I'm not gonna bother with the rest of your post because I've already addressed it seemingly hundreds of times by now, but I'll take exception to this:

As a side note – oh YEAH Bill Maher… The US budget entirely goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks, eh? What a complete moron. Whenever he opens his mouth to vainly try and sound intelligent, he proves himself ever more conclusively to be an absolute idiot. The 60 trillion in unfunded federal obligations is for socialism, dummy. The biggest budget items are socialism, idiot. Defense spending could be cut to zero tomorrow and we’d still be 59.2 trillion in debt for all those wonderful social programs that everyone loves so much.



He didn't say that at all. He was pointing out that the US could choose to fund universal health care, a real pension program, college tuition for anyone able, etc. instead of massively funding defense, giving corporate tax breaks. It wasn't ever suggested all the US budget goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks.

And he's right, this is the choice the US has chosen to make. Now, it's completely fair to debate if that choice is the wise one, but to pretend that's not what the US has chosen to do fiscally is simply ignoring basic fact.

And your statistics are calculated how exactly? Stop pulling numbers out of your butt. The massive deficits run the past few years are due to sudden severe income tax revenue declines plus temporary stimulus when the economy collapsed. If you're taking those numbers to project out long term national debt, you're being extremely disingenuous.

[citation needed]

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Hm – well I’ll give the racist bigot host a 50% for being half right.

It is true that US citizens do have a hypocritical relationship with the big government’s socialist voter-bribery scams. However, he is dead wrong when he claims ‘socialism works’.

Socialism doesn’t work. European governments across the spectrum are being forced to increase privatization and cut social benefits in order to stave of fiscal collapse. When BM glowing describes all the great stuff European countries have (health care etc…) he totally ignores report after report after report of these so-called ‘services’ being abject, utter, complete failures. The UK health care system is being forced to ration SURGERIES (IE death panels) or collapse. Spain, Greece, Italy, France, UK, Germany, Portugal… The list of European socialist nations tottering on the edge of failure and having to pass ‘austerity measures’ to survive is myriad.

But the reaction that citizens have to cuts in socialist services in Europe is no different than that of the pork addicted public in the US when anyone suggests that shutting off the spigot. The riots in Greece prove that. It is nothing more than the principle Thatcher nailed so accurately in 1975… “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This is merely an extension of Tytler’s argument that “democracy can only survive until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Which then leads to his subsequent “Cycle of Tyranny” (Liberty, Complacency, Dependancy, Tyranny, Revolution).

Maher (and other of his ilk) love to pretend that socialism works. Problem is that every factual analysis of socialism proves quite conclusively the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t work. It is failure after failure on parade. And the reason the US is failing is BECAUSE it has so much socialism in it already. We better hope the Tea Party can talk more citizens into agreeing to ditch socialism, or the US is destined to financial collapse and subsequent balkanization.

As a side note – oh YEAH Bill Maher… The US budget entirely goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks, eh? What a complete moron. Whenever he opens his mouth to vainly try and sound intelligent, he proves himself ever more conclusively to be an absolute idiot. The 60 trillion in unfunded federal obligations is for socialism, dummy. The biggest budget items are socialism, idiot. Defense spending could be cut to zero tomorrow and we’d still be 59.2 trillion in debt for all those wonderful social programs that everyone loves so much.

Maher calling Palin a retard is like a severed head calling Cain Velasquez a cripple.

Hm – well I’ll give the racist bigot host a 50% for being half right.

It is true that US citizens do have a hypocritical relationship with the big government’s socialist voter-bribery scams. However, he is dead wrong when he claims ‘socialism works’.

Socialism doesn’t work. European governments across the spectrum are being forced to increase privatization and cut social benefits in order to stave of fiscal collapse. When BM glowing describes all the great stuff European countries have (health care etc…) he totally ignores report after report after report of these so-called ‘services’ being abject, utter, complete failures. The UK health care system is being forced to ration SURGERIES (IE death panels) or collapse. Spain, Greece, Italy, France, UK, Germany, Portugal… The list of European socialist nations tottering on the edge of failure and having to pass ‘austerity measures’ to survive is myriad.

But the reaction that citizens have to cuts in socialist services in Europe is no different than that of the pork addicted public in the US when anyone suggests that shutting off the spigot. The riots in Greece prove that. It is nothing more than the principle Thatcher nailed so accurately in 1975… “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This is merely an extension of Tytler’s argument that “democracy can only survive until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.” Which then leads to his subsequent “Cycle of Tyranny” (Liberty, Complacency, Dependancy, Tyranny, Revolution).

