To borrow an overused phrase, "Hope and Change?"

The article is about military spending in 2008. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see it just as high in 2009 and 2010.

To borrow an overused phrase, "Hope and Change?"

#1 | Posted by Scrumplet

Uh huh...

So what do you expect Obama to do immediately?

Despite perceptions to the contrary, the President is not dictator.

The US still needs to maintain is military edge, though the US could eliminate many of its foreign entanglements (for example, getting entirely out of the ME, including Israel), but that's just my opinion.

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!

We spend over $600 Billion and China and Russia spend $150B together?

Well, someone has to buy all the weapons that we make, and the revolving door of government/weapons industry personnel makes sure that happens.

Oh Ike, where art thou now?

#3

That's some change I'm hoping for as well. I'd like to see it sooner than later, just as long as the spending does get cut.

I wonder where North Korea would fall on this list

So what do you expect Obama to do immediately?

Despite perceptions to the contrary, the President is not dictator.

The only thing I expect from Obama are sweet nothings.

We spend over $600 Billion...

#5 | Posted by Corky

Keep in mind that a large chunk of this goes to maintaining what the US has already built and deployed (troops, equipment, bases, support operations, transport, etc., etc.). I hate to think what a single carrier group costs for one day, let alone 11.

Also keep in mind the costs for employing the contractors to research, development, manufacture/assemble, and deliver. The numbers become truly boggling.

Let's say that you have 500 people on a team working a single program. Let's arbitrarily give them an average salary of $85k/year. So just to pay the gross salary of the team, you have to bring in $42,500,000 (!!!!!). This doesn't include all the bennies on top of the salary (health, dental, vision, vacation, holiday, etc.) Add in facility costs. Equipment costs. Manufacturing costs. Training costs. Various other innumerable support costs. Etc., etc., etc.

Can burn through $600B really fast.

I wonder where North Korea would fall on this list

Well, someone has to buy all the weapons that we make, and the revolving door of government/weapons industry personnel makes sure that happens.

Hence NATO, foreign bases and letting the whole saudi involvement in 9-11 slide.

Since WWII the two greatest terrorist states, who have killed more people than all the "terrorists" in our lifetimes are the USA and Israel. USA by virtue of its belligerence and the size of its military and Israel by virtue of their belligerence and per capita spending.

We spend over $600 Billion and China and Russia spend $150B together?

#5 | Posted by Corky

When China and Russia pay their average soldier next to nothing, military costs sure do drop!

I agree that 600B is a ton of cash and should be lowered, but the only ways to do so are to lower soldier pay (bad idea...), get rid of things we've already built (foreign bases, etc.) or cut down on R&D. I believe they've started lowering costs via the third method with the funding pulled for the F-22.

A fourth way would be cutting down on waste, and over-spending through no-bid contracts.

#12 | Posted by nutcase

LOL - how many millions of North Koreans have starved so the "Great Leader" can have his nukes? How many thousands of dissidents are "disappeared" in China every single year by their government? Your unfounded vitriol toward the US and Israel gets old.

#14 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

True - anyone know the stats of waste/overspending in the military? Is it a significant number?

WOW, that's almost as one of the smaller Obama stimulus bills.

KBM-that's about 300 billion a YEAR. that"d be 2.4 TRILION over Bush's term, and probably the same over Clinton's.

For what?

So some Generals can retire into VP positions at the companies they were supposed to be monitoring?

But they couldn't get Osama Bin Laden, couldn't bring real peace to Iraq, can't insure the safety of Israel, can't stop the Mexican drug cartels....seems like the gravy train produces all sorts of weapons and stuff but little of it really makes us any safer. It makes defense contractors richer but that's about all.

#5 | Posted by Corky

if you figure what both those countries spend on paying their soldiers you'll find what they make is a pittance compared to american soldiers, so may actually be quite comparable to the u.s. or even higher.

if you figure what both those countries spend on paying their soldiers you'll find what they make is a pittance compared to american soldiers, so may actually be quite comparable to the u.s. or even higher.

#21 | Posted by nanc at 2009-06-08 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

You seem to be suggesting that their soldiers are better, and work for less.

You seem to be suggesting that their soldiers are better, and work for less.
#22 | Posted by BetelG

I didn't see the implication that Russian and Chinese soldiers were better, but they definitely work for a whole lot less. That fact is indisputable.

