We may be in another recession already.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Bush had to build homeland security and he won his war. Obamas surge was a huge failure. Now he wants to put in a def sec who wanted to quit Iraq before the surge. That would have led to chaos and secertian violence on Syrias scale. Bush JR has been proven right that Saddam Hussien could be eliminated and have the country get more stable each yr. In 10-15 yrs Iraq will be light years ahead of Syria which followed the Obama hands off approach.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

I was reminded of a few key things today. The first is that the Republican party in Washington has no regrets about the Iraq War. McCain and Butters reveled in the same utter certainty of their moral and strategic high ground today as they did in the run-up to the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam, after the worst national security lapse since Pearl Harbor. Sure, we were so negligent we allowed more than 3,000 innocents to be mass-murdered not far from where I am typing this; yes, we reacted to the atrocity by bungling the search for the actual culprits, brutally torturing countless suspects (some to death), and then starting a second war on false grounds that cost a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives. But you, Mr Hagel, were wrong about the surge!

He wasn't, as I have long argued. The promise of the surge was to buy enough time and peace to get the sectarian mess of post-Saddam Iraq to resolve itself peacefully and form a viable non-sectarian polity. That hasn't happened. What we have is a Shiite authoritarian government in open conflict with both the Sunnis and the Kurds - and greater Iranian influence in the country. The surge did dampen some violence, but the collapse in mass murder was more a result of a political decision by the Anbar tribes to turn against the Sunni extremists, exhaustion after a long period of ethnic cleansing and segregation, and American money to bribe away the rest. It was a face-saver for a war that had manifestly failed.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....sterchuck.html

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by elsid13

No it not. Since 1962 the highest workforce (include the military, legislative, judicial and post office) was 6,639, 000 (1968). As of 2011 it was 4,403,000.


http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-overs...torical-Tables

The federal government is the biggest it's ever been when it's measured by expenditures even after adjusting for inflation.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Arkie

The federal government is the biggest it's ever been when it's measured by expenditures even after adjusting for inflation.

Lol really!? You're a joke.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Lol really!? You're a joke.

When was it bigger?

[cutthemdown]

It's obvious that Iraq is less of a problem now so war was worth it. Saddam and his sons were not fit to be leaders. Another N Korea in the making.

Bush Jr finished what poppy bush left behind. Saddam thumbed his nose at US power and paid the price for his support of terrorism, shooting at out our planes, and for invading kuwait when he didn't have permission. I'd say there aren't any countries outside of maybe Russia or China we would let get away with invading another country, and then staying in power.

Any leader does that your days are numbered.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

It's obvious that Iraq is less of a problem now so war was worth it. Saddam and his sons were not fit to be leaders. Another N Korea in the making.

Bush Jr finished what poppy bush left behind. Saddam thumbed his nose at US power and paid the price for his support of terrorism, shooting at out our planes, and for invading kuwait when he didn't have permission. I'd say there aren't any countries outside of maybe Russia or China we would let get away with invading another country, and then staying in power.

Any leader does that your days are numbered.

Iraq is just essentially an extension of Iran now. You're like a real life Steven Colbert.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Iraq is just essentially an extension of Iran now. You're like a real life Steven Colbert.

When was the last time Iraq shot at one of our jets or offered money to kill jews? They have been totally nuetered and taken out. Iran is probably next at some point.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by elsid13

No it not. Since 1962 the highest workforce (include the military, legislative, judicial and post office) was 6,639, 000 (1968). As of 2011 it was 4,403,000.


http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-overs...torical-Tables

If onliez we could get ourselves wrapped up in another east asian land war. Then the economy would totally fix itself. .

Our active duty forces are almost a third of what they were back then. These Keynesians really need to think through all these military cuts they love so much.

1968.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Meanwhile, in the real world...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....sterchuck.html

These two lines are comic genius. I tip my hat sir.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

It's obvious that Iraq is less of a problem now so war was worth it. Saddam and his sons were not fit to be leaders. Another N Korea in the making.

