Cephus

I'm still a conservative in the Goldwater tradition. What's currently happening in the Republican party isn't conservatism, it's a horror show.

Iriemon

Normandy opened another front. But the war had already turned well before June 44.

The other fronts were miniscule compared to Russia. Every bit helped, but the Africa and (in '43) Italian fronts were small fractions of the size of the engagement in Russia.

Both big factors stemming the German advance into Russia. Even bigger was the fact that Japan decided to declare war on the US instead of attacking the SU, which made the Siberian army available for transfer to the west in early '42.

Yes they did. But they were already beaten.

Oh no, this was a bitter, desparate fight to the death between communist Russia who had been stabbed in the back after making a deal with Hitler in '39 and fascist Germany. There would be no end until one side or the other was utterly defeated.

Plus, the SU wanted to extend its hegemony into Europe, both to protect itself against future Germany aggression (having been invaded twice by Germany within 25 years) and to expand its worldview of global communism.

Probably. But they did. It was Hitler's manifest destiny. And it was his defeat.

These other theatres were minor sideshows, small fractions of the struggle in the Russian front.

True, but again to Hitler it was destiny. And it was a near thing.

I don't see it that way, at least from my perspective. I don't mean to demean the American war effort. The US effort in Europe did make a difference, and no doubt expadited the defeat of the Nazis. And as I have stated, the US properly deserves the lion's share of credit for Japan. I have never questioned the holocaust.

However, I do question the typical Americanized view of the European theatre. Like most everyone else in America, I grew up believing that Germany conquered Europe, England was saved only by her Navy, and the Russians were hanging on by their fingernails teetering on defeat when we hit the beaches in Normandy and saved the day by defeating the Nazis virtually singlehandedly. That is the story told in school when I was young (it was not PC to give the SU credit for anything positive in those day) magnified by the Holiwood version of things. However, having studied WWII fairly extensively, I learned that that version is not accurate.

SU.

Iraq matters because it is fueling the fire of anti-American radicalism throughout the Muslim world.

Could be. We cannot maintain a permanent occupation of Afganistan either.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

DivineComedy

YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION. Or, you should cover the hive mind antenna with tin foil so that it does not happen again.

As I MUST in response to that vacuous question quote myself as saying, “Other than the Veto of the whole thing, which can be overridden, all of the effective power of the president to control the deficit was removed with that 1974 act.“
http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-te...tml#post562114 (Terrorists or not terrorists?)

A major chunk of the economy is controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, working for Congress in its authority under Article 1 Section 8. The president can not tell the FED to raise or lower the value of money nor can he say print me some more. The Congress sets the goals. {some economists say there are too many} Understanding revenue (taxes), the budget surplus or lack thereof is affected by the economy too. The economy is directly tied to the goals given the Federal Reserve.

Reagan never had any kind of Line Item Veto at all, and it wasn’t the Democratic Party pushing for such a thing either!

You just don’t get it; ALL of the presidents up to Nixon were not FORCED to compromise with the PORK. The entire process changed in 1974. The president wasn’t given any of the power back until 1997, and then none really at all thanks to the need for a Constitutional Amendment:

“There are a number of reasons for the limited budgetary impact of the current process. First, under current law, the Congress need not act on the President's rescission proposals. Members never have to go on record in favor of or against items that the President has identified as unnecessary or wasteful. Proponents of a more effective rescission process believe that strengthening the President's role could serve as a deterrent to lawmakers' inserting into broader legislation provisions of little benefit to the general public interest. A more effective rescission process, proponents contend, would make it easier for the President to eliminate "pork-barrel" provisions that benefit narrow constituencies.”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=7177&type=0

Who is the “The Pork King?” Hint, he used to wear a pointy hood.

You said: “Reagan was elected on a promise to cut taxes, pushed them to Congress, and while the Dems nominally controlled congress, enough "gypsy moth" Democrats were willing to side with the Republicans that Reagan's budgets were passed. The tax cuts and military build up (and corresponding deficits) are appropriately attributable to Reagan.”

