Strickland Stimulates Something

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland handed out a contract to a call center for Ohioans to get rebate information, using $171,300 of the federal stimulus money. Sounds like some jobs “created or saved” for Buckeyes, right? Something the Governor who’s in a tight battle for re-election to hang his hat on, right? So, how many Ohio jobs did that chunk of taxpayer money “create or save” for Ohioans? Zero.

You see, all the Ohio call centers put bids in of over $200,000 so Strickland shopped the contract out to… El Salvador. That’s right, the “create work now” “stimulus” money was sent to Central America. Ted just wanted to save money, you see, instead of “creating or saving” Ohio jobs.

One of Warner Todd Huston’s commenters had an interesting question. How much is it costing Ohio to pay for the unemployment benefits for the Ohioans who didn’t get the jobs the El Salvadorans got? That, indeed, is a good question, based on the idea that the money would’ve “created or saved” Ohio jobs. But the call centers may not have had to alter their payrolls to add that business to their call center work.

Another question is why a Democrat Governor can shop work out to Central America and still attack businesses who do the same? Or how many people think those El Salvadorans are even getting paid a rate equal to Ohio’s minimum wage (which is higher than federal minimum wage)? Do those El Salvadorans have US-approved health insurance?

Or, how much impact will that $171,300 that got shipped out of the country have on the Ohio economy? How many dollars will those El Salvadorans be spending in Ohio grocery stores? What is the multiplier on that money for the Ohio economy?

52 Comments

  1. John, aren’t you aware that Gov. Strickland is black and therefore covered under the “Obama Election Reform Act” of 2009, Section 1, Paragraph 1; “Asking difficult questions of African-American Democrats within two years of the elections for the US House of Representatives, within six years of the elections for the US Senate, and within four years of elections for State Governors is strictly forbidden! Violations under this Act are punishable by Cries of Racism from the MSM and incredibly stupid statements of Racism eminating from the President and his Press Secretary shill, Robert Gibbs!”

    By the way John, for those of you who have not been paying attention, this Act was filibustered by the 41 Republican Senators (yes they cheated — the day Obama was sworn in as President) and failed to pass the Senate. However, functioning in his role as “Emperor in Chief” on the very next day President Obama issued an Executive Order deeming the Act passed by 60 Senators.

    Therefore, as you can see, this was a very appropriate way to spend stimulus dollars! RACIST!!!!!!!!

  2. Hitchcock: “Or, how much impact will that $171,300 that got shipped out of the country have on the Ohio economy? “

    Answer: Virtually none!

    Out of a $56 billion annual budget , $171,300 us exactly 0.0003%, a nit, thus making your entire rant worthless, a zero, natta, meaningless!!!

    Suppose your annual salary is $60K, 0.0003% of that would be 18 cents! So in effect, you are coming out against Strickland for sending 18 cents to El Salvador.

    So here we have yet one more mountain out of a molehill by Hitchcock, who obviously did not even bother to check this out, otherwise I don’t think he would have posted it.

    And by the way, Fabrizio, Governor Strickland is not black , therefore you are a bit off your rocker, and probably racist as well. Hide your head in shame!

  3. Strickland is a white guy, Perry’s correct.

    But Perry, exactly when do all these little mole hills form a mountain? I think Hitchcock was trying to point out the bad thinking of some of our elected officials not that this, by itself, is a big deal. If you Google “the 100 silliest stimulus money” you’ll get an eye full of these types of poorly thought out spending items.

  4. Hitchcock, Obama promised his Stimulus Bill would keep unemployment under 8%. But, we didn’t know he was talking about unemployment in El Salvador.

    And, according to Perry, who can’t seem to distinguish between El Salvador and Nicaragua, $171,300 ain’t no big deal anyway. It’s only the taxpayer’s money, so who cares which funny little banana republic gets to piss away our spare change?

    Michelle Obama could go through $171,300 in half a day in Marbella just on shoes and tocino de cielo.

  5. “Another question is why a Democrat Governor can shop work out to Central America and still attack businesses who do the same? “

    Steve Jobs.

