2

1/23/2006 4:02:45 PM

What would comparing do? So what if they spend less/more? We're doing pretty alright over here. Plus, they depend on our military when shit goes down so they can afford to cut spending there. France knows that when the Germans cross the Rhine once again, we'll be there, once again.

1/23/2006 4:04:49 PM

Quote :

"someone should compare this proportionally to another advanced country, im just curious to see what it would look like "

Try China, they are the best example....they have increased their military speending significantly in the past 5yrs to levels almost equal to ours.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 4:11 PM. Reason : proportionately]

1/23/2006 4:06:50 PM

^^now thats just silly

maybe youre trying to be cute, but germany and france are working to closely on defense in the EU for that to happen now or any time soon.

then again, im sure you think that you have to crack on other countries to be "pro-american". youre doing a helluva job getting all riled up today.

^thats a better idea, since they arent collaboration w/ other nations on defense like the EU nations. i would actually really like to see that done by someone.

[Edited on January 23, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2006 4:07:45 PM

It's not an idea, it's an example. When [insert country a here] invades [insert allied country b here], [allied country b] knows america will be there.

1/23/2006 4:09:26 PM

Now I would like to address this arts funding issue. Now this all reminds me of a humorous story of the traveling salesman. Let's say that the taxpayer is a farmer and the government is a salesman. Well the farmer says "You can spend the night in my barn, but do me a favor, don't stick your willie into any of the three holes in the wall." Well in this case the salesman's willie represents the taxpayers money you understand. Well the government like the salesman can't help himself. Sticks his willie in the first hole, and it feels good. Sticks his willie in the second hole and it feels even better. Sticks his willie in the third hole and it hurts like hell and it won't let go! Well in the morning the farmer comes out and he explains "Behind the first hole was my wife. Behind the second hole was my daughter and behind the third hole was a milking machine that won't let go until it gets 50 gallons, ha, ha, ha!"

GENTLEMEN I PROPOSE THAT THIS ARTS FUNDING IS LIKE A MILKING MACHINE AND UNLESS WE SHUT IT DOWN, IT'S GONNA RIP OUT DICKS RIGHT OFF!

1/23/2006 4:11:27 PM

Well, if you wanted to compare our government to another government, then you should include all of our government. This graph only covers the Federal Government, where-as the states collectively spend about 50% of the money and very little of it on their respective state militias.

1/23/2006 4:52:21 PM

nice design

1/23/2006 5:24:19 PM

nice ass

1/23/2006 5:25:59 PM

thx

1/23/2006 5:34:43 PM

lolbutts!

1/23/2006 5:41:20 PM

Probably been said, I didn't read the thread.

I wonder how many tax dollars went to making that poster?

In a semi-related note... How many tax dollars go into programs where they just end up flipping the food pyramid on its side and say something akin to "eat good"? I guess that tax money does go toward giving people jobs.

1/24/2006 8:13:03 AM

bttt

3/22/2006 12:14:00 AM

Quote :

"Why do we spend more on jets than we do on public housing? Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small?"

because jets are the government's job, and art is not (I'm not opposed to having some gov't funding for arts, but i think it should be minimal).

and jets are really damned expensive.

Quote :

"what happened to republicans wanting less government?"

i don't know, but they're driving me away...just waiting for my chance to get in there and do things right.

3/22/2006 12:30:59 AM

Here here! It seems the last republican president was a boon for government growth, a quazi-socialist if you will. The last Democratic president was a miracle of government restraint (rediculously high taxes asside), a quazi-fiscal conservative. Maybe the Democrats will be SO fed up with Bush that they'll nominate a quazi-libertarian? I'd vote for that in a second!

You just can't trust Republican presidents anymore. I, like a good conservative, harken back to the good old days of a Republican Congress and a Democratic President.

3/22/2006 12:58:18 AM

Quote :

"Maybe the Democrats will be SO fed up with Bush that they'll nominate a quazi-libertarian"

i wouldn't count on it. don't you remember the guys they put up against him last time (all of the contenders, not just Kerry)? didn't you watch any of their primary debates? they would've made karl marx proud.

