Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on May 29, 2009, 10:56:18 PM
-
Also, be sure to check out the Official Ron Poop Paul post that is a sticky, I have posted some great information that seems to be glossed over when considering Poop Paul as a "smart" candidate.
-
newsflash dumbass... Deicide already knows...
-
newsflash dumbass... Deicide already knows...
I bet Deicide doesn`t know much about Poop Paul as you think he does.
-
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html
Wrong Paul
February 11, 2008
Fantasy, fallacy and factual fumbles from the Republican insurgent.
Summary
Ron Paul doesn't have much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination, but he persists with his well-funded campaign and even talks of turning it into a permanent "Revolution" that will continue far beyond 2008.
We've given his statements little attention until now. But here we look at some of his more outlandish claims:
Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.
Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt.
Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.
Analysis
Ron Paul’s candidacy is something of an enigma. His impressive fundraising and his legions of dedicated volunteers suggest that he could be among the front-runners in contention for the Republican nomination. Yet his national poll numbers hover consistently just above the margin of error, and on Super Tuesday, he finished last in 17 of 21 contests, including California, where he lost to a candidate who had already withdrawn from the race. He admits he has little hope of winning the nomination.
"Ron Paul" is the most searched term on our site, and until recently, those searches revealed only that Paul had participated in a whole lot of Republican debates. We applied our efforts to candidates with odds of becoming the nominee.
Yet Paul says he will not drop out of the race, and indeed talks of a perpetual campaign. In a message to his followers Feb. 8, he said:
Paul: If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked.
So, given the ardency of Paul’s supporters and the scores of e-mails requesting that we write about him, we decided to take a look at Paul’s claims. Here’s some of what we found.
Paging Fox Mulder
According to Paul, a secret organization run by unaccountable government figures is in league with foreign corporations who are all bent on usurping American sovereignty. That's not from the script for a new X-Files movie. (Or not that we know of.) It's the gist of Paul's description of a supposed "NAFTA Superhighway." Paul describes it on his Web site as "a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside." And that's not all. According to Paul, the ultimate plan is to form a North American Union with a single currency and unlimited travel within its borders, all headed up by "an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments" that together form the shadowy "quasi-government organization called the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ or SPP."
The problem with Paul's claim is that there are no plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway. Or a North American Union, for that matter. And while the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America does exist, it’s just a boring bureaucracy.
Like many conspiracy theories, this one is a mixture of fact and fiction. improvements to existing roads, but is not lobbying for, or planning to build, any new thoroughfares. From the NASCO That scary-looking map, with lines that rumor suggested were drawn to scale, is the product of an actual group called North America's SuperCorridor Organization (NASCO), which is a consortium of public and private entities. But contrary to conspiracy theorists, the map does not show a new highway. Those bright blue lines show only I-35 and I-29 – interstates that already exist. On its Web site, NASCO says it and some of the local governments along I-35 have been referring to that route as the "NAFTA Superhighway" for years. NASCO advocates Web site:
NASCO: "NAFTA Superhighway" - As of late, there has been much media attention given to the "new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway". NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway' for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway - it exists today as I-35.
In terms of new roads, there are, in fact, plans for a Trans-Texas Corridor, a road that would be (in spots) several football fields wide. And the road would be financed by a private company (which is partially Spanish-owned) that would then charge tolls to recoup its investment. But the TTC was approved by the Texas Legislature and the governor of Texas. It is a state initiative, but it is not part of a NAFTA Superhighway, nor is it the product of a shadowy federal conspiracy.
Indeed, Ian Grossman, a spokesman with the Federal Highway Administration told the Los Angeles Times, "There is no such superhighway like the one [Paul is] talking about. It doesn't exist, in plans or anywhere else."
The other parts of the conspiracy are much the same. The SPP – that "quasi-government organization" – is really an actual government organization, organized through the White House. According to David Bohigian, an assistant secretary of commerce, the SPP is a bureaucratic dialog staffed by mid-level officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico who work to synchronize customs, security and regulations. "Simple stuff," Bohigian told The Nation last August, "like, for instance, in the U.S. we sell baby food in several different sizes; in Canada, it's just two different sizes." Not exactly cloak-and-dagger stuff.