  6. Perry, thank you for clarifying that Governor Stricland is not black. Let’s see now, if he is not black we cannot claim those who question his stupidity on the $171,300 are “racists”. Maybe we can call those who question him and his proliferate spending “Tea Partiers”! But wait, by the left’s definition doesn’t being a Tea Partier automatically make a person “racist”? Damn, I guess the governor’s detractors are racists afterall.

    And Perry, it takes some kind of chutzpa to say that wasting $171,300 is “meaningless” or making “one more mountain out of a molehill”! That’s about 50% of what Michelle Obama’s ill advised trip to Spain is costing the taxpayers and look how well that is going over with the American people. Yes, only 171,300 (roughly, the combined average salary of 4 Americans)”meaningless” dollars! You may be qualified to be a geneticist but are clearly not qualified to be an economist!

  7. Hitchcock: “Or, how much impact will that $171,300 that got shipped out of the country have on the Ohio economy? “

    Answer: Virtually none!

    Fixed that for you, Perry. No impact since it left the US. Had the money stayed in Ohio, perhaps there might have been more of an impact. You know, it might’ve partially done what the Porkulus Bill had supposedly intended, had the money stayed in Ohio.

  8. Yes, only 171,300 (roughly, the combined average salary of 4 Americans)”meaningless” dollars!

    Actually, in central Ohio where I called home for 44 years, that $171,300 would cover 7 full-time jobs.

  9. “Actually, in central Ohio where I called home for 44 years, that $171,300 would cover 7 full time jobs.”

    Obama’s goal of “spreading the wealth” is even more harmful than I realized! As Churchill said; “capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth, whereas socialism is the equal sharing of misery”!

  10. Point taken. In terms of jobs, 7 jobs or so is not trivial nowadays!

    Regarding “spreading” the wealth, it has been going the opposite way with Bush’s tax cuttng policy. This certainly was not the right thing to do, since Reagan’s record demonstrates that trickle down economics is not effective in the long run.

  11. Perry, the problem is spending, not tax rates. Tax receipts were at record levels at the time of the current recession. The Bush tax cuts actually gave a larger percentage benefit to those at the lower end. The lowest tax rate was reduced from 15% to 10% which is a 33% reduction in rate. The highest tax rate was reduced from 39.6% to 35% which is an 11.6% reduction in rate. Yes, before you say it, a person at the higher end receives a larger tax decrease in dollars because he pays much more dollars in taxes. However, it is also true that over the last 30 years the percentage of taxes paid by the top earners has dramatically increased while the percentage of tax paid by the lower earners has decreased dramatically. In fact, today the top 50% of earners pay 97% of all federal taxes while the bottom 50% of earners pay only 3% of total federal taxes. And, on top of that, we now have approximately 45% of those tax filers who pay zero taxes or actually receive some sort of tax credit not based on income that gives them a negative tax (that’s right, some of these filers actually receive welfare payments disguised as tax credits). These statistics should not come as any surprise to you since they are widely available through the IRS.

    Perry, as I mentioned above, the problem is spending. Out of control entitlements, an out of control democratic congress and a lack of courage to reduce spending and oppose the president! However, with a new congress I am hopeful this will start to change in January.

  12. However, it is also true that over the last 30 years the percentage of taxes paid by the top earners has dramatically increased while the percentage of tax paid by the lower earners has decreased dramatically.

    Citge, please. Feel free to include the effects of state taxes and social security contributions in there too.

  13. Phoenician, I was directly responding to Perry’s comments on “Bush’s tax cutting policy”. State taxes and social security contributions are irrelevant to that discussion!

  14. Bill, let me make a couple of observations about your well expressed position:

    “However, it is also true that over the last 30 years the percentage of taxes paid by the top earners has dramatically increased while the percentage of tax paid by the lower earners has decreased dramatically.”

    True statement, however, you are not taking into account the skewed distribution of wealth upwards, in the last 30 years. The outcome due to this fact will increase the proportion of taxes that the upper couple of percent pay. This point is also a factor re your statement: “… the bottom 50% of earners pay only 3% of total federal taxes.” I hear this argument by Conservatives over and over again, yet I have yet to see an accounting for the skewing of the wealth upwards.

