Your link is 404, but rest assured, I tracked it down.
Sorry.
You didn't really bother READING your link
Did you?
The "war budget"
Yeah. War budget. It's been over 200 years since this country faced an invasion, and more than 20 years since the fall of the U.S.S.R. We're surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two large, friendly nations. Our actual defense needs are miniscule.
Which means that $1.2 trillion isn't for defense. It's for war.
The "war budget" is well over a trillion a year? Really?
Obviously. Read the damn link - Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Department of Energy managing our nuclear weapons - it's all war spending, but not counted in the official DOD budget so the latter looks smaller.
Driving a gas guzzler by choice, not necessity, is a form of expression? Well, I guess Pete Hoekestra type analogies are indeed a protected form of expression.
My grocey store isn't on a rail line. Neither is the local mall, nor any other place I shop, really, nor my apartment when I order online.
Sure sure, but the parent wasn't arguing for the elimination of trucking, but rather using rail when possible instead. Walk and chew bubble gum...you can be against urban cowboys driving F-250's that have never had their box filled or been outside of Dallas, but know that plenty of farmers and businesses actually need them....
No. It's the customers who are skinflints. You have to inflate the price of your products
Zombie Lie. All prices are already set to maximize revenue. If a company will make money from a price increase, they'll go right ahead raise them. What, you actually think businesses sit around with their old prices until it's time to "pass along a cost of living increase", when they could have been making that much more money the whole time?
You have to inflate the price of your products if you are paying high salaries. If you do that, companies from other countries will beat you on price.
Funny how this never applies to the executive level. That software developer, the one that's written two books for O'Reilly, that has 15 years experience, two masters degrees and 8 languages under his belt should just take one for the team and accept a salary of $60,000 a year. Because otherwise, the CEO might have to skimp on the executive hooker budget, or settle for a Gulfstream 3 instead of a Gulfstream 4.
Won't be true for our cohort, we're going to get less (if anything), but the scare quotes are deserved.
Nope, the scare quotes are still a Big Lie.
On balance, today's retirees are going to withdraw more from SS than they put in.
A Zombie Lie that just wont die. Lifespans have gone up - but only for the upper middle class and the rich. For poor minorities they've actually started to decline.
Not-increasing lifespans + giant cut to benefits from a hike in the eligibility age = Big Lie.
If we were to reduce defense spending by 30%, we'd still have $500B+ deficits every year. If we ZEROED defense spending, we'd still be running a deficit every year.
No, we wouldn't. Because the actual war budget is well over a trillion a year.
The 17th amendment forced states to have popular elections for senators. Where are we now?
Without the massive corruption that had businesses flat-out buying Senators. Anti-seventeenthirs always seem to leave that part out of the storyline, for some reason, or why the old way was superior beyond a "popular passions" talking point.
Taking the context of the thread, the post you responded to was a giant WHOOOSH over your head. He was obviously saying that the geographical divisions are about as relevant to him today as the 3rd Amendment, not making pronouncements on Constitutional law.
True, but your original post neglected to mention the Nebraska counterexample and made an unqualified statement.
Except that's not so much a counter-example as a false-equivalency. Changing from a winner-take-all system to one that awards votes proportionally is pro-democratic. Awarding votes by (heavily gerrymandered) Congressional districts is the opposite of that.
Because if the Republicans get their way, it will be possible for the popular vote winner to lose the election not just at the federal level, but now on the state level as well. So Nebraska would only be a relevant comparison if it allowed Democrats to claim a majority of it's EC votes, as opposed to one or two. And that's assuming Democrats were the ones to pass that law in the first place, in a heavily Republican state.
So what you're saying is that any election in which a Democrat did or could win is a fair and legitimate election but all those other pesky elections where all those damn Republican State Senators, Representatives, and Governors were elected were all just frauds. Or maybe they didn't happen?
No. That's you either missing the point, or being willfully obtuse to dodge it.
If a candidate wins a district by an 80% margin, it's a good sign that it's been gerrymandered by the opposing party. This way you get to win five districts by a few points, while losing one by 40 points. It's why blue Austin, TX, has been represented by three Republicans.
I got your criteria right here: Ronald Reagan would have a tough time clearing a Democratic primary in 2016, much less a Republican one, because he's too far to the left. Obama is to Reagan's right on cutting SS and Medicare, rights for terror suspects, assassinating Americans, torture, covering up Wall Street fraud, extending tax cuts for the rich, and on war spending.
Party labels don't mean shit, it's actions that count. No one would call abortion rights or gun control "conservative issues" just because a Republican like Mike Boomberg supports them, would they? Of course not. By the same token, far out right wing policy like the NDAA doesn't become "liberal" just because a Democrat like Obama supports them.
So...that's a false equivalence. Splitting a states electoral votes proportionally to the candidates is not remotely close to awarding a state's votes by it's (heavily gerrymandered) Congressional districts.
