NationStates Jolt Archive

His campaign said he was full of foreign policy knowhow - much more than Bush, for example.

Still don't see it...
Another lie. Nobody ever said he had more experience than Bush. More intelligence and ability, perhaps, but not more experience.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/side_by_side_comparison/index.php

"I'm so much better on foreign policy than the Republicans".
A) Does not say "more experience."

B) Is obviously comparing POLICY, not experience. See -- it says it right there in the sentence. Even when you pick the cherries, you still fail, because it's so obvious what tree they came off of.

C) Considering how bad the Republicans have been on foreign policy, I don't see this as an empty promise. On the contrary, he'd have to go pretty far to be worse than them. So tell us, what RESULT of your supposed evidence of how bad he is proves that he is worse on policy than the Republicans?

75 million for smoking cessation - tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short term.

Democrats want to include a new car crushing plan in the "stimulus" bill where the government would buy new cars and trucks that obtain less than 18 mpg and crush them.

Tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and save the economy.

We could go on and on...

Let alone, how does it save the environment? This is just more wacko socialism on the part of the US Democratic Party.

In the USA, Democrat equals socialist and Republican usually equals populists.

C) Considering how bad the Republicans have been on foreign policy, I don't see this as an empty promise. On the contrary, he'd have to go pretty far to be worse than them. So tell us, what RESULT of your supposed evidence of how bad he is proves that he is worse on policy than the Republicans?

See the reaction of the EU to Obama's protectionist gift he wanted to give to labor unions.

It would have been a replay of Smoot Hawley - a global disaster.

I think a global Great Depression replay would be worse than anything Bush ever did.

See the reaction of the EU to Obama's protectionist gift he wanted to give to labor unions.

It would have been a replay of Smoot Hawley - a global disaster.

I think a global Great Depression replay would be worse than anything Bush ever did.
Let me know when you construct a point out of the above remarks.

In the meantime, you are still not seeing a result, are you? You're only seeing one reaction so far, right? None of these policies have actually been implemented yet, have they?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong -- it's so hard to keep up with your scatter-shot bombardment of anti-Obama rants -- but is that "protectionist gift" still in the package? I know that most of Obama's stuff so far has been revised at least once. Like that condoms thing that is no longer an issue because Obama yanked it.

In the USA, Democrat equals socialist and Republican usually equals populists.

Yeah, no. Not even close.

Let alone, how does it save the environment? This is just more wacko socialism on the part of the US Democratic Party.

In the USA, Democrat equals socialist and Republican usually equals populists.

Populist? You mean the American people wanted the following?


Lax and disconnected intelligence that allowed a significant terror attack to slip past
A laissez-faire attitude on business regulation that allowed the housing market to bubble
Selective dissection of basic Constitutional principles that allowed for anyone to be declared an Enemy Combatant and vanished at will
An unneeded invasion/occupation that has drained taxpayer funds, reduced military capabilities and brought tremendous propaganda coup for actual enemies
A malignant epidemic of cronyism and nepotism that silences or dismisses objective criticism in favor of unquestioning yes-men, and in one specific instance destroyed a decades old intelligence operation out of pure political spite


Hell, if that's what Americans really wanted, they'd have voted for McCain and Caribou Barbie. Oh wait, their votes were stolen by Mordor!!

You can regroup with the NSG Men of the West at
FO-ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRT SUM-TERRRRRRRRRRRR!!

Let alone, how does it save the environment? This is just more wacko socialism on the part of the US Democratic Party.

In the USA, Democrat equals socialist and Republican usually equals populists.

Clearly, you don't actually know what 'socialism' means. Oh, or 'populism'.

The Congressional Budget Office now says the stimulus would be worse than doing nothing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

More debt, effectively no increase in jobs over time.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

The Congressional Budget Office now says the stimulus would be worse than doing nothing.

More debt, effectively no increase in jobs over time.

If you actually go to the CBO themselves, rather than peddling whichever hack seems to fit your agenda, you'd see that the CBO predicts somewhere between 2.8 (lower estimate) and 5.7 million jobs by the end of 2011.

They also talk about offsetting the cost of 'crowding out' by the longterm effects of infrastructure imrpovement, education programs, and investment incentives, "which might INCREASE economic output in the long run".

If you actually go to the CBO themselves, rather than peddling whichever hack seems to fit your agenda, you'd see that the CBO predicts somewhere between 2.8 (lower estimate) and 5.7 million jobs by the end of 2011.

They also talk about offsetting the cost of 'crowding out' by the longterm effects of infrastructure imrpovement, education programs, and investment incentives, "which might INCREASE economic output in the long run".
I think we need to see which forecast you are looking at. The recent one, which is the Feb 4 letter to Gregg, doesn't predict anything nearly as rosy as you mention.