    “Perry, as I mentioned above, the problem is spending. Out of control entitlements, an out of control democratic congress and a lack of courage to reduce spending and oppose the president! However, with a new congress I am hopeful this will start to change in January.”

    I hear this one often as well. I note that you Conservatives never ever talk about reducing the DoD spending, which is close to half of our $14 trillion budget. Experts agree that SS, which is good through about 2039 the last I heard, can be adjusted fairly easily with little pain caused. Increase the payroll tax to include incomes >$100K and increase the retirement age to reflect the increase in our life span. On Medicare, ObamaCare has provisions in it to cut the cost, by increasing administrative efficiencies, and by decreasing compensation to service providers. The CBO estimates that over a ten year period the health care cost curve will be bent, saving about $1.1 trillion. All that said, I do have a concern about Medicaid, because in order to provide insurance for those who cannot afford it, an increase in Medicaid will occur. To cover that, I favor cuts in DoD spending.

    I don’t think that you Conservatives fully understand exactly how spending cuts can be carried out, or, how entitlements can be paid for, making them less of an impact on the deficit. And as I said, you folks give no consideration whatsoever to cutting DoD.

  15. What it comes down to is this:

    i, The US faces serious systemic problems, largely arising from the elite takeover during the Reagan years. This has skewed wealth to the rich, hollowed out American manufacturing, and left the middle classes with stagnant incomes. The current crisis represents an end-game for this, the looting of real wealth created by the vast majority of Americans for the benefit of the small elite through financial manipulation. “Capitalism” as practiced in teh US is no longer in line with the American public good.

    ii, Obama isn’t able to prevent it. He’s essentially a middle of the road corporatist, he’s proven to be in hock to Wall Street, and the deluded screaming from rabid wingnuts about “socialism” goes to show just how beaten down by propaganda the US public is. At best he might put the breaks on the American decline; he can’t even begin to reverse it.

    iii, If we make the assumption that the next President is a right-wing Republican, all bets are off. The looting will swing back into full effect. Expect more financial instability within a couple of years of this election, with a cascading series of crises.

    iv, It is likely that a war will be started to distract people from that problem, and to justify more looting via the military-industrial system. Iran or Venezuela are the likely candidates.

    v, And that’s the way the Empire crumbles. Bought to its knees by elite greed and the apathetic stupidity of the masses.

  16. Perry wrote:

    Hitchcock: “Or, how much impact will that $171,300 that got shipped out of the country have on the Ohio economy? “

    Answer: Virtually none!

    Out of a $56 billion annual budget , $171,300 us exactly 0.0003%, a nit, thus making your entire rant worthless, a zero, natta, meaningless!!!

    Perry, this was federal stimulus plan money, a stimulus plan you have defended as absolutely essential in lessened the impact of the recession, and have even told us was too small. One would think that you’d be appalled that we were borrowing money to save American jobs, and instead used the money for a foreign company. You have called wealthier people who don’t want to pay higher taxes “unpatriotic,” and have called the wealthy and corporations our “enemies,” because they have been “unwilling to take risks for the sake of their American economy.”

    Yet, when a Democrat sends some of those too-few stimulus dollars abroad like this, you leap boldly to his defense, telling us how this isn’t important at all, that it’s just a pittance.

    From Governor Strickland’s 2010 re-election campaign website (Issues: Jobs page):

    Even before the worst of the current economic crisis in the fall of 2008, Governor Strickland was concerned about the effect of the housing market’s collapse on the economy. That’s why he worked with Ohio legislative leaders to pass a $1.57 billion jobs stimulus package aimed at creating and retaining thousands of jobs here in Ohio.

    One wonders whether you would have leaped so boldly to the defense of a Republican governor on this.

