http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/pentagon-fiscal-2012-war-request-to-be-lowest-since-fiscal-2005.html

Quote :

"The Obama administration’s plan to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will cut the Pentagon’s war budget by $42 billion -- a 26 percent decrease from this year’s level, according to government officials. The proposed $117 billion for fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, would be the lowest expenditure for the wars since fiscal 2005. "

A step in the right direction, +1 Cred.

1/22/2011 10:54:29 AM

^I agree, it is good to see. Wars eventually do end. Lets hope obamacare gets repealed too, would save a ton. Although some of the reforms could stay, they wouldnt cost taxpayers directly.

1/22/2011 11:13:52 AM

How is it that if the health care bill is repealed, the CBO says that it will end up costing somewhere over a hundred billion dollars, but anecdotally people still imagine that the health care changes are costing us money?

1/22/2011 3:19:30 PM

I would think you would agree that the plan is for the health care changes to last more than 10 yrs?

The CBO can only score the info it was given. In that info is 10 yrs of taxes and 6 yrs of service. That is the simple way of putting it. And that is assuming that the estimates arent WAY off, like every other entitlement est. has proven over history. Or just look at romneycare for their cost overruns.

1/22/2011 3:22:02 PM

^classic tea bagger, backs the numbers when it works for them....if it does not, the numbers are wrong or there is some other reason the numbers are wrong....in fact, it will save money.....but twist it all you want....

1/22/2011 5:31:33 PM

Save money for who? The government? It's definitely not going to save the consumer anything, because it fails to address any of the underlying issues that cause health care (and health insurance) to be so costly.

1/22/2011 5:39:01 PM

Weekly Radio/Online Address:


West Wing Week:

1/22/2011 6:21:20 PM

^^^ how the fuck do you figure it saves money? They took 250b out of it by PUTTING IT IN ANOTHER BILL. Ever heard of the "Doctor Fix?" Yeah, that's 250b, which was originally in the bill, but they took it out. I'm no mathematician, but -184b + 250b is greater than 0, right? And that's if you believe the actual numbers, and ignore what was already pointed out, that they have a fucking 4 year head start! If you HONESTLY believe this will save money, then you REALLY need to have your head examined.

1/22/2011 8:37:57 PM

I will give yah a dollar.....

1/23/2011 12:35:52 PM

[Edited on February 4, 2011 at 7:29 PM. Reason : !!!]

2/4/2011 7:29:27 PM

Quote :

"http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/07/obama_corporate_profits_have_to_be_shared_by_american_workers.html "If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line," President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning."

Nope, Obama's not a socialist, he just wants to distribute profits.

2/7/2011 2:12:14 PM

I wonder if Obama realized that some taxing and accounting regulations make giving certain employees bonuses more difficult than it should be?

2/7/2011 3:27:24 PM

No capitalist has ever advocated wealth redistribution.

2/7/2011 3:31:29 PM

capitalism is largely a means of wealth redistribution to resist slavery.

2/7/2011 3:33:33 PM

Quote :

"capitalism is largely a means of wealth redistribution to resist slavery. "

please explain your position

2/7/2011 4:35:09 PM

Quote :

"No capitalist has ever advocated wealth redistribution."

Even Ayn Rand advocated wealth distribution, though she didn't call it that. A "limited" government, that is restricted to the supposed "core functions" of government, still takes money from every taxpayer and gives it to arms dealers. In cases where the people resist, the military might gained by that coercive process is used against them.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2011 4:41:01 PM

taxation has and always will be a form of wealth distribution.

However, I do think that some more generalized form of wealth distribution should go into effect to get the middle and lower classes back on track. I don't see why Americans are so against it when 95% of the population would surely benefit from it.

2/7/2011 5:10:35 PM

Quote :

"However, I do think that some more generalized form of wealth distribution should go into effect to get the middle and lower classes back on track. I don't see why Americans are so against it when 95% of the population would surely benefit from it."