The SPP has a factsheet on its Web site that attempts to put to rest all the tall tales surrounding it. And if that isn’t enough, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, Newsweek and the urban legend site Snopes.com all have previously debunked this particular bit of conspiracy-theorizing.
Of course, maybe they’re all in on it, too.
About That Trillion Dollar Empire
In debates, Paul has claimed the U.S. spends a trillion dollars on a "foreign operation" each year to maintain an "empire":
Paul (Jan. 30): So, yes, this money should be spent back here at home. We have a $1 trillion foreign operation to operate our empire. That's where the money is. You can't keep borrowing from China. You can't keep printing the money.
One should be suspicious of this number right away. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects total spending for the current fiscal year to be about $2.9 trillion. President Bush's proposed fiscal 2009 budget would top $3 trillion for the first time. In fiscal 2008, a total of almost $1.8 trillion goes to mandatory spending on programs like Medicare and Social Security and to interest on the debt. That leaves just under $1.1 trillion in total discretionary spending, of which $572 billion goes to defense spending. Even if we called the entire defense budget an overseas cost of maintaining an empire – and then kicked in the entire $50.6 billion budget for the State Department and international programs – Paul is still $378 billion short.
When we asked the Paul campaign for some documentation for the $1 trillion claim, it directed us to an opinion piece by a fellow at the libertarian-leaning Independent Institute. The article argues that in 2006, the U.S. actually spent just under $1 trillion on defense. To arrive at that figure, the study included a number of items that one might generally not think of as defense spending, including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, one-third of the funding for the FBI and half of NASA’s funding. The numbers also include medical and retirement pay for veterans and a large portion of interest on the debt.
So it turns out that what Paul says is a trillion dollars for a "foreign operation" includes a lot of things that seem pretty domestic to us. For example:
The entire U.S. Border Patrol
Every military base in the United States and all the 1.4 million full-time military personnel (not just those serving overseas)
Background checks for new immigrants
Inspections of incoming cargo
All airport security programs
The issuing of U.S. passports
The FBI's counter-terrorism unit
92 percent of the interest payments on the national debt
Obviously Paul isn't advocating defaulting on U.S. Savings Bonds or doing away with border security, or even closing all U.S. embassies overseas. But that makes it all the more misleading for him to suggest that cutting out this "foreign operation" could save $1 trillion per year.
A Flipper on the Gipper
Ron Paul Ad
"The Only One"
Narrator: Who among these men has never supported a tax increase? Never supported an unbalanced budget? Never supported wasteful government spending?
Narrator: Congressman Ron Paul: The taxpayer’s best friend.
Narrator: We need to keep him fighting for our country.
Ron Paul: I’m Ron Paul and I approve this message.
In a recent television ad titled "The Only One," Paul claims to be the only candidate never to vote for a tax increase, pass an unbalanced budget or support wasteful government spending. The ad closes with the narrator saying, "We need to keep him fighting for our country." The words are attributed to Ronald Reagan. Paul uses a longer version of the quotation on his Web page:
From Ron Paul Web site: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.” – Ronald Reagan
Paul's embrace of Reagan's legacy represents a significant change of heart. Actually, it's the second time that Paul has changed his mind about Reagan. After endorsing Reagan for president in 1976 and again in 1980, Paul became disenchanted, leaving the Republican party in 1987. The following year, he told the Los Angeles Times:
Paul (May 10, 1988): The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.
Paul's disaffection started early in Reagan's presidency. "Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats," Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. "It didn't take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes."
Sometime between 1988 (during Paul's run for the presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket) and 1996 (when Paul, running as a Republican once more, successfully ousted an incumbent House member in a GOP primary), Paul once again embraced Reagan's legacy. The New York Times reported then that Paul had used the longer version of the Reagan quote in a videotape sent to 30,000 households. According to the Times, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas "to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements."
We were unable to document Reagan's endorsement of Paul. When we asked the Paul campaign for documentation, a spokesperson told us that the campaign was "a little more focused on positive things." The Paul campaign did not provide the Times with a date for the quotation in 1996, either.
