The U.S. Defense Budget, Explained with OREO Cookies

I don't drink till I get home, however they were Sr.'s tax reforms that started that, and Clinton just got the credit for it.

Nobody said "They are all the same" I've said that both parties are responsible for undisciplined spending.

Your naivite still abounds if you don't know that republicans led the house of representatives for the bulk of Clintons presidency. (1995-2001) Remember how we've been talking about how the Congress controls spending???

You also seem to forget that clinton had nothing to do with emerging global markets and communication (internet commerce, growing democracies in eastern europe, cheap oil)

You're naive despite your protests

and i wasn't talking to you personally, but since you're taking it that way, i presume i struck a common chord.



duh, i -do- remember; i freakin' lived it. and your own 'special ed prez' will have his own epitaphal timeline too.



'remember how'?? so effing contemptuous. you're on the short list, bucko.

'congress controls spending'? uh-huh. so what's a presidential veto? what's a judicial injunction?

that's the idea. no -one- controls spending. all have to finally agree, and it's a contest of compromises. i know which side you're on, and you're afraid of losing control.



that's right, a president presides and -assists- the public and the world at large. so don't give jr. any more credit than he's due (which has been a running debt since even before he started).



i -handed- you the 'naive' line, sucker. and you forgot a period.

Forbes Ranks Clinton best for economy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/21/16338/9537
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

Republican Economist: Clinton's Economy Was Better
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/8/112326/0365

Bush impacts economy into the negative...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/12/174731/060
"According to this in the L.A. Times, worker pay for the last 14 months has trailed inflation. In real dollars, workers have taken a tiny pay cut.

But not to worry: In the same time frame, corporate profits hit record highs . . . and the tax rate on dividends paid out of those profits has been slashed by 62% since President Bush took office. (I know some of you think relatively little cash is involved, but $441 billion was paid out in personal dividends in 2004, most of it to those already best off.)

The most outspokenly religious president in our history, Bush's unique interpretation of Christ's philosophy is to cut programs for the poor while slashing taxes for the rich."

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

meanwhile, on the other side of the fence...


Why is this okay? $55,000 a minute!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/business/24cnd-oil.html?hp&ex=1153886400&en=86df22e06a68f946&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/25/14461/7814
i recently read a phrase... OIL COMPANYS RICHER THAN GOD. think about it... frankly, it's quite true. those with the most money get to run the show... an abomination of 'the customer is always right.'


$5 billion more in tax giveaways to big oil. And it gets worse.
"The original law, as currently written would provide big oil with $700,000,000 in ANNUAL tax breaks through 2016.

...New revenue data from the independent congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, requested by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), show a gusher of subsidies- as much as $700 million every year- is flowing to oil and natural gas companies at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, because of an unearned and necessary windfall given away by the Republican majority. The price tag exceeds $5 billion over ten years - at least $1.4 billion more than previous estimates." (WHY DO THEY NEED TAX BREAKS?!?!? THEY'RE -ALREADY- MAKING MONEY!!! oh, that 'fluffy flip-flopper' john kerry!!!)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/16/112540/817


Shell Oil prez: "If We Lower Prices, You'll Run Out"
"John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Company, tells NBC's "Today" show that lowering the wholesale price arbitrarily could cause a run on gasoline, which could then run out." (WITHOUT CUTTING HIS OWN PAY...)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/23/115639/877

when is 'rich' not rich enough, people?

See, this has nothing to do with a President. Congress can override a Presidential VETO. Congress is granted the responsibility of the purse, not the President. Sure, we all know that the President acts as an advocate for certain budget PROPOSALS, but that is the only influence he/she has

If you want to believe that "your" presidential candidate (to be determined) can do anything significant about spending then you are naive despite your assertion (similar to "protest" but less confusing for you) that you "will never be that naive again."

Did I get all the proper punctuation in this time?

yeah, sure... override a presidential veto - when has -that- EVER happened??????????? name one occurance.

and frankly, through the whole 'oreo' conversation, you seem to lack the ability of sooooooo many poor, uneducated americans... the ability to discern 'millions' from 'billions'; the resulting net worth of investment in growth sectors like... um, -EDUCATION- (last i heard, only -50 MILLION- to restore public education for all to a world standard)??? ... new orleans could've been saved by two days worth of iraq. shoring up the levees = 250 million; two days in iraq = PRICELESS... or so the neocons/oil co.s want you to believe...

but, sure, okay, we can afford it. ummmm.... no, actually, -china- can afford it. we just loan now. (and cut tax for the rich at the same time...)



read my links list appended to my last message if you wish to continue that conversation.



no, you missed another period, end of first paragraph, and a comma mid-second.

