Sorry about that; I was tired.

What I meant was that the shot about fat women in Spandex eating Twinkies was so far off any conceivable point that there is no rhetorical purpose I can see; just pure insults. I may fail to take the high ground in our little debate but you picked a valley and started digging.

As for deficit spending: A conflict like that will run huge deficits no matter who is running the show. Unless you think that Republicans would have managed the insane war production of 1942-1945 without als0-massive deficits?

I'm not proposing to cut all defense spending. But you'll notice that the deficit spending for the entire DECADE of the 1960s, with "Spendocrats" in office running a war you might have heard of, ran a smaller deficit than four of the individual YEARS of Reagan's term of office.

I'm still running the numbers.

Sneak peek: Even including WWII numbers, the AVERAGE deficit by Democrats vs. Republicans, giving equal weight to President's party, Senate majority party, and House majority party, yields an average of -45.84 R, -47.61 D. Hardly conclusive. Taking out WWII numbers in favor of substituting the WWII-inclusive average (for 1942-45) yields an adjusted average of -37.98 D. Nice! (No, I did not forget to multiply the average by three per year for that period.)

@ Final-Fan

Firstly, the analogy with the Twinkie eating woman was very appropriate. You appear to sell yourself as some kind of intellectual yet there is rarely a sign of any mental rigor behind your arguments. Was the analogy a bit on the colorful side? Sure, but it was also fitting. You seem to fly by the seat of your pants, flailing wildly hoping something hits the target. And now I have the joy of waiting for your math to prove that liberals have no real interest in big government. In fact they are really libertarian in their fiscal responsibility (somebody please notify the Democratic party). In any event, take it more as a challenge than an insult.

While I care little either way, it is amusing to see how quickly you shifted to “which party is responsible for the debt.” My joiner was to only point out how misleading the basis for your correlation was. I presume you concede that point since you are going through your mathematical gymnastics in hopes of arriving to a similar corollary by another means. I thought your primary purpose was to defend tax increases? Instead you took a decidedly political turn.

As far as WWII is concerned, of course I am full support of the investment required to achieve a military victory against fascism. When I said drop defense spending, I meant to drop it from all years. Was Cold War spending so much more discretionary than WWII? (some would claim the former was a drawn out continuation of the latter) You might be careful about what you cherry pick.

The racism of others does not excuse the racism of Ron Paul. If that's your angle, Entroper, you might wanna back up. My claim of Ron Paul's Racism is not explained away by racist blacks.

It also is not explained away by the "distance" Ron Paul had from his racist newsletter. In this instance, he's either a racist or allows others to do his talking for him in his name, or he lacks even the desire to provide oversight to something that even bears his name. All are bad qualities in a leader. I'd at least hope his racist views were his own, and not a surrogate's.

Ron Paul also has this uncanny ability to attract the support of these White Supremacists. Not just that one guy now, even David Duke (KKK Member) has thrown in his lot with him, as well Stormfront.org. Normally these guys just stay in their compounds and don't vote for candidates that "caters to minorities." Yet they are willing to come out of their holes to vote for this guy, even donate money to him. Why?

I mean if all the American Muslims and known members of Arabic terrorist organizations suddenly started voting for a presidential candidate, wouldn't you think that would be a bit suspicious.

And my point is twofold. #1 He's a racist. #2 He's unelectable, because of #1.

He might be a Constitutionalist, but maybe he might wanna read some of the amendments, too. He might still think blacks and other minorities are worth 3/5 of the vote.

Year : President : Senate : House : Debt Chage, inflation adjusted, (I assume in $billions)
1930 : R : R : R : -9 ::: 1957 : R : D : D : 25 ::: 1984 : R : R : D : -372
1931 : R : R : R : -7 ::: 1958 : R : D : D : -20 ::: 1985 : R : R : D : -411
1932 : R : R : R : -41 ::: 1959 : R : D : D : -92 ::: 1986 : R : R : D : -420
1933 : R : R : R : -42 ::: 1960 : R : D : D : 2 ::: 1987 : R : R : D : -275
1934 : D : D : D : -56 ::: 1961 : R : D : D : -23 ::: 1988 : R : D : D : -274
1935 : D : D : D : -43 ::: 1962 : D : D : D : -49 ::: 1989 : R : D : D : -256
1936 : D : D : D : -65 ::: 1963 : D : D : D : -33 ::: 1990 : R : D : D : -353
1937 : D : D : D : -32 ::: 1964 : D : D : D : -40 ::: 1991 : R : D : D : -412
1938 : D : D : D : -1 ::: 1965 : D : D : D : -9 ::: 1992 : R : D : D : -432
1939 : D : D : D : -42 ::: 1966 : D : D : D : -24 ::: 1993 : R : D : D : -368
1940 : D : D : D : -43 ::: 1967 : D : D : D : -54 ::: 1994 : D : D : D : -285
1941 : D : D : D : -70 ::: 1968 : D : D : D : -151 ::: 1995 : D : D : D : -224
1942 : D : D : D : -262 ::: 1969 : D : D : D : 18 ::: 1996 : D : R : R : -143
1943 : D : D : D : -658 ::: 1970 : R : D : D : -15 ::: 1997 : D : R : R : -28
1944 : D : D : D : -564 ::: 1971 : R : D : D : -118 ::: 1998 : D : R : R : 88
1945 : D : D : D : -551 ::: 1972 : R : D : D : -117 ::: 1999 : D : R : R : 157
1946 : D : D : D : -170 ::: 1973 : R : D : D : -70 ::: 2000 : D : R : R : 286
1947 : D : D : D : 37 ::: 1974 : R : D : D : -26 ::: 2001 : D : R : R : 151
1948 : D : R : R : 102 ::: 1975 : R : D : D : -206 ::: 2002 : R : D : R : -182
1949 : D : R : R : 5 ::: 1976 : R : D : D : -270 ::: 2003 : R : R : R : -428
1950 : D : D : D : -27 ::: 1977 : R : D : D : -185 ::: 2004 : R : R : R : -456
1951 : D : D : D : 49 ::: 1978 : D : D : D : -189 ::: 2005 : R : R : R : -340
1952 : D : D : D : -12 ::: 1979 : D : D : D : -117 ::: 2006 : R : R : R : -257
1953 : D : D : D : -51 ::: 1980 : D : D : D : -187 ::: 2007 : R : R : R : -163
1954 : R : R : R : -10 ::: 1981 : D : D : D : -281 :::
1955 : R : R : R : -23 ::: 1982 : R : R : D : -276 :::
1956 : R : D : D : 30 ::: 1983 : R : R : D : -435 :::