Introduction to Logic
We close with a final point, though this one is directed at Ron Paul supporters. Recently, we’ve received a barrage of e-mail containing variations on this theme: "Am I to assume that by making no mention of Rep. Ron Paul in your synopses of GOP candidates, you found his statements meritorious?" The similarities between the messages led to a bit of searching, and we found what we suspect is the cause: A post at DailyPaul.com alleges that because the author found no instances where we called out Paul for misstatements, "FactCheck.org shows that Ron Paul is truthful."
We realize that DailyPaul.com is not officially affiliated with Paul’s campaign. But the error is egregious enough that it merits discussion. Here’s the basic argument from DailyPaul:
If FactCheck.org writes about a candidate, then that candidate makes some inaccurate claims.
FactCheck.org has not written about Ron Paul.
Therefore Ron Paul does not make inaccurate claims.
That argument might sound appealing, but, in fact, it is a logical fallacy (philosophers call this one "denying the antecedent"). Consider a different argument that has exactly the same logical structure:
If it is Thursday, then I have to go to work.
It is not Thursday.
Therefore I do not have to go to work.
We wouldn't recommend trying that argument out on your boss – unless, of course, you have a job that requires you to work only on Thursdays. And that’s the problem with the DailyPaul.com argument. It works only to the extent that you assume that we write about every single inaccurate claim uttered by every single political candidate. We don’t. We just hadn't gotten around to mentioning many Ron Paul flubs.
We’ve corrected that oversight now.
-by Joe Miller
Sources
Braun, Stephen. "Paul Believes in Threat of North American Superhighway." Los Angeles Times, 30 Nov. 2007.
Clymer, Adam. "The Race for Congress: Texas' 14th District; Under Fire, a G.O.P. Convert Wins Party's Fierce Loyalty." New York Times, 8 April 1996.
CNN. "Election Center 2008: Primaries and Caucuses, Florida Results." CNN Politics. 30 Jan. 2008. 4 Feb. 2008.
Congressional Budget Office. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 - 2012." January 2008. Congressional Budget Office. 31 Jan. 2008.
Dobbs, Michael. "A 'Superhighway' to Nowhere." 3 Dec. 2007. Washington Post: The Fact Checker. 30 Jan. 2008.
"FactCheck.org Shows Ron Paul is Truthful." 27 Jan. 2008. DailyPaul.com. 4 Feb. 2008.
Hayes, Christopher. "The NAFTA Superhighway." 9 Aug. 2007. The Nation. 11 Feb. 2008.
Higgs, Robert. "The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here." 15 March 2007. The Independent Institute. 31 Jan. 2008.
"H.B. 3588." 2 June 2003. Texas Legislature Online. 11 Feb. 2008.
Kennedy, J. Michael. "Politics 88; Hopeless Presidential Race; Libertarian Plods on -- Alone and Unheard." Los Angeles Times, 10 May 1988.
Kovach, Gretel C. "Highway to Hell?" 10 Dec. 2007. Newsweek. 30 Jan. 2008.
LaFranchi, Howard. "Ron Paul; In Former Congressman, Libertarians Think Party Has Best Candidate Ever." The Christian Science Monitor 29 Sept. 1987.
North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc. "NASCO Speaks Out." NASCOcorridor.com. 11 Feb. 2008.
"North American Union." 8 Jan. 2008. Snopes.com. 30 Jan. 2008.
Office of Management and Budget. "Department of State and Other International Programs." Jan. 2007. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008. 4 Feb. 2008.
Office of Management and Budget. "Table 27–1. Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program." 4 Feb. 2008. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. 5 Feb. 2008.
Office of Management and Budget. "Table S–1. Budget Totals." 5 Feb. 2008. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. 11 Feb. 2008.
Paul, Ron. "The NAFTA Superhighway." 31 Oct. 2006. Ron Paul 2008. 30 Jan. 2008.
"Republican Presidential Nomination." 3 Feb. 2008. Real Clear Politics. 5 Feb.y 2008.
"SPP Myths vs Facts." January 2008. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. 30 Jan. 2008.
-
Just because a politician shares a different religious belief than you doesn't mean they're unqualified to run a gov.
That's the premise of brainless neo-con Godbots, ...not sensible people of faith or atheists.
-
I bet Deicide doesn`t know much about Poop Paul as you think he does.