  17. Perry, thanks for your comments! There are no bullet-proof answers to your questions and concerns but I will be glad to give you my thoughts on a number of issues. First of all, capitalism is a messy system and will always result in unequal results. I quoted Churchill above, “capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth whereas socialism is the equal sharing of misery”! I believe he hit the nail on the head. The French, in their revolution, concentrated on equality of results and it has failed miserably! All we can ask is that all are provided equal opportunity. Historically, America has provided the best opportunities for its citizens of all the world’s nations. Nowhere, have the stories of rags to riches been more frequent and culturally and racially diverse.

    Second, an individual has a better chance at enhancing his wealth where he is free to act as he sees fit (I do not mean outside the law). The best environment for success is one of minimum regulation, minimum taxes and small government. You may disagree but I believe you would have to be insincere with yourself to do so. What is preventing the economy from recovering today is the unbelievable presence of government via regulations (2 – 3 thousand page bills), tax increases (accross the board in multiple areas), truly prolific spending (several democratic senators recently recommended $1.5 billion, a pittance, in spending cuts and were pummelled by their democrat cohorts) and national debt and the takeover of industries. Perry, I don’t know where you stand on this but only the truly ideological or stupid would support such programs and expect economic and job growth. I have a finance background and know from experience this is insane!

    Third, I’m not familiar with the stats behind the skewed distribution of wealth upwards that you decry. I constantly hear the liberals profess this but they have never provided the support (yes, Perry, I’m being a little catty here by throwing your arguments back at you because it is so easy to make such comments)! One thing I do know is that letting 20 million plus uneducated illegals cross the border has not helped wages at the lower end. I also know that the abysmal caliber of our public high school education in the inner cities is disgraceful. With dropout rates of 60 – 70 percent plus in many if not most of those cities (all of which have been controlled by the democratic party for decades) this has also dramatically impacted wages at the lower end. We have a total workforce of 130 million (138 million pre Obama) and a third of them may not be qualified to earn much above the minimum wage because they have no education and/or abilities or they are here illegally or at least, sub-standardly! I feel comfortable believing that the vast majority of them are in the lower 45% of taxpayers and pay no federal tax. But that doesn’t prevent them from collecting benefits such as food stamps, housing assistance, health care, etc., all at the expense of the top 50% of earners.

    The above are some of my thoughts. Both political parties are to blame for where we find ourselves but ideologically the republicans have the better governing and economic concepts. I say this because I strongly believe that if, over time, we significantly lower government spending and regulations and reduce taxes for all, the GDP will not only rebound but will attain new heights. Theoretically, there is no limit on the amount of GDP and the amount of wealth which can be shared “unequally”! This thought differs from the liberals who appear to believe that the amount of GDP is finite and limited and, therefore, believe the only way to approve the lot of those at the lower end is through redistribution.

  18. I quoted Churchill above, “capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth whereas socialism is the equal sharing of misery”! I believe he hit the nail on the head.

    Churchill was not an economist. As has been pointed out before, there is a level of inequality, above which an economy grows slower than more equal societies. The US is above that range.

    Historically, America has provided the best opportunities for its citizens of all the world’s nations. Nowhere, have the stories of rags to riches been more frequent and culturally and racially diverse.

    The US has less economic mobility than most Western European countries these days.

    Third, I’m not familiar with the stats behind the skewed distribution of wealth upwards that you decry. I constantly hear the liberals profess this but they have never provided the support

    Bullshit. We have provided them in the past and they are easily available via Google.

  19. Perry wrote:

    I note that you Conservatives never ever talk about reducing the DoD spending, which is close to half of our $14 trillion budget.

    President Obama’s FY2010 DoD request was $663.8 billion, including $533.8 billion for DoD and $130 billion for “overseas contingency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Congress added $18 billion during the appropriations process, and the appropriation signed into law was $690 billion.

    However, the total FY2010 budget was $3.55 trillion; $680 is not “close to half” of that, but roughly 19%.

    Some people like to artificially increase the defense budget by including non-DoD appropriations, such as those for the Department of Energy, NASA and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Even if you include those, you come up with a total of between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion. Taking the higher number, you still come up with 29% of the budget.

