Quote: Breaking News Russia's Black Sea Fleet has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday to surrender or face an all-out assault, according to Ukrainian defence ministry sources quoted by Interfax-Ukraine news agency. "If by 5am tomorrow morning they do not surrender a real assault will begin on units and sections of the Ukrainian armed forces all over Crimea," defence ministry officials are quoted as saying. So far there is no further confirmation of the ultimatum from other sources.
For anybody who hasn't seen them, there are a number of really good photos of Priests in the Ukraine standing between the protesters and the riot police...
We had a really good talk this Sunday about Christians getting out of their comfort zone.. for most in the US, that means visiting somebody in prison or helping out a homeless person... I can't imagine what it would take to hold up my cross and walk in between two factions at war with each other where many have already died...
That is a true commitment to one's ideals, not to mention courage galore.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Do you have something against people that are seeking freedom? Would you recommend a return to a divided Germany? A return to the Iron Curtain? It seems that you do. The Ukrainian revolt, if equated to anything, should be equated to the fall of the Berlin Wall and German Reunification, the Velvet Revolution (Czechoslovakia's civil break-up), Poland's and Hungary shedding communism.
Oh come on. Lighten up. Russia never did anything like this before.
Nope. Never happened in Czechoslovakia. Not in Hungary either. They've never violated Georgia's territorial integrity.
.. " I remember speaking to my grandfather. He fought in WW1 on the side of the Kaiser. At the time, he was a resident of the Austro-Hungarian Empire... "
I envy you ; that must have been fascinating ~
He was a fascinating man. He was little more than a peasant growing up but spoke 7 languages fluently.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
I don't see how this can possibly go well for Putin. Ukraine will likely stand down (either at the deadline tonight, or be starved out of the Crimea within a few weeks). Russia will either boost the Crimea as an independent state, or more likely annex it.
The UN will likely institute some trade embargos on Russia (those won't be severe, but NATO ones will be). NATO will give into Poland's insistence that the new missile defense system be built in Poland. The resulting Ukrainian government (when it is re-elected at the end of March) will be staunchly pro-NATO and anti-Russia (especially without Russian votes from the Crimea being counted). Given NATOs current stand on Ukraine, Ukraine will join NATO soon after. The G8 meeting in Sochi will likely be cancelled (or at least, not attended by the majority of the G8).
Then things will quiet down -- but I don't understand how that trade-off is worth it to Russia. They get to keep their Naval Base in the Black Sea, but it is so restricted that it can be blockaded by Turkey/Greece at a moments notice.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
Quote: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
I don't see how this can possibly go well for Putin. Ukraine will likely stand down (either at the deadline tonight, or be starved out of the Crimea within a few weeks). Russia will either boost the Crimea as an independent state, or more likely annex it.
The UN will likely institute some trade embargos on Russia (those won't be severe, but NATO ones will be). NATO will give into Poland's insistence that the new missile defense system be built in Poland. The resulting Ukrainian government (when it is re-elected at the end of March) will be staunchly pro-NATO and anti-Russia (especially without Russian votes from the Crimea being counted). Given NATOs current stand on Ukraine, Ukraine will join NATO soon after. The G8 meeting in Sochi will likely be cancelled (or at least, not attended by the majority of the G8).
Then things will quiet down -- but I don't understand how that trade-off is worth it to Russia. They get to keep their Naval Base in the Black Sea, but it is so restricted that it can be blockaded by Turkey/Greece at a moments notice.
I agree with some of what you have written, but wonder if NATO would really have the stomach to take in the Ukraine? Is this the place you want to test "Attack one - attack all". If the Russians think so, then why would they stop with Crimea? Take the whole thing now. Nobody is going to do anything serious about it and certainly not this administration which has had more lines crossed than the letter "T" in a dictionary.
NATO needs to grant the missile defense that Poland wants; sooner than later. Start today.
Europe as a whole needs to get away from Russian oil and gas dependance. (That sounds familiar...) Picture is worth a thousand words.
The Cold War looks to be heating up again. (oxymoron intended)
So Putin eases the tension a bit and the stock market shoots up after dumping day before. I would love to know how many of Pute's friends shorted stocks, bought Puts, sold calls before his invasion and covered those positions right before his remarks. I would love to know how much money those in the know in Russia made from this as he also minipulates the world stock markets.
So Putin eases the tension a bit and the stock market shoots up after dumping day before. I would love to know how many of Pute's friends shorted stocks, bought Puts, sold calls before his invasion and covered those positions right before his remarks. I would love to know how much money those in the know in Russia made from this as he also manipulates the world stock markets.
