Under George W. Bush, we spent more than under every other president combined.If that's true, that's pretty terrifying.
Under George W. Bush, we spent more than under every other president combined.
And then we did so again under Obama, including GWB.
Obama just submitted the budget he wants for this year. It's 4 trillion dollars.
These people must literally think money grows on trees.
The ECB seems to have had this same idea. Frankly, as long as we common folks keep doing what we do, central banks can just keep adding zeroes to numbers on their computer and buy up all impossible-to-repay debt from all banks everywhere.Or that it can be printed willy-nilly with no repercussions.
Hmm.
This is what happens when your economic system is run by bonafied high functioning sociopaths and your political system is run by an oligarchy that undermines the ability for the common people to determine their destiny.So much fiscal policy these days seems to be based on "For the love of god, kick that can down the road, so somebody else has to pay the piper after I'm retired and spending my last years fat and happy, fishing and golfing every day."
Psht, the common people only care about their destiny insofar as it includes a big screen TV and all the junk food they care to eat. If you really want to scare the average american, talk to him about shouldering responsibility for himself. The metaphorical sociopath at the top couldn't stay there without the indolence of those who make up the pile he is standing on.This is what happens when your economic system is run by bonafied high functioning sociopaths and your political system is run by an oligarchy that undermines the ability for the common people to determine their destiny.
Is it wrong I agree with both of you?Psht, the common people only care about their destiny insofar as it includes a big screen TV and all the junk food they care to eat. If you really want to scare the average american, talk to him about shouldering responsibility for himself. The metaphorical sociopath at the top couldn't stay there without the indolence of those who make up the pile he is standing on.
We're both right. Whatever systemic issues we have (and we have them), it's ultimately the public's responsibility to hold leaders accountable and try to change the system to one that works, violently if need be. But in an age where it's never been cheaper and easier to bread and circus your population into submission, it's hard to get people motivated enough to do ANYTHING politically... but this is just as much the system's fault for making it difficult to survive without it as it is for us to accept it.Is it wrong I agree with both of you?
I would have thought this was a given, considering the sheer size of the support network required to arm and maintain the fighting strength of our armed forces. I was always under the impression that it was simply higher in those who've seen combat by percentage of population than by sheer numbers.85% of American soldiers who commit suicide have not seen combat, and most were never even deployed at all.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/why-soldiers-keep-losing-to-suicide/
You've given me an idea for some future research. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201006/copying-others-when-choosing-mateThe local talk radio station (who is a competitor of my employer) airs the "Joe Pags" show during my drive home. I'd never heard of this guy until recently. He himself is your standard right wing "Gays are bad and soldiers are good" radio political blowhard rabblerouser, but what really drives me up the wall is he's got himself a stepford smiler female cohost. I've noticed there's a few radio shows (our own morning show has been guilty of this a number of times) that lean hard on this crutch - they have a blustery, over-the-top male host and stick a young female in the studio with him to "Yeah!" and "Wow!" and "Really!" after every single sentence he utters. Sometimes she'll switch over to playing the eyerolling-but-smiling mother/wife figure to his "zany antics" but mostly she's there to be an audience proxy to make him sound like he's actually interesting. Drives me up the wall. Say what you will about Limbaugh or Hannity (or Colmes for that matter, who that radio station also hilariously plays around midnight or so), at least they don't need another voice on hand constantly stroking their ego in real time and reassuring them after every sentence that they're interesting.
That study confirms my existing presuppositions. Before I was in a long term relationship with Pauline, it was rare I'd get the time of day from a woman. Once I was obviously taken (and by a pretty redhead at that), all of a sudden I'm desirable.You've given me an idea for some future research. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quilted-science/201006/copying-others-when-choosing-mate
Just find a friend to fake it! Your own "co-host", if you will, to laugh at your jokes and agree with you all the time.That study confirms my existing presuppositions. Before I was in a long term relationship with Pauline, it was rare I'd get the time of day from a woman. Once I was obviously taken (and by a pretty redhead at that), all of a sudden I'm desirable.
There was even a gal who tried to sabotage our relationship so she could supposedly swoop in to console me. It didn't work.
It will be interesting (and probably miserable) to see the pattern hold up if and when I'm done being a sadsack and start looking for female companionship again, and note that there are once again no takers.
Hah, taken right out of the Machiavellian's Guide to Womanizing. Have a buddy call you and pretend to be a woman you're lying to about working late.Just find a friend to fake it! Your own "co-host", if you will, to laugh at your jokes and agree with you all the time.
Do you still have her number?There was even a gal who tried to sabotage our relationship so she could supposedly swoop in to console me.
No, this was years and years and years ago. And I heard she got married less than a year after she tried that stunt with us. So I guess she found someone else to game.Do you still have her number?
Besides, like we're saying... she probably wouldn't be interested anymore anyway, now that I'm not taken.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179No major defense contractor made made windfall profits on it time and time again and we do not need to buy more of them, we simply need to maintain and upgrade the force we have already paid for. In other words, the Warthog is not a jobs program or a cutting edge technology for generals to hang their career on and they won't make any really good friends in the defense industrial complex wanting to pay them a big six figure salary once they hang up your uniform for defending it.
Sounds to me like some USAF brass need to "decide" to retire. Retiring the A-10 would be insane.This right here is what's wrong with the US Military industrial complex:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179
This flat out made me angry reading this. And not just at the military, they're playing the game they got sat down to by congressmen and businesses. The whole system. I'm just furious with the whole system. Because the warthog experience has shown us that a great success is actually a failure. Or is it the other way. Maybe both. Their goals are misaligned.
At least without something as good or better in it's role anyway, which shouldn't be hard at all to make with modern technology. Hell, they could just rip out the electronics package and modernize it, sort of like the Super Hornet, and it'd be even better.Sounds to me like some USAF brass need to "decide" to retire. Retiring the A-10 would be insane.
Without meaning any potential hurt, there's a huge difference between "single, not taken", "divorced", and "widowed". If you actually want to play that card, it's almost as good as a puppy and a baby on the arm. Widowers are inexplicably attractive. Well, somewhat explicably - the whole "have found love of life, lost her through bad fortunes, emotionally distressed" thing just screams "ready to settle down, emotionally mature, capable of a long-term relationship, needs comforting/consoling/being taken care of", which is what women over 30 are apparently drawn to.It will be interesting (and probably miserable) to see the pattern hold up if and when I'm done being a sadsack and start looking for female companionship again, and note that there are once again no takers.
Well, I guess I shouldn't be worried. I've been informed that it's now easier than ever to catch a gal -Without meaning any potential hurt, there's a huge difference between "single, not taken", "divorced", and "widowed". If you actually want to play that card, it's almost as good as a puppy and a baby on the arm. Widowers are inexplicably attractive. Well, somewhat explicably - the whole "have found love of life, lost her through bad fortunes, emotionally distressed" thing just screams "ready to settle down, emotionally mature, capable of a long-term relationship, needs comforting/consoling/being taken care of", which is what women over 30 are apparently drawn to.