    And, of course, conservatives do talk about reducing military expenditures; it’s just that you don’t recognize what’s being said. We seek to win those “overseas contingency operations,” thus removing that $130 billion from Defense spending. Destroying the Islamists would also have the effect of reducing required expenditures on the FBI’s counter-terrorism programs and the Department of Homeland Security.

  20. The US has less economic mobility than most Western European countries these days.

    What a crock! I lived in England, and there’s a real class system there, unlike here where “Class” is a factor of income and wealth. The upper classes in England get all sorts of social benefits, including access to the best private schools like Eton, and also the laboring class tends to be stuck there. Also, in most European countries, your course in life is largely set by tests taken in childhood, meaning if you score low, again you are stuck in the labor class whereas we have community colleges and other means for the supposedly less smart to better themselves. If there’s any lack of economic mobility, it is due, as Bill says, to a shitty inner city school system, largely controlled by Democrats, and also, as he pointed out, a large illegal immigrant population that usually does not rise much above the level of unskilled labor. If you’re not in either of these two groups, you have a better chance of success (provided you want it) than just about any country on Earth. Dana is proof of this. He works hard, and earns a decent living. Anyone in this country can do the same.

  21. “The US has less economic mobility than most Western European countries these days.”

    What a crock!

    As has been demonstrated again and again and again, Eric, you are extremely ignorant – and proud of it.

    The data, in other words, shows something superficially weird: The United States believes itself to be uncommonly meritocratic. But compared to European countries who don’t believe themselves very meritocratic, it actually exhibits less income mobility.

  22. Dana Pico says:
    9 August 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Perry wrote:

    I note that you Conservatives never ever talk about reducing the DoD spending, which is close to half of our $14 trillion budget.

    President Obama’s FY2010 DoD request was $663.8 billion, including $533.8 billion for DoD and $130 billion for “overseas contingency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Congress added $18 billion during the appropriations process, and the appropriation signed into law was $690 billion.

    However, the total FY2010 budget was $3.55 trillion; $680 is not “close to half” of that, but roughly 19%.

    Some people like to artificially increase the defense budget by including non-DoD appropriations, such as those for the Department of Energy, NASA and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Even if you include those, you come up with a total of between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion. Taking the higher number, you still come up with 29% of the budget.

    And, of course, conservatives do talk about reducing military expenditures; it’s just that you don’t recognize what’s being said. We seek to win those “overseas contingency operations,” thus removing that $130 billion from Defense spending. Destroying the Islamists would also have the effect of reducing required expenditures on the FBI’s counter-terrorism programs and the Department of Homeland Security.

    I’ll be interested in Perry’s response to this since it is not at all obvious where he got his figure, and how he will explain his use of it.

  23. My mistake! $14 trillion is our approximate GDP, more accurately now it is $14.6 trillion. Further, I misstated the fraction of the budget related to DoD, by quite a bit, so I apologize for not checking my claims before posting them.

    Nevertheless, Dana documents our DoD budget at $690 billion. Now anyone who is not blown away by that huge sum, of which $138 billion is for death and destruction, must be brain dead!

    I find it interesting that the Secretary of Defense Gates announced that he is seeking ways to cut only $100 billion from Defense in the next five years. Even this minor cut is causing significant political dissent, even among the Dems whose state (VA) would be impacted:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that tough economic times require that he shutter a major command that employs some 5,000 people around Norfolk, Va., and begin to eliminate other jobs throughout the military.

    The announcement was the first major step by Gates to find $100 billion in savings in the next five years. Gates says that money is needed elsewhere within the Defense Department to repair a force ravaged by years of war and to prepare troops for the next fight.

    The plan prompted swift political pushback from lawmakers fearful that jobs would be lost in their districts.

    “At the end of the day, Secretary Gates and his team will have to convince members of this committee that these efforts will not weaken our nation’s defense,” said Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

    Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said he could see “no rational basis” for eliminating Norfolk’s Joint Forces Command, which was created in 1999 to improve the services’ ability to work together and find efficiencies.

    “In the business world, you sometimes have to spend money in order to save money,” said Warner.

