RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:They keep calling it traditional marriage as if the definition doesn't vary from person to person.

I've read the part of the Old Testament where guys had a bunch of wives. When will that tradition get revived?

Yeah, like I need the yelling to be in surround sound.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:Despite what we hear from Republicans, federal spending as a % of GDP has been declining under Obama. This despite an inherited crap economy and an increasing number of retirees. From Wonkblog:

http://wonkwire.rollcall.com/2013/03/20 ... e-day-211/

It's still above the baseline as a % of GDP. This despite the wars ending and the stimulus ending. And TARP being a net positive on the balance sheet, not a big expenditure.

"the baseline"

Must be all the explosive Obamian government employment:

Of course those are all charts of *total* government employment including state and local government. Federal government employment has increased since 1/2009.

yes but Obama controls the very moon & stars, and wasn't even born here, so I'm not sure what your point is?

but please keep going and tell us all about "the baseline"

The amount of money being spent by the federal government annually before Obama took office. It's not that obscure of a reference.

oh, it's the "amount"? or ought it be the percent as you suggested previously? or maybe it should be the per capita share? Or maybe it's a metric that has less relevance when recovering from an economic crater of the type we experienced shortly before the date you decided on? Or is it whatever suits the pinheads who keep insisting that Paul Ryan is a guy to take seriously about budgeting?

Dollar amount in real $$. Percentage as share of GDP. I really don't give a shit, doc. I know why it's higher, but it's higher no matter how you slice it.

Parse meaningless distinctions in my words more while posting wildly misleading charts.

The Afghanistan war has only really started winding down in the past year or so, and even then I know TWO people who were sent to Afghanistan with no prior combat experience within the past couple of months. That doesn't seem like something you do when the war is "ending".

I don't know how much we are still spending in Afghanistan and I'm not sure that most of it is even on the books, but the simple guess would probably be "alot".

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The Afghanistan war has only really started winding down in the past year or so, and even then I know TWO people who were sent to Afghanistan with no prior combat experience within the past couple of months. That doesn't seem like something you do when the war is "ending".

I don't know how much we are still spending in Afghanistan and I'm not sure that most of it is even on the books, but the simple guess would probably be "alot".

Iraq and Afghanistan probably the biggest waste of money ever. Sad. Oh and all those dead people.

jerseyhoya wrote:Dollar amount in real $$. Percentage as share of GDP. I really don't give a shit, doc. I know why it's higher, but it's higher no matter how you slice it.

Parse meaningless distinctions in my words more while posting wildly misleading charts.

charts that show government employment declining during current administration = "wildly misleading"
republicans are the party of smaller government, yet government employment incontrovertibly grew under last 2 republican presidents - embarrassed silence?

you do not know what you're talking about when the talk turns to governance, or the financing thereof. You don't even know how to talk about it. This is not your fault, it's the fault of "your team"

Civilian federal employees make up ~12% of total government employees. The military kicks in another ~7%. The vast majority of government employees in the country work at the state and local level. Given their hiring is isolated from or only partially effected by who is currently president, I'm not sure what the incontrovertible growth of government employment under GHWB and GWB is supposed to say about anything. Though god knows increasing the size and scope of government has not been the fault of only one party in this country.

Federal government employment is up under Obama. Maybe that's necessary, but making Obama out to be some great cutter of government jobs is silly.

cutting the federal budget cuts local/state jobs.

New drone command center just announced for the Nat Guard air station in Horsham, adjacent to the old Willow Grove Naval Air Station. No vehicles will ever be there. It's just where "pilots" will fly the drones in "virtual cockpits" for missions. The example given was Afghanistan. Lots of haters on the local sites decrying the use of drones, while others applaud the 250+ jobs coming to the area. Ya know what I'm the most concerned about? Civil unrest at the location. Oh, and that it will be a prime terror target.

Well, the Army has a 20% attrition rate per year, and the Marines are close to 80% per year, so that's not a real surprise that personnel with no experience are being sent over. That's another second order effect of a volunteer military. Has nothing to do with the war ending - individuals rarely go over as individuals, almost all go over as part of a unit.

Most of the Afghan spending is on the books and is now coming out of the base budget. The Chief of Staff of the Army - IIRC- said it was around $18B a year a few weeks ago. That's probably close to right since we're down to 66,000 people and will be at 34,000 by the end of the year.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The Afghanistan war has only really started winding down in the past year or so, and even then I know TWO people who were sent to Afghanistan with no prior combat experience within the past couple of months. That doesn't seem like something you do when the war is "ending".