Bartimus-
So we're not getting our money's worth?

So there we have it, NANC's answer to our defense budget....cut the pay for the soldiers. Nice.

Yes. According to NANC, et al, our soldiers just can't compete....

You seem to be suggesting that their soldiers are better, and work for less.

And they're not members of the UAW. $Expect the righties to start outsourcing even more of the military to China. Hell, they'd be cheaper than Blackwater.....

I believe that the long range budget for obama includes various cuts including missle defense right at the time that he tells israel that they will have to live with a nuclear iran and the little shit in north korea is about to get all the nukes that he wants..

BUT OBAMA has another problem brewing and it started in california with the no on taxes and has kept on in Europe this past weekend

ELECTIONS ALL OVER europe and conservatives won almost EVERY TIME..........socialists now even talking about changing their name to democrats

above info from the rush limbaugh show...today read from article

) I have to write this here because you guys wont hear a word of this on msnbc or read it anywhere else like that)

To the simpletons attributing this to Obama, you clowns do realize that he was NEVER the President in the year 2008, right?

ELECTIONS ALL OVER europe and conservatives won almost EVERY TIME..........socialists now even talking about changing their name to democrats

above info from the rush limbaugh show...today read from article

) I have to write this here because you guys wont hear a word of this on msnbc or read it anywhere else like that)

#28 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-06-08 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wasn't it your party that actually had a vote on whether to call the Democrats 'socialists'?

....and you clowns wonder why you're so irrelevant?

Bombs not books. Fucking shameful.

so thats your comment to conservatism getting such a large vote of YES all over europe?

please consult your memo from the white house enemies list from this morning and try again will you?
pretty weak.

or maybe you can wait for olberman...OOPS>.nevermind ..he WOULD NEVER put anything like this on his little program.

To the simpletons attributing this to Obama, you clowns do realize that he was NEVER the President in the year 2008, right?

#29 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

no matter how many times someone from obamamania tries to bullshit their way with 'we inherited it' or it was the mess that was left behind"

ITS OBAMAS ECONOMY NOW.

MAN UP and take the heat

no matter how many times someone from obamamania tries to bullshit their way with 'we inherited it' or it was the mess that was left behind"

ITS OBAMAS ECONOMY NOW.

So if I give you three malnurished children at death's door and you cannot get them back to health in a few weeks, it is your fault they are malnurished and not mine?

it depends...if you do the drastic things that has done to this economy and threatening to come up with a DISASTOR called socialized health care then
THAT BECOMES HIS

and you know good and well that he is getting the obama pass that NO republican would EVER GET.
I remember reading here all the time how bush was responsible for every economic hiccup the day he was sworn in and you know that

that was the bush economy though..the one THAT GREW AND GREW AND GREW when unemployment was FOUR POINT SOMETHING PERCENT and it was too high because it was bush's

AND today we heard two clips on the rush show

one was from march when barry said that he didnt really look or worry about the market
and this morning he talked about how the market was up some and made it a point

he's not lying but his comments have that 'expiration date'

That's a lot of money to keep the pants pissers safe. You'd think with all the guns they have in their homes that theywould feel safe, but no---they need billions spent on defense, and still they whine about needing bigger bombs and more planes.

The people of the United States don't need a huge military as much as they do health care. If we spent our money on health care instead of killing foreign people that are no threat to us, our standing in the world would increase dramatically---and a LOT more people would be alive--foreign and domestic.

ITS OBAMAS ECONOMY NOW.

MAN UP and take the heat

#33 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-06-08 02:45 PM | Reply | Fl

You mean like Bush whined about inheriting the recession from Clinton for years that the repubs still whine about and never manned up about? Like Reagan whined about inheriting a recession from Carter that repubs still whine about and never manned up about?

Fuck off you little hypocritical pimple.

the economic situation is the fault of every Congress and every President since Reagan. Obama is trying to deal with it, I don't think even he knows if he is doing the right things but as I heard on NPR's Sloan Sessions this morning, if he had not bailed out the banks it is likely that we would not even be able to be having this discussion because the economy would have melted down completely.
It is easy now to second guess the President, the previous President, etc. but we should have been preparing for this situation long before Obama became president.
I notice too that the same folks now saying It's Obama's fault gave George W. a pass on 9-11 and he was president quite a bit longer than Obama has been and he was warned.

aflac-when American "conservatives" start spending like European "conservatives" on social issues, especially socialized, communistic health care which all the Euroweenie "conservatives" support, maybe you guys would be relevant again, too.