Besides which, we need to compare the estimates to the CBO baseline, already done in the Feb 4 letter.

And we'll ignore the American people, who no longer support the stimulus package...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx

I think we need to see which forecast you are looking at. The recent one, which is the Feb 4 letter to Gregg, doesn't predict anything nearly as rosy as you mention.

I took my information directly FROM the Feb 4th letter.

It's on the CBO site.

time to quote his shrillness (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=3&ref=opinion)

Somehow, Washington has lost any sense of what’s at stake — of the reality that we may well be falling into an economic abyss, and that if we do, it will be very hard to get out again.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much economic trouble we’re in. The crisis began with housing, but the implosion of the Bush-era housing bubble has set economic dominoes falling not just in the United States, but around the world.

Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now. Developers of commercial real estate, watching rents fall and financing costs soar, are slashing their investment plans. Businesses are canceling plans to expand capacity, since they aren’t selling enough to use the capacity they have. And exports, which were one of the U.S. economy’s few areas of strength over the past couple of years, are now plunging as the financial crisis hits our trading partners.

Meanwhile, our main line of defense against recessions — the Federal Reserve’s usual ability to support the economy by cutting interest rates — has already been overrun. The Fed has cut the rates it controls basically to zero, yet the economy is still in free fall.

It’s no wonder, then, that most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump. Some private analysts predict double-digit unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office is slightly more sanguine, but its director, nonetheless, recently warned that “absent a change in fiscal policy ... the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to potential levels will be the largest — in duration and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s.”

Worst of all is the possibility that the economy will, as it did in the ’30s, end up stuck in a prolonged deflationary trap.

We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.

As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on.

And deflationary traps can go on for a long time. Japan experienced a “lost decade” of deflation and stagnation in the 1990s — and the only thing that let Japan escape from its trap was a global boom that boosted the nation’s exports. Who will rescue America from a similar trap now that the whole world is slumping at the same time?

Would the Obama economic plan, if enacted, ensure that America won’t have its own lost decade? Not necessarily: a number of economists, myself included, think the plan falls short and should be substantially bigger. But the Obama plan would certainly improve our odds. And that’s why the efforts of Republicans to make the plan smaller and less effective — to turn it into little more than another round of Bush-style tax cuts — are so destructive.

So what should Mr. Obama do? Count me among those who think that the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. What matters now, however, is what he does next.

It’s time for Mr. Obama to go on the offensive. Above all, he must not shy away from pointing out that those who stand in the way of his plan, in the name of a discredited economic philosophy, are putting the nation’s future at risk. The American economy is on the edge of catastrophe, and much of the Republican Party is trying to push it over that edge.

This definitely needs to be addressed line by line.

Populist? You mean the American people wanted the following?

[LIST]
Lax and disconnected intelligence that allowed a significant terror attack to slip past

A product of the Clinton years and his close ties to Saudis and Afghans.


A laissez-faire attitude on business regulation that allowed the housing market to bubble

A culmination of legislation from the Carter and Clinton eras - sort of a delayed effect time bomb set to blow up in the face of Republicans who are in power, which is reinforced every time a Democrat is in office. Probably will happen again now.


Selective dissection of basic Constitutional principles that allowed for anyone to be declared an Enemy Combatant and vanished at will

Never once happened to a legitimate US citizen.


An unneeded invasion/occupation that has drained taxpayer funds, reduced military capabilities and brought tremendous propaganda coup for actual enemies

Maybe it was unecessary and maybe it wasn't. I don't think most wars are necessary, but I'm not really that impressed by the shrill cries of the left who are free to sit at home and sip their expensive tea whilst others fight in far away desert.


A malignant epidemic of cronyism and nepotism that silences or dismisses objective criticism in favor of unquestioning yes-men, and in one specific instance destroyed a decades old intelligence operation out of pure political spite

Utter bullshit. This claim is the result of being propagandized by a media that simply doesn't care about reporting the truth about elected leaders whom they have personal distaste for.


Hell, if that's what Americans really wanted, they'd have voted for McCain and Caribou Barbie. Oh wait, their votes were stolen by Mordor!!

At least 47% of us did want them in power, at least 1% of the votes were stolen, and probably another 6% of the people who voted Democratic are welfare recipients who know when they have a good thing going. I think that severely undermines the legitimacy of this election. I also have no respect for the 20-25% who are ideological liberals instead of swing voters, but those at least are legitimate opposition votes.