::) I bet he does... While you were posting on your cheesyburger and icecream diet and having Nazi fantasies, we were all on here talking and researching Ron Paul many months ago. All this has been talked about and we've talked about his drawbacks vs. his pluses... day late and a dollar short TA, better luck next time.
-
Just because a politician shares a different religious belief than you doesn't mean they're unqualified to run a gov.
That's the premise of brainless neo-con Godbots, ...not sensible people of faith or atheists.
Of course not. I just find it mildly amusing in Deicides case that he worships someone who considers themselves as being able to listen and speak with God.
-
::) I bet he does... While you were posting on your cheesyburger and icecream diet and having Nazi fantasies, we were all on here talking and researching Ron Paul many months ago. All this has been talked about and we've talked about his drawbacks vs. his pluses... day late and a dollar short TA, better luck next time.
::)
I was blogging on the Ron Paul Survival Report over a year ago. :) Enjoy.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/
-
Of course not. I just find it mildly amusing in Deicides case that he worships someone who considers themselves as being able to listen and speak with God.
wow, you are clueless here arn't you? Not surpising for the hit and run poster. You jump in, post and run... You don't read, and that's real clear!!!.. Everyone here, and I'm sure Deicide can attest to the fact that none of this is new. He knew it, we knew it, you didn't... lol...
-
::)
I was blogging on the Ron Paul Survival Report over a year ago. :) Enjoy.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/
What the fuck does that have to do with what we or Deicide knew about and talked about?
Jackass.... We were talking Ron Paul then too but that's not the point is it? fool...
-
Who cares people? TA is gonna make us a batch of Gold and all of us will be rich! :o ;D
So TA...since you said that producing Gold is so easy...when do I get my semi trailer filled with Gold bars?
In case you missed it, you're an idiot and have no credibility, no one care what you say or more specifically what you quote (you never have original material).
-
yea, and I also call BS on you TA... If you knew this stuff before, you would have already posted it. You didn't and we did.
-
Who cares people? TA is gonna make us a batch of Gold and all of us will be rich! :o ;D
So TA...since you said that producing Gold is so easy...when do I get my semi trailer filled with Gold bars?
The trick to making gold is making sure the mold you use comes off bread not any meat products.
-
What TA and others seem to forget or ignore is that his Presidential run did start something that persists to this day. More people than ever are talking about the Federal Reserve, talking about the dollar, talking about liberty and the constitution, etc.. Not bad for a guy that everyone laughed at a year ago.
-
yea, and I also call BS on you TA... If you knew this stuff before, you would have already posted it. You didn't and we did.
::)
Did you forget that I was involved in the Mike Gravel campaign directly? Of course Skyler and I knew about this as we were the ones writing the blog in order to bring some of the Paultards aways from Paul and to a true champion of freedom, Mike Gravel.
-
::)
Did you forget that I was involved in the Mike Gravel campaign directly? Of course Skyler and I knew about this as we were the ones writing the blog in order to bring some of the Paultards aways from Paul and to a true champion of freedom, Mike Gravel.
hahahaha... so your reply to all my posts was officially, "bla bla bla"
hahahhahahahahhaaha... owned...
-
I don`t dislike Paul completely but he is not what most people think he is or view him as. He has changed stances on a few things since his 2008 run which is better, but he still needs some work mostly in Separation of Church and State, Technology, Healthcare and Education.
-
hahahaha... so your reply to all my posts was officially, "bla bla bla"
hahahhahahahahhaaha... owned...
When and what are you talking about?
I didn`t bother posting on this forum until a few months ago. One I did not really know that people actively posted in the "Getbig Political Forum" and two, I would be literally aghast at what I saw here and how misinformed most people were that did post and this dissuaded me for a long time. I figured I might as well say nothing to any of them since they are pretty much close minded as it is.
-
When and what are you talking about?
I didn`t bother posting on this forum until a few months ago. One I did not really know that people actively posted in the "Getbig Political Forum" and two, I would be literally aghast at what I saw here and how misinformed most people were that did post and this dissuaded me for a long time. I figured I might as well say nothing to any of them since they are pretty much close minded as it is.