This Georgia boy specifically told Reagan to his face in 1976 that after four years of Jimmy the American people would be begging for him, and it had nothing to do with taxes, as I was too young to pay taxes. I spent my nights listening to the Soviet Union on my shortwave radio, that was why I joined the military right out of high school. Jimmy has not disappointed me in the least. I didn’t get to vote for Reagan because my absentee ballot went to Antarctica, I was not in Antarctica. Do you have a faded copy of Jimmy Carter‘s “Why not the Best?” I do.

I specifically asked you “How many Budgets did Reagan sign?”

How dare you regurgitate Democratic hive mind garbage with any phrase “Reagan's budgets were passed!”

Hint:

Ronald*Reagan: Remarks on Signing the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 1982 Appropriations

The end result of major tax increases as the sole means of juicing revenues results in a stagnate state controlled economy, the potential builder and employer is deprived of a good shovel, and the worker is subservient to the state. Increasing the number of CETA workers sweeping the sand from the street, does not stop them from sweeping the same sand next week. Who can forget who wanted to have CETA workers tag people going to the beach, to prevent skin cancer? Hint: first name was Joseph.

If you lower the capital gains tax my big brother might be able to let go of his big Tonka truck for some baseball cards, and buy a big shovel with money he got for the other contract he did last week, and I will be able to move more sand. I get a better Tonka truck, and I give my old one to the scrawny kid down the street for a cool marble. He moves more sand. I give a smaller less valuable marble to the poor kid down the street to help us move sand with his little plastic shovel. Eventually the pavers are set and dad rewards us all for a good day‘s work. You on the other hand, would deprive us of our infrastructure; it is simplistic to think that the only way to pay for improvements is with maintaining or increasing taxes hoping the economy can improve with increasingly costly social programs; no wonder the Democratic Party has no marbles.

A deficit in a “long war,” especially against terrorists like Hamas (that Jimmy Carter would support a unity government with to keep too many terrorists from dying) is a detriment to national security. Hopefully at some point we can agree on that.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

Iriemon

The fact that the president can kill a bill with a veto is a pretty freaking major power in the legislative process, don't you think?

The Federal Reserve does not work for Congress, though it is a creation of congressional legislation.

Neither the president nor Congress controls the Fed which operates independently of the government, by intentional design.

I've never even heard that the Congress "sets goals" for the Fed. How does it do that?

So?

How did the 1974 amendment substantially change the president's role in the budgetary process?

What does this have to do about my assertion about Reagan's tax cuts?

I must of missed it. I don't know. I'd guess eight.

I'll agree that statement was overbroad and withdraw it. I'll say instead that "enough "gypsy moth" Democrats were willing to side with the Republicans that key elements of Reagan's budgets were passed." There was no doubt compromise between provisions Reagan wanted (ie tax cuts, increased military spending) and what the Dems wanted.

What about it, it talks about Reagan signing a compromise on the budget budget, just as I said happens.

Demonstrably false. The economy did great in the 90s, even with the tax cut. The corolary implication of your statement, that tax cuts make the economy stronger has not been empirically the case.

Yeah yeah I've heard it all before. Let the rich keep more money and the economy will do great. Except that isn't what happens in real life.

Oh yes, I agree that deficits are a detriminent to national security. Ultimately, with all the interest associated with the piled up debt, the nation won't be able to afford the same level of defense spending.

Billo_Really

The issue isn't me and my knowledge of overall military operations around the world. So stop trying to change the subject and make this about me.

God-dammit, stay on topic!

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Billo_Really

You keep trying to change the subject. The point is, you are trying to say things are getting better, I am saying things are getting worse.

I win, you lose!

Things are worse.

Billo_Really

You don't think what we have done in Iraq is "terror"?

