I have - over the years - become fluent in the language known as "progressivese" and its sister tongue, "liberalese". Both languages fall under the umbrella of the master language, "propogandese". Some of you may not be familiar with these languages. I will look on this as an exercise in education, as I graciously translate the voice you hear in the video from his natural language of progressivese into English.

Most ambition legislative agendas since FDR...

Translation: Obama's agenda includes the most taxation & debt spending for wasteful social programs since Roosevelt's wasteful tax & spend socialist agenda.

"Moved quickly to pass stimulus package"

Passed a bill that too 800 billion dollars and put it into an unaccountable political slush fund that remains mostly unspent.

Moved quickly to bail out the banks

Obama voted for the BUSH administration's bailout while he was still a senator.

Well - I could go on through the whole vid but perhaps the point is made. This guy isn't reciting fact. It's an opinion based diatribe that blames everything on everyone except Obama. I'll give Obama credit in one thing though... His efforts to blame everyone but himself have clearly been effective with THIS video's malleable puppet. He's either an Obama administration plant trying to gin up the blogosphere, or he's the most easily manipulated tool on Earth. Probably the latter.

i find it funny that "socialist" still means "baby rapist" in the states. i also find it funny that mr. pennypacker calls the video's narrator a "malleable puppet" while still falling into republican rhetorical and logical traps.

How can that be when I'm not a Republican? I am - above all else - a fiscal conservative and Constitutional Constructionist who believes in the central philosophies established by the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers (limited federal powers & state's rights). When Republicans deviate from this platform then I eschew them as readily as the most left-wing socialist spendocrat.

If Obama or the Democrats would push a political agenda based on fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, reduced spending, and reduction of federal government then they'd have an ardant defender (me). As it is - they are leftist big government big tax big spend stoolies.

My current support of Republicans only goes so far as they are running on platforms that either (A) gridlock Obama's leftist, fiscally disasterous agenda - or (B) fight for reduced spending & federal shrinkage. I hope the GOP wins big in November and throws the entire system into complete and utter immobility. It did Clinton a world of good.

And for clarification... Obama's stupid re-definition of fiscal responsibility doesn't count as actual fiscal responsibility. He likes to move rhethorical targets and pretend he's actually doing something when he's actually doing the exact opposite. For example - he tried to say his dumb health care plan is 'fiscally responsible' via reducing costs. His numbers are either imaginary or purely hypothetical. But like most psuedo-intellectuals who operate in a realm of theory, he actually believes he's being fiscally responsible when he increases our deficit by 2 trillion dollars and loses 8.2 million jobs (and hides the figures). He's an idiot, and his fake definition of 'fiscally responsible' is for idiots. True fiscal responsibility would be to completely abandon all of his stupid 're-image America' agenda items, slash all domestic spending by 75%, and pay off our debt. Insted of that he's increasing spending and ratcheting up the debt. Idiot.

Moving this video to NetRunner's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

^ Domestic spending is a great idea.

Half-trillion dollar defense spending is what's killing us; it's like cooking a perfectly good steak and throwing it out the window.

With domestic spending, we cook the steak, and actually get to eat it.

Slash "defense" spending and raise taxes on the rich.

That would start to solve a lot of problems in a pinch.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
How can that be when I'm not a Republican?


you don't have to be republican to fall into their rhetorical and logical bullshit. you dismiss huge areas of working and proven political policies as if it's well proven and common knowledge that they've failed, which is not the case at all. your hyper-simplification and dismissal of these political philosophies and policies wreaks of baseless republican talking points and the inversion of the truth. don't get me wrong. i never believed that obama was going to be a "magic negro" or any of that bullshit. he's cut from the same cloth as every other american political leader. i'm only taking issue with your poor understanding of what "leftist" and "socialist" means.

personally, i don't think you're centrist at all. maybe in the states but "centrist" in the states is "right wing" in the rest of the western world.

@kir_mokum, you hit the nail on the head. I always feel like it's a big, sad joke whenever these ideologues start calling me a socialist or accusing me of being some sort of hardcore ideologue myself. Hell, I'd likely be considered a raving right-wing crazy in any country other than this one.

What I want is a pragmatic approach to governance -- just do what works. If I thought cutting taxes and regulation would really lead to some utopia, I'd be on board too. But the reality is that this mindless drive to cut government "spending" during a recession will make the country look a lot more like Colorado Springs than some sort of Galt's Gulch.

I'm against bad government policy, and for good government policy. There is no simple, universal rule about how to tell one from the other, no matter how loudly conservatives scream that there is.

The country would be better off if people stopped screaming bumper stickers, and instead took some time to read up on history, and look at the way other countries have dealt with various societal challenges, and an objective look at the results they achieved. Then have a real debate about that instead of engaging in this perpetual cycle of name calling and chest thumping.