And we'll ignore the American people, who no longer support the stimulus package...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx

your going to find the answer to support of the stimulus package depends on how you ask the question. there are just too many ways to word the question to get a negative response with a big and complicated bill like this.

75 million for smoking cessation - tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short term.

Democrats want to include a new car crushing plan in the "stimulus" bill where the government would buy new cars and trucks that obtain less than 18 mpg and crush them.

Tell me once again how that's going to create jobs and save the economy.

We could go on and on...

Buy new cars and trucks? How does that create jobs? Well, gee, I wonder. :rolleyes:

Someone has to build those cars, Hotwife. They don't build themselves. Someone has to crush them; they don't crush themselves.

As for the smoking cessetion, that's aimed at reducing peripheral costs to the state from the healthcare expenditures smoking and the conditions it can cause would create. Someone who only smoked for five years will cost the state a lot less than someone who smoked for their whole life.

there's exactly one completely "ridiculous" thing in "the" stimulus plan, and thats the 'financial service (i.e. con artistry) industry's hands, still in everyone else's pockets. (and without even having to do ANYTHING to EARN the privilege of keeping them there!)

The Congressional Budget Office now says the stimulus would be worse than doing nothing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

More debt, effectively no increase in jobs over time.

Ok, let's reduce the cost of the bill by 1/3 by removing all the fucking tax cuts.


Never once happened to a legitimate US citizen.

Jose Padilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist))

Care to go again?

Buy new cars and trucks? How does that create jobs? Well, gee, I wonder. :rolleyes:

Someone has to build those cars, Hotwife. They don't build themselves. Someone has to crush them; they don't crush themselves.

As for the smoking cessetion, that's aimed at reducing peripheral costs to the state from the healthcare expenditures smoking and the conditions it can cause would create. Someone who only smoked for five years will cost the state a lot less than someone who smoked for their whole life.

Here is a discourse that happened between me and another person on another board.

Here is where our economy went south;

Government bailout hits $8.5 trillion

I am just in awe at how much money they have spent and only made things worse and Obama want to to toss another trillion at it.
Because they havn't spent money. They have given money away to rich people and cut taxes reducing government income. Neither employs peoples, lends money to people to do shit, or anything else even remotely productive. And guess what the Republicans want to do? Cut taxes and give money to rich people.

You want to solve the recession? Spend money to fix all the god damn roads and bridges. I mean directly spend. Go hire some mother fuckers to fix the roads. Hire some mother fuckers to expand AmTrak and work on a national public transport system. Hire some people to bring the FAA traffic control system up to date. Hire some people to go expand high speed broadband to rural areas, and every damn where else. All shit that we needed to have been doing for years and all shit that will create jobs. But listen to the Republicans tell it and if you assign money for something, it disappears into god damn thin air without creating jobs. Bitching about some multimillion dollar project that will only provide 588 jobs and make it cost 135 million per job. Well no fucking shit. What the fuck do you think people take for money? Peanuts? No, it will pay X amount of people Y amount of money for Z amount of years. Money doesn't fucking disappear into thin god damn air, jobs don't magically get done by assigning money to them. You have to pay some mother fuckers to do it. And that is where the Republicans are completely disconnected with reality and why if the Democrats pass a Republican bill with majorities in both houses of Congress and the White House, America loses.

Buy new cars and trucks? How does that create jobs? Well, gee, I wonder. :rolleyes:

Someone has to build those cars, Hotwife. They don't build themselves. Someone has to crush them; they don't crush themselves.

As for the smoking cessetion, that's aimed at reducing peripheral costs to the state from the healthcare expenditures smoking and the conditions it can cause would create. Someone who only smoked for five years will cost the state a lot less than someone who smoked for their whole life.
Ever hear the window-breaking story? It's appropriate here. You don't destroy something, just to replace it and then cheer about the economic boom you've just had.

Well, maybe if you're the Pantsman...

I took my information directly FROM the Feb 4th letter.

It's on the CBO site.
I read the same thing. Cleary you, me, wifey, and the Washington Post read it differently. Or we read more of it... Clearly, they are predicting job gains in 2010, but losses and GDP declines in 2011. The message that we should all take from the letter is that the money should be spent faster than slower.

I'd interpret that to mean any money spent past the 1 to 2 year horizon will probably cause more harm than good.

Ever hear the window-breaking story? It's appropriate here. You don't destroy something, just to replace it and then cheer about the economic boom you've just had.

I take it you take issue with people replacing their house windows with energy efficient windows.

I take it you take issue with people replacing their house windows with energy efficient windows.
Clearly you are not familiar with the story. Or parable, as it were. You should become familiar with it. Google "BASTIAT'S BROKEN WINDOW" to further your education.

