So, Who'has read all the way through Obama's Budget?Follow

I have mixed emotions about it. There's not really enough work to keep me busy, so I'm expecting the axe any minute now. Then again, I think my management loves the fact that any assignment they give me flies off my desk.

All I really want out of this job is enough money to pay off my miniscule amount of debt. If it lasts that long, I'll be a happy camper. In the meantime I can satisfy my conscience with the fact that I'm syphoning money away from an evil corporation.

Yeah, have fun with all that.

Apparently varrus's mommy never taught him to share.

Edited, Mar 6th 2009 10:49am by AshOnMyTomatoes

Exactly. Which is why I think it's hilarious when you try to worry me with things that scare you.

You had a chance with your "OMG theft at the point of a gun! Scary socialism!" message. You guys fucked it up and lost the last couple elections. Tough cookies

If the gummint would stop taxing me, I could afford the $4.35 million for my own M1 Abrams battle tank.

False dilemma. We're not arguing against all taxes. We're arguing against unnecessarily high taxes brought on by unnecessarily high spending.

Just because someone is willing to pay taxes to support the military does not mean that person *must* also be willing to pay taxes for a host of other things that are far less critical to the defense and stability of our nation. It's patently false to imply otherwise.

This is doubly relevant when the economy is in the tank. Who possibly thinks that the response to a failing economy is for the government to spend more money? I guess I just can't get over this. And I *really* can't understand how those who were such deficit hawks just a few years ago, today seem not to care anymore. It lays bare that those complaints weren't about deficit at all, but purely about finding something with which to attack the "other side".

Later. When I want to. When I decide I'm bothered by it or whatever. Sorry if this doesn't work for you.Awesome. Really, I'm still pleased as punch. Obama presented a plan for Iraq which is almost identical to one I came up with a year and change ago in some thread Kao created. He's angling now for healthcare reform towards something I want. He's going to overturn a the stem cell executive order which I've wanted for years. SCHIP was expanded. The widescale opening of federal lands for drilling was rescinded. Schools can use federal grant money to teach about condoms. This is the shit I voted Democrat for.

Since 2005, I've used the word "deficit" on this forum 16 times, not counting this thread. Almost all of those times I was quoting someone else or else using it in a non-monentary sense. In that same period, I've used "embryonic" 62 times.

Am I happy? Yeah, I'm plenty happy As I said to Varrus, you're trying to scare me with your boogeymen.Joke, you fucking ******. The comment was a JOKE.

How about in October, when the yearly deficit number ceases to be a projection and becomes fact?




Er. He's following Bush's plan. What exact change did he employ here? Maybe he switched up the exact order in which troops would leave Iraq after stabilizing the nation. Oh wait! If Obama had had his way, that wouldn't have happened...



Uh huh. While lying to the public and claiming that this wasn't the agenda, but it was really really just about balancing the budget and ending the war in Iraq. I know that *you* wanted this stuff, but most voters did not and still do not. They were convinced to vote for Obama, not because of his social spending plans, but because of his promises regarding the economy and the war. Promises which he's failed to meet on the one hand, and were irrelevant on the other.

When these very things were brought up by conservatives (not specifically on this board, but in the broader media), the overwhelming response was a downplay of these policies, and focus on the economy and war on terror. It's amusing when a political party has to downplay what it really wants to do in order to get elected, and sad that it works and so many people are then shocked when they don't do the things that got them elected, but instead pursue the policies that they wanted, that conservatives warned that they wanted, but that the public at large was convinced really wasn't on the table.

Yes. I know that doesn't apply to you specifically. But it's been disgusting seeing this play out on the public stage over the last year. Worse, when it was so obvious to us conservatives that exactly what is happening would happen. They'd ignore the economy (actually make it worse). They'd downplay the war on terror (shuffling folks around, but not really changing anything). And they'd relentlessly pursue all the social spending programs which the American public has universally opposed for the last 30+ years.


I guess you might feel good about that after all. But it's a dishonest good feeling. Or it should be. You aren't getting these things because the public discussed it and decided that you were right all along Joph. You're getting these things because your political leaders lied successfully to the voters and are rushing to get those things in place before the voters realize what's going on. No one voted these people into power so they could nationalize health care, or change the funding rules for stem cell research, or close off oil drilling, or any of those other things that you care about so much.