Then again, anybody who gets his news from Rush ain't exactly dealing in the real world anyways....

And aflac, not to bust your tea bag, but that was for the one world socialistic European Parliament, not a real government. But the ultra righties did do better, which should please the righties here.

no matter how many times someone from obamamania tries to bullshit their way with 'we inherited it' or it was the mess that was left behind"

ITS OBAMAS ECONOMY NOW.

MAN UP and take the heat

#33 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-06-08 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

....and NO MATTER how many times the facts show that the 2008 Military Budget happened under Bush and NOT Obama, the Bush-boot-lickers will ignore all logic and scream 'Obama's Fault'.

Face it, you can't win this. You kow you're wrong, so save yourself the embarrassment.....or NOT. I love seeing you crash and burn.

so thats your comment to conservatism getting such a large vote of YES all over europe?

please consult your memo from the white house enemies list from this morning and try again will you?
pretty weak.

or maybe you can wait for olberman...OOPS>.nevermind ..he WOULD NEVER put anything like this on his little program.

#32 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-06-08 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, not all. Get the ADD in check and do try to keep up.

My 'comment' was in response to a PIECE of what you typed about renaming what you call 'socialism' to democrat. I simply pointed out that it was your party of fellow irrelevants that tried to make the inverse an issue recently.

As for Europe, since when do you care? Your party routinely goes out of it's way to bash Europe and now we're supposed to perk up and listen when you quote something about recent political leanings?

no matter how many times someone from obamamania tries to bullshit their way with 'we inherited it' or it was the mess that was left behind"

ITS OBAMAS ECONOMY NOW.

MAN UP and take the heat

#33 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-06-08 02:45 PM

So if I give you three malnurished children at death's door and you cannot get them back to health in a few weeks, it is your fault they are malnurished and not mine?

#34 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-06-08 02:46 PM

So there we have it, NANC's answer to our defense budget....cut the pay for the soldiers. Nice.
#25 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-08 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes. According to NANC, et al, our soldiers just can't compete....
#26 | Posted by BetelG at 2009-06-08 12:29 PM

it seems i left a link in the last couple of weeks that stated china paid their military officers $700 per month.

you can check military pay tables here:

"You seem to be suggesting that their soldiers are better, and work for less."

#22 | Posted by BetelG

i'm suggesting the numbers are skewed when all accounts are taken into consideration.

so thats your comment to conservatism getting such a large vote of YES all over europe?

Conservatism in Europe is mostly on the left of the US-Democrats .

Our military budget should be 1/3 to 1/2 of what it is.

When your economy is based in large part on military spending, it becomes a self fullfilling need, thus the need for wars to justify the expenditures.

When a nations economy is based on the need for war, other aspects suffer, nationalism is spread to support the military budget.

One of the reasons why it is so hard to cut the Military budget, is just about every State has a stake so it makes it difficult for Congress to come up with the cuts. Example the F-22 project is in 40 something states, so you have all those Senators, and House Members who go to bat for their States/Districsts.

You mean like Bush whined about inheriting the recession from Clinton for years that the repubs still whine about and never manned up about? Like Reagan whined about inheriting a recession from Carter that repubs still whine about and never manned up about?

Fuck off you little hypocritical pimple.

#38 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-06

well it certainly takes one to know one because if my memory serves me correctly and IT DOES, there were plenty of LIBERAL FUCKS who disavowed any knowledge of a recession at the beginning of the bush terms...so which is it boboreano???

" there were plenty of LIBERAL FUCKS who disavowed any knowledge of a recession at the beginning of the bush terms"

That's because a recession never happened at the beginning of the Bush terms.

Try an Econ course, for once in your life.

I remember when this same military spending phenomenon happened to "peace candidate" Lyndon Johnson, who got elected in part by making Goldwater out to be a war nut. Goldwater remains the only Republican I ever voted for as a presidential candidate and the farther away in time the more I am proud of that vote.

That's because a recession never happened at the beginning of the Bush terms.

