Wow that's not what he said or even remotely implied at all haha.  I don't like the spending of either as both have been careless and lacked efficiency and effectiveness, but not reason to start putting words in peoples' mouths.  If you wanted to argue that it was illogical of what he said, then just state it is a false dichotomy and  move on haha. 

Fair enough, that might not be what he meant, but it's how I took it.

And by the way, if all we wanted to do is kill innocent people in other countries, we can do it a lot cheaper. We spend so much money, because we are the only country to spend billions making weapons that don't kill innocent people.

Cost us 1/1000th to develop a missile that will blow up a building, then it does to make one that will enter the exact office we want, and only kill the people in that room.

We get no credit for the lives we saved in the rest of the building. WWII we fire bombed the shit our of Germany so heavy, thousands of people died from suffocation, because we burned up all the oxygen.

In Leningrad, 630,000 civilians were starved to death in WWII by the Germans... and we are going on and on about how the US is the evil of the world.

I grow tired of it.

Then you come to conclusion that both parties suck...  Time for a multi party sytem..

Did you know for example that all the money spent in destroying a whole society in Iraq to turn it in the worse place to live, actually is the whole GDP of Africa for a full year ?

With that money you could have actually improved A LOT the life of 800 million people that is suffering worse than "the white people" suffered in the first and second world wars.

I suppose the "difference" was that "Africa is not profitable" as Europe was . . .

Stimulating...

This post makes me feel stiimulated...

Again, Mafoo, you are so completely deluded by the completely biased blogs you are reading.   One is spending by choice, out of the country, on a war, with billions on non-compete bids to companies such as Halliburton that are heavily in bed with the people like Cheney.  Billions are unaccounted for, the war's been a disaster and the money that could have been spent on things like infrastructure HERE was squandered.  While money was being squandered, lost and funneled to wartime profiteers, the same wartime spending was an excuse for tightening the belts at home in terms of payments to states for things like No Child Left Behind and fulfilling promises made on Department of Homeland Security initiatives that states and locals had to pick up, which only exacerbated the problems that they faced now economically and helped create the size of the stimulus needed (and which, by nearly all sane accounts was TOO SMALL, not too big, partly due to the strapped nature of states that the war helped feed).

Blaming the 2009 budget shortfall solely on crazy spending is ludicrous.  In case you didn't notice, the entire global economy almost fell into a black hole in the 2nd half of 2008.  How many governments DIDN'T have budget issues in 2009-2010?  It's ludicrous, just as it would be to blame Bush for the stock market and economy dipping severely immediately after 9/11.  There's no one that can control that.  It's impossible. And the budget deficit one year is almost always caused in part by less than expected tax revenues from the prior year.  

As for your other ludicrous arguments, Germany can be evil, and we can still do bad things and make mistakes as a country.

And "government spending is government spending" is also completely ludicrous.  Spending on loans that are paid back - with interest - and money that is "spent" in terms of aid to state and local governments is NOT the same as money spent blowing up civilians in Iraq.  The return is NOT the same thing.  Smart investing in infrastructure and education and security and health initiatives SAVES money in the long run.  You're arguing that your spending $2000 a month on your mortgage is the same as spending $2000 a month on McDonald's.  And it is so NOT the same thing.  

 Did you actually READ the CBO report or just look at the pretty chart on the front.  because the actual report contradicts pretty much everything you say.  The tax cuts need to end.  The deficit is less this year than last and will continue to decline unless the tax cuts are extended.  It projects federal revenue and receipts to go up this year and continue improving.  Your point is only valid if you can pin the entire economic collapse on Obama/Democratic policy, and that's simply ludicrous.  There's simply no argument that excludes the eight Bush years and the GOP majority since 96.  

It's so thoughtless and shallow an analysis.  No account for interest, the fact that there are TWO wars plus other military commitments which cost additional funds due to how spread out we are that aren't directly in the "Iraq War" bucket, no opportunity costs, the fact that most of the Iraq and afghanistan funding was run through emergency supplementary funding and thus does not appear in the actual defense spending area of the budget.  Where does the author explain exactly which numbers are shown in that chart?  He refers to the sources, but he doesn't say how they are used.  I looked.  Can YOU find the exact references in those sources that he used?  I sure as heck can't.  You can find the total numbers, but there's no explanation of what numbers he's isolating out of military spending exclusively for Iraq.  Is he counting increased money for recruitment necessitated by the Iraq War, for example?  The increased costs and demands on the V.A.?  Etc. etc. etc.  I'd be willing to bet a lot that his number is just what's labelled "Iraq" on the budget, which doesn't even begin to cover the actual costs.

Anyway, it's a laughable partisan argument, based in fear over logic.  

And by the way, Mafoo.  Thomas Jefferson never actually said the quote you have in your signature.

It SHOULD read as follows:

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy, - - "

The difference is subtle, but it comes off as much less "Oh no big government!" as the commonly- misquoted-by-Republicans version.  Of course they had to dumb it down for their constituents.  However, it seems much less anti-tax so much as anti-WASTE the way he really wrote it, doesn't it? Also much less "They're miserable now, and only government backing off will save the doomed souls" this way too, I think.  Funny what a slight change can do.  

It's so popular right now to be a big founding-father-quoting, Jefferson-loving righty ala G. Beck and R. Paul.  Yet much like when people use the Bible or whatever religious text as support, they tend to just skip the ones that don't fit the argument, Righties never really look at ALL jefferson's quotes very closely.  And they are big "sorta kinda" paraphrasers like you are, that just give the quotes that extra little touch they need, even beyond cherry-picked ones.  

I wonder why, since you are such a big fan of Jefferson and responsible spending policy, especially in light of this conversation, why you don't use the first of these quotes instead to sum up the GOP/Bush/Cheney-era responsibility factor.  The others are just ones I like, personally, and they seemed appropriate.  (and they are actually the words he said, uniquely enough!)

I dunno.  I mean... look at the Great Depression.  FDR's stimulus spending didn't really do shit except prolong the problems and set up for a second dip.

Which a lot of people are predicting now.

The second dip ended during WW2.  Quite possibly a coincidence... and the problem was finally fixing itself naturally, but current economic history tends to favor war as the better economic booster then stimulus spending.

It's probably because Bush and Cheney aren't in power anymore.

He trashed Bush and Cheney plenty when they were in power.

You are literally saying "But  you didn't talk trash when Bush deficit spended!"

When... he did.