Obama, McCain & the waning American...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I already detailed quite a few problems with your numbers. The fact that the Iraq war isn't included (or Afghanistan for that matter) makes the numbers almost useless, wouldn't you agree? I don't imagine we are waging those wars for free.

It also depends on what you are using for comparison purposes. SS, while it could be characterized as an "entitlement program" by some, has its own source of revenue. It isn't part of the budget for the use of income tax (which is what the budget is really addressing). The president began incorporating SS into the budget to make military spending appear to be a smaller percentage of the budget during Vietnam. It has stayed that way since.

SS is not self-sufficient, so it's disingenuous to argue, "well, it has its own source of revenue." It's going to require a staggering increase in workers or a tremendous burden upon workers to keep it even near sufficient.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

SS is not self-sufficient, so it's disingenuous to argue, "well, it has its own source of revenue." It's going to require a staggering increase in workers or a tremendous burden upon workers to keep it even near sufficient.

Actually, SS IS self-sufficient right now. It won't be in a decade, but today it is. It doesn't use income taxes for funding, so including it in the budget for income taxes is disingenuous, not me pointing out it is self-sufficient.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Actually, SS IS self-sufficient right now. It won't be in a decade, but today it is. It doesn't use income taxes for funding, so including it in the budget for income taxes is disingenuous, not me pointing out it is self-sufficient.

Perhaps including it in the budget for income taxes is disingenuous, but you're deflecting from the point. Far more money is collected and spent on entitlements in general (of which SS is a part) than could hoped to be spent on the war. Does it really matter if the funds come from the personal income tax or the payroll tax?

Why don't we hear the liberal masses lamenting the "wonders that could be done for education" with the billions spent on the giant Ponzi scheme that is Social Security?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps including it in the budget for income taxes is disingenuous, but you're deflecting from the point. Far more money is collected and spent on entitlements in general (of which SS is a part) than could hoped to be spent on the war. Does it really matter if the funds come from the personal income tax or the payroll tax?

Why don't we hear the liberal masses lamenting the "wonders that could be done for education" with the billions spent on the giant Ponzi scheme that is Social Security?

I'm guessing you've never been a bishop who has to be concerned about the material welfare of the widows in your ward.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Perhaps including it in the budget for income taxes is disingenuous, but you're deflecting from the point. Far more money is collected and spent on entitlements in general (of which SS is a part) than could hoped to be spent on the war. Does it really matter if the funds come from the personal income tax or the payroll tax?

Why don't we hear the liberal masses lamenting the "wonders that could be done for education" with the billions spent on the giant Ponzi scheme that is Social Security?

Again, it depends on how you characterize SS. It is hardly a true entitlement program, given that we pay into it. And I think I have shown that the numbers listed above for military spending aren't even close to showing the entire picture, so your claim that "far more money is collected and spent on entitlements in general" isn't accurate either.

I don't even claim that entitlement reform isn't a good idea. It is. Lots could be done to improve the system. But the picture you are trying to portray isn't accurate, and you know it (or would if Noonan would write an article about it).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This just isn't true. Goat herders in Iraq? You seriously underestimate the problem we face.

Chechnyans are training the Afghanis and the Iraqis, particularly in explosives and sniping. They are deadly good at their job. Funding and arms for the Iraqi insurgents comes from Iran (who is already an ally of the insurgency) and many other nations, some have speculated including France and Russia. Meanwhile, you have within Iraq a population that is heterogenous and bent on destroying any group within Iraq that isn't just like them.

We aren't drafting people now, but we can't possibly continue long term without a draft or a substantial influx of new enlistees in the military (which isn't happening). Right now, many people are on their third tour in Iraq/Afghanistan, and those tours have been extended to 15 months (rather than 12) to keep us at sufficient staffing levels. How long can that go on for?

I think you raise some valid issues. The first and overriding question that should be asked is, is the war winnable? No. 2 is, what is winning?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm guessing you've never been a bishop who has to be concerned about the material welfare of the widows in your ward.

Bishop/Christ != US Gov't.

I'd say "nice try" but it was actually a very poor one.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Again, it depends on how you characterize SS. It is hardly a true entitlement program, given that we pay into it. And I think I have shown that the numbers listed above for military spending aren't even close to showing the entire picture, so your claim that "far more money is collected and spent on entitlements in general" isn't accurate either.

I don't even claim that entitlement reform isn't a good idea. It is. Lots could be done to improve the system. But the picture you are trying to portray isn't accurate, and you know it (or would if Noonan would write an article about it).

The only picture I'm "portraying" is that the money spent on the war, while considerable, pales in comparison to other domestic expenditures, about which you hear no liberal whinging. And that is very accurate.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm guessing you've never been a bishop who has to be concerned about the material welfare of the widows in your ward.

I'm starting to wonder whether the millennium has already begun. It might only be a matter of days before Mike Waters reveals himself to be the Messiah.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm starting to wonder whether the millennium has already begun.

It's possible. I keep hearing rumors that Obama is the anti-Christ.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Very true. Many currently lament the blurring of lines, overlaps between the parties, etc.

I guess in many ways, it is the human experience... paradigms are erected & dismantled, perspectives shift.

Ron Paul sounds like Michael Moore, at least on foreign policy.

It was actually liberals who got us into Iraq--neocons who defected from the democratic party over its isolationism since Vietnam. For example, the Kristols, Chris Hitchins, Lieberman. These types had Cheney's ear and were the policy makeers. Notice Ed Koch supported Bush in the last election. Strange bedfellows. Many of them are strongly driven by pro-Israel sentiment. Going to war, especially overseas, takes a kind of idealism, even evangelism, and it's usually bad for business. Hence it's historically been a liberal thing. When I was a kid the republicans used to say that since Lincoln no war ever started while they were in the White House.