^ Domestic spending is a great idea.

Not at the federal level. Domestic federal programs are routine failures and outstrip military spending at a 4 to 1 ratio. Parenthetically, the US military budget partially subsidizes the DOMESTIC spending budgets of Europeans. I agree with US defense cuts, starting with Western Europe.

With domestic spending, we cook the steak, and actually get to eat it.

Government solutions are bureaucracies - insular, self-serving, rife with waste, riddled with cronyism, and ineffective in process. The first priority of a public program is the inflation of its own budget. Effective programs by definition reduce the budget of the program. Therefore, public spending has no incentive for excellence, or even basic competence. There are good people within such systems, but all too often the biggest obstacle to them doing a good job is the very program they work for. The 'military industrial complex' is a popular target, but the 'domestic public complex' does more damage to society.

Domestic issues are not 'public' issues. They are moral issues solved at the individual level. Such problems cannot be served effectively by amoral, disinterested, 3rd removed parties such as government programs. To really tackle the social needs of a people then there are only two known methods with proven track records... Personal morality and individual freedom. Neither solution is indemic to a government based approach. Government distances itself from personal morality, and is inherently in opposition to individual freedom. This is why public programs fail - for they attempt to address moral issue amorally, and restrict freedom where more freedom is needed.

huge areas of working and proven political policies

Such as? I know some people say that leftist policies are successful. I wouldn't call them that. Public programs cede freedom to a central authority and require massive taxation, regulation, and cost controls to exist. For example, "Public medicine" achieves its so-called universal coverage by taxation and denied/delayed care. It is not an improvement on a free system. It does not supply 'better' care. It is not 'less expensive'. For it to be a 'working, proven policy' it would need to be shown to be demonstrably superior at all levels to a free-market solution. I await with eagerness the proof of that claim. The only 'proofs' are the opinions of wonks. My position is that a free-market solution will always be superior because it returns freedom to people. The opportunity cost of lost freedom is a dirty, hidden cost of all left-wing policies that they never really like to discuss.

^ Not at the federal level. Domestic federal programs are routine failures and outstrip military spending at a 4 to 1 ratio.

That's pretty much balderdash.

Half of the operating costs of the U.S. federal budget is spent on the military.

Domestic spending is an investment.

Mismanagement, bureaucratic bloating---yes, I agree, those are problems that must be guarded against. One need only look at the DEA for a good example.

But real, strategic, nuts and bolts domestic spending is essentially tax payer money being spent on things that tax payers can use.

Our defense spending, as a whole, including what we're spending and what we owe, is in fact the lions share of the money we're spending federally.

That also translates in resources, talent, and time that could be much better spent in other areas.

Half of the operating costs of the U.S. federal budget is spent on the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

I mean no offense, but the assertion that the federal budget is 'half' defense is the real balderdash here. Social security spending alone exceeds total defense spending AND 'war on terror' spending. When you put all the social programs together the total exceeds defense spending at a 4 to 1 ratio - just like I said.

Domestic spending is an investment.

See my above argument. Domestic spending programs do not substantively addresses underlying sociatal issues. Programs that are truly effective by nature decrease in budget annually until they reach a maintainance figure. This happens because effective programs require fewer and fewer participants and proportionally decreasing budgets. Government programs are designed to have progressively increasing budgets and participation. A true investment direct funding towards resources that reduce social spending. Public prgrams do the opposite. Therefore they are not 'investments'.

Defense spending is nearly half of all discretionary spending. $515 billion versus $691 billion for everything else.

In addition, I don't think that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are included in the budget:

"That figure (the defense budget) does not include any of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been paid for primarily through “emergency supplemental requests” that are not included in the federal budget’s accounting." (source)

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment - these are the things you would do away with in order to improve the world?

No. It would put a few more dollars in your pocket, that's all, and it would make life drastically worse for millions of people, including yourself, in a very short period of time.

Raise taxes on the rich, cut military spending - it's a winning combination.

Defense spending is nearly half of all discretionary spending.

:eyeroll: People who have screwed up often try to move the rhetorical goalpost and hope that everyone just gives them a pass. That doesn't fly with Winstonfield Q. Pennypacker. And so it is with the attempt to arbitrarily dump defense into a wholly rhetorical 'discretionary' category. Defense is the only spending the constitution specifically mandates to the federal government. Putting it into 'discretionary' and putting social programs into 'mandatory' is a leftist political trick that only fools the stupid. Federal Budget: social spending outstrips defense spending 4 to 1. Facts For The Win.

I don't think that the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are included in the budget:

They are. "War on terror" = Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment - these are the things you would do away with in order to improve the world?

