After all, in addition to finding money to buy Democratic votes here at home, we don't want to upset any of our enemies or adversaries or anyone else who might want to be the least bit competitive with us, at all, anywhere. That will guarantee their, the UN General Assembly's, and the Western chatterering class's “good will” for at least a short time.

Look at the federal budget for the past several years, especially since, say, the 1960s, as well as projections and what is being stated already about the unsustainability and future fiscal problems for the federal government with Social Security already (in the Trustees' reports, even the Summary this year that was deceptively toned down by ObamaCo, we may intelligent suspect toned down intentionally to reduce concern about monstrous overgrowth of Washington and spending by it this year), and you'll learn all you need to learn.

Never mind that many of us have criticized excess by the military where it is merited, as opposed to brain-stem-level reptilian leftist criticism of the military (disparaging it for a surrogate of disparaging the USA and the protection of its interests abroad; disparaging it to devalue it and rationalize looting it, and not to reduce taxes but to redirect the money instead on vote-buying social spending, instead, the “peace dividend” concept with the name that conveys the inherent insult in the concept, etc.).

Never mind that the military is a legitimate, unquestioned federal government function, whereas social spending by the federal government has not been (on several grounds), and in fact often has been controversial as well as the legitimate object of much criticism.

That Woolhandler (a radical wanting the equivalent of Medicare for All, who has been critical of the current liberal Democratic federal health care takeover effort from the standpoint of the far to truly extreme Left, to whom the effort is “impure” because it retains a private sector component, and doesn't go far enough, fast enough) would repeat standard leftist propaganda material against the military (were it propitious, she'd argue against nuclear power as “militaristic” and a “health crisis” or “catastrophe” in the making, too) in support of health care (another raised fist in solidarity with health care “reform,” any reform being better than none if you insist on not thinking about it first) is no surprise.

That Barney Frank would want to take 25 per cent out of the military (no doubt to spend it on other things, not to return it to the taxpayers or pay down debt, which along with deficits he, Obama, and other Dems have grown multiple times larger than anything Republicans have done in imitating Democrats in the past) is no surprise, and it wouldn't be surprising if Barney Frank were to make a big statement soon to boost (or try to recover) the health care “reform” effort.

That kind of stuff is tardy, and wasted at this point, as the overgrown children who accept and believe what these people say were fooled early, from the outset, or had concluded they would believe it already.

Once again, no specifics. Yes indeedy.
You don't bother me, if that's your aim. I can do this forever.

Ah yes. Well it's back to doing what everybody else here does and ignor you. I think I remmber another blog posting warnings about you. Yes indeedy.

1. I support labor.
2. I am deeply concerned for the envrionment (but don't buy the climate change assertion)
3. I am a fiscal conservative like Clinton.
4. I am a social conservative because of my faith.
5. I support capitalism with strong regulation.
6. I support unfettered 2nd Amendment rights.
7. I stand against corporatocracy or representatiion of corporations vice the people.

You are obviously confusing my kind of Democrat with the scum in Washington. You've heard the term Blue Dog or Red State Democrat, haven't you? I can also be called a Jeffersonian Democrat. That's me.

Sometimes I think that you just sit there waiting for me to type something so you can be argumentative.

I didn't say I agreed with that policy.

Btw JD, why the frequent declaration that you are a democrat? It doesn't seem to really square with most of your postions, so I'm curious about why you keep making the claim.

Any President would have and should have invaded Afghanistan. They were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks via Al Qaida. I've got no problem with that at all. Most 'mercans don't. I do have a problem with GW's ignoring Afghanistan and placing it on the back burner to deal with Iraq.

I UNDERSTAND why they did it though, even if I disagree. It was a long-term strategic move to surround Iran. Iran has been the perceived enemy since 1979.

There are a few thing that liberals do not understand.
One is the redistribution of wealth. It's unjust.
Also, the Social Security fund has been robbed by both parties, especially the Democrats (remember, I'm a democrat too). Democrats have historically favored big government programs, as you know. How do you think they paid for those? (besides raising taxes).

There are many others with which I disagree. You've probably read them already.
I don't disagree with all of them though. You, yourself, separate yourself from liberals with your refusal to accept homosexuality as a productive force. I respect that. But the massive government and tax structure the liberals want is not good for the nation or MY WALLET. I pay enough taxes already.

….eye’s pays fur it tooeeewww…

Spit? I don’t recall mentioning “spit”.

Lets see….G.dubya ordered…..what?

For the invasion of where?

And

The invasion of where else?

For the purpose of what?

That accomplished….??

After costing how much?

That he borrowed from whom?

Then there was the missile defense program that never would work just like Ronnie Ray-Gun’s Star wars that never existed, forever sucking the Social security fund into oblivion….

…but those darn liberals just don’t understand…..we must have retirement at 38 years of age….yes we must! Never mind he was just some squid selling pogie-bait at the PX for twenty hard fought years.

ha ha

Yeah. That sounds like a real unbiased scientific study. (sarcasm implied)

The study states that 45,000 died from lack of health insurance (after factoring in education and income, smoking, drinking and obesity). Wow! That's an awefully big skew, don't ya think!?!?!?

What a crock of crap.

*********************************************

And for you, FT…..
The military is not your problem. But of course, you can go spit on them in the airport as they arrive from Iraq and Afghanistan if you want to.

You will continue to blame GW Bush for your every problem, just like the DNC did to win in 2008. When does that broken record stop? At what point will you stop blaming one person or one group, and actually blame the entire political system. Heck… Your man Obama wants a civilian military equal in strength to the defense department. How's that for “everything for the military”?

Our slimy civilian heathen masses shall work themselves as praising slaves for our glorious military’s pay, benefit, equipment, and , retirement.

For those whom have born the burden of G.W.’s folly, nothing is too good.

Lost your job? Lost your healthcare? Lost your home? Your kids on crack? Bhaaahh!

As ol` genny Macarthur said;the corps, the Corps, the CORPS!

Nothing but…….