with a defence budget roughly equivalent (in real terms) to George
Bush's outlay for 2007. That budget surpasses average annual military
spending during the cold war... Zealous fiscal hawks, like Ron Paul,
would cut the military, but they are largely ignored by the rest of the
party. The situation is perhaps worse on the left."
The Economist - Defense Spending: Who Will Make The Case for Serious
The real problem is that the mega-deep spending cuts required to get the government's finances under control would be political suicide for whomever performed those cuts.
Ironically -- or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say *iconically* -- the national debt passed $16 trillion on the opening day of the Democratic National Convention.
Getting the budget balanced, and starting to chip away at that $16,000,000,000,000 credit card bill in any meaningful way, requires tightening our belts in a way with which no one is comfortable. It's political suicide for whomever does it because it requires slashing entitlements, which takes away the votes of whomever was getting those entitlements.
It means that people who have already paid in big money aren't going to be eligible for social security and medicare, at least not until they are truly elderly. Those votes are gone.
It means that welfare programs are going to be stripped down to their bare minimum. Those votes are gone.
It means passing laws banning the existence of public sector unions. Those votes are gone.
It means drawing down the military, not to a point where we are indefensible, but to a point where we are no longer able to be the world's justice police.
Those votes are gone.
We are headed off a cliff. The only difference between democrats and conservatives is that conservatives want to take our foot off the gas pedal. Neither party is willing to slam on the brakes and turn around.
I'm voting for Paul Ryan and his running mate. His plan isn't enough but it's the only one so far that's even attempted to make sense.
$16,000,000,000,000 credit card bill in any meaningful way, requires
Bwahaha, you forgot to mention the "and zero cents"
It means drawing down the military, not to a point where we areThat doesn't sound like a bad thing.
indefensible, but to a point where we are no longer able to be the
world's justice police.
The latest theory going around the punditsphere is that last week's muslim attacks on embassies, and the botched responses from both Barack Osama and Hitlery Clinton, are quite deliberate in their timing.
As it is theorized, the goal is to engage the United States in a full scale war by mid to late October. The badguys know that the US simply does not ever change presidents during a war, and they know that the current occupant of the White House is the most muslim-friendly guy they're going to see in a long time (whether he's actually one of them himself is a separate discussion; I of course believe that he is but that's beside the point). And they know there's a good chance that Romney would actually take some decisive action were he to take the reins.
Barry O is of course more than happy to seize upon any opportunity to hold on to power, even if it means thousands of Americans will die because of it.
That's the theory, anyway. It's an interesting one, even if merely brought to attention as a thought experiment.
step in and "solve" the problems between Emanual and the unions, both of which are friends with Obama. When Obama "solves" the
problem the media will talk about what a great problem solver he is and praise him.
(And ya know it's true because Chris "Tingles" Matthews told us that the word "Chicago" is racist.)
Anybody see the latest propaganda film, called The Morman Candidate?
2016 also had a lot of propaganda in it - but it least it focused on political and social views versus someone's religion. Wonder how much blowback the Dems'll get from that one....
Surprisingly, Romney actually acted alive, though I'm not sure he did as great a job at articulating his proposals as he might have intended. On the other hand, Obama spent most of the night with a peeved expression on his face and had an unsurprisingly difficult time defending his last four years.
Think I'd have liked to see them employ a less structured format so they could have interacted with each other directly more because I don't think last night's debate did much to change anyone's mind.
Actually, the opponent against whom he's been campaigning has been a caricature of Romney manufactured by the liberal media. Last night he had a chance to meet the *real* Mitt Romney: a family man, a business man, a likeable fellow with a great deal of common sense.
If Obama wants to avoid a repeat of last night's ass-kicking, the liberal media is going to have to work harder to tilt the field in his favor.
As for the debate itself, I think Romney's closing remarks were excellent.
He summarized that the Constitution and the Declaration are of paramount importance, and that it's the job of government to defend them.
The sobriquet of "trickle-down government," although coy, was a zinger.
Then when Obama said "I had five seconds before you interrupted me" ...
Maybe the next debate can be moderated with a cattle prod. What a joke that was.
Romney came across as the more confident candidate. So he won.
By lying, that is... dishonest assertions about his plan for pre-existing conditions; completely false claims about energy loans: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/04/960881/romney-admits-pushing-misinformation-in-debate/
LS, although the title of the blurb is that Romney admits to lying, no where in the 2 paragraphs is there any actual mention of this, nor any substantiation of that claim.
The fact-checkers had a ball with both candidates - as they do following most debates. But that is not the same thing.