Sweet: Palin hits Obama on missile-defense cuts
posted at 8:31 pm on April 6, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In one fell swoop, a well-placed criticism of Obama and a juicy cut of red meat for the base. Nicely played.
“I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead,” Governor Palin said. “I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation.”
Governor Palin stressed the importance of Fort Greely and the need for continued funding for the Missile Defense Agency. The governor is firmly against U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ proposed $1.4 billion reduction of the Missile Defense Agency. Greely’s isolated location in Alaska as well as its strategic location in the Pacific allows for maximum security and development of the country’s only ground-based missile defense complex.
“Our early opposition to reduced funding for the Missile Defense Agency is proving to be well-founded during this turbulent time,” Governor Palin said. “I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield based in Alaska. We are strategically placed to defend the critical assets of the United States and our allies in the Pacific Theater.”
Missile defense isn’t even the worst cut, in my very poorly informed opinion. Scaling back the F-22 — a key to total air superiority — is. See Danger Room for details on that; the Pentagon wanted almost 200 fighters more but Gates decided that our new emphasis on wars of counterinsurgency means that 180+ are enough. He also decided to scale down Future Combat Systems, which is bad news for the warporn addict within but acceptable to bean counters. It sounded like a boondoggle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5
You are a fool, please do not respond to any of my postings. You add nothing, you hear nothing, you comprehend nothing.
We repeatedly told you what the thread was about, and all you want to do is pick a fight.
Your arguments are either inane and more often completely off subject.
You are banned from the adult table, you have to go back to the children’s table.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I call BS and freaking answer the question or just go away. Don’t be a troll and act like a human being.
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Off subject?
Aren’t you the guy that brought up Reagan the Fearful who makes Iranians shake in their boots by supplying them with arms?
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Don’t bother, he is just picking fights, with no thoughts.
*
You’re gal did right, and someone brought up the good point of where are the other elected Republicans? They are staying mum.
She is the only one that has the huevos to speak out…and she has the most to lose seeing as she is the first line of defense. She is only minutes away from the first strike, and the defense system is our best ally.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Take it easy on old Bileduct there, my friend. Sure, his obsession with Iran-Contra seems weird, as if it somehow invalidates everything else Reagan did as president, but you should applaud him for his intellectual consistency. After all, he burned up these forums all through 2008, howling for Obama to be prosecuted for his numerous violations of the Boland Amendment as he sought to undermine American foreign policy during his campaign. Given the sputtering rage he feels 20 years later over Iran-Contra, I doubt you’d have any trouble getting him to sign on to a campaign to have Obama impeached over it.
He’s hardly partisan in his anger, either. Who can forget the impassioned posts he’s written to castigate Democrats for eagerly hopping down to Nicaragua to trade fist-bumps with Daniel Ortega, the Communist dictator? These were far more egregious, openly seditious actions, in which elected officials openly sided with Communists against the United States. I’m sure Bileduct has another stem-winder against those seditious Democrats ready to fly off his keyboard – especially since some of them are still in office, unlike the late Ronald Reagan!
And you might have forgotten how Bileduct stood tall and proud with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, as they spoke out against John Kerry’s attempts to aid the Communist enemy in Vietnam. Secret meetings with Vietcong leaders in Paris, perjured and slanderous testimony before the Winter Soldier commission… Kerry was a one-man Iran-Contra, and since there’s no statute of limitations on treason, I’d wager that Bileduct is still chomping at the bit to remove him from the Senate and put him on trial. In fact, with all that Iran-Contra rage boiling inside of him, Bileduct probably burned his Democrat Party registration card on the day Kerry was nominated, disgusted and disillusioned at what his once-proud party had devolved into. Don’t even get him started on Harry Reid and his pitiful, years-long effort to convince America to surrender to al-Qaeda, or Dick Durbin’s comparison of brave American troops to Nazis, or Jack Murtha’s seditious eagerness to destroy American combat troops with false charges…
Doctor Zero on April 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Dude, I never said that Reagan took hostages and I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say in the second part of your question.
I suggest you reread what you wrote, rewrite it to make it understandable, and then I’ll have a crack at answering your question.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Doctor Zero on April 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Heh.
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
She is right, by treaty (of surrender) we must defend Japan. Now that Japan is facing a “new” enemy (missile) it is demanded of us to provide for her safety and security.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Great…but now we need to bury this troll and move on.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM
As an international observer, I believe both major parties of American politics are as bad as each other.
