You're comparing apples and bowling balls. I submit to you that by virtue of the Constitution, there's a major difference in the level of automomy between defense matters and what amounts to social spending matters.

When Obama took office, Bush had left our economy on the verge of collapse. Some fairly strong medicine was called for. Or do you not think that having a viable economy is a national security issue?

since you support Obama doing what he thinks is right, and the will of the people be damned

Please show where I said that in someplace other than your imagination..

When asked how that assessment comports with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"

Please show us where you condemned this remark. Failing that, why not come clean and admit that your only agenda is attacking the President and abandon this fiction that you actually have principals or give a crap about the good of the country?

Interesting. When Mr. Bush was President, and he and the Iraq war has support numbers that suggested they were about as popular as fungus, the right was telling us that we are are a representative republic, not a democracy, and that true leaders lead by doing what they think is right, not by analyzing polling data. (like that bastard, Clinton did!)

You're comparing apples and bowling balls. I submit to you that by virtue of the Constitution, there's a major difference in the level of automomy between defense matters and what amounts to social spending matters.

And in any event, does that mean since you support Obama doing what he thinks is right, and the will of the people be damned, that you were wrong complaining when Bush did it?

Oh Bernard, do you believe that the Democrats are not premier clowns? Have you listened to Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Schumer, Feinstein, and the rest very closely recently?

They do plenty of stupid things, but the dems have brought ideas to the table. The reps are stuck looping the exact same things they agitated for 30 years ago. "Tax cuts" is not an economic platform, much less a budget, and yet the republicans have tried to pass off the slogan as both. "Unitary executive" and "punch the hippies" are not governing philosophies no matter how much the right might like them. "drill baby drill" is not an energy agenda.

So, yeah, both sides are clowns, but one group of clowns is actually trying things and doing a credible job of getting their policies enacted. The other group... just isn't.

Surely the Democrats didn't purposely push it through quickly, and that couldn't have been why they loaded it up with longer term projects instead of true short term stimulus?

Nah, couldn't be.

Could be. Sure. I don't recall being particularly gung ho about seeing it passed fast. Maybe if Republicans hadn't been so busy complaining about volcano monitoring and proposing idiotic measures like a pure tax cut bill and/or a spending freeze we could have had a serious debate. But you can't have a serious debate without two serious parties, and the Republicans are a bunch of clowns.

there may be a situation in which you want or need to invade,

I'm having a harder and harder time thinking of such a contingency. Think about our actual invasions.

Various Indian wars. Not really seeing any more native genocide in our near future.

Mexican-American war. Hopefully we aren't about to go annex a big swath of either Mexico or Canada.

Spanish-American war, Philippine American war. Pure empire building. Hopefully we can break the habit.

World War 1 and 2. We just don't see this kind of large scale military action any more. Aerial dominance makes foot slogging warfare just too hard to maintain.

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. The new types of wars. Voluntary intervention in internal matters of foreign states and neo-colonialism.

So we have 5 general categories in precedent. Three hopefully won't even be considered. One seems outmoded by the pace of technology, and the last is no big loss if we choose to forgo.

I can certainly see scenarios where we need to take punitive action against a nation (up to and including a nuclear retaliation). That can be conducted by naval and air forces with minimal foot sloggers. I can see needing forces to counterdict piracy and the like. What I just can't see is a real *need* (need, not want) for a big standing army capable of invasion.

That is technically true, but confuses the issue. When the stimulus package was passed, it was quite popular -- about twice as many people favored it as opposed. It is NOW unpopular -- supported by about 43% and opposed by 52% according to latest Rasmussen poll I saw.

When Congress voted on the stimulus, it was not bucking public opinion, but tracking it.

But that said, either due to second thoughts at deficits, or anger at AIG traders, or people becoming convincing by conservative arguments, it is now an increasingly unpopular stance. Which is why, we're unlikely to see any more major stimulus or bailout packages passed.