Try an Econ course, for once in your life.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-09 11

UH sir...did you READ the posts from me and bob before you typed this...

I believe THIS was from bob...

You mean like Bush whined about inheriting the recession from Clinton for years that the repubs still whine about and never manned up about? Like Reagan whined about inheriting a recession from Carter that repubs still whine about and never manned up about?

I believe he started the idea here of a recession at the end of each presidents term..and I responded and it was a recession in all of the classic senses from my reading of it.
and I dont blame any of them for it because its cyclical(sp)...but that doesnt mean that I will let bob's statement go unchallenged...

and NO LIB or left or even one of those so calld moderates can even come CLOSE to denying a MASS hypocricy from the left here when it comes to the bush economy versus what obama has done to the end of the bush term economy.....

REMEMBER THoSE good old days when ALL OF YOu libs here told us OVER AND OVER that 4.6 % unemployment was going to WRECKand THE COUNTRY..........and now...well NINE POINT FOUR isnt so bad....

" it was a recession in all of the classic senses from my reading of it. "

And therein lies the problem. It wasn't a recession in ANY classic interpretation.

But please, feel free to link to authors who would flunk an Econ 101 final.

and how about the new economic factor that obama IS MAKING UP to look good

150,000 JOBS SAVED..

in the words of krauthammer

these are 'bogus' numbers
"mathematical fantasia'
and 'complete invention based on nothing'

but DUPES all over the country will swallow it like the good like cultists robots they are....

" a MASS hypocricy from the left here when it comes to the bush economy versus what obama has done to the end of the bush term economy...."

Are you joking?

Clinton left a sound economy and true surplus budgets on his successor's doorstep. Bush left record deficits & massive debt, and for good measure drove the economic ship of state off the cliff before handing off the steering wheel.

if there was no recession at the beginning of bush's term then there was no recession at the end either because the figures I believe you are going on didnt kick in until obama was sworn in but I am sure you will tell me real quick that it was BUSH"S economy at the same time you tell me that it wasnt CLINTON"S economy in 2000.

thats usually the way it works on this subject around here

and of course you are ignoring all of the following

the dotcom bust
9/11

and please include the word....PROJECTED when you talk about clinton's budget...and IM not saying that was bad either...he did good with that REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.....another little TRUTH the left loves to forget.

" because the figures I believe you are going on didnt kick in until obama was sworn in "

Flunk, again.

AND IM NOT JOKING

the bush economy for most of his terms was a booming and growing one by any unbiased person..
did he spend too much
let me answer that by saying he spent as good as any democrat...and thats a lot..

but unemployment was less than 5%..
and remember all of the people who told us that would wreck the country and the world..

"and of course you are ignoring all of the following
the dotcom bust
9/11"

No, I'm not. Even if you unfairly pin the post 9/11 lows on Clinton, the DJIA still more than doubled on his watch, rising 150%.

Try comparing those numbers to Dubya's.

"and please include the word....PROJECTED when you talk about clinton's budget.."

Why? Will it make Bush's squandering of a once-in-a-century opportunity less egregious?

"the bush economy for most of his terms was a booming and growing one by any unbiased person.."

Bushit. The "Bush economy" was a house of cards, as recently exposed.

yeah sure it was...

and even with his democrat level spending, he still would not be spending money at the rate obama is and you know that..

and where is the outrage..they promised us that the rate would not go higher than 8% and its at 9.4 and rising....

close your eyes and envison the attacks on bush if he had made that same comment with the same results.
HELL the white house press corps might actually get thier thumbs out of thier asses then....

"and even with his democrat level spending, he still would not be spending money at the rate obama is and you know that.."

Gee, and do you think another half-trillion in interest payments on the debt Bush left his successor helps or hurts?

you cant gloss over the emmense deficit and debt added by the obama administration is a marked short time.
bush deficit is no excuse to triple I dont care what you say.

and all of the government control

for instance...example after example of successfull car dealers getting thier notices...and NOONE IN the white house will tell anyone who is making these choices and if its the car czar..he wasnt elected and has NO OVErSIGHT..........

an OBAMA idea and effort to take over the entire place.