1. I have seen no convincing evidence that the middle and lower classes are off track.
2. Even if I were convinced, I have never heard of a mechanism that would allow wealth distribution to get the middle and lower classes back on track.
If you are right that 95% of Americans are against redistribution, I suggest their reasoning is similar to mine.

Far more likely, all Americans are in favor of redistribution and are merely unable to reach consensus on whom and how.

2/7/2011 5:42:51 PM

yes, more government control of private citizens' wealth is exactly what we need

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 5:45:35 PM

Wealth distribution is now occurring on a grand scale, though not in the way that most conservatives imagine. Really, an insignificant amount of money is going from the ultra rich to to the lower and middle classes. A very significant amount of wealth is being extracted from all Americans and handed to the banking class, the military industrial complex, and various MNCs. Those elite few have not become ultra rich because they provided a better service than anyone else, but because they were granted special privileges by the government. That is, in fact, not capitalism, but corporatism. It's a distinction that modern day conservatives don't want to see (due to the fact that it will undermine the United State's role as the leading imperialist power), while liberals are afraid to admit the distinction as it'll render the term "capitalism" unsuitable for the role of whipping boy.

2/7/2011 5:58:42 PM

Quote :

"A very significant amount of wealth is being extracted from all Americans and handed to the banking class, the military industrial complex, and various MNCs. "

When reality says that the bulk of our money and future money goes to entitlements. And only getting worse.

Where did Ayn Rand support wealth redistribution? She supports the govt protecting its citizens from other countries and from other citizens. That really is their job. Somehow we have gone from that to free braces, cell phones, and viagra.

I am also curious why people feel wealth redistribution helps get the low and middle class back on their feet. by handing them the unearned, they have learned no new skill to help them succeed. In fact you reward those who have the greatest need... those with little or no need receive little or no free money. So the drive, for some, is to become more needy.. thus a race to the bottom.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 10:27:57 PM

You know that statistic that goes something like this? The top 20% of households in America own a remarkable 85% of the nation's wealth? Seems disproportionate no?

Are you in that top 20%? Why stand up for the rich over some misguided sense of justice? That's not where this nation is at right now. I'd rather side with the 85% of Americans who are being shit on.

2/7/2011 10:40:28 PM

Quote :

"Are you in that top 20%? Why stand up for the rich over some misguided sense of justice?"

Maybe because he's not a selfish bastard who only does the right thing when it benefits him?

2/7/2011 10:41:20 PM

Quote :

"When reality says that the bulk of our money and future money goes to entitlements. And only getting worse."

The majority of the budget is entitlements, yes. I guess you could call it wealth redistribution, but it's not from upper to lower or lower to upper - it's to past generations (that are to blame for our current problems) from the younger working class. While I do think we're getting a poor hand here, it ultimately will not be us that suffers the most - it'll be those that are already dependent on the system. We still have our youth, the ability to work, the ability to relocate. Grandma doesn't have any of that. Her life depends on those entitlements.

The system that allows all this to happen - central banking - is what I'm talking about. Ben Bernanke rails on Congress from time to time, saying they need to control spending. It's the equivalent of a smack dealer saying, "hey man, I think you need to stop doing so much heroin - it's really fucking you up. Oh, want another bag? Here you go." Without that endless supply of money, Congress would have had to deal with these problems decades ago. Instead, it's just gotten worse and worse.

Quote :

"Where did Ayn Rand support wealth redistribution? She supports the govt protecting its citizens from other countries and from other citizens. That really is their job. Somehow we have gone from that to free braces, cell phones, and viagra."

She supported taxation, which as someone pointed out, is wealth distribution. Somehow, I don't think she would approve of the current "good ole boy" military industrial complex, with no bid contracts and all that bullshit.

Quote :

"Are you in that top 20%? Why stand up for the rich over some misguided sense of justice? That's not where this nation is at right now. I'd rather side with the 85% of Americans who are being shit on."