    Sen. Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the move a “step backward” that “could be harmful to the capabilities of the finest military in the world.”

    This just goes to show how deeply entrenched our military-industry complex has become, a sad state of affairs to be sure!

  24. Perry says:
    9 August 2010 at 4:43 pm (Edit)
    I hear this one often as well. I note that you Conservatives never ever talk about reducing the DoD spending, which is close to half of our $14 trillion budget.

    Ummm, Perry, the $14T is the Deficit which BO has added a considerable sum to it since reaching office.

    And, in reading the Constitution, Defense is practically the only area in the Document where it is mandated to support by the Treasury. Mostly eveything else in the budget has no or weak backing as a mandate in the Constitution to spend money funding it.

  25. Now getting back to our National Budget, here it is for F/Y 2010:

    Note that in this chart, going down the list of budget items corresponds to going clockwise around the pie chart, from the higher expenditure items to the lower.

    You will then note that the total Defense budget, combining DoD with DHS, is well over a quarter of our total federal budget: 27%. Compare this to Social Security, including administration: 27% vs 20%. So our values reflect guns over butter, correct?

    Or compare Total Defense to Medicare: 27% vs 16%. So our values also reflect guns over elderly care, correct?

    Our continuing focus and support for our military-industrial complex, well above our individually important social programs is morally obscene, in my view!

    Look at this: “The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined and is over nine times larger than the military budget of China “

    And, according to Secretary of Defense Gates last year: “As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners.”

    Are we insane or what? You tell me!

  26. Perry writes:

    “I misstated the fraction of the budget related to DoD, by quite a bit, so I apologize for not checking my claims before posting them. “

    Not only that, you have been as Dana pointed out working off your GDP assumption that in absolute numbers we spent 7 trillion on defense; while as Dana Pico also point out, that amount is double the entire Federal budget; of which, Defense comprises, according to Dana, only 19 percent of that lesser amount.

    You have mustered quite a bit of indignation over Defense spending in the past; have you been assuming all this time that the cold war levels of budgetary Defense spending of the 1960′s, were now reflected as a percentage of the total GDP?


    I apologize for not checking my claims before posting them”

    Note that you admit them as claims, implying belief, not as simple misstatement errors.

    What is significant is that you apparently believed these claims and were motivated to act on them.

    Even taking into account Wikipedia’s larger budgetary figures for Defense than those calculated by or used by Dana, total defense spending as part of the GDP according to this larger source is less than one tenth of what you claimed or believed it was.

    Are you now 9/10ths less indignant? If a 90 percent drop has no psychological effect on you, what would?

  27. Finally comparing the Bush deficit to the Obama deficit, Obama put on budget the off-budget items that were not part of the Bush deficit. This included what the Bush Administration spent on both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and the cost of Medicare Part D. Here is an article written in Feb of 09 , pointing out that this action by Obama adds $2.7 trillion to our national debt over the next ten years.

    Obama has already made a departure from the Bush budget legacy by instilling new openness and transparency. Last week, the New York Times reported that Obama will not reject “four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller.” In 2005, the Washington Post editorial board called Bush’s budget proposal a “farce” for using accounting tricks. Obama’s changes include accounting for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Bush relied on “emergency supplemental” war spending), assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation, accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements, and anticipating inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. The result of Obama’s openness is a budget that is $2.7 trillion “deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear.” As The Wonk Room explained, “that debt was always there. It was just being hidden.” “For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception — a series of accounting tricks to hide the extent of our spending,” Obama remarked yesterday.

    Added: That’s $2.7 trillion that Bush hid and Obama took on. This is a very significant amount of the Obama deficit that all you Conservatives constantly criticize. Now you can ‘Get Real’. Now you can be more ‘Fair and Balanced’. I don’t expect that Limbaugh and Beck will have anything to say about this!

  28. DNW, as you saw before you posted, I have admitted my error and corrected it with documented facts! So why carry on with your attack?

  29. I guess I got my answer. The fact that defense spending is a tenth of what Perry claimed it was, has no impact on his views or their intensity.

