Skip to main content

If you're going to condemn Romney for politicizing foreign policy . . . .

. . . then to be consistent you really ought to condemn Obama for politicizing the incredibly small defense cuts called for under sequestration.

And, by the way, they are not cuts.  They are reductions in the increase of growth of the largest military budget not only on the planet but in the history of the planet.

Here's a thought that will be lost on pretty much all except Gary Johnson and Ron Paul supporters, but I will try it anyway:

If you really have to do 48% of the entire planet's military spending to feel safe, then shouldn't you start asking yourself how you've pissed so many people off?

Comments

kavips said…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/why-is-gary-johnson-being-ignored-.html

Just wondered if you saw this? It is his extremism that probably won't push him into the debates. His budget cuts are too fast and those who know budgets just say, unh, unh.

I wish he had a chance. I do like his record in NM and wish he could run on that, and loose the cutting 1.3 Trillion his first year.
tom said…
This so-called extremism is complete and utter nonsense.

How far back in history would you have to look to find a budget that is 43% smaller than this years?

According to the raw numbers in the Whitehouse's FY 2012 Budget (page 22 Historical Tables, Total Outlays column) the answer is 2003. But that is not accounting for inflation. Make that adjustmont, and the answer is 2005.

Does anyone honestly believe that the federal government was too small in 2005?
anonone said…
It is foolish to measure government size by a single budget number alone. For example, the government was too small in 2005 because it did (and does) not provide single-payer health coverage. It was too big because it spent the money on wars.

Oh, when republican sore-loser Johnson was the governor, New Mexico had one of the worst education records of any state in the country.

Is that part of the record you like, kavips?
tom said…
that may be true, but it sounds like even you do not strongly dispute my statement about the total cost of government--you just think that the money was horribly misallocated.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...