And now the administration is sending troops and Patriot missiles to Turkey. Another war coming up? Or should I say "skirmish?" Obama doesn't like to say war just like he doesn't like to label terrorists as terrorists even when they are.

In US history, only two wars have really been worth fighting. The Revolutionary war (obviously) and WWII. There is no question that if we are to cut government spending, defense should be cut. We all ready spend more on defense then the next top 10 countries combined. We have enough nukes in our arsenal to level every country of the word 8x over. The massive amount we spend on defense now is primarily WELFARE to keep a BLOATED defense contractor industry going strong. While every military encounter now is simply the role of being a world policeman, and or nation builder.

Context is lost on the ignorant.

RetiredAirForce said, "It is easily seen the problem has always been spending more than WE HAVE."

Really, is that the problem?

For the answer, you only need review another comment you made on September 29, 2012 at 3:21 a.m. in which you said, "Your posting that you’re currently crying over, left out the true cost of war human life."

Get a grip, even using the historic OMB numbers, provided by this administration a rational thinking person can grasp the problem. Since 1930 our nation has averaged receipts as a percentage of GDP of 15.86% while they have spent on average of GDP 19.04%.

These numbers include all government spending and all tax rates including when the upper "evil rich" paid over 90%.

It is easily seen the problem has always been spending more than WE HAVE. For the last +60 years our federal elected officials have needed to borrow money because every single year they ran a deficit, and every single year the national debt climbed.

Keeping your head in the sand pretending otherwise will not solve the problem.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/His...

A beautiful mind.

So RAF, Eyster's OPINION is wrong while your's is RIGHT. Glad you can see both sides of the issue.

What a silly argument John. Why not raise taxes when ALL spending increased not just wars? The answer is simple the leftist crowd only want to play class warfare and don't really want to fix the problem...which has always been spending. Too bad you didn't study math.

Wilson also used the war in Europe as a smoke screen, an easy way divert from his real agenda which was to implement an income tax, and federal reserve banking system.. WWI was unquestionably THEE dumbest war the US ever engaged in. Yes, even DUMBER then the great pumpkin chase in Iraq. We did not even know which side to support for starters. It was not till the Germans sunk a passenger boat carrying handful of US citizens (which they apologized over and over as an accident) and a BOGUS letter (the Zimmerman letter) was congered up (MUCH like the bogus threat of WMD's to go invade Iraq) in which we entered into the conflict. The US had ZERO interest of being involved in WWI. It was simply a way to get an income tax, as without taxation, there was no possible way to fund the millions it took to get involved in. And once the tax was put in place it was here to stay FOREVER. At the time it was said the 'common man' would never pay more then 1% in an income tax rate, and the 'rich man' would never pay more then 10%...Yeah, that really worked out! Another great historic example how WAR is used for a SMOKE SCREEN to pass a far bigger political agenda.

If one truly knows about the history of the early 1900's, then you also know there was no income tax, and there was no federal reserve bank. It was Wilson who implemented both. It was also under Wilson that you got prohibition (all though he was not in favor of it. Another example of how the PRESIDENT takes blame for something that was the creation of congress). All 3 events set the seeds for the Great Depression, in which the sitting President (Hoover) would take all blame. As I posted in another blog of this author, it's the GOP who truly has the leverage in the current fiscal cliff 'debate'. The President is the one who the public ultimately holds accountable, and who history always does.
.
To compare 1917 to now, is beyond an apple and orange comparison. You still had a gold standard in those day, and some REAL backing to our $$'s. Now you have NOTHING backing it other then 'trust' and confidence. With the government now having full authority to create $$$ from thin air now, taxes and revenues are TOTALLY MEANINGLESS! It's simply one giant game of monopoly. Why are we even having this debate? Neither tax revenue, or spending cuts are needed when the federal reserve has full near dictatorial authority to create money at any time they feel necessary. There is NOTHING from history which can compare to what we are heading into now. The only historical truth you can unquestionably site is that COUNTLESS civilizations throughout world history who have attempted to print their way out of economic catastrophe, have ALL floundered, and either fallen from super power world status, or crumbled entirely to the dusty pages of history books.

I have to Wonder where some you of get your “facts”. For instance 10 year olds working in China, have you EVER been to China? I live and work both in China and the US and I have seen more 10 year olds working farms ion the US than I have seen 10 year olds doing anything in China. I have never seen a child working in China other than to help around the house.
As for the working wages, the average factory worker makes around 2.17 USD per hour (based on the factories I know of). The RMB is around.15 on the USD, so do the math and you will see that “dollar for dollar” they are not doing all that bad, not great but not bad.
The “one child law” we read about in the US is again blow way out of proportion. Yes they have a one child law UNLESS you can afford more, that’s right boys and girls if you make enough to support more kids you can have more kids. I know some of you are thinking right now “man I wish we had something like that in the US”. Is it perfect, not by a long shot, but it works for THEM.
Before anyone runs off at the mouth about another country and how bad they have it etc.etc. CFLEAN up your own backyard then let’s talk about the neighbors.

billnewbie said, "Really Poobah, your ignorance of history as well as current events, and Immelt's, is spectacular. Strange that you would quote a one percenter, Poobah. Oh that's right, Immelt is a good one percenter since he backs Democrats."