Ain't that the truth. He'll probably get the Crimea (at least - if not all of Ukraine) out of the deal if the West's response to it remain as it is.
So Putin eases the tension a bit and the stock market shoots up after dumping day before. I would love to know how many of Pute's friends shorted stocks, bought Puts, sold calls before his invasion and covered those positions right before his remarks. I would love to know how much money those in the know in Russia made from this as he also minipulates the world stock markets.
Not as much as the Koch Brothers have made since their "Making it worse" campaign started in early 2009.
Soros, George. Do some light investigation. Thanks in advance.
Believe me, I know the SuperPACs are on both sides. I don't like it.
But one side did a fantastic job of convincing folks that the plummeting stock market was "going to get worse." Ouch!
And the other side did an equally fantastic job of convincing folks that the economy would collapse if we passed tax cuts in the early 2000s... it's amazing how such disasters can be averted (or at least postponed) if one is willing to just keep printing money.
You're giving the Dems too much credit. They disputed Bush's claims about continuing a surplus through tax cuts and stimulus, but I don't think they went as far as predicting the deficit going over $1 trillion.
Quote: You're giving the Dems too much credit. They disputed Bush's claims about continuing a surplus through tax cuts and stimulus, but I don't think they went as far as predicting the deficit going over $1 trillion.
Do you know when the annual deficit actually went over a trillion dollars?
One event took place ...... one pivotal moment ..... when the Democrats took back control of the House and Senate.
Prior to that we were looking at half trillion dollar deficits. Thus was unacceptable, but spartan by comparison.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
are you saying that the deficit was going to magically stop if the dems didn't take office? during 2 wars? where the deficit was going to rise regardless?
sorry if i'm confused.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Go look up a table of annual deficits and compare the Party in power. It's really easy to do.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
the point is, if we are already a half billion dollars in the hole, it doesn't matter if a new set of republicans took the house and senate, that spending and deficit was already going to happen.
think about that, we'd be in the hole even more because if it was up to republicans, we STILL be in iraq.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Look at the deficit number. That's all. Please, just go look them up.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
so...2009, the first official year of obama's term, which is actually STILL considered bush's spending(policies, wars, etc) it went up, then its been steadily going down by spending each year after that...
so...once again, whats your point?
if thats whats your talking about, then sorry if i'm saying once again, i have no idea what you're talking about.
if you're trying to make another point, please, post a link so i can see what exactly you're trying to say.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Look at the years 2005 - 2007 ... and tell me who controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency.
What year did the Democrats take back control of Congress? Here's a hint .... 2007. Their first budget was for the fiscal year 2008.
In 2011, the Republicans took back the House, and started to roadblock some spending.
Compare that reality to the spending charts. Your chart also says that some of the 2009 deficit should be attributed to Obama, and answers that with "Sorta". Some of 2009 was Obama spending. However, what remains irrefutable is that deficits went up with one party Democrat rule, and started to come back down with Republican control of even one House of Congress.
I will allow that some of the deficit was because of lowered revenues due to the recession, but that's the time to reduce spending, and do a better job of prioritizing, rather than just throwing money at the problem. The problem with DC is that this is considered the answer to all problems, and this is a bigger problem for the Democrats than the Republicans. The deficit numbers show it.
You can also look at the budget total, which is basically what we spent. (although there are other off-budget items as well)
That is available here: (same site you referenced)
The total government spending as a percent of GDP for those years:
Code:
Year GDP-US $ billion nominal Population-US million Total Spending -fed percent GDP 2007 14028.7 301.231 19.45 a 2008 14291.5 304.094 20.87 a 2009 13973.7 306.772 25.17 a 2010 14498.9 309.350 23.84 a 2011 15075.7 311.583 23.90 a 2012 15684.8 313.874 22.55 a 2013 16202.7 316.129 21.32 a 2014 17011.4 318.400 22.21 b 2015 17936.1 321.363 21.79 b 2016 18934.2 323.849 21.60 b 2017 19980 326.348 21.26 b 2018 21024.8 328.857 21.16 b Legend: a - actual reported e - estimated by usgovernmentspending.com g - 'guesstimated' projection by usgovernmentspending.com b - budgeted estimate in US FY15 budget Data Sources for 2007: GDP: See GDP Update Delay Federal: Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2, 5.1, 7.1 State and Local: State and Local Gov. Finances Data Sources for 2018: GDP: Fed. Budget: Hist. Table 10.1 Federal: Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2, 5.1, 7.1 State and Local: State and Local Gov. Finances “Guesstimated” by projecting the latest change in reported spending forward to future years
We go into recession, and throw more money at problems, instead of cutting back and allowing more private money into the economy.