::) This is like any other political forum I've been on since the 90's for the most part... Some are close minded, some are open. Sometimes some change over time, sometimes not. Nothing shocking here. This is actually one of the best political forums for people listening to other people that I've been on, and I've been on many. So it's your bust... You should not ASSume anything when you're new to a forum. I'll let Deicide say for himself but I'm pretty sure he already knew about all of this and I know most of us already did. I'm pretty sure we've engaged this conversation before. But hey, we could have all been playing Nazi and eating junk food instead :D
-
PEOPLE!!! Concentrate on the important things here!
TA said he can make Gold! And we all want some!
TA where is our Gold that you promised? Come on now, you said it was so easy, we want it....stop ignoring you pussy :-*
-
PEOPLE!!! Concentrate on the important things here!
TA said he can make Gold! And we all want some!
TA where is our Gold that you promised? Come on now, you said it was so easy, we want it....stop ignoring you pussy :-*
Here ya go, ...now kindly stfu! Please & Thank You
ps: Everyone on the Politics Board already got a few. If he didn't give you any, ...it's 'cause he doesn't like you.
-
lead into gold, easy, how much do you want :D
-
Here ya go, ...now kindly stfu! Please & Thank You
ps: Everyone on the Politics Board already got a few. If he didn't give you any, ...it's 'cause he doesn't like you.
Ohh... did I hurt your fellow nonsense speaking friend? I know that you two like to tell fairy tales about chemistry and physics but some of us actually have a very high understanding in the subjects.
So until TA give us some of his cheap Gold that he doesn't care about I'm gonna keep reminding him ;D
-
::) This is like any other political forum I've been on since the 90's for the most part... Some are close minded, some are open. Sometimes some change over time, sometimes not. Nothing shocking here. This is actually one of the best political forums for people listening to other people that I've been on, and I've been on many. So it's your bust... You should not ASSume anything when you're new to a forum. I'll let Deicide say for himself but I'm pretty sure he already knew about all of this and I know most of us already did. I'm pretty sure we've engaged this conversation before. But hey, we could have all been playing Nazi and eating junk food instead :D
Of course I knew this. None of this is new. I think TA is 2 years late here on this. I had already commented on this and I think 'worship' is the wrong word. I do not worship RP. I respect him greatly but sometimes disagree with him and even think sometimes that his cause is hopeless, nevertheless he is honest and straightforward and has real integrity. Sure he is religious and to a certain extent that colours his beliefs and ideas but he doesn't push them on others since his libertarianism is prioritised over his religion. He keeps it to himself for the most part, a lot better than some of the other scum politicians out there.
Nothing new here and besides in the the Religious States of America it would be hard to get a viable candidate who isn't religious. If Peter Schiff got into the senate he might be one of the first secular people in the government. Lots of minor things and quips going round here like that bullshit thousand page long thread on gay marriage and what person A said and person B didn't say. This fits into that category. Too many major issues out there to even care much about something as minor as this.
So TA, you are very late on this, all was known and all has been discussed and I don't feel like rehashing all this crap again...have a nice day... ::)
-
lead into gold, easy, how much do you want :D
You got your gold too didn't you? :D
-
You got your gold too didn't you? :D
A little hydrogen and the right process and boom, not literally boom but.... :) Ok, one boom but that was a mistake I won't repeat :o
-
So TA, you are very late on this, all was known and all has been discussed and I don't feel like rehashing all this crap again...have a nice day... ::)
Yep, ...he's late on this one, ...but infairness to him, ...he's got an excuse for his tardiness.
He was busy making gold bars for all the intelligent posters here. Everyone except IFBBwannaB.
You got your gold bar didn't you?
-
A little hydrogen and the right process and boom, not literally boom but.... :) Ok, one boom but that was a mistake I won't repeat :o
{LOL}
-
{LOL}
seriously, I didn't hear jack shit for 2 days. It sucked. Loudest bang I've ever heard.
-
Robert Higgs, Independent Institute Senior Fellow, economist:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941
When President George W. Bush presented his budget proposals recently for the fiscal year 2008, he emphasized that the nation’s security is his highest priority, and he backed up that declaration by proposing that the Pentagon’s outlays be increased by more than 6 percent beyond its estimated outlays for fiscal 2007, to a total of more than $583 billion. Although many Americans regard this enormous sum as excessive, hardly anyone appreciates that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense. Indeed, it is roughly almost twice as large.
