to the US since the war of 1812 is a terrorist with a nuclear warhead. You don't need subs with nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers to fight terrorists.

The founding fathers spending money on security??? Feel free to look at the debates of the founding fathers. Almost all, as well as almost all state governments specifically said there should be no standing army. Here is the transcript of the congressional debate about enacting the second amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm
Try to at least know something about what you are talking about.

bob ... check the date. 1789
and they did what? debate.
how? they were in a secure location
how? we won a war that we started in 1776
how? bigger balls and God's own hand (Gen. Washington said so, only more fancy than that)

just keep it in proper order, bob:
in 1776 we had enough of the bullshit and we won (alot like this Nov vote about to happen)
in 1787 we were able to sit and draw up the plan to live by (only the mistakes of modern man have fouled the plan.
in 1789 the states were smart enough to not want a common force that the Prez (King) could control so they made sure only Congress could declare war and put the weapon to use. ONE WAY TO ENSURE THE STATES REMAIN SOVEREIGN WAS TO HAVE AN ARMED POPULATION IN EACH STATE - check the 2nd ammendment for details.
2nd ammendment came in 1791 as a result of the mediltia debates. I love you bob for pointing that out.

due to my lack of intellect, I keep it simple. Without a big weapon and it's proper use there is no freedom in America the nation, or in any American state (see Az.), or anyplace else. Thanks bob.

Sorry for being an idot

bob2356 says

You don’t need subs with nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers to fight terrorists.

that is the 2nd most idiotic statement on this thread

You gotta like Bap. He might be a right winger, and you might disagree with him on a lot of things, but his EQ (emotional intelligence) is way above Abe or Ray's. He doesn't let his emotions get the best of him (with the possible exception of one topic).

He's a true southern gentleman.

RayAmerica says

Why doesn’t Obama “CHANGE” things? Last I checked, he’s expanding the war in Afghanistan, isn’t closing down any “army bases in Japan” or anywhere else in the world? When do you think this “change” thingy is going to kick into gear?

We elected Obama President not King. There is a difference. The national security state is supporting 10 million or so jobs, probably twice that when all the velocity of money effects are taken into account. Congress will not give up this jobs program without a major fight. And that's just the economic aspect. The political aspect of "change" is even more frightful. Scaling back offensive operations when the threat of AQ is still very real is very tough in the "optics" of "losing Afghanistan" and the risk one runs in being "soft on the terrorists".

Obama doesn't have a chance with the 40% nutball right, but he does have to rely on keeping the very pro-military states like FL (29 EVs), NC/VA (28), CO (9). The blue states in 2008 will be worth 359 EVs in 2012, so losing these states would bring him down to 293 EVs, putting him just 23 EVs -- eg. Iowa and Ohio -- away from defeat.

Those two states happen to be one of his weaker showings with under 55% of the vote going to Obama in 2008. 55% looks like a solid victory but that's just 11 out of 20 people. 1 voter changing their mind out of 20 and you get a tie.

Not that it matters though. I think he's going to be Cartered easily enough. Even Paiin might take him out in 2012. I'll be back in Japan by then, hopefully.

Bap33 says

bob2356 says

You don’t need subs with nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers to fight terrorists.

that is the 2nd most idiotic statement on this thread

Wow bap, you have a very cargo-cult like appreciation of how the US military works. Build big things and John Frum will come.

Troy says

Obama doesn’t have a chance with the 40% nutball right, but he does have to rely on keeping the very pro-military states like FL (29 EVs), NC/VA (28), CO (9). The blue states in 2008 will be worth 359 EVs in 2012, so losing these states would bring him down to 293 EVs, putting him just 23 EVs — eg. Iowa and Ohio — away from defeat.

An amazing statement. To sum what you are saying; Obama is playing politics with the lives of our military at the expense of possibly losing electoral votes. And you people claim the right is radical. Furthermore, you claim a "40% nut ball right" isn't giving Obama "a chance." That's giving the right far too much credit when you consider Obama has enjoyed control of the House & Senate since he took office.

RayAmerica says

Obama is playing politics with the lives of our military at the expense of possibly losing electoral votes

Did I say that? Where?

What I actually think, and I apologize if I can't word it clearly enough for you to understand, is that he has to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL (much Navy presence), NC (XVIII Airborne), VA (Navy/Marines), CO (Air Force) . The present military itself wants to go deeper, just like they wanted to expand their mission in Vietnam. If you haven't noticed, Obama has kept around Bush's existing national security apparatus. I think this is to avoid the mistakes Clinton made with eg. Les Aspin. It's better to make the same mistakes a Republican would make than make your own mistakes as a Democrat, politically speaking.

