"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It took a while to pay for the Reagan years.

You do know the difference between debt and deficit, right?

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Adder
Comedy that ain't.

Adder is far too PC to find humor in a satire of the Islamofascists.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• "The file you have attempted to access cannot be found."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf

[Adder]

Originally posted by bling trade
Adder is far too PC to find humor in a satire of the Islamofascists.

Satire?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yes I'm being Hank, which means I'm sticking you guys with a point you can't reconcile. . . . becasue my whole point is they are saying I'll bring them home, but not I need to send them somewhere else. Sorry NB/RT vague platitudes about Afghan/Pakistan are not the same thing as " I ain't bring troops home. I am sending them somewhere else."

Hank, those points are reconcilable, and I/we have pointed out. [Clue: The vast majority of the troops leaving Iraq would never end up in Afghanistan.]

Of course, it is speculation to say what will actually happen.

However, neither HC or Obama are saying what you claim they are saying. They just are not. Your posts present your interpretation of what they _must_ _mean_ given your perception of their audience. You may be speaking your honest belief, but I also think you just love to say that Democratic politicans are liars.

BTW -- Obama saying we must get out of Iraq and focus our resources on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not particularly vague. [But if you send in three cereal box tops, I'm sure you can get a decoder ring and access to his detailed plans for military deployments and the OOB for 2009.]

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. of course, Reagan killing the USSR made possible Clinton's dismantling of the intelligence services and crippling the military. without those cuts Clinton would have had trouble, instead of balancing the budget, I mean trouble beyond being responsible for 9/11.

Indeed, plus we've never paid down the [eta: accumulated debt from the] Reagan-era deficits and may never be able to do so.

S_A_M

[bling trade]

Hilary is so desparate. I doubt leaking pictures of Obama in traditional Kenyan dress will impact him at all; she's over. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7263783.stm

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
As I do every time you say this, I will point out that there does not seem to me to be much compunction about borrowing whatever isn't raised in tax revenues.

You know where the ultimate end game is on that, don't you? It's a way to get rid of programs down the road while making it look like you're just getting rid of reckless govt borrowing and spending.

There are a fair number of people who think the GOP's long term plan has been to break the bank and create a crisis whereby the govt has to radically downsize tons of its programs because it can't afford them, but as a simple political reality, it also can't raise taxes anywhere near what is necessary to pay for them. Bankrupt the beast, so to say, and pay out the domestic obligations at huge discounts.

ETA: I can't find the exact article on the subject, but if you google "University of Chicago" with "stiglitz" and "create a fiscal crisis" you find references.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by bling trade
Hilary is so desparate. I doubt leaking pictures of Obama in traditional Kenyan dress will impact him at all; she's over. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7263783.stm

And, although she is right, the demonstration of her frustration through sarcasm ("celestial choirs") shows she knows she is toast, and cannot understand why rank and file Dems are choosing Obama's empty sloganeering over her diligent tecnocracy.

LessinPhnomPenh, Cambodia

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...8/pdf/hist.pdf

What you say about Bush I, Clinton and discretionary spending might be true, but I'm not seeing support for it on page 59 of that document.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, because your cite wasn't specific to discretionary spending, but was more generally about outlays. And my source says the Dems cut discretionary spending (which is what happened).

Ty, didn't Spanky just say that, upon further review, his cite contradicted his point and therefore he "stands corrected"?

Why are you still arguing? I think this is where the Judge says (as I've seen once) "Sit down, counselor, you're winning."

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Our long history in the waterboarding business. The bit about the mad commander and search and destroy mission hints a little at Heart of Darkness. Anyway:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_kramer

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ty, didn't Spanky just say that, upon further review, his cite contradicted his point and therefore he "stands corrected"?

Why are you still arguing? I think this is where the Judge says (as I've seen once) "Sit down, counselor, you're winning."

S_A_M

More recently, he said: "Under Bush I in the final years he and the Demcratic Congress cut discretionary spending more than Clinton did when Clinton and the Dem controlled congress." I'm just curious. This strikes me as something that could be true, although it's not what I would have believed. So I asked for a cite. And perhaps it is true, but the page he cited doesn't show this. Either way, it doesn't change what we were arguing about earlier.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You know where the ultimate end game is on that, don't you? It's a way to get rid of programs down the road while making it look like you're just getting rid of reckless govt borrowing and spending.

There isn't much sign of that end game coming about.

There are a fair number of people who think the GOP's long term plan has been to break the bank and create a crisis whereby the govt has to radically downsize tons of its programs because it can't afford them, but as a simple political reality, it also can't raise taxes anywhere near what is necessary to pay for them. Bankrupt the beast, so to say, and pay out the domestic obligations at huge discounts.

ETA: I can't find the exact article on the subject, but if you google "University of Chicago" with "stiglitz" and "create a fiscal crisis" you find references.

This is a recipe for revolution, and more than a little reckless.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
This is a recipe for revolution, and more than a little reckless.

By who? Who will revolt? And if there was one, how would that revolt be any less than the revolt we will feel if any idiot gets in office and tries to soak the middle and upper middle class to pay for these uncontrolled entitlement programs?

Anyway, I don't know if I buy the theory, but there are a number of prominent scholars behind it.