The Bush of Latin America: Chavez Redesigns Venezeula's Constitution to Suit His Need

[Epicurus]

The Venezulaun government honestly isn't much bigger a part of Venexuala's economy than the US government is a part of the US economy, and the US has by far the smallest government of any developed nation, and most of what there is goes into military, unlike any other developed nation.

You have a tendency to spew bullshit without having the slightest clue of the facts. You've managed to spout off so many inaccuracies in this post I will have to deconstruct them separately.

First off, your claims about the US and Venezeula being about the same in public spending as % of GDP are considerably off base.

Venezuela's public spending accounts for slightly more than 40% of its GDP.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/4258/1/216/

America's public spending (state and federal combined) accounts for only about 30% of its GDP, a massive difference of hundreds of billions of dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist15z3.xls

Only 3.5% of America's GDP is commited to funding its military, compared to 10% of Saudi GDP, 7.3% of Israel's GDP, and 5.9% of Syria's GDP.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

It does account for 50.5% of total federal discretionary spending, but federal discretionary spending only accounts for 1/3 of total federal expenditures.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/fy'02/

Considering that the USA is currently involved in two undeclared wars maintaining occupation forces in two foreign countries, one might expect military spending to consume a larger percentage of GDP than it currently does. 3.5% pales in comparison to the peak of 37.8% of GDP in 1944, and is almost two thirds less than the 9.4% of GDP in 1968 spent on the military during the Vietnam War, a period often compared to today's foreign occupations.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

When you think about the absurd amount of pork and bureaucratic excess mandated by Congressional acts, 1/2 of 1/3 of total federal spending doesn't seem unreasonable for the funding the government's primary Constitutional responsiblity: Defense of the Country.

 

[Epicurus]

Don't get me wrong, our "defense" spending is unneccessarily extravagant and completely out of hand, much like our spending in every other area.

But considering the absurd amount of money we waste on non-discretionary spending, I am really 2/3 more concerned about that.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Venezuela's public spending accounts for slightly more than 40% of its GDP.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/arti...ew/4258/1/216/

America's public spending (state and federal combined) accounts for only about 30% of its GDP, a massive difference of hundreds of billions of dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist15z3.xls

ZOMG WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE!?1?1/1?!?!!?

Only 3.5% of America's GDP is commited to funding its military, compared to 10% of Saudi GDP, 7.3% of Israel's GDP, and 5.9% of Syria's GDP.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2034rank.html

Thanks, ignorant dumbfuck, for showing me a bunch of worthless third world nations whenever I was specifically citing IMPORTANT nations. Now, please go sodomize yourself.

Considering that the USA is currently involved in two undeclared wars maintaining occupation forces in two foreign countries, one might expect military spending to consume a larger percentage of GDP than it currently does. 3.5% pales in comparison to the peak of 37.8% of GDP in 1944, and is almost two thirds less than the 9.4% of GDP in 1968 spent on the military during the Vietnam War, a period often compared to today's foreign occupations.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/mili...ative-size.php

Because it was higher in the past doesn't mean it doesn't take up a ridiculous poriton (more than half) of our budget today? God you're a dumbass. It's amazing you can eat on your own.

You find money for death important but puke whenever we try to feed the poor. Disgusting little creature.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

When you think about the absurd amount of pork and bureaucratic excess mandated by Congressional acts, 1/2 of 1/3 of total federal spending doesn't seem unreasonable for the funding the government's primary Constitutional responsiblity: Defense of the Country.

The governments primary responsibility is promoting the general welfare. We have no enemies to defend from. We are the aggressor. We should rename the department of "defense" back to the department of war, because that's what it is.

 

[Epicurus]

ZOMG WHAT A HUGE DIFFERENCE!?1?1/1?!?!!?




Thanks, ignorant dumbfuck, for showing me a bunch of worthless third world nations whenever I was specifically citing IMPORTANT nations. Now, please go sodomize yourself.



Because it was higher in the past doesn't mean it doesn't take up a ridiculous poriton (more than half) of our budget today? God you're a dumbass. It's amazing you can eat on your own.

You find money for death important but puke whenever we try to feed the poor. Disgusting little creature.

You could have saved space in this last post by just writing: I'm a dumbass without a clue who rectally extracts statistics.

"Important nations"? Lol. Fuck yourself. Elitist asswipe.

My statistics have the advantage of not only being accurate and not made up, but they are also relevant. I didn't just grab the top of the list, I chose countries that are also involved to some degree in our efforts in the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the economic powerhouses of the Middle East, and are not "worthless third world nations".

Your unwillingness to admit your complete fabrication of those statistics only serves to further reveal your ignorance and stubborness.

 

[uscitizen]

President Bush has taken some of the fewest war time powers of any sitting President in US history. Pick up a history book, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR ran internment camps, and this is the extreme tip of the iceberg. Bush has what, spied on known terrorists trying to make contacts in the US.

A war declared by congress is a bit different than bush's police action...

 

[Battleborne]

Kudos Beefy..........

I know Ron Paul will not win. I know this, but I think his message is worth hearing, and worth being addressed. And thus far, of all the viable candidates in both parties, I would hope for Mike Huckabee, but I will likely be voting third party again this time around.

Huckabee seems to me to be a decent and honest man, and wouldn't THAT be a refeshing change. And the fact that he's a Republican would prevent the rubber stamping of bills through congress and certainly be cause for less spending (unless, by some miracle, the (R) should win back the congress in '08. In such an event, I would hope for Obama for the same reason.)

And Larry, I'm very familiar with history, and one, giant, glaring difference between the American Revolution, the the War in Iraq, is that the American Revolution was grown organically, and was won because there was a clear organic cause inspired by the people actually fighting and instigating the war. It's not as if some other country invaded us, overthrew any British power, occupied us, then "let" us self govern while they watched over us with machine guns.

Not only that but the swearing in of George Washington was not the initial self governance of this country, and the country wasn't being occupied by a foreign power in the meantime. There were the Articles of Confederation, which proved to be ineffective, and the government then adopted the Constitution at a later date, under which Washington was sworn in as the 1st president.

The American Revolution, and the Iraq War are so far apart, they're not even not in the same ball park, they're not even the same sport.

A more appropriate analogy would be to compare it to Viet Nam, which has far more similarities to this conflict than any other American War.

Well thought out response...there is hope afterall!

 

[Timshel]

Lincoln's suspension of Habaes corpus was written into the constitution and perfectly permissible in the circumstances. FDR's internment camps were far more serious, but the nation was at stake.

There is no war going on right now, the US is not in any danger of falling, and you have a greater chance of being killed by lightning than by terrorists. Not reasonable grounds for violating the constitution.

In what way was the nation threatened that justified internment camps?

Come on, water, Bush deserves a bs excuse as you do above for FDR.

 

[Epicurus]

In what way was the nation threatened that justified internment camps?

Come on, water, Bush deserves a bs excuse as you do above for FDR.

WM: ONCE THE "NATION IS AT STAKE", LOCKING UP ALL THE PEOPLE OF ONE COLOR BECOMES ACCEPTABLE! LIKEWISE WITH SUSPENDING HABEUS CORPUS!

 

[Epicurus]

WM faced.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I was saying that it was more acceptable a use of government power than Bush's grabs, not that I agreed with it.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

watermark you've said many times you want to lock up blacks.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

watermark you've said many times you want to lock up blacks.

Well that's beside the point. I happen to like the Japanese.