In the fiscal year 2006, which ended last September, the Pentagon spent $499.4 billion. Lodged elsewhere in the budget, however, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as—sometimes even more surely than—the money allocated to the Department of Defense. On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons programs, but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized.
Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. After all, the homeland is what most of us want the government to defend in the first place.
Other agencies also spend money in pursuit of homeland security. The Justice Department, for example, includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program. The Department of the Treasury informs us that it has “worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.”
Much, if not all, of the budget for the Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to abate perceived threats. About $4.5 billion of annual U.S. foreign aid currently takes the form of “foreign military financing,” and even funds placed under the rubric of economic development may serve defense-related purposes indirectly. Money is fungible, and the receipt of foreign assistance for economic-development projects allows allied governments to divert other funds to police, intelligence, and military purposes.
Two big budget items represent the current cost of defense goods and services obtained in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is authorized to spend more than $72 billion in the current fiscal year, falls in this category. Likewise, a great deal of the government’s interest expense on publicly held debt represents the current cost of defense outlays financed in the past by borrowing from the public.
To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2006, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $499.4 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.6 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $69.1 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $25.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $69.8 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $38.5 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2006 total by nearly half again, to $728.2 billion.
To find out how much of the government’s net interest payments on publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spending—military, veterans, and international affairs—to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 91.2 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2006. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $206.7 billion.
Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $934.9 billion, which is more than 87 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.
If the additional elements of defense spending continue to maintain the same ratio to the Pentagon’s amount—and we have every reason to suppose they will—then in fiscal year 2007, through which we are now passing, the grand total spent for defense will be $1.028 trillion. I confirmed the rough accuracy of this forecast by adding up the government’s own estimates of fiscal 2007 outlays for the various additional defense-related items, obtaining a total of $987 billion—an amount only 4 percent less than my ratio-based estimate. Future defense-related supplemental appropriations for fiscal 2007, which would hardly be surprising, might easily bring the lower estimate up the higher one.
Although I have arrived at my conclusions honestly and carefully, I may have left out items that should have been included—the federal budget is a gargantuan, complex, and confusing collection of documents. If I have done so, however, the left-out items are not likely to be relatively large ones. (I have deliberately ignored some minor items, such as the outlays of the Selective Service System and the National Defense Stockpile and the Treasury’s program to block financial flows to terrorists.) Therefore, I propose that in considering future defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon’s (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it. We may overstate the truth, but if so, we’ll not do so by much.
For now, however, the conclusion seems inescapable: the government is currently spending at the rate of approximately $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes. Moreover, even if I have erred in my calculations and overstated the correct amount somewhat, the total will certainly reach this astonishing sum very soon, given all the plans and programs already set in motion.
National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2006
(billions of dollars)
Department of Defense 499.4
Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup) 16.6
Department of State 25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs 69.8
Department of Homeland Security 69.1
Department of Justice (1/3 of FBI) 1.9
Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund) 38.5
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total) 7.6
Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays 206.7
Total 934.9
Source: Author’s classifications and calculations; basic data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970.
And this was way back in 2006...it is a fact that it is well in excess of that now. The game is up with your internet cutting and pasting TA.
-
Yep, ...he's late on this one, ...but infairness to him, ...he's got an excuse for his tardiness.
He was busy making gold bars for all the intelligent posters here. Everyone except IFBBwannaB.
You got your gold bar didn't you?
Fuck this!
I want to be on the TA Gold train! ;D
You know what I really like about TA? He owns himself on a daily basis, makes my jobs so much easier ;D
-
;)
-
;)
So are you the leprecon at the end of the rainbow with a pot of Gold? You sure do have the ears that fit the description ;D
-
;)
Yes, over a trillion dollars a year.
-
Yes, over a trillion dollars a year.
Do you agree with Poop Paul`s stance regarding North Korea?
-
Do you agree with Poop Paul`s stance regarding North Korea?
That depends on what you are talking about, be specific.
-
That depends on what you are talking about, be specific.
What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with?
-
What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with?
If you are referring to that video, yes I agree with him 100%.
N.Korea is a joke. They just want attention and we have been on the Korean peninsula for over 50 years, 1/8 of our 800+ military base empire is on that shit speck of a tiny land mass just so we can keep our sattelite there.
