Buuuuut-a typical politician can have that type of comment ruin his (typical remember) chances of election.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-
June 22, 2008 8:34 p.m. MrJoshua Dork
-
June 22, 2008 11:34 p.m. MitchellC New Reader
Does the typical politician also have Hillary and McCain surrounding them? Actually, I guess it's always a douche or turd sandwich...
-
June 22, 2008 11:58 p.m. Osterkraut New Reader
Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.
Get it right, people. Regular douches aren't very funny, and frankly, some of yo mommas could go for one.
-
June 23, 2008 1:47 a.m. MitchellC New Reader
Charlie, you really know your giant douches. Should I ask?
-
June 23, 2008 8:48 a.m. doitover New Reader
Exactly,
Someone told me in the late 70's that they had a professor who claimed to be ex-CIA. The professor told the class that the USSR would collapse for economic reasons due to our economy being stronger and the pressure of the cold war. I thought it was stupid at the time.
Reagan did expand the cold war in ways that we are still paying for today but the USSR would have broken up anyway. It is lucky that it happened before the current energy crisis.
Salanis wrote:
DILYSI Dave wrote: Surely you don't believe that.
I love how people who spend the most time decrying communism and saying how it's a system that inevitably collapses under its own weight credit Reagan with "defeating" the Soviets. Guess what, the USSR imploded. It was bound to happen, getting into a spending war with the U.S. helped speed that process.
-
June 23, 2008 9:48 a.m. Jensenman SuperDork
I gots a stoopid off topic question: if (as proven by history) Communism and Socialism are doomed to collapse under their own weight and Capitalism will survive, why do so many libs want to force the US in the direction of a socialist society?
I'm just askin'.
-
June 23, 2008 10:14 a.m. Duke Dork
Because they swear it won't happen here. It was all those greedy fat cats and politicians who made it not work there. It'll be different this time, honest.
Besides, until the piggy bank is totally empty, it's the easiest way to get reelected.
-
June 23, 2008 10:27 a.m. GlennS HalfDork
Pure socialism and pure capitalism both have their issues. A middle ground in between the two works a lot better. Some libs think we need to be leaning more towards socialism than we are now. The U.S. has many social programs. We are the strongest nation on earth. I think we are doing alright. If the next administration makes a real effort to reverse our nations ballooning deficit then i think we would see a big reversal in many of our nations recent woes.
-
June 23, 2008 10:29 a.m. doitover New Reader
There is a huge difference between socialism and in having public works programs, welfare, education, defense, technology research and the like. Most people seem to be totally unaware of how much "socialism" there is already in our country. Marxism is just another right wing boogeyman. No credible democratic politician is a true Marxist.
The fundamental reason that Socialism and Communism are doomed is due to absolute power corrupting absolutely. That is why we have the checks and balances we have in our government and I wonder why so many of the non-libs are so eager to give them up?
Jensenman wrote: I gots a stoopid off topic question: if (as proven by history) Communism and Socialism are doomed to collapse under their own weight and Capitalism will survive, why do so many libs want to force the US in the direction of a socialist society?
I'm just askin'.
-
June 23, 2008 10:30 a.m. Duke Dork
And how exactly do we make a real effort to reduce the deficit when we are leaning more towards socialism?
-
June 23, 2008 10:38 a.m. Salanis Dork
Duke wrote: And how exactly do we make a real effort to reduce the deficit when we are leaning more towards socialism?
Think real hard about what our government is spending all of it's money on.
Add up all of our social program expenses, and compare them to the conflict in Iraq.
I'm not a "pull out now" guy, because I know how bad that would be (although I was strongly against the war before we started). I'm just pointing out that the social agendas in this country aren't racking up deficit like the foreign ones are.
-
June 23, 2008 10:48 a.m. Duke Dork
I think both sides of the aisle are spending way too much money... that's why I don't vote for either side of the aisle.
But only socialism makes it a way of life to penalize the successful to reward the less successful.
-
June 23, 2008 10:48 a.m. MrJoshua Dork
Its not all dept of defense.
-
June 23, 2008 10:52 a.m. GlennS HalfDork
Duke wrote: And how exactly do we make a real effort to reduce the deficit when we are leaning more towards socialism?
Well generaly you either cut spending in other areas or raise taxes. I know of one big area where we seem to be throwing good money after bad. If we got rid of that then it wouldnt be nearly as big of a problem.
-
June 23, 2008 11:01 a.m. Salanis Dork
MrJoshua wrote: Its not all dept of defense.
Fair enough. Thanks for the source.
I think we could get a long way if we can cut our debt expenditures. Social security is failing. I haven't met anyone in my generation expecting to actually see anything from it. I wonder what is actually covered under "Health and Human Services".
I still say this war has been a horrific waste of money and we'll feel the economic effect of it for quite a long while.
Edit: Actually, this graph isn't really against my "this war is spending us into the ground" sentiment. I'm betting a huge chunk of that debt being paid off is due to the war spending.
-
June 23, 2008 11:58 a.m. MrJoshua Dork
Defense vs. Social security/Medicare/Medicaid
Defense as a percent of GDP
The future
-
June 23, 2008 12:08 p.m. Salanis Dork
Source of these graphs?
The first two don't seem to jive with the earlier federalbudget.com graph. In that one, the Dept. of Defense looks like it's about 20% of the national budget. I'd also like to know how this source defines "Entitlement Spending". That does raise red-flags regarding bias. "Entitlement" is a catch phrase of strongly right-leaning organizations. Statistics are a great way to twist facts.
-
June 23, 2008 12:11 p.m. MrJoshua Dork
This link has all the graphs. Below each graph is the source. clicky clicky
-
June 23, 2008 12:27 p.m. MrJoshua Dork
Defense V education (in $2005)
From here: Jonstonarchive.net
-
June 23, 2008 12:33 p.m. Salanis Dork
What point are you trying to make with this graph? This is not indicative of the federal budget.
These figures also appear to be flawed. They count all levels of education spending, but not all levels of defense spending. As I understand, states help fund their national guard, but those numbers are left out of this figure. (I fully admit that I might be mistaken about state funding of the Guard.)
-
June 23, 2008 1:01 p.m. GlennS HalfDork
what happened between 1940 and 1945 that caused the big spike in defence spending!!!! i detect an outlier
jk
-
June 23, 2008 1:22 p.m. ignorant SuperDork
I got graphs too
-
June 23, 2008 2:26 p.m. GlennS HalfDork
im glad your not hungry like hippo. Hungry hipo presents a choking hazard.
-
June 23, 2008 3:54 p.m. SupraWes HalfDork
Duke wrote: And how exactly do we make a real effort to reduce the deficit when we are leaning more towards socialism?
Clinton did a pretty good job of both of those but nobody wants to give him credit for it.
-
June 23, 2008 4:25 p.m. Dr. Hess SuperDork
Uncle Bill did it be devastating our military and pretending that outside problems didn't exist.
