Say Anything Blog

When are Republicans going to stop wasting our tax dollars? Wars should be privatized. If it was really in our best interest, the free market would step up and fill in the need.

Chad.
Shut up. Even the ‘private’ defence companies are heavily subsidized.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

The Arsenal of Democracy?

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

If it was really in our best interest, the free market would step up and fill in the need.

Too bad you socialist libs can’t get that through your heads when it comes to health care, etc.

But national defense shouldn’t be a free market enterprise.  That’s what brought the Romans down.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Even the ‘private’ defence companies are heavily subsidized.

Well, duh!  All of defense industry is “subsidized”, because everything totally govt funded is “subsidized.  I know you don’t know this, Snarky, but the defense industry is what is know as a “monopsony”, which means “one buyer”.  That buyer is the US govt, and so all defense money is taxpayer money.  This “subsidy” is built into the system, just like public utilities, only more so.  Considering the caliber of our Armed Forces, this is one govt subsidy that actually gives us something valuable.  Not that there isn’t the usual govt waste, but at least we get the best product in the world for our money.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Chad, So you are saying you would like to have private corporations declare war? Did you think that one through?

r108. If you think that the US Gov’t is the only person who buys from the defence industry you seriously are smoking crack. Put down the little glass pipe. Put some aloe on all the burns on your lips.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

r108. If you think that the US Gov’t is the only person who buys from the defence industry you seriously are smoking crack. Put down the little glass pipe. Put some aloe on all the burns on your lips.

More ignorant ravings.  Everything our defense industry makes is funded by the govt.  In the case of lower level hardware, sometimes the govt authorizes sales to our allies.  It’s not the latest version, as the new Stealth Fighter won’t be for sale to anyone anytime soon, but your original claim was that the defense industry was “heavily subsidized” and I explained why that was a non-issue.
Once again, you jump all over the place with your damaged ego, trying desperately to be relevant, when you have already lost.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Marxist Chad: 

When are Republicans going to stop wasting our tax dollars?

As usual, you show your complete ignorance of our free enterprise demand-based economic system. 
First, of all govt expense, we get something for our money with our Armed Forces.

Second, about two thirds of our budget is spent on social engineering programs, mostly written by Dems in the past, and that is where the real waste of our tax dollars lies.  We receive little or nothing in return for that money; it’s simply vote-buying by the political class.  If the social programs worked, we would need less spending on them each year; the reality is that we spend more, so they aren’t producing results.  Let’s cut the social spending first.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

We receive little or nothing in return for that money;

I would say that we often receive less than 0.  Social spending is very counterproductive.

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

r108 you said this:

the defense industry is what is know as a “monopsony”, which means “one buyer”

and you were wrong. Which you admit here:

the govt authorizes sales to our allies

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Snarkie: Sorry you didn’t get it the first time, and sorry you are unable to do simple logic, but the defense industry is a monopsony.  All military hardware in the US is originally produced for our govt.  Fact.
Defense contractors spend unGodly sums of money competing for that govt contract, and the ones whose product isn’t bought by the govt generally go out of business or merge with the winner.  Foreign or private buyers do not drive our defense industry; the only hardware that is sold in that way is permitted by the govt, and is a fraction of the total.  None of it would have been produced without a govt contract in the first place.  Your lack of economic knowledge is something I have come to expect from you.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

who something is produced for and who ultimately buys that something are different. you are just twisting what you said above. thanks for trying to seem like you were correct though.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sorry you don’t get it, Snarky.  The US defense industry is a monopsony; you made a comment about how it was “subsidized”, and I pointed out the error in your thinking.  You try to play word games, but you are wrong, as usual, when you go into the area of economics.  Leave that to the adults.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

well if it is then you misdefined monopsony in your first attempt. how can you say i was wrong to call it subsidized if you agree that its subsidized?

Well, duh!  All of defense industry is “subsidized”

we pay them r&r money and other money not just for the purchase of weapons. they sell the weapons to multiple parties. subsudies are in the form of r&r moneies et cetera. if we overpay, it is justified by such things. hence subsidies. what does defence mergers have to do with what we are talking about? you are squirming and distracting.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

No, Snarkie, just telling the truth to clear away the fog of deception you are putting out.  It’s not about perfection; it’s about market domination.  Even monopoly(one seller) is almost never perfect, the market is still dominated by that one seller.  The US defense industry is a monopsony, because the govt as a buyer is the cause of everything that happens in it.  Foreign sales are not a factor, in that they are of essentially surplus and obsolecent hardware.  Sorry this is all going over your head, but then you don’t know much about economics.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Foreign sales are not a factor, in that they are of essentially surplus and obsolecent hardware.

Simply not true. Think about the shit we sell Israel. It is not ‘surplus’ or ‘obsolete’. Nice try though. Keep squirming little worm.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

You continue to illustrate both your ignorance and your inability to stay on topic.
You made a snarky remark about the defense industry being “heavily subsidized”, and I pointed out that we set it up that way, because it’s a matter of national security.  Duh
In order to save your shattered ego, you have attempted to dispute an economic fact, to your detriment.
BTW, “obsolescent” is not the same as “obsolete”.  Look it up.  Your attempt to play nit-picking word games to defend your ignorance has become boring.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

you are full of hot air r108. seriously.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

obsolete and obsolescent are two variations of the same idea. they are both adjectives. they both mean the same thing. you’re FULL OF SHIT dude. sorry but you really are.
say specificly how i’m wrong without taking back the things you’ve said so far here. then maybe your BS accusations will stick. Dick.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

you are full of hot air r108. seriously.