Not everyone that is rich is part of the same corrupt system. Some got lucky, some are brilliant, some were born rich. The "evil rich," in my mind, are the one's gaming the system (by colluding with government) to get rich, not by honest competition, but by rigging the whole thing using accounting tricks and backroom deals. Of course, cracking down on corporatism is a pretty tough thing to do when most of the politicians are in on it.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 10:49 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2011 10:46:52 PM

Quote :

"The "evil rich," in my mind, are the one's gaming the system (by colluding with government) to get rich, not by honest competition, but by rigging the whole thing using accounting tricks and backroom deals. "

Now this I agree with, but I also blame politicians for this. Which is why they should have limited power. Do you know the instant wealth politicians can produce for their friends by creating a commodity out of thin air? Think that isnt part of the push for carbon credits?

And Mbguess, I am not currently in the top 20%.. But I plan to be one day. I dont expect to be rich overnight and I can delay pleasure for future wealth. HOwever, it does concern me the attitude of people like you who will then claim you should have a share of my earnings and savings simply because you need/want it bc you didnt plan for your own future. And how are we being shit on? I dont feel shit on. I earn a living and am saving to own my own business.

Your attitude of THEY have so much so you are being shit on and deserve what they earned is nothing but envy. Envy will get you nowhere. And what makes you think they did anything wrong to earn their money? It couldnt possibly be that they have more worth than the majority of people? I suppose Peyton Manning should get the same pay as Jay Davis? How dare he makes so much and Davis doesnt. Im sure Davis WANTS to be a NFL qb and WANTS to make millions a year.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 11:02:35 PM

Quote :

"In fact you reward those who have the greatest need... those with little or no need receive little or no free money. So the drive, for some, is to become more needy.. thus a race to the bottom."

And we see this everyday, the poor are by far what everyone in the US strives to be.

2/7/2011 11:31:15 PM

Quote :

"And we see this everyday, the poor are by far what everyone in the US strives to be."

Popular media such as movies and TV are constantly encouraging us to spend more time with the family.

2/7/2011 11:34:38 PM

^^are welfare rolls and food stamp rolls not climbing? Are children born to single mothers not rising? Do you think ONE possible reason might be that the poor are penalized by being married? Will not receive as much AID if you included the income of the father.. or if he lives in the same household? Or do you think the exploding number of kids on ADHD meds might be due to receipt of an extra 300-500 per month per child in disability payments?

By no means am I saying that everyone chooses to remain poor. Our country if filled with stories of just the opposite. But the point remains that the more needy you become the more free money you get, and some take advantage of it.

[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 11:42:45 PM

Quote :

"Popular media such as movies and TV are constantly encouraging us to spend more time with the family."

And that's the same as being poor.

Quote :

"By no means am I saying that everyone chooses to remain poor."

That's pretty much exactly what you were saying.

2/7/2011 11:53:57 PM

^add reading comprehension to your list of things to work on.

2/8/2011 12:10:31 AM

Your logic was, "we reward the poor for being poor, thus people will try to be poor", you even used the phrase "race to the bottom"

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 12:14 AM. Reason : ]

2/8/2011 12:14:24 AM

Quote :

"And mbguess, I am not currently in the top 20%.. But I plan to be one day. I don't expect to be rich overnight and I can delay pleasure for future wealth"

I too have a job and earn a comfortable living. I just don't have the same positive outlook that you do concerning social mobility in America. I don't plan on being in the top 20% one day but I really would like that avenue to be open to people like you and i should we wish to dedicate ourselves to that goal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/americans-support-wealth-redistribution_n_736132.html

Quote :

"Americans vastly underestimate the degree of wealth inequality in America, and we believe that the distribution should be far more equitable than it actually is "All demographic groups -- even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy -- desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo." Respondents with incomes over $100,000 per year had similar answers to those making less than $50,000. Without knowing which country they were picking, 92 percent of respondents said they'd rather live in a country with Sweden's wealth distribution. "

Guess we as American's have something in common--we just don't realize it. Now I feel like I'm just repeating the same tired statistic that everyone has heard a million times. Why is it that Americans still don't understand what's going on?