You get an A+ for effort though.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Here we go again. Just like jimmah making the US a dmz. All it did was to get us caught with our guard down and unable to protect our military. Then we had to relearn all over again in Iraq. How many time will we allow our country and troops to become vulnerable?
oakpack on April 7, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I think we shall now call you analduct.
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Call me whatever makes you feel better about yourself, but please do it in a coherent manner so I can at least understand what the hell you’re on about.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:39 PM
So… what country are you in, and who is the stellar example of enlightened politics where you live?
Oh, and how’d you become an expert on American politics?
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 2:44 PM
hmmmm me thinks you think that everyone should be like you oh analduct. Me think that you think that we should all speak like you do. Obama is that YOU?!?!??!
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Come on mate, keep it on subject
;)
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Hmm limey little bugger with a fag problem me guesses!
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Nope, I’m not British and I don’t smoke.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Are all of the ‘ladies’ up there as ‘classy’ as you?
capitulus on April 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM
come on up cap.. you won’t ever go home ;)
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Ahh a conservative australian. Which is a reversed item since being conservative in Austrailia is actually being a liberal here in the U.S.
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Meaning that I will like it so much I’d stay and set up a business selling moose jerky or you and that ‘boyfriend’ of yours would plan some kind of wilderness violence?
capitulus on April 7, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Ever been hunting out on the wrangell mountains?
cap I won’t hurt you, but I won’t promise you that youwon’t be left there. :)
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Nope, you’ve got that mixed up. It’s an easy mistake for the uninformed to make, however.
Conservatives in Australia are conservative. However the conservative party is called the Liberal/National Coalition Party.
Australian liberals tend to vote for the Labor Party or the Green Party.
bileduct on April 7, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Nope, have never been to any wrangell mountain. Ever use a fork and knife? – together I mean.
capitulus on April 7, 2009 at 3:07 PM
You mean a spork-ife?
Yep have one of those for camping.. and a wyoming knife to field dress my kill.
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM
What is it about Sarah Palin that brings out the weirdos?
Steve Z on April 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Interesting. Do you generally cook your food before eating it?
capitulus on April 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM
What is it about Sarah Palin that brings out the weirdos?
Steve Z on April 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Her normalcy threatens them. Period
kingsjester on April 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Well I have never ate my young!
upinak on April 7, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Hmmm… I’m very conservative and generally fall on the “strong national defense” side of things, but many of these programs were overfunded boondoggles in my opinion. With the Soviets out of the race, I don’t see how one could really justify the F22. The F15 and F16 seem to be quite capable of shooting down everybody that we care about, and they are MUCH cheaper than the F22. I think I’d rather have hundreds or even thousands more F15/F16s than 200 more F22s. The Future Combat Systems stuff was definitely just high-tech porn for somebody. It stunk of “boondoggle” for quite a while.
The one thing I’m hesitant to cut out would be missile defense, particularly now that Iran and North Korea just got into the ICBM business.
PersonalLiberty on April 7, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Well, congratulations to all you troll feeders, they took over the post, and you fed them.
Palin made some excellent points, and she was drowned out by these guys.
They did what liberals do, disrupt conservatives when they are scoring points. Not attacking the issues, but changing the subject.
Ignore the trolls and Palin wins, feed the trolls and they win, they just want to hi-jack the thread.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM
And one F-22 can outperform a dozen F-15 or 16’s. As the one report was 400 F-16’s shot down, and no F-22’s, the F-22’s were not even radar detected.
The advantage of moving onto a F-22, is that it then takes you to another F-xx, eventually superiority is so evident it becomes a deterrent.
Then you have this to contend with:
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM
r
Thanks, Maverick.
capitulus on April 7, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Different aircraft with vastly different missions. Instead of M1 tanks, why don’t we just use Chevy Suburbans?
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM
It’s about ongoing production, you idiot.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I agree with Governor Palin 100%. Cutting funding from the Missle Defense program is insane, especially in light of Iran and North Korea’s intentions. If anything, we should increase its budget. Unlike the ass-kissing, ass-covering bureucrats in Washington, desperate to justify their phoney baloney jobs (Gates needs to go), Governor Palin isn’t afraid to tell it like it is.