Coming from you, that’s a compliment.

Obsolete and obsolescent do not mean the same thing.  As usual, you are like the one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest; at a considerable disadvantage.
BTW, “stupid” is also an adjective.  Duh

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Rob said

Frankly, choking the war in Iraq to death through a lack of funding would be a terrible mistake.  Democrats in Congress need to recognize that even with their majority in Congress the President still calls the shots on the war in Iraq.  As long as the authorization for war in Iraq passed by Congress stays in place, and as long as the President orders our troops to remain in Iraq, I think it is the duty of Congress to give those troops what they need.  That’s just the way it is.

It may or may not be a mistake but if I remember my Constitutional Law education from SA University I believe that cutting off funding is the only way for Congress to exercise its responsibility in this area. That was one of the checks on Executive authority unless I’m mistaken.

"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate

I don’t know if some of you actually didn’t get it, or are just playing dumb, but I was sarcastically using the free market argument I see so much on this blog. Many people here constantly bitch about the waste of tax dollars on social programs which actually benefit people, yet they see nothing wrong with sinking record amounts of money into the quagmire that is Iraq, which has only succeeded in making Americans less safe.

It may or may not be a mistake but if I remember my Constitutional Law education from SA University I believe that cutting off funding is the only way for Congress to exercise its responsibility in this area. That was one of the checks on Executive authority unless I’m mistaken.

Mike, you probably remember that from our discussions about the NSA program.  Congress has its hands on the purse strings, and that is one of the checks on the executive.

It isn’t the only way Congress can exercise its power, though.  The President can only wage the war in Iraq as long as it is authorized by Congress.  If Congress rescinds that authorization, no more war.

The reason why the Democrats are looking to cut the funding instead of rescinding the authorization for war is that rescinding the AUMF would require that the Democrats get the cooperation of some Republicans.  It has to get through a cloture vote in the Senate, and that requires 60 votes.

All the Dems have to do to cut funding for Iraq is not appropriate any more when the President asks for it.

I’m not saying they can’t do that, I’m saying it would be immoral.  As long as our troops are on the battlefield they should get what they need in terms of funding and resources.  If the Democrats can’t muster enough votes to pull the troops back then I think they’re just stuck.

Forcing our troops to lose this war through lack of resources shouldn’t be an option for any patriotic American.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Many people here constantly bitch about the waste of tax dollars on social programs which actually benefit people,

Benefits bureaucrats.  Ruins the recipients lives, but nothings too good for the bureaucrats, right?

yet they see nothing wrong with sinking record amounts of money into the quagmire that is Iraq, which has only succeeded in making Americans less safe.

I think the world is better off without Saddam.  Apparently you think the world is safer with him. 

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit trying to reason with nutjobs.

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Obsolete and obsolescent do not mean the same thing.

Why aren’t you backing it up? I smell more baseless bullshit from you. I know goddamn well they mean the same thing. If you think I’m wrong why don’t you explain yourself?

BTW, “stupid” is also an adjective.  Duh.

Thanks for that. Its great you brought that up because you make yourself look more stupid than I ever could. Thanks stupid!

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Thrid parties? Is r108 being a retarded donkey here or what?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Providing for a better defense probably has never occured to him. I suppose he is one of the people who believe 9-11 was set up by our own government??? That is one of the dumbest answers to the Iraq crisis I have yet to hear. Who is he?

I think the world is better off without Saddam.  Apparently you think the world is safer with him. 

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit trying to reason with nutjobs.

Nice strawman there. The world is most definately less safe thanks to the instability the U.S. has brought to the region.

Obsolete and obsolescent do not mean the same thing.

Why aren’t you backing it up?

Because it’s not my job to educate you.  Look them up in the dictionary, if you know how to do that.

I smell more baseless bullshit from you. I know goddamn well they mean the same thing. If you think I’m wrong why don’t you explain yourself?

More meaningless personal attack from you. Don’t you know how to use the dictionary?

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

I did look them up. That’s why I know you are wrong.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

The world is most definately less safe thanks to the instability the U.S. has brought to the region.

I suppose you really think that the mideast was a stable place.  LOL

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The world is most definately less safe thanks to the instability the U.S. has brought to the region.