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 9:17:20 AM

Quote :

"And that's the same as being poor."

Well, accepting the marginal theory, there is always some worker somewhere on the verge of losing his job. Spending a little more time with the family would push them over the edge and get them fired. I'm pretty sure having zero income is the definition of being poor.

2/8/2011 9:36:23 AM

Quote :

"Your logic was, "we reward the poor for being poor, thus people will try to be poor", you even used the phrase "race to the bottom" "

for SOME it is. Which is why I wrote FOR SOME. got it?

You dont feel these incentives affect people's behaviors? Did people buy houses bc of the tax credit? Did people buy cars bc of cash for clunkers? Why is it so hard to believe that some people would work less or behave in ways so they can get free healthcare, free childcare, free cell, gas money, free food, free or reduced housing etc..

We had one girl turn down a job with us bc we offered healthcare. Smart move on her part bc her current job doesnt so she was on medicaid. Now she didnt comeout and say it, but she was SO excited about the job until we talked about health insurance. These programs DO affect behavior, Im sorry that you dont think so.

[Edited on February 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2011 9:52:21 AM

Quote :

"Spending a little more time with the family would push them over the edge and get them fired."

Wrong. Not doing his job will get him fired.

Quote :

"for SOME it is"

WHy some, that logic has no such bounds. If people are being rewarded to be poor, then it would encourage everyone to be poor.

Quote :

"You dont feel these incentives affect people's behaviors?"

They certainly don't to the point of outweighing how much it sucks to be poor. You could say the existence of soup kitchens incentivize poverty, but the fact is that getting free food isn't even nearly enough to gain to suffer through all of the bad things about being poor.

2/8/2011 10:16:46 AM

Kris, how is what you said in any way a critique of what I said?

2/8/2011 3:24:24 PM

Your statement implies that you could be fired for simply maintaining a work/life balance, I don't believe that is true.

2/8/2011 3:57:17 PM

Ever? Again, like most communists, you fail to imagine work relationships different from the ones you have personally experienced. I was warned by an interviewer that the position in question required the occasional 60+ hour work week. Are you suggesting if I took that job and then demanded to go home at 5pm every day so I could meet my children at home, they would not fire me?

2/9/2011 12:47:26 AM

Quote :

"WHy some, that logic has no such bounds. If people are being rewarded to be poor, then it would encourage everyone to be poor. "

Do you really believe what you are writing? Ok, so using your own logic no one should be fat either. Bc being fat sucks compared to being in shape. I mean all the health issues, medicines, etc.... oh wait, one requires more work. Yet SOME choose to do the work instead of the alternative. Others dont. Imagine that.

2/9/2011 9:13:11 PM

Quote :

"Guess we as American's have something in common--we just don't realize it. Now I feel like I'm just repeating the same tired statistic that everyone has heard a million times. Why is it that Americans still don't understand what's going on?"

It's one thing to admit that there is a great deal of inequality in terms of wealth and income in the United States. It's something else entirely to describe a process by which we can lessen or eliminate that inequality. Virtually all of the policies that have come from Washington in the past 30 years have accelerated the widening of the wealth gap in this country.

Unless Americans can somehow wake up and take power back from their corporate and government overlords, thus reviving the tradition of individualism and classic liberalism, we will witness the demise of an empire firsthand.

2/9/2011 9:47:59 PM

Do you realize how stupid and paranoid you sound when you talk about "corporate and government overlords"?

2/9/2011 10:48:27 PM

Quote :

"I took that job and then demanded to go home at 5pm every day so I could meet my children at home, they would not fire me?"

Then it's because you weren't able to do your job,not because you couldn't manage a work life balance. Let me remind you of your previous statements as you backpedal away from them.