Defenders of the Electoral College often claim that if it was abolished, then Presidential candidates would only bother campaigning in the big states and ignore everyone else. But under the current situation, we have an even worse situation: the campaigns are largely restricted to a handful of states that happen to be almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
There's another reason why that's a false talking point: elections wouldn't go by the most populous states or cities, they would go by major media markets. Rhode Island is tiny in both land and population. But it's still covered by the NYC-DC media market. Rural Pennsylvania can get pretty damned rural - but it's still covered by the Pittsburgh-NYC media market.
As the vast majority of the population lives within a major media market, this would serve the vast majority of the population just fine. Sure, this would leave Montana out in the cold - but that wouldn't exactly be a change, would it?
I haven't run the numbers, but the electoral college favors less populous states by guaranteeing a minimum of 3 electoral votes.
Mathematically interesting, but not functionally effective. The only votes that really matter in U.S. elections are those in "battleground" states. Politicians will fight over Ohio, but a vote in California is as irrelevant as a vote in Alaska.
Of course, Bush grew the federal deficit by more than twice what Obama has...
Citation needed. The last Bush deficit - FY2008 - was $461 billion. FY2009 was signed by President Obama and had a $1.4 trillion deficit. Since then, every year (not budget - there hasn't been one for 3+ years) has seen more than $1 trillion in deficit spending. The actual facts are that President Obama more than tripled the worst President Bush deficit - and has seen those deficits hold over his entire first term.
From your own citation, the parts you left out:
"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."
So, a budget was written by Bush, and had the final spending bills - not total - signed by his successor means Bush had nothing to do with the 2009 deficit because....why?
Citations? Citations? You need citations that pushing massive tax cuts for the rich while starting an illegal,unnecessary War of Terror had a weeee bit of a negative impact on the nations finances?
Do you remember what happened when he actually tried to close it? Congress refused to let it happen.
It's 2013, and people are still repeating that tired fucking lie? Do you also think that Obama was "forced" into supporting military detention and naming Monsanto execs to the FDA?
Secretary Clinton and President Obama were asleep at the wheel even more than President Bush was regarding the 9/11 intelligence.
That's just proving the point that the Republicans lost any touch with reality over Bengahzi. A military assault on a CIA base in a warzone is comparable to "now you've covered your ass" on direct warnings that Al Queda was "determined" to attack the U.S. and might use hijacked planes to do so?
Try them where? Last time we even suggested it, all the states called foul and started a "zomg a terrorist comin' to arr state" campaign.
There's nothing stopping Obama from sending an Article III judge to Gitmo to conduct federal trials there. I can't believe that people are still passing around this canard that Obama was "blocked" by Congress. There's lots of good candidates to chose from, but that one should be Lie of the Decade.
So we punish the fiscal irresponsibility of Repubs by voting for even more irresponsible spending by Dems?
In some alternate universe where Reagan didn't invent the trillion-dollar national debt, where Dubbya didn't pass budget busting tax cuts while waging two illegal wars of choice, and where Dubbya didn't hand an economy in the grips of a depression into the hands of his Democratic successor?
That Obama has chosen to continue the Republican mess of wars and tax cuts for the rich does nothing to change the fact that those problems were created by Republicans in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry.
Did you?
Yeah. War budget. It's been over 200 years since this country faced an invasion, and more than 20 years since the fall of the U.S.S.R. We're surrounded by the world's largest oceans and two large, friendly nations. Our actual defense needs are miniscule.
Which means that $1.2 trillion isn't for defense. It's for war.
Obviously. Read the damn link - Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Department of Energy managing our nuclear weapons - it's all war spending, but not counted in the official DOD budget so the latter looks smaller.
So, you're holding dozens of hundreds of people responsible for what one person shouted?
Nice try though.
Driving a gas guzzler by choice, not necessity, is a form of expression? Well, I guess Pete Hoekestra type analogies are indeed a protected form of expression.
Sure sure, but the parent wasn't arguing for the elimination of trucking, but rather using rail when possible instead. Walk and chew bubble gum...you can be against urban cowboys driving F-250's that have never had their box filled or been outside of Dallas, but know that plenty of farmers and businesses actually need them....
So, yes, you are answering a stereotype with a hippie punching drivel stereotype.
Good to know!
Zombie Lie. All prices are already set to maximize revenue. If a company will make money from a price increase, they'll go right ahead raise them. What, you actually think businesses sit around with their old prices until it's time to "pass along a cost of living increase", when they could have been making that much more money the whole time?
Funny how this never applies to the executive level. That software developer, the one that's written two books for O'Reilly, that has 15 years experience, two masters degrees and 8 languages under his belt should just take one for the team and accept a salary of $60,000 a year. Because otherwise, the CEO might have to skimp on the executive hooker budget, or settle for a Gulfstream 3 instead of a Gulfstream 4.