  30. “DNW, as you saw before you posted, I have admitted my error and corrected it with documented facts! So why carry on with your attack?”

    What makes you think I saw your “correction” or that it addresses the issue I raised regarding your insensibility to changing facts?

  31. DNW is wrong again: “I guess I got my answer. The fact that defense spending is a tenth of what Perry claimed it was, has no impact on his views or their intensity.”

    I incorrectly stated that defense spending was almost 50% of the budget. The fact is, as I demonstrated, that it is about 27%, with DHS included. So yes, I was wrong, but something is wrong with your math, or your character, or both!

    The last part of your statement is correct, for reasons already stated, comparing us to the rest of the globe, as I carefully laid out the data. I can see that you are not impressed with the facts!

  32. Waite a minute, Perry. The top five items on your chart: Social Security, Dep. of Defense, Unemployment/Welfare, Medicare, Medicade and SCHIP comprise about 75% of budget. The D of D is 19% of that. The other welfare and redistributionist items comprise 56% of spending. Don’t our values suggest Butter and Old Folks and Children and the Unemployed over guns then? Only a comitted leftist would infer we spend more on guns (war) when his own chart shows we spent two and a half times more on Social Programs. Or is that a leftist who should be comitted?

  33. DNW:

    One would assume that an hour between my mea culpa post and your post would be enough time for you to read, then post. Or maybe your internet service was interrupted. Whatever, I assume you are now caught up on the facts.

  34. First of all, Hoagie/John, I included DHS with the DoD, as stated, because both items relate to our defense. Secondly, I compared the other major budget items separately to the defense expenditures. Therefore, there was no misstatement of fact, as you imply.

    And then, what do you think of the other comparisons I made, comparing our defense expenditures to the rest of the entire globe? This does not impact your thinking on this issue at all? You are more than happy with our extravagant spending on defense. This should not be the view of a fiscal conservative!

  35. I am not happy with that spending Perry, as I have indicated before on other threads. I just think it ingenuous to submit we spend too much on the items you “don’t like” and not enough on the ones you do. I want spending cut all around. That includes D of D. I want foreign bases closed, foreign aide stopped completly, the Dept. of Education defunded (that’s the states job), and just about every other item cut by at least 25%.

    Our defense expendatures compared the the globe reflects that THEY don’t spend enough and got used to us picking up the slack. I agree with you, screw’em. If they don’t care about their own survival neither do I any longer. The Cold War is over and if the see no threat from Islamofascists, so be it. We should not spend to defend everyone from France to New Zealand. It’s their problem.

  36. Perry, I did not imply a misstatement of fact. I poined out a false conclusion about how much we spend on social programs vs. war, even including DHS.

  37. Hoagie: “Our defense expendatures compared the the globe reflects that THEY don’t spend enough and got used to us picking up the slack.”

    I totally agree with you on that point.

    But my point, which I know you don’t agree with, is that we don’t spend enough on the stimulus we need to turn around jobs and the economy, and on social programs at a time when the depleted, unemployed, middle class poor need more help than ever. Most of the rest of the developed world take care of these needs, as we learned more of during he health care debates. To me it is a disgrace how far short we fall in our responsibilities to our fellow man, as Christ’s example has so well demonstrated otherwise.

  38. Perry rewriting writes:

    “I incorrectly stated that defense spending was almost 50% of the budget. The fact is, as I demonstrated, that it is about 27%, with DHS included. So yes, I was wrong, but something is wrong with your math, or your character, or both!”

    Perry wrote earlier:

    “I note that you Conservatives never ever talk about reducing the DoD spending, which is close to half of our $14 trillion budget.”

    As Dana pointed out, you included a 14 trillion figure which is approximately our GDP. If your contention that we had a budget of 14 trillion were true, then Defense spending would be approximately 7 trillion as Dana also earlier pointed out.

    This 7 trillion figure then is what you were claiming was being spent on defense according to your own admission of belief; if that is, you actually believed your own claims:

    “I apologize for not checking my claims before posting them …”

    As it is, Defense spending is less than one tenth of the dollar amount you implied you believed it was, and much less than half of the lower dollar amount correctly represented by the Federal budget.