Yes. That money would instead stay with people and businesses. The people would use the money to generate wealth, create jobs, and increase prosperity. A free population donates to the poor, gives to charity, and sponsors volunteerism independant of government involvement. Social issues are solved at the individual level by moral people who creatively use their own wealth. Social isues are perpetuated by the entitlement mentality generated by subsistence checks from budget obsessed bureaucracies. The only government involvement in social issues should be confined to municipal and state programs that are voted on by local communities. This is the philosophical divide between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives trust in freedom. Progressives fear it.

It would put a few more dollars in your pocket, that's all, and it would make life drastically worse for millions of people, including yourself, in a very short period of time.

I reject your progressive opinion. I trust that freedom is the answer - not government oppression. More dollars in everyone's pocket will make life better for millions of people - including yourself - in a very short time.

Raise taxes on the rich, cut military spending - it's a winning combination.

Lower taxes on everybody - including the rich - and cut government spending across the board. It's a winning combination. Works every time it is tried.

Obama’s total military budget is nearly $1 trillion. This includes Pentagon spending of $880 billion. Add secret black programs (about $70 billion); military aid to foreign nations like Egypt, Israel and Pakistan; 225,000 military “contractors” (mercenaries and workers); and veterans’ costs. Add $75 billion (nearly four times Canada’s total defence budget) for 16 intelligence agencies with 200,000 employees.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars ($1 trillion so far), will cost $200-250 billion more this year, including hidden and indirect expenses. Obama’s Afghan “surge” of 30,000 new troops will cost an additional $33 billion — more than Germany’s total defence budget. (source)

None of your suggestions would work. They have never worked.

The world does not magically get better by waiting around for the rich to figure out a way to get richer.

It would just put more money in your pocket for a little while, and that's all you want; that's as far as you can see.

You're promoting a world based on Randian delusion, motivated by greed.

That has never worked, and it never will.

Basically, WP, you're just proposing more Reagan, and Reagan didn't work.

None of your suggestions would work. They have never worked.

Ah. Freedom doesn't work. This is a philosophical divide I have with the left that will never be bridged. The left is oriented around the reduction of freedom as a means of accomplishing societal change. This approach is - essentially - attempting to bring the principles of planned economics to human behavior. All such past efforts have shown that leftist political philosophy CANNOT improve the human condition, and have proven conclusively to actually DECREASE human happiness & propserity. Freedom is the answer to the needs of humanity - not government central planning.

Reagan didn't work.

Reaganism wasn't allowed to work. Reagan's approach was to cut taxes and decrease spending. The Democrat controlled congress allowed the tax cuts, but not the spending cuts.

Bogus 1T 'defense' spending

Not sure where your article is pulling its numbers, but diamonds to dollars they are pulling them out of their ass. The budget is online, available for everyone to see. It isn't hiding anywhere. No figure in any GAO or GPO site in existence lists the military budget at 1 trillion dollars. As like as not, your article is lumping 2 or 3 yearly budgets together to arrive at these figures, or pulling some other accounting stunt to arrive at a number they believe is high enough to support a pre-conceived opinion.

Regardless... You could raise the taxes on the so-called 'rich' to 100%. You could cut US military spending to zero. It wouldn't be enough. It wouldn't be close. I've budgeted for big organizations, and I'll tell you right now that the budget GROWS to fit whatever amount you take in. You have a year where your income is $100,000 and you only 'budgeted' for $75,000? Well - next year's budget is now $100,000! That's now budgets work. Do you honestly believe that if suddenly the government had a 6 trillion budget, and spent 0.00 on the military that suddenly we would have 'enough'? If you believe that, then you really are beyond talking to on the subject of economics.

This is why you're an evil little shit, WP.

You go blaming Reagan's fist-fucking of America on the Democrats. He had little or no problem with the democrats since a lot of them were southern democrats and basically republicans at heart.

Reagan fucked us and you want more Reagan.

"The so-called rich...."

You take the cake.

If a million people give $5 to a program, now you have $5,000,000. That's real money. You can do something with that. Like create jobs.

You give a million people $5 each, and how many of them are going to go out and start a business and shake up the economy?

Zero.

Your ideas are juvenile, and your knowledge of economics does not exceed your obvious petty greed.

Our country needs a level playing field, and taxing the rich will help get us there.

You give the rich people more money and all they're going to do is spend it trying to figure out how to get richer...and by doing that, more often than not, they will spend their money trying to figure out ways to screw the middle class and shit on the poor.

Just like Reagan did.

You know what your solutions are going to lead to? Buy the book Oliver Twist, read it cover to cover, and bookmark the most dismal chapters.

That is the future of your so-called economic solution.

Take a peek at the darkest days of the industrial revolution in England--where the market had never been more free--and that's the bright shining future you're trying to resurrect.