And I'm sure it was just a lucky coincidence that the stimulus bill was passed under a strict deadline, before the legislators had a chance to even read it, and long before taxpayers had a chance to let it sink in.

Surely the Democrats didn't purposely push it through quickly, and that couldn't have been why they loaded it up with longer term projects instead of true short term stimulus?

Nah, couldn't be.

That is technically true, but confuses the issue. When the stimulus package was passed, it was quite popular -- about twice as many people favored it as opposed. It is NOW unpopular -- supported by about 43% and opposed by 52% according to latest Rasmussen poll I saw.

When Congress voted on the stimulus, it was not bucking public opinion, but tracking it.

But that said, either due to second thoughts at deficits, or anger at AIG traders, or people becoming convincing by conservative arguments, it is now an increasingly unpopular stance. Which is why, we're unlikely to see any more major stimulus or bailout packages passed.

And I'm sure it was just a lucky coincidence that the stimulus bill was passed under a strict deadline, before the legislators had a chance to even read it, and long before taxpayers had a chance to let it sink in.

Surely the Democrats didn't purposely push it through quickly, and that couldn't have been why they loaded it up with longer term products instead of true short term stimulus?

Nah, couldn't be.

Perhaps. Then again, the bailouts and the amount of spending currently going on, seems to not have the support of the people.

Interesting. When Mr. Bush was President, and he and the Iraq war has support numbers that suggested they were about as popular as fungus, the right was telling us that we are are a representative republic, not a democracy, and that true leaders lead by doing what they think is right, not by analyzing polling data. (like that bastard, Clinton did!)

Apparently, something fundamental has changed.

Oh, yes. They lost the election. Well, so much for those core principals. The expedience of the moment now rules on the right...

Of course, that's a double-edged sword; there may be a situation in which you want or need to invade, but can't because of the personnel restrictions (you'd probably want to keep a large Army Reserve just in case the equivalent of World War 2 breaks out). You'd also probably lose some institutional knowledge and capability as you slowly lose officers with actual experience.

We could push back Social Security to ages 70-75, but you'd get a lot of invalids having to work until they're 72 along with healthy elderly. Moreover, age discrimination is pretty rampant, so that's another barrier.

pro-cyclic spending reduction

Outlays as a percentage of GDP declined from the 1953 to 1957 between the Korean war peak and the recession of 57-58. Outlays as a percentage of GDP declined from the end of the 1961 recession to the uptick in the Vietnam war in 1967. They declined from the end of the 1974-75 recession until the uptick in defense spending in 1979 and the recession of 1981. They declined 1983 to 1989 again coinciding with the end of a recession, though trending up even before the 1991 recession. They declined as a percentage of GDP from after the 1991 recession straight through until the 2002 recession.

Basically, absent wars, federal spending tends to decline as a percentage of GDP between recessions.

Those are pro-cyclical spending reductions. They happen all the time. They are the norm.

The problem is that military increase, social spending increases during recessions, and tax cuts, are all political ratchets. So often spending drops slower than it initially increased, and revenue rises slower than it was originally cut.

[Source: Federal Budget tables]

That's my view, too, Tlaloc. But, then, I'd also reduce our military commitments to fit.

Absolutely. Can I get a kumbayah? Our problem is not that our military is too small but that it is being asked to do too much (fight two foreign wars/occupations while simultaneously holding bases in 20+ countries). I'd like to see a military tailored towards domestic defense with a nominal force available for truly international missions.

I'm not so convinced. I point, for example to the small number of voters at each election, usualy under 50% turnouts. seems clear part of the issue is not having a better choice, and a certain level of detachment from the process.

Casting no vote doesn't mean you're not represented, it just means you don't have an opinion either way, thus yours is a neutral vote. So, if you take those that vote for, against, and neutral, and they collectively favor keeping a politician in office, then that politician has the consent of his constituents.

If we can take yesterday as any indication, that will happen.

What happened yesterday that would indicate that?