(and gee, you sure love the word 'naive' since i, again, -HANDED- it to you.)

and actually, i take it back... you -do- know your millions from your billions... don't you?

Well, really you have tried to assert that the political parties are different. I agree with that assertion, completely. But, I can't allow you to assert that REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS are better or worse as a party when it comes to inherent fiscal self-control.

They are equally self-interested and corrupt (the nature of politics and government).

For this reason (which seems to be an obvious truth) I suggest that we discuss PROscriptive remedies to reign in budget problems.

I don't see Defense spending as the problem, though perhaps a symptom of fiscal irresponsibility. Reasonable constraints, and enforcable consequences as well as a flexibility to respond to unforeseen needs is exactly the type of controls that need to be developed for Congress.

How can you possibly make this a partisan discussion when we are talking about the procedures and responsibilites of all of Congress.

Oh, I guess you can make it partisan if you want to imagine that GW is an idiot destroying America and Bill Clinton should be king

First of all, this post is incomprehensible. However, I did understand your little jab at my educational level and general intelligence. I'm not about to engage in a "mine's bigger than yours" debate with you. You may very well be a hyper educated genius for all I know.

So, the Department of Education website states that the total federal budget 2007 for education is 64 BILLION US$. States, cities and local districts account for the remaining education spending which will reach approximately 560 BILLION US$ annually. This surpasses all discretionary and non-discretionary Defence Spending.

You are right to assert that the Federal Governement doesn't spend much on education. However, the states, cities and local governments are responsible for their schools, not the Federal Government.

Again, I'm not arguing that taxpayer money can't be spent better. I'm asserting that CONGRESS is responsible for how money is budgeted on the federal level. Take your issues to them, not GW.

well, yiffie!! they are. one hasn't completely flat-out corrupted the other, and the other -has.- the turing test for you then is, 'is one then better than the other?'



agreed; -it's just a name.- that's why extra-financial (or other forms of bribery) need disengaged from political reasoning at all costs (tax reductions included). i don't care whether it's green, libertarian, socialist, communist, or whatever... -THEY MUST HOLD TRUE TO THE CAUSE OF THE PEOPLE.-

that's why 'we' (dailykos.com types don't hold with liederman. that's why we've held hard, questioning stances with obama, (hillary) clinton, even lately, barbara boxer. that's why we let what'shisname (can't remember now; too late to look him up) get busted for all that money in his drawer on capital hill. (and remember how the repubs got allllll in a tizzy when 'we' current democrats said, "sure, take him. the money's in the drawer, get him out." now -that- unnerved the repubs a -lot-....)

that's why 'we' scare a lot of people. and provide hope to many, many, many more.



well, again, a 'yiffie'. it's like, 'duh'... we're all on the same side, and we don't know fucking why you hold us so far ascance. (actually... WE -DO- KNOW.

we -know- you; you're policies are simple and short-sighted. your views and policies are presented every night on the news, with zero - even -negative- result analysis. that's why colbert handed the journalist's asses to them on a plate as well, as well as a redfaced jr.'s (ass), at the white house press dinner two months back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOprXKpuVRc&search=colbert%20white%20house%20press%20dinner



yah, like the -REALITY- of needing to BORROW MONEY FROM CHINA to maintain a 10X DEFENSE AGAINST RUSSIA AND CHINA COMBINED. (and russia was our friend again... until, ummm, recently...)

-only- makes sense, if you're making a fight to profit from the fight. (and who's gonna -really- 'PROFIT'??? wanna see the u.s.a. live out the past near-100 years of -russia,- for crying out loud???)



YOU'RE THE ONE ARGUING WITH OREOS!!!!!!



you're being -PRESUMPTUOUS- again.

-JR.- wants to be king. clinton never said, 'dictatorship's much easier. as long as i'm dictator.'

btw, i want to reiterate the original intent of the original poster:

WATCH THIS!!! ALLLLLL THE WAY THRU... esp. you want to start at 4 minutes in, if at first you don't have time to contemplate it all...
http://videosift.com/story.php?id=6415

that's the thing, isn't it? 'having the time' to contemplate it all.

preserve net neutrality. (you wouldn't have just seen that if it hadn't been preserved.)

fight diebold. (your votes mean nothing without a paper trail.)

i leave you to your homework.
getting smarter is hard work.
work hard. play harder.

http://www.dailykos.com/
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/