Then there is the anti-Palin crowd who would assert that the only reason Governor Palin is in favor of this program is that it means more Defense spending pork for her state. I call BS on that. Maybe a few local Alaskan construction contractors will benefit but the vast majority of the Defense spending for this program are in states where Defense contractors are located. Governor Palin is doing her job, including looking out for its defense.
Governor Palin has been recognized by the liberal Left for the genuine threat to their deluded cause that she poses. As a result, they attack her at every chance.
Palin/Jindal or Jindal/Palin for 2012, either works for me.
CatchAll on April 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM
This is frustrating.
The F-15 Eagle totally owns the F-16 Falcon in a dogfight. Yet we bought them both, and they are COMPLIMENTARY. It was referred to as an “over-under” air power plan. The Eagles were more expensive, more capable head to head with the enemy’s best fighters. Once the Eagle wins that fight, F-16 Falcons are free to strike ground targets and help the ground troops.
The same is true for the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightening II. They are COMPLIMENTARY, not intended for the same job. We need both aircraft. The Air Force wants the Raptor to replace the Eagle, and the Lightening II to replace the Falcon.
The Navy wants the Lightening II carrier duty variant to replace the original F-18C-D Hornets. They have already replaced the F-14 Tomcat with the F-18E-F Super Hornet.
The Marine Corps wants the vertical take-off variant of the Lightening II to replace the AV-8 Harrier, as well as the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy of the UK replacing all of their Harriers with the Lightening II. That is why the UK services have been in on the program from the beginning. Australia has expressed interest in the US Air Force variant to operate from conventional runways. So has Japan and Israel.
COMPLIMENTARY. That was the intention, not one or the other for the same job. Politicians have cast this as EITHER OR, not as the military had envisioned the aviation upgrade across the board. The V-22 Osprey was on the chopping block as too expensive, unproven, we have plenty of helicopters already, blah blah blah. The Osprey was deployed to Iraq and has been a giant success. Shows how much the politicians knew. It carries twice the payload twice as fast three times as far as any helicopter in the world. Revolutionary leap in capability over what we had, yet certain people only harped on budgetary issues and tried to kill it off. Same thing here with EITHER OR. We are supposed to have them both, helping each other win the Air War for our ground guys.
I guess some people would rather fund ACORN than our own military with our tax dollars.
Brian1972 on April 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Brian1972 on April 7, 2009 at 6:01 PM
These were meant to be big brother and little brother in the same family. The F-35 is already being looked at by several allies for export. BOTH, faster please.
Brian1972 on April 7, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I’ve misspelled Lightning repeatedly. Sorry.
Brian1972 on April 7, 2009 at 6:05 PM
I think we needed 800 F-22s and I’m being serious. I also would like to ramp up the development of the B-2 replacement.
Tim Burton on April 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Good post, neither is designed to replace the other, they are complimentary to each other.
The F-22 being the robust all out fighter (initialy air to air), the F-35 being the versatile fighter (affordable stealth for all services), and perfect for export (where the F-22 is not designated as an export) and trade.
Both will help the manufacturing, and export economy.
right2bright on April 7, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Great job, Brian1972!
JackOkie on April 7, 2009 at 6:37 PM
ROFLMAO! All 85 inches of it?
bw222 on April 7, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Thanks for the corrections. I’m embarrassed about the CH-47 and ME-262 oopsies. Proof positive that we can have a civilized discourse around here, guys.
Thanks for that. Another good example of learning something new from comment threads.
Meanwhile, I stand by my points. No matter how good your systems are today, development timeframes are extremely long now, compared to how they were 30 years ago. Some of the increase can be attributable to government funding games; however, the hard fact is, air weapons systems have grown immeasurably complex now compared to their historical counterparts. Consider this: in the mid-1960’s, AAFSS (Advanced Aerial Fire Support System, otherwise known as the Lockheed AR-56 Cheyenne) was considered a complex software project because its fire control system had 1,000 lines more code than the B-52H bomber. Yet 35 years later, the TASS (Target Acquisition Software System) for ARH-66 Comanche had over two million lines of code. This code sat on a MCC (Mission Computer Cluster) which had its backplane design frozen back in 1996. And every single line of those two million lines of code had to be completely, thoroughly, 100% debugged. There was no room for error.
I used to laugh when anyone brought up the term, “COTS”. You military electronics guys and engineers will know the term. It’s laughable. The moment you say you want to use something “off the shelf”, but then it has to have NVH specs ranging from standing idle to full combat, in temperatures and humidity environments ranging from Anchorage to Bagram, you don’t have commercial anymore.