-
If you are referring to that video, yes I agree with him 100%.
N.Korea is a joke. They just want attention and we have been on the Korean peninsula for over 50 years, 1/8 of our 800+ military base empire is on that shit speck of a tiny land mass just so we can keep our sattelite there.
A joke eh? So you let North Korea continue testing and building Nuclear Weapons without Sanctions, Weapon Inspectors and let them run rough-shod over the IAEA?
-
A joke eh? So you let North Korea continue testing and building Nuclear Weapons without Sanctions, Weapon Inspectors and let them run rough-shod over the IAEA?
We run roughshod over them and everyone else all the time.
Sanctions don't work and only create more hostility.
BTW, your hero Kucinich is on the same page as RP on foreign policy.
-
We run roughshod over them and everyone else all the time.
Sanctions don't work and only create more hostility.
BTW, your hero Kucinich is on the same page as RP on foreign policy.
He is not the same page. Kucinich supports abolishing ALL Nuclear weapons worldwide, starting with the United States and by influencing other nations via Mutual Disarmament, Sanction and Diplomacy, especially through economic globalization.
-
Kucinich also advocates working closely with South Korea to pursue a permanent peace settlement with the goal of reunifying the peninsula. Ron Paul has no interest in this.
-
Once again, in other news, grass is green.
Am I the only one who noticed that the only time TA gets his facts straight is when he reports "news" that is anything but that?
Deicide has stated for several years that he digs Ron Paul's policies and thinks he's a stand-up guy, with (in Deicide's view) one tragic, but overlookable flaw: His Christian beliefs.
-
Once again, in other news, grass is green.
Am I the only one who noticed that the only time TA gets his facts straight is when he reports "news" that is anything but that?
Deicide has stated for several years that he digs Ron Paul's policies and thinks he's a stand-up guy, with (in Deicide's view) one tragic, but overlookable flaw: His Christian beliefs.
Gee, thanks MCWAY. That about sums it up. :)
-
Gee, thanks MCWAY. That about sums it up. :)
You're welcome! TA's assertion about your worshipping Paul is quite silly.
Now, if Paul were an atheist, I'm sure you'd be bowing the knee. But, that is another story.
;D
-
You're welcome! TA's assertion about your worshipping Paul is quite silly.
Now, if Paul were an atheist, I'm sure you'd be bowing the knee. But, that is another story.
;D
Wrong.
Krauthammer and George Will are Atheists and I think they are buffoons of the highest order.
-
Of course I knew this. None of this is new. I think TA is 2 years late here on this. I had already commented on this and I think 'worship' is the wrong word. I do not worship RP. I respect him greatly but sometimes disagree with him and even think sometimes that his cause is hopeless, nevertheless he is honest and straightforward and has real integrity. Sure he is religious and to a certain extent that colours his beliefs and ideas but he doesn't push them on others since his libertarianism is prioritised over his religion. He keeps it to himself for the most part, a lot better than some of the other scum politicians out there.
Nothing new here and besides in the the Religious States of America it would be hard to get a viable candidate who isn't religious. If Peter Schiff got into the senate he might be one of the first secular people in the government. Lots of minor things and quips going round here like that bullshit thousand page long thread on gay marriage and what person A said and person B didn't say. This fits into that category. Too many major issues out there to even care much about something as minor as this.
So TA, you are very late on this, all was known and all has been discussed and I don't feel like rehashing all this crap again...have a nice day... ::)
see how easy it is to own TA? He pretty much is into self ownage and you don't have to do anything but watch the guy talk and laugh. The only problem is that he's so stupid in some of the ignorant shit he says, that he clearly is a blight on the forum. Maybe we literally need a childboard for political where we can send TA where he can be special and not disrupt the adults.
-
see how easy it is to own TA? He pretty much is into self ownage and you don't have to do anything but watch the guy talk and laugh. The only problem is that he's so stupid in some of the ignorant shit he says, that he clearly is a blight on the forum. Maybe we literally need a childboard for political where we can send TA where he can be special and not disrupt the adults.
I concur! ;D
-
Wrong.
Krauthammer and George Will are Atheists and I think they are buffoons of the highest order.
Ummm...genius!
I was talking to Deicide, NOT YOU!!!