I just wonder how it can feel good, when you didn't win the popular support for those things, but are sneaking them in. Don't you think you should have a majority of people agree with you first?



You've posted in threads about deficit and national debt a whole lot more often than that though. And it's not like your position has been unclear either. I know that for you, it was just a means to attack the Bush administration. But that's the point. You (and a lot of liberals) are perfectly happy taking up the mantle of any position purely to use it to attack the other side. Winning power is more important to you as a group than being honest about what it important to you. As I pointed out above, you don't win power on the strength of the policies you wish to pursue, but on other things. You find ways to make people unhappy with Republicans, so you'll win elections, not on your own merits, but as a backlash against perceived Republican failures. You win elections on campaigns that promise things other than those you're actually gong to pursue.


I just don't see how that would make one feel good. It's "winning", I suppose. But only in the most shallow meaning of the word.

Er. That's been the Bush plan from day one. It's just that he had to, you know... succeed in Iraq first. I know. That's a shocking concept. You succeed and *then* you bring the troops home. Amazing!






We discussed this before during the campaign Joph. Those things were certainly listed on the Obama site, where the faithful read them, but where the majority of average voters almost certainly never did.

We going to repeat the argument about Obama's support for nuclear power again? Where he listed it on his site, but denied and downplayed it when giving speeches and press statements? The majority of voters only see what the news shows them. Those issues were hardly mentioned, much less highlighted during the campaign. Health care is mentioned in the debates for example, but aside from vague statements about "fixing health care", there isn't much meat. Certainly, the kind of spending that I'm sure you'd like to see was not even remotely revealed to the average viewer.


And what's really funny is that when conservatives pointed out that when Obama said "fix health care" or "reform health care", he didn't mean "make it more cost effective". He meant "increase the size and scope of socialized medicine". But when we did this, they got shooed away. Oh no. Of course he's not going to do that. And that's on the political shows. In the mainstream press? It was pretty much just ignored. It was a sound bite that made it sound like he had a plan, without really going into detail.

Go look at a transcript of the second debate Joph. Health care is mentioned many times, but it's funny how no details are really discussed. Obama spins the issue consistently back to bashing McCain's "plan" to lower taxes without really explaining what his health care plan would be or how it would work. Of course, again, when conservatives pointed out how vague he was and how he just turned everything around to an attack on Bush policies, we got derided for questioning the brilliance of Obama...


Look. Whatever. I've just seen a pattern of Obama (Democrat in general actually) running on a platform of "Not Bush", while being very very quiet about the details of their actual agenda. Sure. You may see the wins as a mandate from the masses, but it really wasn't. And I think as more of the sort of spending we've seen so far continues, the pendulum of public support will shift from hopeful optimism, to concern, to raging panic as the American people realize that their leaders aren't doing what they thought they were going to do, but are just using those promises to buy them enough time to make all the changes they concealed from the public when they were running for election.


It's just got to be strange supporting politicians who don't run on their own strengths, but rather try to get the public to focus only on their opponents weaknesses. I seem to recall stating on many occasions that you run the risk of getting leaders who have an agenda you don't agree with, and I suspect that a whole lot of Americans are starting to realize this.


The more the Dems pass these social spending bills, the less support they have. That should tell you something about what the people actually want. Everything else is just window dressing...

The thinking for military budgeting is spending less money by spending more moeny. We use M-198 howitzers because they're still there. We could be swimming in M-777 howitzers, which fires the 155 round just like the 198, but we could be shooting them more quickly and with a smaller crew.

We wouldn't have as high of a demand for canoneers as the job can now be done more efficiently with fewer people. Now they don't have to shell out ridiculous (I got $35,000) ammounts on enlistment bonuses and reenlistment incentives for canoneers.

When it comes to things like computers and mechanics, the cost cutting gets even easier. You can pay an E-3 about 25 grand a year (roughly) to do the same job that someone might spend years in school for to make six figures. Now you compare what it might cost to build one plane that can outperform any aircraft we have today. Automate enough systems and you start taking people out of the tower. Make it run more efficiently and you take mechanics off your carriers, and you won't need to blow as much dough on spare parts.

Basically, if we're to work with a rapidly shrinking military due to problems that are rising and vastly hurting our numbers, we need to be more efficient. Things like PTSD, TBI, suicide, and recruiters under pressure to fill quotas and sending us soldiers unfit for duty put a huge strain on those of us who are actually able to perform our daily tasks.