Clearly you are not familiar with the story. Or parable, as it were. You should become familiar with it. Google "BASTIAT'S BROKEN WINDOW" to further your education.
I think you ignore my point as well.

And people wonder why I wish Pelosi would fall off the planet.

Full Article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/navarrette.stimulus/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

Wow. MASSIVE assumptions on the poster's part.

Most welfare recipients I've met are white.

I think you ignore my point as well.

I think what Myrmidonsia is trying to say is that crushing cars is not a very efficient way of making jobs, because it is immoral to waste resources. It's kind of like paying someone to burn old paintings, just so artists can be better compensated for new ones. You will give jobs to the people who replace the paintings, but it's just not the right way to do it.

Those crushed cars would end up in a landfill or something - once you crush a car, it's very hard to get the raw materials back out of it because they're all fused together and lots of dangerous heavy metals are mixed in with the steel and aluminum.

Now, a better idea would be to have a reverse assembly line, if such a thing can be done, and recycle ALL the materials into more environmentally friendly cars. I could almost get behind that, because the car companies really shouldn't have been building inefficient vehicles like that for general use anyways.

Wow. MASSIVE assumptions on the poster's part.

Most welfare recipients I've met are white.

From Washington State Office of Financial Management:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/race/projections.xls

Projected total population 2010:
6,811,216

Projected Caucasian population 2010:
5,712,895

Projected African American population 2010:
246,165

Projected Native American population:
113,796

Projected Asian American population:
516,347

Projected multi-ethnic population:
275,806

Projected Hispanic (self-identifying) population:
651,027


The point of my post - in a state where over 90% of the population is "white", it's statistically likely that 9 out of 10 welfare recipients would also be white. For people in other states where the distribution is not so disproportionate, it may be easy to make other assumptions. We have the same issue in Vermont.

so other than some shitty tax cuts, anyone found any ridiculous items in the stimulus plan yet?

so other than some shitty tax cuts, anyone found any ridiculous items in the stimulus plan yet?

Paying the FBI's salary.

This is what the Republican Party actually believes.

Seriously. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

Paying the FBI's salary.

This is what the Republican Party actually believes.

Seriously. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

Now you are just playing class warfare! The wealthy class could use that money more then the people of the FBI!

Instead of reading through 19 pages of people telling you exactly how and why you're wrong, I'm just going to assume that at some point Mur or Poli did that (no offense to anyone else who also made salient arguments!) and agree with them.

This definitely needs to be addressed line by line.

A product of the Clinton years and his close ties to Saudis and Afghans.


Oh noose the "clintondidit" arguement.

When did Clinton get time to suck up to the Saudis? The Bush family was in the way too much.


A culmination of legislation from the Carter and Clinton eras - sort of a delayed effect time bomb set to blow up in the face of Republicans who are in power, which is reinforced every time a Democrat is in office. Probably will happen again now.


Ok that was funny.


Never once happened to a legitimate US citizen.

Maybe it was unecessary and maybe it wasn't. I don't think most wars are necessary, but I'm not really that impressed by the shrill cries of the left who are free to sit at home and sip their expensive tea whilst others fight in far away desert.

Oh no da librawls are lazy arguement

Utter bullshit. This claim is the result of being propagandized by a media that simply doesn't care about reporting the truth about elected leaders whom they have personal distaste for.

Oh no da bias in da librawl media argument.

At least 47% of us did want them in power, at least 1% of the votes were stolen,

Stolen? Meh pretty much a trade off for the votes stolen by repubs.

and probably another 6% of the people who voted Democratic are welfare recipients who know when they have a good thing going.


Oh noes da ebil librawl lazy ever pregnant welfare mom argument.

I think that severely undermines the legitimacy of this election. I also have no respect for the 20-25% who are ideological liberals instead of swing voters, but those at least are legitimate opposition votes.

You are a caricature.

this si odl news they have reached an agreement
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/stimulus/index.htm

F
The point of my post - in a state where over 90% of the population is "white", it's statistically likely that 9 out of 10 welfare recipients would also be white.

Ah yes, but first we have to assume there is no racial discrimination in the work force, and no racial discrimination in the justice system, and basically no racial discrimination whatsoever.

This is not the case, and examining the "statistics" only yields nothing but incorrect and often racist conclusions. Like for example, that white people are superior to black people.

this si odl news they have reached an agreement
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/stimulus/index.htm

Article doesn't mention it but basically the education stuff got wiped and the money was allocated to things that explode.

Really? They cut education out to make a compromise? Really? Fucking education? The thing that will help protect jobs in the long term by better educating the future workforce...not good enough to make the cut? Fucking really?