    Yet despite having pointed out to you your grotesquely inflated errors of magnitude on the assumed facts, and having your correspondingly nonsensical beliefs corrected, you show no corresponding deflation in your hysterical indignation level.

    The stimulus is much less than you were claiming; yet your response remains the same. Therefore, whether 7 trillion and half of the GDP is spent, or some 660 billion and 19 percent of the Federal budget is spent, it demonstrably makes no difference where your emotional reaction is concerned.

  39. “Christ’s example has so well demonstrated otherwise.”

    You are not a believer. So why drag the supposed authority of Christ into this, when you don’t believe in the basis of that authority in the first place?

  40. Hitchcock opines: “Perry, as a far-left radical, you don’t get to define the view of a fiscal conservative. So don’t presume.”

    If you really knew me personally, you would find that your conclusion is incorrect.

    Our lifelong frugality has provided us comfort at this stage in my life. Unfortunately, I doubt that you will be able to make this same statement when you are my age, not because of the frugality issue, but because I’m afraid that the economy of today and for the future will not provide the opportunities, educationally and jobwise, that I was fortunate enough to have and grasp.

    And I will guarantee you this, Hitchcock: You will be relieved to have social security and medicare, provided we as a country are willing to do with less now so that you and yours will have the same benefit that I now have. I hope that happens for you and yours!

    So there’s the fiscal conservatism of which I speak, a little different from what you had in mind, Hitchcock.

  41. DNW: “You are not a believer. So why drag the supposed authority of Christ into this, when you don’t believe in the basis of that authority in the first place?”

    I am not talking about ‘authority’, I am talking about ‘example’, DNW.

    I am not surprised at your question, as I do not think you have understood my respect for important (to me) aspects of the life Christ lived.

  42. Social Security, medicare, medicaid are all Ponzi Schemes. And all ponzi schemes eventually collapse under their own weight.

    Social Security won’t exist in 25 years.

  43. Our defense expendatures compared the the globe reflects that THEY don’t spend enough and got used to us picking up the slack.

    Or, alternatively, that you’re a militaristic power that has intervened elsewhere far more than any other country since WWII and deliberately uses military power and the threat of same as a tool of policy.

  44. “I am not surprised at your question, as I do not think you have understood my respect for important (to me) aspects of the life Christ lived.”

    On the basis of your past statements you are apparently favorably impressed by Mohamet and Buddha as well. So, no I can’t say I have much respect for your critical sense or logic when it comes to selecting supposedly emulation-worthy examples.

  45. As has been demonstrated again and again and again, Eric, you are extremely ignorant – and proud of it.

    A graph by an unknown entity is proof of nothing. Again, another waste of time link.

  46. Eric:

    Indeed, a remark like the above is really stupid. You can pass off this way anything you don’t like, or don’t wish to pursue out of laziness, as I would guess you have done throughout your life, you know, putting off until later, or finding excuses to ignore issues. I honestly don’t know why you even bother to post if this is all you have to offer. You’ve done much better!

  47. Good one PiaToR! :)

    Actually I was thinking about the discussion on religion a few of months ago.

    Eric can step up to the plate when he wants to, but usually he is too lazy, and then slinks down into the category of the big three righties on here, mostly meanless nonsense. I’m only trying to help! :)

  48. Eric can step up to the plate when he wants to, but usually he is too lazy, and then slinks down into the category of the big three righties on here,

    Unlike some, my life does not revolve around this blog. Laziness has nothing to do with it, wasting time does.

  49. wasting time does.

    Actually, that should read “Not wasting time”. There are a limited number of hours in a day, and I do other things online, such as participate in the aforementioned private email group. I’m lucky if I can simply keep up with all the comments here, never mind all the various links.

  50. Eric: It is not a waste of time to extend your education and knowledge. Instead, you choose to shoot from the hip on here — too easy, little significance! Others have made the same choice. If you choose to do this, so be it! Your choice.

Comments are closed.