I don't know how much we are still spending in Afghanistan and I'm not sure that most of it is even on the books, but the simple guess would probably be "alot".

Not much of a terrorist target to be frank. Civil unrest? Really? After all those massive protests that have occurred over the last 12 years? Not so much...
Wouldn't get too concerned about this. It's the Guard, so most of their force is going to be part-time anyway.

Bucky wrote:New drone command center just announced for the Nat Guard air station in Horsham, adjacent to the old Willow Grove Naval Air Station. No vehicles will ever be there. It's just where "pilots" will fly the drones in "virtual #$!&@" for missions. The example given was Afghanistan. Lots of haters on the local sites decrying the use of drones, while others applaud the 250+ jobs coming to the area. Ya know what I'm the most concerned about? Civil unrest at the location. Oh, and that it will be a prime terror target.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:Well, the Army has a 20% attrition rate per year, and the Marines are close to 80% per year, so that's not a real surprise that personnel with no experience are being sent over. That's another second order effect of a volunteer military. Has nothing to do with the war ending - individuals rarely go over as individuals, almost all go over as part of a unit.

Most of the Afghan spending is on the books and is now coming out of the base budget. The Chief of Staff of the Army - IIRC- said it was around $18B a year a few weeks ago. That's probably close to right since we're down to 66,000 people and will be at 34,000 by the end of the year.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The Afghanistan war has only really started winding down in the past year or so, and even then I know TWO people who were sent to Afghanistan with no prior combat experience within the past couple of months. That doesn't seem like something you do when the war is "ending".

I don't know how much we are still spending in Afghanistan and I'm not sure that most of it is even on the books, but the simple guess would probably be "alot".

That makes sense, thanks.

How the Secret Service Almost Shot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Kind of reminds me of my international relations professor explaining the Israeli bombing of Syrian facilities a few years ago. Apparently they analyzed the Syrian psychological reactions to attack and determined that as long as Israel didn't take credit for or acknowledge the attack, Syria would not respond. Maybe there are cultural norms in these countries that result in kind of bizarre (not acknowledging or taking advantage of the situation) behavior like this.

Mary Jo White is going to continue to receive 500k a year in her lifetime benefit from her former employer while 'regulating' them at the SEC.

pacino wrote:Mary Jo White is going to continue to receive 500k a year in her lifetime benefit from her former employer while 'regulating' them at the SEC.

She was a lawyer. It's not like there is a ton of "regulation" by the SEC of the legal profession. Partners at top firms often have lifetime benefits like that.

perhaps that was the wrong word. prosecuting would be better. i'm sure we're going to go after jamie dimon for lying to congress and withholding info, for example. she has to recuse herself there.


on a complete unrelated note, former head Mary Schapiro is now on the board of GE.

edit: look, am i saying these people are not allowed to hold jobs prior or after? of course not. but i think it's completely just to question whether they're actually working for 'us' and not for their prior/post clients/bosses/firms. there used to be an expectation that someone would divest themselves of private stakes in places where they would then hold direct public power/discretion over.

Yeah, I mean clearly she will be regulating former clients of hers (and current clients of her former firm). To the extent the regulations are industry wide, I don't think there's a huge problem. But if there are regulations/investigations/actions against former clients of hers, I very much hope that she would fully recuse herself.

jerseyhoya wrote:Civilian federal employees make up ~12% of total government employees. The military kicks in another ~7%. The vast majority of government employees in the country work at the state and local level. Given their hiring is isolated from or only partially effected by who is currently president, I'm not sure what the incontrovertible growth of government employment under GHWB and GWB is supposed to say about anything. Though god knows increasing the size and scope of government has not been the fault of only one party in this country.

Federal government employment is up under Obama. Maybe that's necessary, but making Obama out to be some great cutter of government jobs is silly.

You're inverting the argument. Republicans - elected, high-office-holding Republicans, not the rabble so much - excoriate the man for filling out a goddamn NCAA tournament bracket. He's presided as effectively, performed as an executive as effectively, as most occupants of the position, and certainly better than the 2 boobs who last carried the republican banner into the office. It doesn't really even require close analysis.

I understand that would be difficult to admit for the swindlers who make prime dough off the "Freedom! America!" suckers. I'm unclear why it's difficult to admit for people who catch economic crumbs, or mere amusement, if anything, from contests for the office.

Andrew Sullivan ‏@sullydish
How amazing that marriage equality, once a key weapon for Rove to win '04, now threatens to kill GOP as nat'l brand