Yes, Chad, a nuclear war between Iraq and Iran would have been so much better for everyone!  Had we not taken out Saddam, he would have continued to bribe the UN with his “oil-for-food” graft, and would have resumed his nuclear program, causing increased activity in the same area by Iran.  They would have resumed their war at a more destructive level.  Yes, much safer.  /sarcasm

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

r108. also not that the current digression into the difference between obsolete and obsolecent, which you are wrong about, it merely a distraction from the fact that you were wrong when you said we only sell surplus and obsolete weapons to our allies. which, in turn, is a distraction from the fact that you were also wrong here:

r108 you said this:

the defense industry is what is know as a “monopsony”, which means “one buyer”

and you were wrong. Which you admit here:

the govt authorizes sales to our allies

You are on a roll… and probably high on crack too. Don’t space out and forget to pick up your social security check, disability check, or welfare check (whichever it is) that you use to afford your crack habit and your ability to sit on this blog all day and lie.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

’note’ not ‘not’

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Oh my gosh! Chad, that region has never been stable. BUT if it makes you feel better blame it on Bush.

Saddam kept the various religious sects in check. Maybe you guys are right though, the current civil war going on there is probably much more stable…

...the current digression into the difference between obsolete and obsolecent…

The digression is all yours, and is irrelevant to your ignorance of the economic nature and function of our defense industry.  Just for you, here is the definition of “obsolescent” from Merriam-Webster:

obsolescent
One entry found for obsolescent.
Main Entry: ob·so·les·cent
Pronunciation: -s&nt
Function: adjective
: going out of use : becoming obsolete
- ob·so·les·cent·ly adverb

So, obsolescent hardware is in the process of becoming obsolete, but is not yet obsolete.  When we get new stuff, the older stuff is sometimes sold off.  Some of it is obsolete, and some of it is obsolescent.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Saddam kept the various religious sects in check

Yes, he kept them “in check” by murdering, torturing, raping and dismembering the Shia.  Nice apologism.
I notice you fail to deal with the inevitable clash with Iran if Saddam had remained in power…

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Yes, he kept them “in check” by murdering, torturing, raping and dismembering the Shia.  Nice apologism.

We’ve already killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

I notice you fail to deal with the inevitable clash with Iran if Saddam had remained in power…

Oh, because of all the WMDs he had, right…

We’ve already killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

A. Untrue.

B.  The ones we killed mostly deserved it.

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

We’ve already killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

Untrue on two levels; First, the numbers don’t add up.  The one leftie source was wildly exaggerated, and the Iraqis were killed either directly by terrorists, or as a result of the terrorists using civilians as shields.

The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.

People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules.  But it most certainly does.  All our problems are due to government meddling.

Back to Egg Head Kucinich for a moment.  Cutting funds for Iraq is not the answer.  Since Democrats are now in control of congress make it simple for the White House.  Put all funding for Iraq in the Federal Budget.  No more emergency appropriation bills will be funded after a certain date.  If it take $8 Billion a month for us to be in Iraq, budget $96 Billion in the federal budget and go from there.  But to stop spending money on Iraq while our troops are there is just immoral.

No more emergency appropriation bills will be funded after a certain date.  If it take $8 Billion a month for us to be in Iraq, budget $96 Billion in the federal budget and go from there.

The problem with that is that Iraq is a volatile situation.  Spending needs fluctuate, and money needs to flow there on a flexible and expedient basis.

Including Iraq funding in the federal budget exposes the mission and our troops to the delays common to passing the budget, I don’t think that’s the proper course of action.  Plus, adding it in with the budget gives some of the loony Dems cover for voting against funding in Iraq while ostensibly voting against some thing in the budget.

I think Iraq funding should be passed or declined on its own merits.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, you might be right on some of the funding problems that you brought up, but there should be some restraint on all the emergency appropriation bills that come up because of Iraq like equipment needing to be reconstituted.  When you are in war, you know that there will be more materials needed to reconstitute your equipment and that should be in the federal budget, not an emergency appropriation bill. 

All that I am asking is to try and project for some of the things that the Armed Forces know you are going to need, not just get money whenever ythey can because they include a non-emergency item in an emergency bill.

Bak, you may be right, but if there is one appropriate use of a supplemental appropriate bill it’d be for funding a war.

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I agree with your sentiments, but since the War On Terror has been going on for 5 years, you must know some of the costs associated with it.  I didn’t explain myself real well with my posts on this subject.  I would like to eliminate all the supplemental spending bills unless it’s a matter of the life or death of our troops.  Because the way that the Armed Forces are using their emergency spending bills isn’t for life or death things most of the time.  That way, the way that our money is being spent will be included in how our national budget is prepared.  Just the way I see it.

Of course if there is some large unforseen problem that pops up, put in a special spending bill.  That is why they are there.

All that I am asking is to try and project for some of the things that the Armed Forces know you are going to need, not just get money whenever ythey can because they include a non-emergency item in an emergency bill.

I’m not really seeing the point of your argument.  What is served by including Iraq war spending in the federal budget, outside of your desire to see it there?  Funding for the war still gets appropriated and voted on by Congress.  What difference does it make if its in the main budget or out on its own?

None, really.  Except that if it were in the federal budget it would be easier for Democrats to vote stall it and vote against it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I really don’t care how it gets done as long as it gets done.

So should the “base-line” war expenses get put into the regular budget.  I suppose that’d be fine.

However things come up in war and we have to be ready to react.  I don’t think it should be a matter of life and death before we do a supplemental for our war effort.

On the other hand I would hope we could agree that there should never be another spending item attached to a supplemental spending bill?

[W]hat you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.