Wait for it…
You have…
MILSPEC!!!
And MILSPEC costs money. Lots of money. Because it is not commercially available, nor is it purchased in commercial quantities.
F-22 is beset by the same issues. And when you choose to build fewer aircraft (just as we did with B-2), you waste a massive amount of development dollars by not spreading that cost over a larger quantity of air vehicles.
And…
If you only make a relative few of them, and you then lose one, it’s a huge loss.
I know none of this matters to President Unicorn Rainbows. But to those of us who believe in peace through superior firepower (the motto of the US throughout the Cold War, btw), it’s a shame that we waste so much, while leaving our country to become increasingly vulnerable.
And mark my words, the Chinese are playing catch-up hard, every day. Even when they don’t have help from the Clintons…
Wanderlust on April 7, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Ah, if only they were complimentary,i.e., free.
The word you want is complementary, serving to fill out or complete each other.
But seriously, great information, and exactly why the only sane policy for defense is a mix of equipment that can meet all needs.
I’ll be sorry to see the A-10 go. It was never the “sexiest” plane, but it and the C-130 have played huge roles over the years.
Reminds me of something I saw once, “When the last C-17 is flown to the boneyard, a C-130 will be waiting to pick up the air crew.”
tom on April 7, 2009 at 7:49 PM
ROFLMAO – no.
Yeah all the Anti Global Warming work. Um no I am not banned and have the same account no matter how many times you repeat this lie.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Gee… while they’re pouring TRILLIONS on the floor in the name of saving the country from economic doom… Why not up the defense budget too. DoD cash is more likely to be spent on stuff made here in the good ole U.S. of A than is much of the stimulus bribe money going out.
-
And many idle workers in that industry have shovel in hand so to speak.
-
RalphyBoy on April 7, 2009 at 8:48 PM
No shit sherlock. The A-10 has been essential in the two recent wars for ground support/anti-tank roles. The 180 F-22s are redundant to the over 600 F-15s we have flying around wasting gas.
Production time lines are based on how many you order at once. If you order less at a time, the production is ongoing.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Government spending whether on road building or defense is a drain on the private sector and does not create jobs, it robs them from the private sector buy stealing capital through taxation or purchasing power through inflation.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Did poptard just fart?
chunderroad on April 7, 2009 at 9:19 PM
That is fine as a lot of people are anti-Allahpundit cult. To each their own.
DannoJyd on April 7, 2009 at 9:19 PM
The name itself suggests nothing short of worship will soothe his beta-male ego.
chunderroad on April 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Exaggerating the Raptor’s Kill Record? I could find no 400-0 record.
I did find the following:
“The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise… you can’t kill all these airplanes with just the weapons aboard the F-22. It takes the F-15’s and F-18’s weapons.”
“In the first exercise week, while flying in joint teams with F-15 Eagles and F/A-18 Hornets, the Raptor was able to produce a whopping 144-to-0 kill ratio.”
So much for the hype. In these exercises the Raptors were supported by F-15Es and F/A-18s.
Also they are NOT invulnerable…
Second F-22 Shot Down (Strategy Page, July 13, 2007)
“The new fighter has been “shot down” in these exercises twice. Once by a U.S. Navy F-18F, and once by an F-16C piloted by a member of the U.S. Air Force”
F-22 Crashes Near Edwards Air Force Base, Killing Pilot (FOX News, March 25, 2009)
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 9:30 PM
LOL…yeah, all we really need are planes to be used in ground support/anti-tank roles. A fleet of A-10s, and we’re good to go.
It’s about stopping production of the F-22, genius. A phase-out. The last of the 187 is to be delivered in 2011.
It, um, will also mean that jobs are lost.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 9:52 PM
You are obviously retarded as I made no such claim. I said the F-22s are redundant to the 600 existing F-15 air superiority fighters. And we are still getting 187 F-22s.
So? Those are not real private sector jobs if they rely on government fundind so who cares.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 9:56 PM
That are “wasting gas”. Idiot.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Amazing.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Wow. The ignorance on display is amazing.
But, it’s not a reposted resume, so I guess that’s progress.
cs89 on April 7, 2009 at 10:10 PM
What is ignorance? “Job” losses due to reducing government spending is a necessary hit that will be better for the economy in the long term. So really who cares. They are not private sector jobs. The military industrial complex should be able to support itself in the free market, otherwise, oh well too bad.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM
LOL…privately-funded military services. And you apparently don’t know much about the role of production in the economy.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 11:39 PM
It appears Wired may be wrong, it is not 200 more.