Maher (and other of his ilk) love to pretend that socialism works. Problem is that every factual analysis of socialism proves quite conclusively the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t work. It is failure after failure on parade. And the reason the US is failing is BECAUSE it has so much socialism in it already. We better hope the Tea Party can talk more citizens into agreeing to ditch socialism, or the US is destined to financial collapse and subsequent balkanization.

As a side note – oh YEAH Bill Maher… The US budget entirely goes to military spending and corporate tax breaks, eh? What a complete moron. Whenever he opens his mouth to vainly try and sound intelligent, he proves himself ever more conclusively to be an absolute idiot. The 60 trillion in unfunded federal obligations is for socialism, dummy. The biggest budget items are socialism, idiot. Defense spending could be cut to zero tomorrow and we’d still be 59.2 trillion in debt for all those wonderful social programs that everyone loves so much.

Maher calling Palin a retard is like a severed head calling Cain Velasquez a cripple.

lets hope the alien invasion threat can continue to justify our military spending

>> ^blankfist:

Nary a one of the status quo candidates from either party (Dem or Repub) are serious about cutting military spending. Nary a one. Obama promised ending the wars, but expanded the military efforts. Food for thought.


The only expansion Obama really made was into Libya.

A few questions come to mind from that:
1.Do you agree that without Obama's intervention, the rebels would have been long ago wiped out and Libya would again be firmly and completely under Gadhafi's control?
2.As a vehement anti-statist, why do you so strongly oppose aiding in the removal of one of the worlds most repressive and brutal dictators?

Nary a one of the status quo candidates from either party (Dem or Repub) are serious about cutting military spending. Nary a one. Obama promised ending the wars, but expanded the military efforts. Food for thought.

Nary a one of the status quo candidates from either party (Dem or Repub) are serious about cutting military spending. Nary a one. Obama promised ending the wars, but expanded the military efforts. Food for thought.

[Interviewer]: So, what do you think? Good versus evil. We’re playing out the debt struggle and the debt ceiling issue. And if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’ll be in the apocalypse. What do you make of it all?

HUDSON: I think it’s evil working with evil.... If you have to choose between paying Social Security and Wall Street, pay our clients, Wall Street.

***

What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
***

It’s not about the debt ceiling. It’s about making an agreement now under an emergency conditions. You remember what Obama’s staff aide Rahm Emanuel said. He said a crisis is too important to waste. They’re using this crisis as a chance to ram through a financial policy, an anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti—selling out Social Security that they could never do under the normal course of things.

***

They’re not going to cut back the war in Libya.

***

They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: Yeah. But what–I hear you. But what I’m–I’m saying, what could be an alternative policy? For example, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Number two, raise taxes on the wealthy. Number three, cut back military spending. I mean, there are ways to do this without having to borrow more money, aren’t there?

HUDSON: Of course.
***

Of course they could cut back the fat. Of course what they should do is change the tax system. Of course they should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. And the one good thing in President Obama’s speech two days ago was he used the term spending on tax cuts. So that’s not the same thing as raising taxes. He said just cut spending by cutting spending on tax cuts for the financial sector, for the speculators who count all of their income that they get, billions of income, as capital gains, taxed at 15 percent instead of normal income at 35 percent. Let’s get rid of the tax loopholes that favor Wall Street.

***

Mr. Obama has always known who has been contributing primarily to his political campaigns. We know where his loyalties lie now. And, basically, he promised change because that’s what people would vote for, and he delivered the change constituency to the campaign contributors...

I want to take back my up vote!

The argument presented is flawed, a lot of technology we use today came out of military spending for wars (e.g. GPS), so wars are a good approach and life philosophy?

To the lawmakers: Laws against dancing are silly, and not unlike the old fogies in Footloose.

To the protesters: Surely there are more important things to protest. (Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, foreign prisons, corporate domination of our political system, the 'Citizen's United' ruling, lack of accountability for Wall Street crime, subsidies of high fructose corn syrup during an obesity epidemic, the war on drugs, gutting of social services, the patriot act, tax givaways to corporations and the super rich during a recession, No Child Left Behind, lack of a decent health care system, the department of homeland security, indulgent military spending, gutting of consumer protections, gutting of rights for workers, the rape of the underclasses, etc.)

I'd be happy to forfeit my right to dance at national monuments in return for an end to any of the practices listed above.