Really? They cut education out to make a compromise? Really? Fucking education? The thing that will help protect jobs in the long term by better educating the future workforce...not good enough to make the cut? Fucking really?

I'm getting this second or third-hand, since I haven't found a list of what got cut yet, but pretty much everything they mentioned was education. Only thing that wasn't was funding for firefighters.

I'm getting this second or third-hand, since I haven't found a list of what got cut yet, but pretty much everything they mentioned was education. Only thing that wasn't was funding for firefighters.

I had been flipping by CNN and saw education and money to rebuild schools on a list of things cut and started writing. Fortunately you beat me to 'send' in time to give my rant context.

I had been flipping by CNN and saw education and money to rebuild schools on a list of things cut and started writing. Fortunately you beat me to 'send' in time to give my rant context.

I saw that too and what's funny is that I once saw the new RNC head talking about the big difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats will give you a fish but republicans will teach you how to fish.

I saw that too and what's funny is that I once saw the new RNC head talking about the big difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats will give you a fish but republicans will teach you how to fish.

It's like they're stuck in permanent 'opposite day.'

I read the same thing. Cleary you, me, wifey, and the Washington Post read it differently. Or we read more of it... Clearly, they are predicting job gains in 2010, but losses and GDP declines in 2011. The message that we should all take from the letter is that the money should be spent faster than slower.

I'd interpret that to mean any money spent past the 1 to 2 year horizon will probably cause more harm than good.

The GDP decrease is tiny. It's not worth pissing our collective pants over a tiny ding to the GDP, when we can offset things like longterm unemployment and overall economic value - which that letter says the infrastructure investment could well do.

Instead of reading through 19 pages of people telling you exactly how and why you're wrong, I'm just going to assume that at some point Mur or Poli did that (no offense to anyone else who also made salient arguments!) and agree with them.
Lazy sot!! :D

so other than some shitty tax cuts, anyone found any ridiculous items in the stimulus plan yet?
Nope, and now there are even fewer good things in it, too. Basically, they turned a stimulus package into just another BS waste of time package with their idiotic ideological pissing match.

Article doesn't mention it but basically the education stuff got wiped and the money was allocated to things that explode.

the poor economy is defiantly because of the lack of bombs.

I saw that too and what's funny is that I once saw the new RNC head talking about the big difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats will give you a fish but republicans will teach you how to fish.

And by "teach you how to fish," they mean they will demand you learn how to fish but instead of giving you a pole, a line, a hook, or even knowledge how to make those things and then they will give you tax breaks to buy those things from people who make fishing poles and manuals. Afterward, they will convince you that that is the best way to do things.

I had been flipping by CNN and saw education and money to rebuild schools on a list of things cut and started writing. Fortunately you beat me to 'send' in time to give my rant context.

I find it perversely amusing that their idea of a good stimulus package basically involves getting enough weapons to kill God twice over* and then leaving them in the hands of people who will basically be your average high school drop-out. Personally I'd think that if you've got the ability to kill everyone on Earth you should make sure the people who are going to inherit that ability are capable of figuring out that that's a bad idea but I guess I'm wrong.

*This is hyperbole. The added defense budget will not give us the ability to kill God twice over. The amount added is too minuscule to add much to our current capabilities of 1.999999999997 deicides.

I'd like to see exactly what's in the new bill. I'm pleased that they cut $200 billion worth of crap, but people who claim to be in the know are still saying there is a lot of stuff in there that should not be.

I think the american people should be given a democratic line item veto so we can slap the ruler on greedy appropriator's knuckles.

Ah yes, but first we have to assume there is no racial discrimination in the work force, and no racial discrimination in the justice system, and basically no racial discrimination whatsoever.

This is not the case, and examining the "statistics" only yields nothing but incorrect and often racist conclusions. Like for example, that white people are superior to black people.

I wasn't assuming any lack of discrimination, I wasn't making any racist conclusions, and I certainly wasn't inferring that white people are superior to black people. You - Trostia - take full ownership for kicking down that door. Though I can understand why you might be passionate about it, if you really thought I was trying to make some kind of racist point. But to the thrust of your post, yes, it's quite likely that there are a variety of factors (including discrimination AND lack of educational opportunity) which cause x number of y minorities or z number of whites to go on welfare.

I only quoted those statistics because the original poster appeared to have tunnel vision, stating that most of the welfare recipients she had ever seen were white, and I looked at her location (Spokane) and I thought "Well, Duh" cause that state has so few minorities, just like my state. It was a simple mathematical observation. And I would expect that in a state where maybe 3 in 10 people were African American, if there is a state with a ratio so high, that 3 out of 10 welfare recipients would be African American.