Spending a little more time with the family would push them over the edge and get them fired.
a little more time...

Popular media such as movies and TV are constantly encouraging us to spend more time with the family.
Which is somehow the same as "encouraging us to not do our jobs".

Quote :

"Ok, so using your own logic no one should be fat either."

People aren't rewarded for being fat as you are claiming they are rewarded for being poor.

2/9/2011 11:19:04 PM

^^To someone as clueless as you? I can only imagine.

2/10/2011 10:46:19 AM

Quote :

"People aren't rewarded for being fat as you are claiming they are rewarded for being poor. "

But now you have changed your own argument. Which was that it sucks to be poor, well it sucks to be obese too. However, both require you do something to not be either. Some people choose not to and take the easier road. And our govt provides them with incentives to do so.

And yes they can get disablity for complications from being fat, and are trying to get obesity covered under the ADA.

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 11:51:46 AM

Quote :

"Which was that it sucks to be poor, well it sucks to be obese too."

I didn't say there were no poor people just like I didn't say there were no fat people.

Quote :

"our govt provides them with incentives to do so"

And what you need to prove is that the incentive that you claim the government provides for being fat or poor outweighs how much it generally sucks to be fat or poor.

2/10/2011 12:45:02 PM

So you dont think govt incentives can cause changes in behavior?

Do you think declaring ADHD eligible for SSI has any effect on the number of kids in the US with ADHD? Yet it seems to only be a problem in this country... weird huh.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html

?The percentage of children with a parent-reported ADHD diagnosis increased by 22% between 2003 and 2007.

?The highest rates of parent-reported ADHD diagnosis were noted among children covered by Medicaid and multiracial children.

•Children with Medicaid were more likely than uninsured children or privately insured children to have each of the diagnoses.

500 per month per child is a lot of money. We charted our medicaid kids on ADHD for a month and it was close to 90%, back before we knew it was a disablity. A social worker clued in the other doc when she asked about the high correlation.


And you are missing the point completely Kris. Its not that it is better to be poor than rich, fit vs fat. It is just easier to be one than the other. And some people are more than happy to do what it takes to maximize their checks.

We have called over to social services to try to get temporary assistance for people who needed eye surgery but didnt have much money or insurance. The first thing they would say was for them to quit their job. Seriously

2/10/2011 4:28:20 PM

Does Adam Smith count as a capitalist?

Quote :

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 4:42:27 PM

Not a capitalist in the way it ends up being defined today. I heard a pretty good interview recently with Noam Chomsky talking about this:

Quote :

"DAVID BARSAMIAN: One of the heroes of the current right-wing revival… is Adam Smith. You’ve done some pretty impressive research on Smith that has excavated… a lot of information that’s not coming out. You’ve often quoted him describing the “vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people.” NOAM CHOMSKY: I didn’t do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There’s no research. Just read it. He’s pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits. He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That’s the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. It goes on and on. He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies. He was talking about England and India. He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India."

Continued at: http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2008/01/chomsky-fuming-about-distortions-of.html

In fact, state capitalism - as we've seen it manifest - is very destructive to our species. We've witnessed firsthand the dumbing down of a civilization, and despite our attempts to work towards something better, the state/corporate system is structured in such a way that we can't escape this vicious cycle.

2/10/2011 4:59:23 PM

State capitalism isn't necessary at all for an ever-increasing wealth gap, that's why Smith didn't mention the State at all when laying out a case for luxury taxes. Under Capitalism, wealth accumulation is itself progressive under normal conditions. The rich get richer faster than the poor can catch up simply by the natural mechanics of capital, investment, and production relations.

[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 5:03:29 PM

State capitalism is the only thing we've ever seen. Surely, you understand that the corporation is a creation of the state? The entire concept that corporations should have limited liabilities is something that was introduced by government and enforced by government.

2/10/2011 5:08:23 PM