What we have done in Iraq, is
STATE SANCTIONED TERRORISM

bhkad

In order to achieve at least three different objectives it is necessary to have a secular (or at least non-extremist) representative government in place in Iraq.

In no particular order those three objectives are:

1. Safeguarding the oil supplies coming from the Persian Gulf region. And as we get less than 20% of our oil from that region it must be assumed that the greatest importance is in making sure that the nations who ARE dependent on M.E. oil be kept supplied so their national economies remain stable. Stable economies benefit us all.

2. To prevent Iran from making progress in their efforts toward a 21st Century Crusade.

3. To stabilize the region. A stable M.E. would mean more freedom, greater human rights, more prosperity, tolerance for all but the most virulent religious practices and greater prospects for lasting peace.

If any of this is to happen it is important that Iraq's government be assisted until they can adequately defend themselves from extremist elements of ANY description. Instead of a religious paradigm the government bureaucrats and ministers and the security forces are increasingly being encouraged to see themselves as nationalists.

Like in Lincoln's time the smaller vision of Yanks and Rebs had to give way to a larger view, every person had to see themselves as Americans.

In Iraq the Sunnis and Shiites can no longer afford the identifications that only support their killing each other.

In a nutshell that is why we are there.

Time for Choosing - Page 8 - Hardcore Politics

__________________
But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060508.php3

DivineComedy

The Congress sets goals by law, see:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fed/fed/goals.htm

Price Stability? What a bastardization of the phrase. The price of Milk is going up because of ethanol, because Congress/Bush/environmentalist nuts didn’t listen to the farmers, {tractorcade coming} so the FED prints me and you some more money and they don’t give it to anybody else but me and you and inflation will be negligible; don’t burn FOOD! Castro is right about that one. When I had some bad kidney stones and they said it was calcium so I started using water instead of milk for a year, gross, I still had a kidney stone.

If you want to know what all the goals are go look for them yourself; I have already read them like a very long time ago. So happy hunting.

I suppose saying the Federal Reserve “works” for Congress is a little stupid of me. They are “accountable,” which is probably the only semantic thing that saves it from being a gross abdication of Congressional power outlined in Article 1 Section 8. Personally I think it should be called the forth branch of government. It is the topic of endless illuminati conspiracy nuts.

*****

You asked: “How did the 1974 amendment substantially change the president's role in the budgetary process?”

The CBO was created in 1974. Let’s imagine they aren’t there.

Say Congress passes a bill that says build a statue to Robert Byrd and put it in such and such town square {like the one of Saddam that fell}. The president says I think it will cost $100,000 dollars, the Congress says ok, they {including the President} sign off on the entire budget (which is not to be confused with a continuing resolution), and appropriate money for the statue to Robert Byrd and the important stuff like so many F-22’s, hospital beds for the military, armored vehicles, and social infrastructure and programs you like that actually are important...

Then the very bad president that Democrats hate says, “well, I think we can save money if the Statue to Robert Byrd looks like this, and it serves the public much better:”



The Robert Byrd cupie doll statue is set up on a wooden post in the town square. The very bad president, that Democrats hate, has impounded funds. The Horror! The Horror! There is a surplus of $99,990 at the end of the year because of the impound. Democrats hate that. Democrats wanted the workers building statues of Lenin…I mean Byrd.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THAT BUDGET PROCESS WORKS WITH REGARD TO THE DEFICIT AND SURPLUSES NOW?

*****

In response to the following link you said, “What about it, it talks about Reagan signing a compromise on the budget budget, just as I said happens.”

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43359

The word “budget” is not on that page.

This is kind of straying off topic, don‘t you think?

Billo_Really

The government we illegally put into power ARE the extremists committing most of the sectarian violence in that country. We have destroyed that country's economy and, as a result of our decision to invade, shoulder all the responsibility for the almost 1 million people that have lost thier lives. If you can't see this fact, I feel sorry for you.

BTW, next time you're over at HP, tell cnredd, "billo says hi!"