If Obama doesn't "finish the job" then he's betrayed the troops who have sacrificed so much in Afghanistan. If he does go along with the program, he's not Mr Hope & Change.

Thing is, he campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan so there should be no surprises here.

“40% nut ball right” isn’t giving Obama “a chance.”

There should be nothing controversial about this. Obama is the diametric opposite to the conservative right in this country on nearly every issue -- he's said this isn't a Christian nation, is pro-abortion, appointed a lesbian to the Supreme Court, wants to raise taxes on wealthy people, etc. Why should these people give him a chance? They oppose his policy preferences with every fiber of their being. If Obama made gold rain from the sky on command the radical right still wouldn't vote for him in 2012.

Troy says

If Obama made gold rain from the sky on command the radical right still wouldn’t vote for him in 2012.

If he made gold rain from the sky, we definitely have some people around here that wouldn't vote for him.

Troy says

What I actually think, and I apologize if I can’t word it clearly enough for you to understand, is that he has to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL (much Navy presence), NC (XVIII Airborne), VA (Navy/Marines), CO (Air Force) .

If it isn't because of POLITICS, please explain in detail why Obama has "to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL ... NC ... VA ... CO???"

Troy says

Why should these people give him a chance? They oppose his policy preferences with every fiber of their being.

Why exactly does Obama, who controls the House & Senate, need the (your words) "40% nut ball right?"

RayAmerica says

Troy says

What I actually think, and I apologize if I can’t word it clearly enough for you to understand, is that he has to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL (much Navy presence), NC (XVIII Airborne), VA (Navy/Marines), CO (Air Force) .

If it isn’t because of POLITICS, please explain in detail why Obama has “to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL … NC … VA … CO???”

It's politics, but not politics "playing with soldiers' lives". Obama was elected on expanding our military's mission in Afghanistan. That's what our military wants, they don't want to be stabbed in the back again like what Nixon and Kissinger did to them in 1972.

The politics of this situation is simply a sizable portion of this country wants to see our present nation-building commitment to Afghanistan continued. That's not "playing with soldiers lives", that's just national security policy.

The politics emerges from the fact that the anti-war left has nowhere else to go on the national level. They can either support the moderate course in Afghanistan or see somebody like Palin take over.

RayAmerica says

Why exactly does Obama, who controls the House & Senate, need the (your words) “40% nut ball right?”

I thought I addressed this above:

Obama doesn’t have a chance with the 40% nutball right, but he does have to rely on keeping the very pro-military states

Obama's strategy, AFAICT, is to be a better (moderate) Republican than Republicans in areas he can. This is similar if not identical to the Clinton strategy of triangulation on the 90s Republicans.

If you are a moderate Republican who is getting shit done, then the real Republicans are forced further to the right, which normally marginalizes them by repelling the moderate center of this country (who are largely "low information" voters who can't find their ass with a map).

nice

Troy says

The politics of this situation is simply a sizable portion of this country wants to see our present nation-building commitment to Afghanistan continued.

What source do you have to back up this claim? One other question; when did we become a democracy? I thought we were a representative republic. I didn't know the President needed a plebiscite from the people in order to act on any issue. He certainly didn't get one when he rammed ObamaCare down our collective throats.

RayAmerica says

Troy says

Why should these people give him a chance? They oppose his policy preferences with every fiber of their being.

Why exactly does Obama, who controls the House & Senate, need the (your words) “40% nut ball right?”

Controls the house and senate? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

If Obama actually controlled the house and senate, we'd probably have single payer health care and the wars would be over already.

As it stands we can barely get 60 senators to all agree to even the most routine legislation.

Where have you been the last 2 years?

wait .. if Barry made gold rain from the sky that would make gold worth zero. The .... same ... way ... he .... has .... done.... with .... the ... dollars.... he ... made.... as..... plentifull .... as ...... rain.

and now we shall sing .... "If allll the rain drops were lemon drops and gum drops, OH what world this would beeee ...... standing outside with my mouth open wide ... aht ah aht aht ah aht aht aht ah aht aht ..." (if you got kids that watched Barney, you know you are singing now )

Kevin says

f Obama actually controlled the house and senate, we’d probably have single payer health care and the wars would be over already.

cough^cough^cop-out^cough^cough

Bap33 says

same … way … he …. has …. done…. with …. the … dollars…. he … made…. as….. plentifull …. as …… rain

Then how come when I went to buy shoes at DSW, it seems like I get more shoes for my dollars than I did ten or twenty years ago ?