"Senior administration officials cast the document as a responsible alternative to the deep spending cuts that Republicans will urge in a vote this week on the House floor."
Let's get responsible!
February 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
216 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216Nonetheless, cutting procurement meaningfully would still be a big saving.
I don't think it would take very much for German nationalism to take over again. Shut the power on and off for months on end, combined with food shortages and immigrant unrest...blamo.
Well that can be said about any country.
You people are so screwed. Which would actually be kind of funny if we weren't all depending on a sound US currency.
Holdfast -- How can you possibly not see that maintaining a U.S. military presence in Western Europe makes the chances of this happening virtually zero?
I won't speak for holdfast but I can see it just fine and I don't think the life of one American serviceman is worth protecting the Germans or French from themselves.
Maybe your history is a little fuzzy but getting wrapped up in another country's civil war hasn't worked out well for us in the past.
You people are so screwed. Which would actually be kind of funny if we weren't all depending on a sound US currency.
Shame to be dependent on the people you despise isn't it?
Maybe that's why I always picture effete foreigners who as spoiled teens.
if we weren't all depending on a sound US currency
Here's a tip for you: no country at all wants a particularly strong currency, including the United States.
I don't think the life of one American serviceman is worth protecting the Germans or French from themselves.
What I'm telling you is that every one soldier now is 10,000 soldiers in the future, not to mention civilians.
Also, I was talking about Holdfast's wholly irrational fears of some Islamic takeover of Western Europe. By the way, his later suggestion that the United States doesn't seem to want to resist an impending imposition of Sharia law is simply precious).
Furthermore, which Western European civil wars are we at any risk of being involved in?
"Shame to be dependent on the people you despise isn't it?"
Remember what happens when we assume?
"To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end."
Author of the above? Obama Fellator Emeritus, ANDREW SULLIVAN.
I'm watching his heart breaking, in real time... and snickering, all the while.
Wow. I kinda agree with Sullivan.
Also, it is a damn shame we have no one in Washington DC who will do the right thing and propose some some significant changes to our country's finances.
I guess it is still all just a game to both parties. When we come for them with the torches & pitchforks, maybe they will wake up from their delusion.
Where does the US Constitution authorize keeping peace in Europe?
Penumbras and emanations of the Commerce Clause!
So, under your reading of the Constitution, brilliant and wise constitutional scholars, the Congress may raise an army, and the President may oversee it as Commander in Chief. And this raised, overseen army may be in any State in the Union (and other places you see fit besides). All of this is in the document, clearly.
However, this army we speak of simply may not be stationed in Europe.
Well, good luck to you in your interpretations. I'm sure you think you are right.
Government costs about ten thousand dollars per person, although we would rather spend about 15-20k. I think ultimately, we should offer to take people from China's excess population at a rate of ten thousand dollars in canceled debt per capita. If we get 100 million by 2050, that will be 10 trillion dollars and a significant reduction of our debt. The nation's productivity will skyrocket, and Chamerica will flourish once again.
Remember what happens when we assume?
Well based upon your commenet where you say "You people are so screwed. Which would actually be kind of funny .."
It was reasonable to infer your dislike of the US. I mean, when someone I like is 'screwed' as you say, I don't find it funny.
What's the problem with 3.7 trillion? If we run low on money just print more! Or, We should make a new law where you can tear all the bills you own in half and each half is worth the whole. So if you tear your 10 in half you get 20 bucks. We'd be out of the woods in no time since we'd have doubled our money (though that would mean that the 3.7 trillion budget would be 7.4 trillion, though lets not dwell on the math).
You can't cut anything because someone's sacred cow is at stake. So everyone screams bloody murder DON'T CUT MY PIECE and we all die.
jr565: You are on to something with the tearing the bills in half approach. Think of the deficit reduction involved in saving printing, ink and distribution costs. Really a great idea. We can then tear the halves in two pieces when we need to and so forth. In a way that is what we are doing now, tearing our bills into smaller and smaller pieces.
Post a Comment