<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 34,000</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/</link>
	<description>The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:41:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casey</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/comment-page-1/#comment-463399</link>
		<dc:creator>Casey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=12593#comment-463399</guid>
		<description>(again rolls eyes)
Yep, and the 1945 defense budget was $64.53 billion (1940 $), and &lt;i&gt;total fed expenditures&lt;/i&gt; were $72.11 for the entire year. In other words, defense spending was very nearly 90% of all federal spending that year. 

Also note that the above 1945 fed budget was &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;41.56%&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; of the nominal GDP of the time ($173.52 billion).

So, yeah, if DoD was 90% of the federal budget, and the total budget was around $5.8 trillion ($14 trillion * .4156), I&#039;d be in favor of massive war bond sales myself.

This stunt is yet another attempt by this administration to sneak yet another tax burden on the citizens of this country. 

I agree with suggestions already made with respect to federal budget cuts. For starters. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(again rolls eyes)<br />
Yep, and the 1945 defense budget was $64.53 billion (1940 $), and <i>total fed expenditures</i> were $72.11 for the entire year. In other words, defense spending was very nearly 90% of all federal spending that year. </p>
<p>Also note that the above 1945 fed budget was <i><b>41.56%</b></i> of the nominal GDP of the time ($173.52 billion).</p>
<p>So, yeah, if DoD was 90% of the federal budget, and the total budget was around $5.8 trillion ($14 trillion * .4156), I&#8217;d be in favor of massive war bond sales myself.</p>
<p>This stunt is yet another attempt by this administration to sneak yet another tax burden on the citizens of this country. </p>
<p>I agree with suggestions already made with respect to federal budget cuts. For starters. <img src='http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casey</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/comment-page-1/#comment-463396</link>
		<dc:creator>Casey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:28:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=12593#comment-463396</guid>
		<description>(rolls eyes)
aeroeng, that&#039;s pretty cute, equating the entire 2010 DoD budget with the cost of the two current campaigns. Anyone who (God forbid) actually took two minutes to read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;proposal&lt;/a&gt; would find out that $663.8 billion is for the entire DoD, of which $130 billion is to support &quot;overseas contingency operations.&quot; At least they dropped the whole supplemental request idea.

No, $130 isn&#039;t chicken feed either, but whining about $634 billion DoD budget while kicking total fed spending to nearly $4 &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;trillion&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; with a deficit of $1.7 trillion for 2009 alone, is farcical.

In fact, the above summary demonstrates that the proposed &quot;war tax&quot; would only raise $68 billion, which doesn&#039;t even cover the proposed  &quot;contingency&quot; (AKA war on Islamofascism) operations next year.

...And while you&#039;re at it, ask Mary Landrieu about returning that $300 million bribe, if the Democrats are so darned worried about funding. Feh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(rolls eyes)<br />
aeroeng, that&#8217;s pretty cute, equating the entire 2010 DoD budget with the cost of the two current campaigns. Anyone who (God forbid) actually took two minutes to read the <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652" rel="nofollow">proposal</a> would find out that $663.8 billion is for the entire DoD, of which $130 billion is to support &#8220;overseas contingency operations.&#8221; At least they dropped the whole supplemental request idea.</p>
<p>No, $130 isn&#8217;t chicken feed either, but whining about $634 billion DoD budget while kicking total fed spending to nearly $4 <i><b>trillion</b></i> with a deficit of $1.7 trillion for 2009 alone, is farcical.</p>
<p>In fact, the above summary demonstrates that the proposed &#8220;war tax&#8221; would only raise $68 billion, which doesn&#8217;t even cover the proposed  &#8220;contingency&#8221; (AKA war on Islamofascism) operations next year.</p>
<p>&#8230;And while you&#8217;re at it, ask Mary Landrieu about returning that $300 million bribe, if the Democrats are so darned worried about funding. Feh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Snake Eater</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/comment-page-1/#comment-463361</link>
		<dc:creator>Snake Eater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:34:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=12593#comment-463361</guid>
		<description>QM, Suggest you Google  &quot;The Thirty  Years War&quot; ...the Prods  vs. the Papists ( 1616-1648)where all will be revealed/clarified.  Best</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>QM, Suggest you Google  &#8220;The Thirty  Years War&#8221; &#8230;the Prods  vs. the Papists ( 1616-1648)where all will be revealed/clarified.  Best</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G-man</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/comment-page-1/#comment-463353</link>
		<dc:creator>G-man</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:46:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=12593#comment-463353</guid>
		<description>Well there is a gihugent difference in my po&#039; ole southern boy brain between a war bond - something that equals a sum borrowed with a promise to pay back with interest based upon money that had a standard to support it, versus a regressive tax that is open ended and for which you get nothing in return.  And for which there are no rules defining expenditures as Mongo has stated.