Further, the House has passed a budget every year that the Republicans have had control of the House, and they have been tabled in the Senate, and not even taken up. How do you bring spending down if you won't even consider a budget, other than opposing specific programs coming up for approval or re-approval? The Democrats did not pass a budget from 2009 till the Republicans took the House, and will not even take one up for debate, instead preferring to allow for automatic increases to take effect.
If you do not plan your spending, then your spending plans you. That is a simple lesson I learned as a young man, who was often broke a couple of days after payday until I learned that I had to budget my money to make it last until my next payday. We are in a spending crisis, and we don't cut spending, instead we hope that tax revenues will increase enough to cover the increases. Yes, I blame the Democrats, because of the trends when they hold power, the track of spending, and the unwillingness of the Democrats to even consider a budget, let alone pass one. Plus, we have a President who has sent budgets to Congress so far removed from reality that it's ridiculous. Not even his own Party will bring them up, they are so far out of touch with fiscal reality.
So, who is to blame?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
the problem is now that i brought it up, you wanna blame the dems for everything, when thats not even remotely true.
a lot of that deficit was because of the war as well right? did the dems start that too? how much aid was we giving pakistan, afghan, iraq before the dems took office in 2007? you do realize that spending like that can't just be magically stopped no matter WHO is in charge of the house and senate during a war.
the republicans started the mess, the dems continued it(i admit that), yet you wanna blame only the dems.
so yes, sorry if i'm confused about what your point is.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Who voted for the Afghan War? I think that was both Parties. 420 Ayes in the House, and 1 Nay ..... and it passed the Senate 98-0, with 2 Republicans voting present only.
President Clinton himself said that Iraq had WMD. 82 Democrats voted for the Iraq War resolution, along with most Republicans. In the Senate, 29 of 50 Democrats, and 1 Independent voted for the Iraq War Resolution.
I love how people forget all of that. Of course, those who voted for the war forgot about their votes months later ....... so why would it be different now, They got the same intelligence as the White House. President Clinton backed the WMD claims. (though he later forgot about that too) People claiming to somehow have been "duped" are just a little (well, more than a little) disingenuous in my opinion.
Of course, those who opposed the war on "moral grounds" often have no objection to the President and military using drones as targeted assassination tools. Guantanamo Bay is still open. (to my surprise) In Afghanistan, Obama actually increased the troop level. We withdrew all troops in 2013 ..... well, except those still there. We withdrew from Iraq in December in 2011 ...... but not because of moral concerns ..... but rather because the Iraqi government wanted the US government to waive immunity for American soldiers. That's why we pulled out of Iraq.
Might as well face facts that the Obama administration probably followed a policy similar to that which the Bush administration would have. (except Bush probably would have pushed back stronger against Iraqi demands to waive immunity for US soldiers)
The Iraq War cost what ... a trillion dollars over 10 years? That's $100 billion per year .... and while that's a lot, it's still a fraction of the budget. I don't think that we should make national defense decisions based solely on the budget, and really, this is what ...... 1/30th of the federal budget per year? Plus, standard military expenses are included in that amount. We pay soldiers, no matter what. We build equipment no matter what. Some costs are shifted to active military use when they are expenses we would carry anyway.Then there are hidden costs that we'll never know about. What was the true cost? We'll never know.
Regardless, I don't remember very many Democrats demanding that Obama pull troops out of either place, and mass protests, since Obama took office.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
True story Pit : When numb nuts went into Iraq I was so mad I left the Country and stayed gone for about 7 years .. I have a way of taking things to the extreme
Quote: think about that, we'd be in the hole even more because if it was up to republicans, we STILL be in iraq.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Obama pull the troops out of Iraq at the exact time that Bush said we would pull them out in his agreement with the Iraqi government?
Quote: think about that, we'd be in the hole even more because if it was up to republicans, we STILL be in iraq.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Obama pull the troops out of Iraq at the exact time that Bush said we would pull them out in his agreement with the Iraqi government?
George W. Bush in 2008. Established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
However, what remains irrefutable is that deficits went up with one party Democrat rule, and started to come back down with Republican control of even one House of Congress.
Its also irrefutable that spending/deficits soar under Republican Presidents and fall under Democrat Presidents. your website:
Total Spending 2001: $1.8 Trillion Total Spending 2009: $3.52 Trillion Total Spending 2013: $3.45 trillion