Nope, the scare quotes are still a Big Lie.
A Zombie Lie that just wont die. Lifespans have gone up - but only for the upper middle class and the rich. For poor minorities they've actually started to decline.
Not-increasing lifespans + giant cut to benefits from a hike in the eligibility age = Big Lie.
No, we wouldn't. Because the actual war budget is well over a trillion a year.
Without the massive corruption that had businesses flat-out buying Senators. Anti-seventeenthirs always seem to leave that part out of the storyline, for some reason, or why the old way was superior beyond a "popular passions" talking point.
Taking the context of the thread, the post you responded to was a giant WHOOOSH over your head. He was obviously saying that the geographical divisions are about as relevant to him today as the 3rd Amendment, not making pronouncements on Constitutional law.
Except that's not so much a counter-example as a false-equivalency. Changing from a winner-take-all system to one that awards votes proportionally is pro-democratic. Awarding votes by (heavily gerrymandered) Congressional districts is the opposite of that.
Because if the Republicans get their way, it will be possible for the popular vote winner to lose the election not just at the federal level, but now on the state level as well. So Nebraska would only be a relevant comparison if it allowed Democrats to claim a majority of it's EC votes, as opposed to one or two. And that's assuming Democrats were the ones to pass that law in the first place, in a heavily Republican state.
No. That's you either missing the point, or being willfully obtuse to dodge it.
If a candidate wins a district by an 80% margin, it's a good sign that it's been gerrymandered by the opposing party. This way you get to win five districts by a few points, while losing one by 40 points. It's why blue Austin, TX, has been represented by three Republicans.
I got your criteria right here: Ronald Reagan would have a tough time clearing a Democratic primary in 2016, much less a Republican one, because he's too far to the left. Obama is to Reagan's right on cutting SS and Medicare, rights for terror suspects, assassinating Americans, torture, covering up Wall Street fraud, extending tax cuts for the rich, and on war spending.
Party labels don't mean shit, it's actions that count. No one would call abortion rights or gun control "conservative issues" just because a Republican like Mike Boomberg supports them, would they? Of course not. By the same token, far out right wing policy like the NDAA doesn't become "liberal" just because a Democrat like Obama supports them.
So...that's a false equivalence. Splitting a states electoral votes proportionally to the candidates is not remotely close to awarding a state's votes by it's (heavily gerrymandered) Congressional districts.
The popular vote winner losing a (stolen) election isn't a problem?
There's the distinction, but where's the difference?
There's another reason why that's a false talking point: elections wouldn't go by the most populous states or cities, they would go by major media markets. Rhode Island is tiny in both land and population. But it's still covered by the NYC-DC media market. Rural Pennsylvania can get pretty damned rural - but it's still covered by the Pittsburgh-NYC media market.
As the vast majority of the population lives within a major media market, this would serve the vast majority of the population just fine. Sure, this would leave Montana out in the cold - but that wouldn't exactly be a change, would it?
Mathematically interesting, but not functionally effective. The only votes that really matter in U.S. elections are those in "battleground" states. Politicians will fight over Ohio, but a vote in California is as irrelevant as a vote in Alaska.
From your own citation, the parts you left out:
"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."
So, a budget was written by Bush, and had the final spending bills - not total - signed by his successor means Bush had nothing to do with the 2009 deficit because....why?
Citations? Citations? You need citations that pushing massive tax cuts for the rich while starting an illegal, unnecessary War of Terror had a weeee bit of a negative impact on the nations finances?
It's 2013, and people are still repeating that tired fucking lie? Do you also think that Obama was "forced" into supporting military detention and naming Monsanto execs to the FDA?
That's just proving the point that the Republicans lost any touch with reality over Bengahzi. A military assault on a CIA base in a warzone is comparable to "now you've covered your ass" on direct warnings that Al Queda was "determined" to attack the U.S. and might use hijacked planes to do so?
If you're Pete Hoekstra, maybe.
Of course that's not the reason why he hasn't closed Gitmo. Obama hasn't closed Gitmo because he himself is a crazy right wing extremist.
There's nothing stopping Obama from sending an Article III judge to Gitmo to conduct federal trials there. I can't believe that people are still passing around this canard that Obama was "blocked" by Congress. There's lots of good candidates to chose from, but that one should be Lie of the Decade.
In some alternate universe where Reagan didn't invent the trillion-dollar national debt, where Dubbya didn't pass budget busting tax cuts while waging two illegal wars of choice, and where Dubbya didn't hand an economy in the grips of a depression into the hands of his Democratic successor?
That Obama has chosen to continue the Republican mess of wars and tax cuts for the rich does nothing to change the fact that those problems were created by Republicans in the first place.
Obviously, by cutting every program and area of public spending that doesn't directly enrich Goldman Sachs.
Public education, public health care, minimum wage, labor laws....