What we need is a snappy slogan like &quot;buy a bullet for Tali-Baba&quot; or &quot;72 virgins need a man.  Won&#039;t you please give?&quot; or &quot;pay your tax to support our attacks&quot;, followed up with some nice poster work a la the WWII bond posters.  Give us all warm fuzzies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well there is a gihugent difference in my po&#8217; ole southern boy brain between a war bond &#8211; something that equals a sum borrowed with a promise to pay back with interest based upon money that had a standard to support it, versus a regressive tax that is open ended and for which you get nothing in return.  And for which there are no rules defining expenditures as Mongo has stated.</p>
<p>What we need is a snappy slogan like &#8220;buy a bullet for Tali-Baba&#8221; or &#8220;72 virgins need a man.  Won&#8217;t you please give?&#8221; or &#8220;pay your tax to support our attacks&#8221;, followed up with some nice poster work a la the WWII bond posters.  Give us all warm fuzzies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MaxDamage</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/comment-page-1/#comment-463334</link>
		<dc:creator>MaxDamage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=12593#comment-463334</guid>
		<description>Right there with you, I&#039;d argue that Congress has acted like children and operate under the impression that anything not specifically cited as prohibited is allowed if only they can somehow work in interstate commerce or national defense as a possible side effect.

For example, Walter Williams has a great article at:

 http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/11/25/a_minority_view_voluntarism_or_self-interest

There is a National Organ Transplant Act that prevents me, under Federal Law, from taking money or other compensation for my bone marrow or organs.  Now I&#039;m not a Constitutional scholar but I&#039;m not finding anywhere in the document that my bone marrow crosses state lines, affects trade, or otherwise is anybody else&#039;s darned business.  Where in the heck did Congress determine they had the power to tell me what I could do with my marrow?

I&#039;ll never forget the time the USDA decided I was a farmer.  My wife bought some turkeys and chickens, and I rented 6 acres to a neighbor in return for some corn to feed them with.  Suddenly, I met the qualifications of a farmer.  My county agent, tired of sending me 200-page booklets with forms to fill out, finally filled them out for me and sent a copy that only required my signature.  As a result, I was given the agricultural census along with the regular one, had to keep track of farm-related expenses versus my normal lifestyle expenses, and I received my first farm subsidy check.

$18.  So, you know, Mom was finally able to afford that operation.

The USDA plants not one crop, nor does it harvest any grain.  The USDE educates not one child.  The DoE produces not a kilowatt of electricity.  The Department of Labor produces not one job, and the Department of Health and Human Services cares for no patients.

Until we can get Congress to realize that not everything is under their care, and get a Supreme Court to so rule, we&#039;re left with a nation run by lawyers spending other people&#039;s money to buy favor and be re-elected.

Which, of course, means we&#039;re pretty much screwed.

  - Max</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right there with you, I&#8217;d argue that Congress has acted like children and operate under the impression that anything not specifically cited as prohibited is allowed if only they can somehow work in interstate commerce or national defense as a possible side effect.</p>
<p>For example, Walter Williams has a great article at:</p>
<p> <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/11/25/a_minority_view_voluntarism_or_self-interest" rel="nofollow">http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/11/25/a_minority_view_voluntarism_or_self-interest</a></p>
<p>There is a National Organ Transplant Act that prevents me, under Federal Law, from taking money or other compensation for my bone marrow or organs.  Now I&#8217;m not a Constitutional scholar but I&#8217;m not finding anywhere in the document that my bone marrow crosses state lines, affects trade, or otherwise is anybody else&#8217;s darned business.  Where in the heck did Congress determine they had the power to tell me what I could do with my marrow?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll never forget the time the USDA decided I was a farmer.  My wife bought some turkeys and chickens, and I rented 6 acres to a neighbor in return for some corn to feed them with.  Suddenly, I met the qualifications of a farmer.  My county agent, tired of sending me 200-page booklets with forms to fill out, finally filled them out for me and sent a copy that only required my signature.  As a result, I was given the agricultural census along with the regular one, had to keep track of farm-related expenses versus my normal lifestyle expenses, and I received my first farm subsidy check.</p>
<p>$18.  So, you know, Mom was finally able to afford that operation.</p>
<p>The USDA plants not one crop, nor does it harvest any grain.  The USDE educates not one child.  The DoE produces not a kilowatt of electricity.  The Department of Labor produces not one job, and the Department of Health and Human Services cares for no patients.</p>
<p>Until we can get Congress to realize that not everything is under their care, and get a Supreme Court to so rule, we&#8217;re left with a nation run by lawyers spending other people&#8217;s money to buy favor and be re-elected.</p>
<p>Which, of course, means we&#8217;re pretty much screwed.</p>
<p>  &#8211; Max</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steeljaw Scribe</title>
		<link>http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/11/24/34000/comment-page-1/#comment-463316</link>
		<dc:creator>Steeljaw Scribe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=12593#comment-463316</guid>
		<description>I thought we were selling War Bonds ... oh, wait, *those* are &lt;i&gt;Treasury&lt;/i&gt; bonds and the Chinese are buying them...
- SJS</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought we were selling War Bonds &#8230; oh, wait, *those* are <i>Treasury</i> bonds and the Chinese are buying them&#8230;<br />
- SJS</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