Bush Jr finished what poppy bush left behind. Saddam thumbed his nose at US power and paid the price for his support of terrorism, shooting at out our planes, and for invading kuwait when he didn't have permission. I'd say there aren't any countries outside of maybe Russia or China we would let get away with invading another country, and then staying in power.

Any leader does that your days are numbered.

So your foreign policy is that if some country wants to invade another, they just need the permission of the U.S. first, because, after all, the United States controls the world? I'm guessing the founders might have had a few issues with this interpretation. It's very Romanesque.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

If onliez we could get ourselves wrapped up in another east asian land war. Then the economy would totally fix itself. .

Our active duty forces are almost a third of what they were back then. These Keynesians really need to think through all these military cuts they love so much.

1968.

I know.
The federal workforce is only part of the spending. In 1968, it was probably half of a little pie chart. In 2013, it's just a sliver in a humongous pie chart. I'm not blaming it on Obama or any other President. They're not in charge of spending, and much of the spending is mandatory. It's just a fact it's at an all-time high.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So your foreign policy is that if some country wants to invade another, they just need the permission of the U.S. first, because, after all, the United States controls the world? I'm guessing the founders might have had a few issues with this interpretation. It's very Romanesque.

We pretend its the UN and we get enough worldwide support to not be the Romans but it's not a bad example of a republic in action. If we can stay on top half as long as them we did pretty well.

I may have made my point in a flippant manner but it still stand to reason USA won't let countries invade other countries anymore unless we are on board with it. If you do sanctions and probably military action will follow. You do agree with that right? Sure we stay out of it sometimes but if its any kind of vital area we will be responding.

No way Saddam and his family would stay in power long term after invading Kuwait. For some reason Bush sr and Clinton played games with him. Bush Jr finished him off and it was a good thing. Could you imagine Saddam and his crazy sons still be in power? who knows what they would be up to right now.

[TonyR]

What if Obama had Reagan's government spending?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

[T]hese graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama’s term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama’s GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan’s first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

We pretend its the UN and we get enough worldwide support to not be the Romans but it's not a bad example of a republic in action. If we can stay on top half as long as them we did pretty well.

I may have made my point in a flippant manner but it still stand to reason USA won't let countries invade other countries anymore unless we are on board with it. If you do sanctions and probably military action will follow. You do agree with that right? Sure we stay out of it sometimes but if its any kind of vital area we will be responding.

No way Saddam and his family would stay in power long term after invading Kuwait. For some reason Bush sr and Clinton played games with him. Bush Jr finished him off and it was a good thing. Could you imagine Saddam and his crazy sons still be in power? who knows what they would be up to right now.

Iraqi troops had already left Kuwait by the time we invaded. It was none of our business. America is not the policeman of the world.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

What if Obama had Reagan's government spending?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

"Contribution to Change in Quarterly GDP" what kind of bull**** stat is that.

Has that 'statistic' ever been used for anything ever?

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

"Contribution to Change in Quarterly GDP" what kind of bull**** stat is that.

One that's clearly way over your head. If you'd actually take the time to read the article before posting your silly criticisms you wouldn't come across looking so foolish.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Iraqi troops had already left Kuwait by the time we invaded. It was none of our business. America is not the policeman of the world.

Well its a good think France stepping up a little now to help us. We do need help I agree with 100% the days of us being able to manage the whole world are over.

Top goals should be help from China to deal with N Korea. Help from Russia and China to deal with Iran. A few more rouge nations to go and the world can move forward into a new era.

In many ways though we are the policeman of the world. But we need help. We felt much like you do after ww1 and the hands off approach was a disaster for the world.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by TonyR

One that's clearly way over your head. If you'd actually take the time to read the article before posting your silly criticisms you wouldn't come across looking so foolish.

Yes, the genius of Ezra Klein is truly beyond most of us. Maybe all of us. He's an economic idiot savant. Or at least the first part.



