1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Fearing Hagel

zmazurak Wrote: Jan 07, 2013 2:21 PM
Bottom line: anyone who claims that under sequestration defense spending will grow above today's level, or that sequestration and the preceding cuts are "non-cuts", is LYING. L-Y-I-N-G. The people spreading such lies, including Ron Paul and Mike Shedlock, are children of the Father of Lies himself. Shame on Townhall for posting this ridiculous screed. Mike Shedlock est un fils de pute.
In response to:

Fearing Hagel

zmazurak Wrote: Jan 07, 2013 2:20 PM
This is a litany of blatant lies. I'll respond only to a few. Per the CBO, WITH the sequester, defense spending will be cut by 31% over the next decade. It'll shrink to the lowest level since FY2003 (NOT FY2007) and not return to its current level for an entire decade, and prolly longer. But even WITHOUT the sequester, defense spending will still shrink in real terms from $535B to $521B and not return to the current level til FY2016.
What ugger garbage. No, we don't owe ANYTHING to Ron Paul. He's a traitor, an Islamic propaganda mouthpiece, and an ally of the hard left on defense, foreign policy, and social issues. As for limited government - don't make me laugh. Ron Paul is the king of pork. Every year he brings back hundreds of millions of dollars of pork he secures in approps bills through amendment despite casting meaningless votes against their final passage (knowing full well they'll pass the Congress anyway). Ron Paul is a traitor and a scumbag. Shame on you, Mr Doherty, for writing this hagiography.
In response to:

Winning the Defense Spending Debate

zmazurak Wrote: Nov 16, 2012 10:13 AM
$68 bn over 10 years is just $6.8 bn per year. That only proves that there isn't enough waste in the defense budget. Not even close. Fact is, America cannot afford to cut its defense budget deeply.
In response to:

Coulter Defends Romney

zmazurak Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 9:51 AM
"America is going broke, and yet we still spend about as much on "defense" as all other countries combined." FALSE. The US doesn't spend that much on defense as all other countries combined. Not even close. According to the SIPRI, whose figures are also available on Wikipedia, the US spends only 41% of the world's total military spending, and that's if you accept SIPRI's grossly OVERSTATED figures for the US and UNDERSTATED figures for China and Russia. If you accept that China and Russia spend far more than SIPRI admits to, America's share of global military spending is even lower. The US can safely afford its current military budget. It amounts to just 4.2% of America's GDP and less than 17% of the total federal budget.
In response to:

A Foreign Policy of Arrogant Meddling

zmazurak Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 3:35 PM
As for Republican skepticism of the government, Sullum clearly doesn't understand that providing for the common defense is the highest CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of the federal government. He clearly doesn't see the difference between providing for the common defense on the one hand, and spending money on Solyndras, teachers, and bridges to nowhere on the other hand. He knows nothing about conservatism and Republicans and does not understand either conservatism or us Republicans. Shame on Townhall for publishing this pathetic screed.
In response to:

A Foreign Policy of Arrogant Meddling

zmazurak Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 3:32 PM
The military budget is NOT "grotesquely bloated"; it's not bloated at all. It's modest. It amounts to just 4.22% of America's GDP, INCLUDING war and DOE nuclear program costs. The base defense budget amounts to just 3.47% of GDP and $1,700 per capita. That's all that we pay for America's defense. The country's security cannot be provided for on the cheap. It requires many world-class ships, planes, ICBMs, nuclear warheads, missile defense interceptors, troops, ground vehicles and other weapons, as well as their bases, developmental programs, troops' salaries&benefits, etc. This costs serious money. America's defense CANNOT be provided for on the cheap. That is an unavoidable FACT.
In response to:

A Foreign Policy of Arrogant Meddling

zmazurak Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 3:28 PM
What a litany of blatant lies! Firstly, the pending cuts are not mere "cuts in growth"; they are REAL cuts in defense spending. 1st round of the BCA: down from $535B in '12 to $521B in '13. If sequestration kicks in, defense will go down to $469B in '13 and not recover from it for an entire decade. The results will be weapon program killing across the board and drastic cuts in the force structure of ALL services, including the nuclear deterrent. As a result, the US military will be too small to defend even America itself, to say nothing of its allies.
No, we don't spend 6 times more than China on the military. Not even close. CHinas military budget is 160 bn to 250 bn per year, without even accounting for GDP. Our military budget is 645 bn in FY2012, just 2.5 times more than China's. Not even close to being 6 times more than China's budget. (Borowski is lying in order to further her deep-defense-cuts agenda.) China has a lot more capacity to build than we do. Its defense industry its larger, as is its population and workforce.
1 - 10 Next