>> ^silky:

In Australia, The idea of a budget reply is to do whatever you like. It doesn't matter as it has no value except to win votes. I have never seen an oppostion budget that has actually been implemented. Anyway, it looks like our target here of getting back to surplus to 2013 is pretty good.
Knowing the US people, they would never stand for in principle a reduction in military spending in a general sense. If they said, cut certian new technology programs back that would be implemented insted, then that would have a better chance of getting through the public. Investment in infrastucture is ALWAYS in these kinds of things.
The tax breaks endings for the top-end is simply vote-grabbing. Can't they get these top guys to be involved in fixing certain issues instead. That would be a new idea: anyone earning over $10 million in a single year needs to fix a component of the total system that would have indirect symetary in their field: "You! Mr Gates! You now have to fix the transportation system!" They have to use their own money, and don't have to pay any tax.


Ironically, that would also allow them to create jobs with the extra money they are not getting taxed, something the propaganda machine always says happens with that money. It seems like your suggestion would be common sense, and I always kind of hope to read stories about the good things they are doing in this regard. However the stories are usually always the opposite, they use their money to meet their own ends; e.g. Bill Gates is a supporter of Atmosphere scrubbing, so he's spending money to ensure pollution can continue as per normal, and he thinks we'll just be able to release other chemicals to scrub CO2 out of the air.

In Australia, The idea of a budget reply is to do whatever you like. It doesn't matter as it has no value except to win votes. I have never seen an oppostion budget that has actually been implemented. Anyway, it looks like our target here of getting back to surplus to 2013 is pretty good.

Knowing the US people, they would never stand for in principle a reduction in military spending in a general sense. If they said, cut certian new technology programs back that would be implemented insted, then that would have a better chance of getting through the public. Investment in infrastucture is ALWAYS in these kinds of things.

The tax breaks endings for the top-end is simply vote-grabbing. Can't they get these top guys to be involved in fixing certain issues instead. That would be a new idea: anyone earning over $10 million in a single year needs to fix a component of the total system that would have indirect symetary in their field: "You! Mr Gates! You now have to fix the transportation system!" They have to use their own money, and don't have to pay any tax.

Not in favor of reducing military spending to that level. We need to decide what our military strategy is going to be, and then see how much that will cost to implement, not the other way around. Just cutting military spending and then making them make due will cause screw ups in actually withdrawing troops from various conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. We need to reduce defense spending, but that's not the right way to do it.

But I'm completely in favor of taxing Wall Street transactions. It would help to curb actions people take on Wall St. that does society absolutely no good such as stock speculation and micro-trading. Absolutely the right thing to do.

Again, you are using old information. Kevin Page's estimate is for the cost of the planes over the course of 30 years. The government's estimate is the cost over 20. Plus, those last 10 years, by the very nature of aircraft, are going to cost more money than the previous 20.

Of course the planes are going to cost more over 30 years than over 20. Page's estimates have been ridiculed by most independent sources for this very reason.

As for Harper's military spending, the Canadian Forces were decimated by the previous government in what many have called "the decade of darkness". Massive military spending was necessary to ensure Canada was able to maintain a military at all. And, after all that spending, Canada still spends less on the military as a percentage of GDP than nearly every western country, a measly 1.5%. Believe it or not, but nations need a military that is able to maintain their sovereignty - no amount of bubblegum and rainbows can protect a nation.
>> ^notarobot:

@^Skeeve

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:
29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.
Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

@^Skeeve



I'm not going to bother quoting your facts. It is not necessary. They are not really applicable to my original comment nor to my point. It also does not mean that King Steve is any less of a monger of conflict. Not identifying others as warmongers also does not mean that Harper is not one. (Sure there are worse people in history and in the world but I see no reason to compare Harper to them--A list of people better leaders would be longer and more fun anyway.)

Nevertheless, King Steve is placing the biggest push on expanding military spending since World War Two. Our troops were supposed to be gone from Afghanistan in 2011. They are still there. Harper wants to extend the misson. It is a drain on our tax-dollars that we cannot afford. They should be leaving. Period.

Now, as far as my math on $300 Million I'll walk you through that:

29 Billion divided by 65 warplanes is (about) 446 Million per warplane. Subtract the price of the warplanes (I used the average price from the wikipedia page for my ballpark but we can use your numbers and see how they work out) $138 Million equals (about) $308 Million dollars.

Now, I guess that's WITH engines. But Canadians are still going to be paying about $308 Million dollars in costs above and beyond the purchase price announced advertised by "The Harper Government" to own and operate these warplanes. A total cost of nearly $1000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.

If you want challenge some real lies, try www.harperlied.com you can tell them how wrong, wrong and wrong they are.



* Being ignorant of the real costs of those warplanes does not make them a defensible purchase. *