3/22/2006 8:25:39 AM

even now their biggest idea is socializing internet access

gg liberals you really know how to take advantage of the president's low polling numbers

3/22/2006 8:28:28 AM

anyone know the actual breakdown of our tax spending? i want to see a chart showing percentages

3/22/2006 9:33:05 AM

^^ Well, now, be reasonable. They had only been out of the WH for 4 years at that point. I'm sure the guy they ran in 1984 was batshit marxist. Possibly even in 1888.

You see, after Clinton, I suspect many Democrats came to the conclusion "Better to lose than elect another New Democrat, which weren't Democrats at all!" It takes time for people to forget just how horrible it really is for your guy to really win. Only then, will they become despirate and willing to compromise on their guy.

Of course, Bush also fucked them over because he convinced them that whatever they nominated would get elected. If they still have the same mentality, then they are going to nominate their dream candidate, not their consencus candidate from the south running on welfare reform and a balanced budget.

3/22/2006 9:42:54 AM

Quote :

"Pretty much everything on the right side of the graph produces nothing but dependence and market failure (with exceptions, of course, the regulatory agencies do some good but constitute such a small portion of the right-side of the graph as to almost be meaningless). "

yeah... fuck those overly dependent elderly people, AIDS patients, libraries, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Endowment for the Arts and the Endowment for the Humanities, housing assistance for needy families, the National Park Service, higher education, grants for teachers and reading programs

if all of these things were eliminated all of the weak would die and America would be strong
why don't we spend some of the money we save by cutting these programs on a eugenics program or some sort of "final solution" to end social parasitism?

3/22/2006 10:43:50 AM

Quote :

"You do know that that is the single reason we won the cold war, right? So you're wrong because there is a lot of historical significance to that program. And given that Iran is being crazy and Kim Jong Il has been crazy for a while, I say we up that budget. And America has long been gracious to our enemies. When we introduced SDI back in the 80s, Reagan offered it to the Russians as a way to eliminate the nuclear threat for all of mankind. Why get rid of this? Make it work. Then the world will, once again, be better off because of America."

1. single reason? que?
2. sounds like you think historical significance is reason to keep a program
3. it still doesnt work after more than 20 years, how much time do we give a failing program? i thought you people had moved on to the missle defense shield now, or are we just going to think up as many programs as possible and throw them out there to see what works w/o actually knowing if any of them will.

3/22/2006 10:59:00 AM

Quote :

"if all of these things were eliminated all of the weak would die"

You have no faith in the abilities of human beings, do you? People are pretty good at finding clever ways to survive, even in Ethiopia. So something tells me American's don't need their government to provide survival for them.

3/22/2006 12:25:42 PM

^^ To add to 1, the soviet union was failing anyway. Without SDI, they still would have fallen. SDI may or may not have contributed to the timeline -- depends on how much you believe the soviets responded to it.

The original poster is seriously delusional about the actual impact of the program.

3/22/2006 5:48:41 PM

Quote :

"3. it still doesnt work after more than 20 years, how much time do we give a failing program? i thought you people had moved on to the missle defense shield now, or are we just going to think up as many programs as possible and throw them out there to see what works w/o actually knowing if any of them will."

1. It's not failing, it's just going a lot slower than originally predicted. It's an absolute joke to believe that SDI could have been achieved in 80s, seeing as how they barely had computers then. The soviet collapse made this timeline meaningless, and we're not in any particular hurry, now.

2. It's not like missile defense is basic, unknown science. It's applied science, and we can reasonably expect solutions to the problem will eventually emerge.

3. Just because you haven't heard about successes (tests hardly make the news, nowadays) doesn't mean they aren't there.

4. There are a lot of spin off technologies that have resulted from studying this problem or from the expertise gained from studying this problem.

[Edited on March 22, 2006 at 6:00 PM. Reason : sdf]

3/22/2006 5:59:58 PM

Quote :

"(I'm not opposed to having some gov't funding for arts, but i think it should be minimal)"

In a sense we give a great deal of funding to the arts, by having and enforcing copyright laws. Not identical to directly paying artists, but it's the same general idea...

3/22/2006 6:04:27 PM

^ Good point. I always forget that.

3/22/2006 6:29:53 PM