How did we begin comparing the appropriateness of a writer’s commentary to that of an elected official? The inherent difference is obvious… It is possible to simply not read Creative Loafing if you disagree with the opinions expressed within, while residents of the 10th district (and the entire US) should not have to tolerate this type of sophomoric behavior from the representatives.

Which is to say that there is nothing inherent with being a politician that would lead to being a poor handler of money.

Now, would you care to debate the merits of the above, or continue to post ideological platitudes?

Wow. You’re right this is a pointless debate.

The Amendment only says that the raises the Representatives approve for themselves cannot become effective until the next election cycle. That Amendment really has some teeth toit, doesn’t it? Given the rates of incumbency, that is not much of a control, in fact, it is laughable.

I listen to what politicians actually say and you read into it wisdom that they have never shown in the past.

Thanks for the comic relief.

However, that neither strengthens your argument nor weakens mine. There is a much lower investment required to make and operate Obama’s plan than there is to do the same for an army. It is that simple and if you can’t recognize that and debate that on those merits, a debate with you becomes (more) pointless.

Nothing provoked the Young Republicans in 2004, other than the truth embedded in the question asked of Horowitz. Horowitz’s racism and anti-free-speech jihads have provoked people, which is what he wants so that he can cry that he’s a victim. I don’t think people should respond as the protesters did last year. Then again, if David Duke walked onto campus and started preaching the purity of the white race, I assume black students would be upset and likely would protest. There is little material difference in the hatred and demagoguery espoused by people like Duke and Horowitz.

Not necessarily.

There are many compelling reasons to think that not even half that amount of money would make the civilian corps as strong as the armed forces.

For one, humans provide much more direct change than something that is designed to replace them, or eliminate their use. So if you were able to match the enrollment of civilian corps to the armed forces, my money would be on the civilians to be stronger.

Also, it costs much less to rent an apartment complex in Bankhead (or even build houses) for 40 people, furnish it, and pay them to teach elementary school students, than it would to operate an LA-Class Submarine, for example.

Perhaps most crucially, there comes a time when the amount of money spent faces a diminishing amount of return for the power gained. So spending 800 billion on an army produces probably a marginally stronger army than the one you have at 700 billion. But with people, that amount is much lower and much more visible. Allotting $4 billion for recruitment probably won’t yield any more enlistees than $1 billion or even $750 million. As

The combination of all three of those makes it highly unlikely you will see too much more spent on those two programs than currently is spent.