(DISCLAIMER: These numbers were calculated with only a calculator, so transposed digits, etc. are possible and the only way to error-check was to do it all over again and see if the results match. Some errors were found and others may yet remain. None are intentional.)

Corrected numbers: the average per 1/3 FY budget difference for the entire period is: Republicans -47.18, Democrats -46.99. Discarding the period of 1942-1945 gives us Republicans -47.18, Democrats -34.41.

Recalculating for a 50-year period (1957-2007) gives us Republicans -62.97, Democrats -49.91.

A 25-year period is the only period in which Republicans scored lower deficit weighted averages than Democrats (75.92, 94.83) and I contend that that result is largely the direct result of Republican scores benefiting from the Democratic tax hikes of the early '90s (the rapidly declining deficits and historic surpluses of the mid-to-late '90s).

@damkira

Missed the point? I simply challenged your belief that the world would be better off if the US military umbrella were pulled away. I countered with why it would have a destabilizing effect. I illustrated my point with a few examples from around the globe. Yet you want to make this about US support for Israel? And I am the one who is missing the point?

Alright, alright we can talk about Israel already! Had the US not supported Israel, it would likely no longer exist. While that certainly would not be a good thing for Jews, it probably would not be so great for the Arab population either. The condition of most Arabs in Israel is manifestly better than most Arabs in Arab countries. The US should do what it can to support democratic countries with common values surrounded by hostile despotic regimes. Would you turn your back on a friend about to be jumped by a gang of thugs? Would that friendship suddenly become expendable if it required some sacrifice on your part? The West did not act in time to aid the Jews during WWII. That is not a mistake it should make twice. Of course all of this is moot when you consider the Middle East collectively receives more than Israel (Egypt along has historically been at about 2/3 the level of Israel – not too far behind).

Why are you spouting Syrian demographic information? Do you really believe Syria is a democracy? Apparently so, because why else would it matter? Assad is Shia. Syria is a huge supporter of Hezbollah, a Shia sect. Syria and Iran have a declared alliance. So what are you talking about? The alliance between these countries is not exactly a secret, nor is it a secret that countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt see them more as threats than pals. Is any of this sinking in? Must we rehash this over and over again? Oh, what the heck. See what you can blindly pull off Wikipedia and we’ll see where it goes.

You don’t see how the ‘91 Persian Gulf conflict could be connected to the current US invasion? Is it because I already stated explicitly how they are connected? Must everything be repeated? Saddam lost. Conditions were placed on Iraq. They did not comply and there were consequences, including the resumption of military action.

Great! If you are not critical of US policy in Pakistan we are on the same page!

You may not appreciate my “ridiculous exaggeration”, but that is exactly how you come across. Do you really think you will change anyone’s mind when you run roughshod making sweeping accusations of how Bush and his administration are guilty of war crimes? What about Blair? And Howard, too? What about the contributions of other nations to the invasion? Should all of those leaders be tried?

You want to be taken seriously? Then back up your statements. Using your standard, have there been any wars fought through the ages that have been entered into justly? How were those wars fought in such a way to avoid all the alleged crimes you believe have been committed by Bush?

If Bush’s criminal intent is so obvious, why are there not more voices calling for his trial (short of the Chomsky crowd)? He’s certainly not a popular president; it would appear any time would be good especially if it would mean ending the killing, no? Surely, others would have noticed!

I think what I find so sickening about your thinking is the moral equivalency you toss around so breezily. You speak of the horrors of Bush’s war in no different terms then one would speak of the rape of Nanking, or the genocide of Rwanda, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or the Bataan Death March, or the death camps of Eastern Europe. You use such apocalyptic platitudes in order to demonstrate just how evil Bush is, but all you really succeed in doing is diminishing those true horrors perpetrated on man throughout history that bear absolutely no likeness whatsoever to what is trying to be achieved in Iraq. It’s revolting.

Thought I'd restate this for clarity, and remind us of what my central point is (aside from Republicans being cut-and-spend):

P.S. As you might be able to infer, I generally oppose tax cuts and favor tax increases because it is the fiscally responsible version of "starve the beast" -- instead of cutting taxes, creating massive deficits that saddle our descendants with horrific debt necessitating draconian program slashing in the name of government survival, I want to increase taxes, paying off our debt, until public pressure demands that fat be trimmed and unnecessary programs be cut back to allow a commensurate tax break. I think we have different opinions on where the equilibrium lies (between what people want and what they'll pay for), but that's not relevant at all.

P.P.S. Assertion: "Starve the beast" is an abomination either idiotic or evil depending on how stupid its proponents are. Challenge: agree/disagree.