Talk to Immelt, billnewbie. It's his statement. Oh, by the way, are you going to tell us which source you plagiarized for your definitions of socialism and communism?

As for the Chinese system that works so well, I've noticed that most Chinese workers get paid so little that their children as young as 10 have to work too. The children they are allowed to have, that is. Still, its better than what they had when Chairman Mao ran the country into the ground. Who knows how many millions of workers died creating that workers' paradise and how many babies have been butchered in the womb at the command of their "loving" "gracious" rulers.

Oh yes, China's socialism works just great. We should adopt it immediately!

so·cial·ism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

com·mu·nism
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2.
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Dtb, you'll notice that the first definitions of both words are indistinguishable to the point of being interchangeable wherever they've been tried. About the only real, practical difference between the 2 is that communism has as its goal the dictatorship of the proletariat whereas socialism can been administered by a political elite indefinitely. Since no "communist" system has ever freed itself from a ruling class of elites, one can say that either communism has never actually been tried or that the term "communism" and "socialism" are interchangeable. I see it as the latter. It's as if communism and socialism are kittens from the same litter, one white with black spots and one black with white spots.

So bill, are we to understand that you would be in favor of a tightly controlled (highly regulated) capitalism?

Also, please learn the difference between Socialism and Communism.

And how about that socialist utopia in Cuba!

Why would anyone risk the sharks and storms in the Florida straits in a leaky boat unfit for cruising Lake Koshkonong to come to a miserable capitalist society just to be a pawn of the rich here in America? It boggles the mind.

Yeah, China "works" alright. It "works" because it embraced a highly restricted and limited form of capitalism. It would work a lot better with a new government. Back a couple of decades when it was still ruled by the hardline Maoists that hated capitalism even more than Poobah, it didn't work so well. Remember Tianamen Square? The people wanted a new government then. Living in the socialist utopia wasn't very attractive. Too many people were doing without. The Maoists cracked down on the pro-Democracy movement but realized that a little more prosperity would help stem the tide that threatened their power.

Really Poobah, your ignorance of history as well as current events, and Immelt's, is spectacular.

Strange that you would quote a one percenter, Poobah. Oh that's right, Immelt is a good one percenter since he backs Democrats.

Of course communism works. As Eagle posted @2:29Pm, "controlling people and taking away personal freedoms", always works.
Socialism often succeeds for a while before sinking into totalitarianism. George Orwell's book "Animal Farm" explains why in 138 easy to read pages.
The present day democrats subscribe to a form of Keynesian economic theory. A theory that hasn't fared well historically.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Keyne...
"Finally, there was the European depression of the 1980s, the worst since the depression of the 1930s. The Keynesian explanation is straightforward. Governments, led by the British and German central banks, decided to fight inflation with highly restrictive monetary and fiscal policies. The anti-inflation crusade was strengthened by the European monetary system, which, in effect, spread the stern German monetary policy all over Europe. The new classical school has no comparable explanation. New classicals, and conservative economists in general, argue that European governments interfere more heavily in labor markets (with high unemployment benefits, for example, and restrictions on firing workers)."
.
RE: the article by Walter Pincus. Perhaps it was easier for the public at that time to kick in with more taxes. The income tax at the time was only on rich people and a majority of the government's income came from tariffs.

Yes controlling people and taking away personal freedoms is always the way to go, God bless the Talliban!

Just cut spending, like we all have had to do.

billnewbie said, "Yet that economic model has failed everywhere it's been tried, leaving the country that adopted it in worse condition than when it started."

No it hasn't. There are many countries with varying degrees of socialism where the "economic model" has not failed. But wait, it gets even better, billnewbie. Not only does socialism work, but communism works according to one of America's leading capitalists, the CEO of General Electric:

Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric: China's Communist Government "Works"

"CHARLIE ROSE, HOST: China is changing. It may be being stabilized as we speak. What does that mean for China and what does it mean for the United States? Should it change expectations?

JEFF IMMELT, CEO OF GE: It is good for China. To a certain extent, Charlie, 11 percent is unsustainable. You end up getting too much stimulus or a mis-allocation of resources. They are much better off working on a more consumer-based economy, less dependent on exports. The one thing that actually works, state run communism a bit– may not be your cup of tea, but their government works." [ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2... ]

So you learn from history, John? I've noticed that you support our President's continuing effort to turn our country towards socialism. Yet that economic model has failed everywhere it's been tried, leaving the country that adopted it in worse condition than when it started. How can that be?

It's easier, I guess, to see the historically proven folly of under funding wars than it is to see the historically proven folly of socializing our economy, since the one is so much more agreeable to your personal philosophy than the other, eh John?

How about if we just put the credit cards away and stick our cash back in our pockets and DO AWAY WITH WAR ? WAR ....what is it good for.... Absolutely NOTHING !!!