DANFORTH wrote:
it was a recession in all of the classic senses from my reading of it. "
And therein lies the problem. It wasn't a recession in ANY classic interpretation.
But please, feel free to link to authors who would flunk an Econ 101 final.
------------------------------
------------------------------
--
Here is a link to the NASDAQ Composite, it crashed in 2000 which laid the mustard seeds for the upcoming bad economy, but no recession (because there were no 2 quarters of negative GDP).

"but no recession (because there were no 2 quarters of negative GDP). "

Correctamundo. Though to be precise, it should read "2 consecutive quarters".

DANFORTH wrote:

Clinton left a sound economy and true surplus budgets on his successor's doorstep. Bush left record deficits & massive debt, and for good measure drove the economic ship ofstateoff the cliff before handing off the steering wheel.
----------------------

Anyone who has taken ECON 101 knows that the Federal Budget is a shell game, when you include all the Off Budget Items and other shinanigans you get the real truth.
Public Debt per GDP under Clinton was as high as 49.4% and as low as 35.1%
Public Dept per GDP under Bush was as high as 39% and as low as lows as 33.0%
Here is a link to the Federal Government data tables on the Nation Debt
Bush's economy was a house of Cards but so was Clintons.

I left out the link so here is the link to the Feds tables on the nation debt

"Public Debt per GDP under Clinton was as high as 49.4% and as low as 35.1%
Public Dept per GDP under Bush was as high as 39% and as low as lows as 33.0%"

And without looking, I can tell you Clinton's high was near the start of his term, and Bush's low was near the start of his.

"Public Debt per GDP under Clinton was as high as 49.4% and as low as 35.1%
Public Dept per GDP under Bush was as high as 39% and as low as lows as 33.0%"

And without looking, I can tell you Clinton's high was near the start of his term, and Bush's low was near the start of his.

--------------------------
You wrote "Bush left record deficits & massive debt"

So if Bush's numbers represent massive debt and his worst and best numbers are better than Clintons how would you describe Clintons?

So if Bush's numbers represent massive debt and his worst and best numbers are better than Clintons how would you describe Clintons?

Posted by 90c2cab at 2009-06-09 02:27 PM

Honest?*

*Yes, a FF attempt.

#71 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2009-06-09 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag: wrong

Carter left office with the national debt at ~32% pf GDP, the lowest since WWII.

"So if Bush's numbers represent massive debt and his worst and best numbers are better than Clintons how would you describe Clintons?"

No President has control over what he inherits. Clinton got high numbers and drove his percentages down; Bush took Clinton's momentum and turned it around.

DANFORTH wrote:
No President has control over what he inherits. Clinton got high numbers and drove his percentages down; Bush took Clinton's momentum and turned it around.

-------------

Nice SPIN

I will take good numbers over bad numbers trending down.

#71 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2009-06-09 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag: wrong

zfacts.com

From whitehouse.gov
Clinton 67% of GDP down to 58% of GDP
Bush II 58% of GDP up to 75% of GDP

------------------------------
-------
My numbers were from our Federal Government web pages, and they represent public debt not gross debt.

I will take the Official Feds numbers of zfacts.com

Clintons worst numbers were when the Democrats controlled Congress, and his best numbers were when the Republicans were in control of Congress

#78 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2009-06-09 03:04 PM

I believe what sank Carter was also having a Democrat Congress. Checks and Balances are more than a catchphrase...they actually work.

Corrected post

I will take the Official Fed numbers over zfacts.com.

The price of frredom my fellow Americans!

"Clintons worst numbers were when the Democrats controlled Congress, and his best numbers were when the Republicans were in control of Congress"

Clinton's worst numbers are also based on conditions he inherited from Bush 1. Dubya's best numbers are based on conditions he inherited from Clinton.

"I will take good numbers over bad numbers trending down."

Then you see Clinton took the brunt of the high deficits he inherited and tamed them, trending them the other way, and Dubya took the surpluses and pissed them away, reversing the trend Clinton started.

Oh and Bush the 2nd best numbers were when he had a Republican Congress, and his worst numbers were when he had a Congress controlled by the Democrats.

Ultimately it boils down to this:

Would you rather have inherited the economy Clinton left, or the mess Bush left?

DANFORTH wrote Dubya took the surpluses

--------------

Robert Edward Rubin once said that if calculated Goldman Sachs budget the way the FEDS do he would go to prison.

