02.20.08
Can’t have it both ways, dude
He Who Walks On Water is getting accused frequently of engaging exclusively in lofty, airy rhetoric devoid of specifics. That’s not quite fair. Larry Kudlow says he laid out a litany of socialistic specifics while campaigning in Wisconsin.
I think the most noteworthy of Kudlow’s observations is that He Who Walks On Water is calling for U.S. corporations to bring jobs and money back home from overseas, but he won’t hear of reducing corporate tax rates.
Mr. Dings said,
February 20, 2008 at 4:26 pm
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGVmNDEzYzhhMWYyM2MyMGEwZTQxYmEzMTg0NTY3Y2Y=
What will McCain..do? (He)… want(s) to expand the defense budget and the size of the military, as (he) should, to strengthen our national security in the War on Terror. But this, of course, costs money. Big money.
Mr. Dings said,
February 20, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Of course you’ll damn the messenger here:
For Americans whose lives are threatened daily by how hard it is to make ends meet, the Bush defense budget is indeed just another Bridge to Nowhere.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=280476
“The president’s plan shows that the military-industrial complex has firm control of a budget now out of control. Given the growing financial crisis gripping this country, no one believes that these numbers are sustainable. But rather than make smart choices and begin a process that restores fiscal discipline, President Bush is spending like – well – like he’s not going to be here next year when the bills come due.” Cirincione points to Bush’s missile defense requests to indicate the absurdity of the proposed budget: “Take just one number that illustrates the unreality of this unaffordable plan – $720 million for a Rube Goldberg anti-missile weapon system in eastern Europe. Intelligence assessments show that Iran does not have now – nor is it likely to have in the next ten years – a missile that could threaten Europe, let alone the United States.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
February 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Not sure whose intelligence The Nation is looking at, but I’ve seen directly contrary findings.
Think about how stupid The Nation’s position is on this. It’s proposing that we just sit here like sitting ducks, completely vulnerable to our sworn enemies.
Mr. Dings said,
February 20, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I still fail to see how we can continue to expand the military budget and achieve continuing tax cuts for Americans and their corporate captors. Our technology is developing quite apace and there are many defense contractors and military lobbyists falling all over themselves to get a piece of that free market pie. The pie that can cause many to die. (Well, it rhymes, is that banned here too? I like my alliteration for corporate captors)
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
February 21, 2008 at 2:43 am
Yeah, “corporate captors” is a nice bit of alliteration, but it has “poorly thought out radical left-wing sloganeering” written all over it.
Look, we have a big defense budget because we live in a dangerous world and we love our freedom.
Mr. Dings said,
February 22, 2008 at 10:48 am
Poorly thought out? Maybe if I was feeding at their bag I might feel differently. Feel, Bloggie, feel! It’s in the heart, not under the thick skull. Instead of arguing why we have a big defense budget, let’s discuss how we can have our cake (lower taxes) and eat it too (kill Commies and Radical religionists all over the globe and ETs too, if they wanna tangle). When they cut into roads and other public services we’ll all feel the pain. Wait a minute. It’s here! No country in history thus far has been able to stretch it too thin on multiple fronts militarily. You might have us eliminate the State Department to save pennies. Welfare is an easy target. We largely agree on that.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
February 22, 2008 at 11:47 am
I’d start with the Depts of Education and HUD.
Mr. Dings said,
February 25, 2008 at 2:08 am
In favor of defense. Hmmmmm….