Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Cog wrote:21 trillion is not 2.1 trillion. LOL. You guys aren't even trying.

$2.1 trillion was JUST ONE YEAR. Maybe you should study the links before appearing like a dolt. What's the matter McCog? Scared? Avoiding COGnitive dissonance?

We did not lose 2.1 trillion in a year. Do you even know what the annual military budget it? I suggest you educate your self before you dig that hole even deeper.

I'm getting ready to grill some steak with charcoal. I recommend you educate you self about this while I'm busy or I'll have to embarrass you.

Cog wrote:We did not lose 2.1 trillion in a year. Do you even know what the annual military budget it? I suggest you educate your self before you dig that hole even deeper.

I'm getting ready to grill some steak with charcoal. I recommend you educate you self about this while I'm busy or I'll have to embarrass you.

I suggest you read the article and the supporting links before you make a bigger ass of yourself (probably not possible). These are simply the numbers and statements being released by the GAO, etc. Again, afraid to look?

Note that this is Forbes (not exactly known for sensationalism or gross fabrication) and Lawrence Kotlikoff, who is a verifiable numbers person, not known for making an ass of himself publishing this stuff. He lays it all out, but I understand if it's beyond your capacity to process. Perhaps you should just admit that.

Enjoy your magical thinking,, and your steaks. When you get the time, look at the re-release of a portion of the supporting documents from the Inspector General of the DOD, AFTER Forbes published the original article.
https://home.solari.com/wp-content/uplo ... log....pdf
Notice a lot of redactions and black lines? Why would they do that? Unfortunately for the DOD, people had already copied the documents before the redactions. WHOOPS!

You do realize your messiah obama was in office in the 2015-2016, but yet you blame Trump? How does that work? LoL

I'm pretty sure you will lose your secret decoder ring by criticizing the ObamaMessiah. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Cog wrote:You do realize your messiah obama was in office in the 2015-2016, but yet you blame Trump? How does that work? LoL

Obama wasn't my messiah. I don't do messiah's. And where, exactly, did I blame Trump for decades of lack of government accountability? Be specific. Trump didn't invent dodging responsibility, even if he's setting a new standard at it.

You just keep striking out, Cog. You'll burn that steak if you keep it up.

Yeah Cog, lets not quibble over the exact amount of triilions spent
Suffice to say, the US spends more on military than next 7 countries combined

Ibon wrote:The cynic in me interprets the declining infrastructure to be by design.

The voting public bought into trickle-down economics and this is the result. We get the government we deserve.

asg70 wrote:

Ibon wrote:The cynic in me interprets the declining infrastructure to be by design.

The voting public bought into trickle-down economics and this is the result. We get the government we deserve.

Yes, I think even hardcore Republicans will admit now that trickle-down economics was just a scam perpetuated by the rich againxt the rest of us

onlooker wrote:I think even hardcore Republicans will admit now that trickle-down economics was just a scam perpetuated by the rich againxt the rest of us

I see absolutely no evidence of this.

asg70 wrote:

onlooker wrote:I think even hardcore Republicans will admit now that trickle-down economics was just a scam perpetuated by the rich againxt the rest of us

I see absolutely no evidence of this.

Admitting that it doesn't work, despite all the evidence, would be political suicide for Republicans, reality be damned. Stockman (known as the "Father of Reaganomics") was about the only Republican to question it; (called it a "Trojan Horse") but he wasn't planning to run for a GOP office after he called his boss out on it. He realized that Republicans won't offset tax cuts with matching budget cuts, and history proves the idea that increased revenues from increased "productivity" (as a result of tax cuts) is a BS myth. So here we are: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Perhaps it's time for some frog memes to enhance the outrage. Kek wills it.

Cog,

That’s an out and out troll.

Cease!!

Everyone here should take a deep breath before posting again.

GHung wrote: Republicans won't offset tax cuts with matching budget cuts

The basic idea of "supply side economics" is that tax cuts stimulate the economy and eventually produce MORE tax revenue due to accelerated economic growth.

So far this actually seems to be happening with the Trump tax cut.....US job growth and GDP growth has accelerated since the Trump tax cuts and federal tax revenues have gone up substantially since the Trump tax cut.

income-tax-revenues-jump-tax-cuts-economic-growth

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:

GHung wrote: Republicans won't offset tax cuts with matching budget cuts

The basic idea of "supply side economics" is that tax cuts stimulate the economy and eventually produce MORE tax revenue due to accelerated economic growth.

So far this actually seems to be happening with the Trump tax cut.....US job growth and GDP growth has accelerated since the Trump tax cuts and federal tax revenues have gone up substantially since the Trump tax cut.

income-tax-revenues-jump-tax-cuts-economic-growth

Cheers!

Unfortunately, spending increases far outstripped the tax revenue increase.

I would have liked to see a 50% cut in our military, to go along with the tax cut. Granted, we would have to reduce our overseas commitments. Considering next year, we will have soldiers dying in Afghanistan who were not even born when 911 happened. Maybe it's just me, but I'd say our strategic plan is not working so well.

Isn't it strange that a retired combat officer is so antiwar? Trust me I'm not alone.

I’m with you Carinke. I recently read an article with some folks carping that the State Department needs to keep 2 people busy simply keeping Trump from pulling out of Iraq and Syria. Hell, I think that’s a good thing.

I’ve also Head an old stare that statesmen get us into war and generals get us out. Might be something to that.

It would be unwise to withdraw from the South China Sea area and give that over to control of China. We have important strategic interests in that area.

There may be certain areas where we want a presence. I don’t see that in Pakistan or the MidEast. Disentangling ourselves from foreign oil should be incentive engough to go full on into conservation of resources and to move from fossil fuels.

And, once again, I am totally baffled by our “policy” in Syria. What a cluster.

I think the truth behind it is that if we did reduce military spending by 50%, as Carinke (and I) suggest then it would collapse the economy. Put millions out of work. Make us face our financial house of cards.

Reminds of the adage " You can put lipstick on a Pig but it still will be a pig". The US is an industrial militaristic imperial nation employing a hyper Capitalistic economic system. In light of this, you cannot expect this nation to act differently. The MIC is an integral part of the wealth of this country and this country will always protect and try to enhance its wealth via whatever means it seems.

onlooker wrote:Reminds of the adage " You can put lipstick on a Pig but it still will be a pig". The US is an industrial militaristic imperial nation employing a hyper Capitalistic economic system. In light of this, you cannot expect this nation to act differently. The MIC is an integral part of the wealth of this country and this country will always protect and try to enhance its wealth via whatever means it seems.

Re: cutting the military budget: In today's political climate, any politician who suggests those cuts (God forbid actually sponsoring a bill) will be shown the door in the next election. They will be accused of "not supporting our brave soldiers", being "weak on defense", or being a weak weenie,, all that. We'll see more negative adds with pictures of some poor soldier who had his/her legs blown off, trying to walk on prosthetics,, rinse/repeat.

This is the politics of blame, politics of fear, and the politics of trumped-up values over pragmatism. We have become systemically and culturally incapacitated when it comes to making needed changes. Whatever big changes we see going forward will be forced by circumstances and division; new wars, civil unrest, disasters that we no longer have the ability to respond to in any effective way....

Most of all, as I see so much here on this forum, people will be looking for others to blame because they don't have the character to admit that the problem is US.