Fight Over F-22’s Future to Test Defense Overhaul (The Wall Street Journal)
Gates Proposes Ending Lockheed F-22, Expediting F-35 (Bloomberg)
“Gates would buy only four more than the 183 F-22s currently on order by using the forthcoming war spending, compared with the 60 more that the Air Force wants.”
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Apparently you don’t know much about economics.
Poptech on April 7, 2009 at 11:48 PM
More than you do, I would bet, your delusions notwithstanding. Go back to your usual Palin threads, where you’re more at home and less likely to make an even bigger fool of yourself.
ddrintn on April 7, 2009 at 11:56 PM
HMMM…
So many Palin threads here at Hot Air makes one think that someone is using the Palin-cultists to further his own agenda. I wonder what would happen if the “cultists” stopped clicking on, and stopped leaving comments in those topics.
DannoJyd on April 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Apparently you don’t understand economics at all. So are you an Austrian, Classical, Keynesian, Monetarist, Socialist or a Supply Sider?
Military Budget cuts are necessary and good for the economy. It is one of the few things Obama has done right.
Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Awwww, lookie here. He took Econ 101 and maybe 102, and thinks he’s an economist. LOL
Hmmm. Reagan increased the defense budget in the 80s, and I can remember it clearly as a time of economic expansion. How do ya figure?
ddrintn on April 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Production, Poptech. What finally got us out of the Depression (via WWII).
ddrintn on April 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I don’t think you even took Econ 101 or 102 because neither talks much about anything other than Keynesianism.
Totally clueless, so you are a Keynesian? What got us out of the Depression was Capitalism and FDR dying.
Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War (PDF) (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
As for Reagan, you might want to do better research. Nothing is more laughable then your delusions that his defense spending caused economic nirvana.
The Myths of Reaganomics (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
How do ya figure another economic illiterate is a Palintologist.
Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Really so if the government just produced more and more and more and more and more and more we would all be super rich right? ROFLMAO!!! What a frickin clueless moron you are.
Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM
Whatever figures we have for Chinese and Russian military spending, you can bet it is at least 2 to 3 times that, or more.
Don’t be so sure that we will not need the full compliment of weapons systems that we have in the pipeline.
Barry is nothin’ but Carter on a 3-day meth binge.
At least Glorious Leader is good at kissin’ foreign ass & bowing to islamic potentates.
Sleep Tight. . . Pieces.
thaDeetz on April 8, 2009 at 4:44 AM
Translation: I’m just anti-anyone who supports Governor Palin, or anyone who doesn’t think she is “teh stupid”…which is all that is required for membership in the “cult”.
GrayLoess on April 8, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Now that sounds EXACTLY like what liberals were saying about Cigarman … BEFORE 9/11.
DannoJyd on April 8, 2009 at 6:44 AM
Hmmmmm. “Necessary”? “Good”? In the midst of war? Isn’t Obama “surging” in Afghanistan? You and Obama — deranged and clueless.
littleguy on April 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM
You base your assumption on one article? You do realize that Higgs isn’t the final authority on the matter, don’t you? Do you really know what “Keynesianism” is, or is it just a term you like to throw around to appear to be intelligent? Someone says they’re for tax cuts, then the peanut gallery could say “Keynesian!!!!” Economic activity isn’t so simple that it can be broken down into neat little philosophical categories just so you can get your pom poms out and pretend you are Milton Friedman Jr.
Show some data to back that up, or else go play Smart Guy somewhere else.
ddrintn on April 8, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Government spending in any form to stimulate the economy is Keynesian (never works BTW). Economic philosophies can be broken down into their different philosophies. This is why you are an economic illiterate and don’t even understand what you are advocating. Studying economics helps and in your case, yes – Econ 101.
Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Military spending was cut in Afghanistan? Really? Who is clueless now?
Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Who said the purpose of defense spending is to stimulate the economy? You made the point that
You have any data to back that up? You know, facts, figures, charts, statistics…
Given that syntax, you’re just plain old illiterate.
ddrintn on April 8, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Reducing government spending is good for the economy, Econ 101 with Austrian, Classical and Monetarisn. All the free-market economic philosophies.
Poptech on April 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5