POOP Paul: "I do not believe in EVOLUTION"- Deicide Worships a Christian Hero!

[Hugo Chavez]

You got your gold too 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

[24KT]

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?

[24KT]

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

{LOL}

[Hugo Chavez]

{LOL}

seriously, I didn't hear jack shit for 2 days.  It sucked.  Loudest bang I've ever heard.

[Deicide]

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.

[IFBBwannaB]

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! 

You know what I really like about TA? He owns himself on a daily basis, makes my jobs so much easier 

[The True Adonis]

 

[IFBBwannaB]

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 

[Deicide]

Yes, over a trillion dollars a year.

[The True Adonis]

Yes, over a trillion dollars a year.

Do you agree with Poop Paul`s stance regarding North Korea?

[Deicide]

Do you agree with Poop Paul`s stance regarding North Korea?

That depends on what you are talking about, be specific.

[The True Adonis]

That depends on what you are talking about, be specific.

What parts do you agree with, what parts do you disagree with?

[Deicide]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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? 

[Deicide]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[Deicide]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

 

[The True Adonis]

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.

 

Wrong.

Krauthammer and George Will are Atheists and I think they are buffoons of the highest order.

[Hugo Chavez]

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.

[IFBBwannaB]

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! 

[MCWAY]

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!!!