Oh, and what even this Factcheck graph doesn't tell you? 2009's budget was passed by a Democratic Congress and then held until Obama took office to sign it in January. A Democratic Congress and Obama presided over the largest increase in Federal spending since World War II. Your buddy Ezra just lopped off the front edge of the jump in spending and then focused on "percentage change" (as if that mattered) in a poorly-executed shell game.

"Well yeah, we're spending more than ever, but that doesn't matter because once we blew up spending, we didn't keep blowing it up as fast as when we started!"

Fact is, our federal government spent the last 4 years spending more than ever and the only thing we have to show for it is a double dip.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Fact is, our federal government spent the last 4 years spending more than ever and the only thing we have to show for it is a double dip.

The last four years witnessed the putting back on the books the deficit spending of the previous eight.

Remember, it was your boy Bush who blew up the government's finances, with not one expensive war, but two very expensive wars, a sop to the oldsters with Medicare part D, and to top it all off, he cut taxes on his hyper-rich "base".

Bush and cronies **** a ton, and you're blaming Obama for the inability of Lysol to cover up the fecal odor.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by W*GS

The last four years witnessed the putting back on the books the deficit spending of the previous eight.

Remember, it was your boy Bush who blew up the government's finances, with not one expensive war, but two very expensive wars, a sop to the oldsters with Medicare part D, and to top it all off, he cut taxes on his hyper-rich "base".

Bush and cronies **** a ton, and you're blaming Obama for the inability of Lysol to cover up the fecal odor.

We put more debt on in one year than we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in a decade. Try harder.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

We put more debt on in one year than we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan in a decade. Try harder.

Total bull****, we've spend 3-4 trillion on wars in the last decade.

Direct costs, VA, pensions, rebuilding efforts, interest costs, etc.

http://costsofwar.org/

(by Brown University)

Not to mention, the he bulk of the increase in deficit over the last decade is due to increased defense spending.

$400 bn/yr in DoD budget (above 2000 spending)
$300 bn/yr in VA, pensions, interest, etc from effects of those wars.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Total bull****, we've spend 3-4 trillion on wars in the last decade.

Direct costs, VA, pensions, rebuilding efforts, interest costs, etc.

http://costsofwar.org/

(by Brown University)

Not to mention, the he bulk of the increase in deficit over the last decade is due to increased defense spending.

$400 bn/yr in DoD budget (above 2000 spending)
$300 bn/yr in VA, pensions, interest, etc from effects of those wars.

Lulz. "Costofwar.org" vs the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-s...nd-afghanistan

Please tell me now how CBO scoring isn't credible. We can go lots of fun places with that.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Lulz. "Costofwar.org" vs the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-s...nd-afghanistan

Please tell me now how CBO scoring isn't credible. We can go lots of fun places with that.

As stated right there on the page, the CBO is only counting DoD funds and training funds/aid, which aren't even close to the amount of money actually spent.

'Between September 2001 and October 2012, lawmakers have appropriated about $1.4 trillion (including an estimated $127 billion for fiscal year 2012) for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other war-related activities. Of that funding, about $1.25 trillion has gone to the Department of Defense, with nearly $150 billion provided for training indigenous security forces and for diplomatic relations and foreign aid for Iraq and Afghanistan. "

Learn to read and learn to understand how defense spending occurs.

[Fedaykin]

And like i said, that website comes to us via Brown University one of the most well respected universities in the entire world...

[BroncoBeavis]

Fun example of the epic bull**** being spread here...

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

$300 bn/yr in VA, pensions, interest, etc from effects of those wars.

Do you realize that the entire VA budget and military pension spending combined doesn't equal $300 billion a year?

So unless you're arguing that a President Gore would've abolished the VA and ended all military pensions, it looks to me like you're smoking crack.

And lumping predicted future interest in is nice and all, but in a fair comparison, factoring interest would increase our trillion dollar budget deficits far more. But I doubt you want to go there.