So ff you believe there were budget surpuses then I have bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

"So ff you believe there were budget surpuses then I have bridge to sell you in Brooklyn."

Read the budgets sometimes. Clinton's "surplus" was done with counting the SS overcollections. But all projections going into the Bush years showed surpluses in the trillions, even without counting SS.

And if you believe Bush didn't piss that away, well...it's obvious how you got the bridge in the first place.

"Robert Edward Rubin once said that if calculated Goldman Sachs budget the way the FEDS do he would go to prison."

And if I did, to either of the Pension Plans where I'm a Trustee, the same stuff Congress does to SS, I'd be in jail. That doesn't change the fact Bush was handed surpluses and left his successor the largest deficit known to man.

DANFORTH wrote: Would you rather have inherited the economy Clinton left, or the mess Bush left?
---------------
Clinton left us with a NASDAQ Composite in the toilet(which laid the mustered seeds for a bad economy), in which the baby boomers lost a lot of money so to recoup their losses they jumped into real-estate which led to this current recession.

I personally don't like either choice is their a 3rd choice.

Corrected post

Clinton left us with a NASDAQ Composite in the toilet(which laid the mustered seeds for a bad economy), in which the baby boomers lost a lot of money so to recoup their losses they jumped into real-estate which helped create that bubble and leed us to this current recession.

I'm continually amazed at how many dumbfucks are willing to believe the numbers China, or Russia for that matter, release in regards to their military expenditures.

"Clinton left us with a NASDAQ Composite in the toilet(which laid the mustered seeds for a bad economy)"

So which is it? Was Bush's economy a bad one, or a good one? Make up your mind.

BTW, the NASDAQ was 700 when Clinton took office, and 2700 when he left. Bush got it at 2700 and left it at 1525. Spin away.

"in which the baby boomers lost a lot of money so to recoup their losses they jumped into real-estate which led to this current recession."

So when will you be taking your first Economics class?

"I personally don't like either choice"

Facing massive surpluses vs. facing massive deficits? And you can't choose?!? Well...that explains a lot.

"I'm continually amazed at how many dumbfucks are willing to believe the numbers China, or Russia for that matter, release in regards to their military expenditures."

Do they even release figures? But, here, try this on for size: www.globalsecurity.org

#92 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-06-09 04:07 PM | Reply

DANFORTH wrote :So when will you be taking your first Economics class?
----------------------------

When you take your 1st Math 101 class.

DANFORTH we were talking about the National Debt and you switched topics, it must of been because you were kicking my butt, and you got tired of it.

and note to danni - i would NEVER suggest to cut the pay of our military - they're getting a 3.9% cola this year which seems mighty low to me.

#45 | Posted by nanc at 2009-06-08 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag

????

COLA varies from region to region.

REMEMBER THoSE good old days when ALL OF YOu libs here told us OVER AND OVER that 4.6 % unemployment was going to WRECKand THE COUNTRY..........and now...well NINE POINT FOUR isnt so bad....

#53 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-06-09 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Riiiiiight....becuse 4.6 was number we could trust from BushCo.

Riiiiiight....becuse 4.6 was number we could trust from BushCo.

yeah, he just wrote it on a cocktail napkin and threw it at the media.

So we should believe these numbers now??

Since WWII the two greatest terrorist states, who have killed more people than all the "terrorists" in our lifetimes are the USA and Israel. USA by virtue of its belligerence and the size of its military and Israel by virtue of their belligerence and per capita spending.

#12 | Posted by nutcase

Sure, but you're not counting Kim Jung Il, Saddam, the genocide in Darfur, and many other dictators who kill their people on a daily basis. In other words, you're wrong.

the economic situation is the fault of every Congress and every President since Reagan.-Danni

Danni, why do you always always leave out Carter? You never mention Carter when you mention economic messes and he created the worst of them. You are a pathetic hack.

"When you take your 1st Math 101 class."

Long ago.

But have you made a choice yet...between massive deficits or massive surpluses?

Riiiiiight....becuse 4.6 was number we could trust from BushCo.

yeah, he just wrote it on a cocktail napkin and threw it at the media.

So we should believe these numbers now??

#98 | Posted by eberly at 2009-06-09 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Duh....we all know they weren't written on a napkin. They were written on toilet paper so Bush could wipe his ass with it later and then flush it away, just like all the jobs.