[beerslurpy]

Well they probably wouldnt agree with me that this is a good thing. Every time bush spends another 100 billion on something stupid, we get that much closer to dismantling the welfare state forever.

The wealthy (i.e. the top 1%, none of us, and certainly not enough to affect any election through the simple act of voting) don't like like the Franklin Roosevelt 'Great Society' entitlements. They view it as wealth redistribution (which it is). But they can't get the votes to repeal it, probably never will. Most people generally accept the positive societal benefits of a progressive tax structure.

Unable to dismantle entitlements through voting, they are instead trying another audacious tactic. They get 'neo-conservatives' elected, neo-cons are a neat combination of a few meaningless hot button issues (abortion, religion, guns) that secure a healthy chunk of knee-jerk reaction voters. Add in a little war time paranoia and you can ease these guys into office.

Once in, it's always popular to lower taxes. And as long as you pay lip service by declaring you are for 'small government' you can spend as much as you'd like. (Trent Lott even declared that the massive bloated pork filled budget this year had 'no fat left to trim', despite it still generating a massive deficit). There is a big problem when you gut the income (taxes) and ramp up the spending, but it's pretty easy to talk around it (people like tax cuts, they also like spending when there is some percieved benefit).

That's the current game going on. Why? The purpose is simple. Entitlements can't be tossed overboard on a nice sunny day. Only in a real disaster do drastic measures get undertaken. Sure, the entitlements system (including Social Security) might eventually run into some long term problems (baby boomers retiring) but that is forecasted as still being 10 - 20 years out, and the estimations keep inching outward the closer we get to them. If they are a disaster they are taking too long, and aren't drastic enough. So the solution is to create that financial disaster. Tax-cut-and-spend brutally so that the country runs into severe financial problems sooner, rather than later. Deliberately run the Titanic into that iceberg so that we can toss some extra baggage overboard.

All in the name of saving the wealthiest 1% some of their taxes. Which are already low by global standards. After all, why should they pay to maintain the society that made them wealthy in the first place?

[artherd]

No, he will just borrow enough $ to please both sides, then bail.

I too belive the entitlements need to be cut, but this perriolous over-spending is NOT the way to do it!

The Fed income tax could be eliminated entirely. With a very small few exxceptions, private enterprise could do all that needs 'the system' from state-level taxes alone.

[Andrew Rothman]

That's so full of crap I don't know where to start. You agree with this?

The wealthy (i.e. the top 1%, none of us, and certainly not enough to affect any election through the simple act of voting) don't like like the Franklin Roosevelt 'Great Society' entitlements.

I'm in the top 40%, I guess, and I sure as hell don't like it either.

Most people generally accept the positive societal benefits of a progressive tax structure.

I'm sure there are some, but I doubt the upper half of earners agrees they ought to be carrying the lower half.

They get 'neo-conservatives' elected, neo-cons are a neat combination of a few meaningless hot button issues (abortion, religion, guns)

You agree that guns are a meaningless issue????

Add in a little war time paranoia and you can ease these guys into office.

Which war was it that got President Bush elected the first time?

So the solution is to create that financial disaster. Tax-cut-and-spend brutally so that the country runs into severe financial problems sooner, rather than later. Deliberately run the Titanic into that iceberg so that we can toss some extra baggage overboard.

Evil plan or rank incompetence? I'm dubious.

All in the name of saving the wealthiest 1% some of their taxes. Which are already low by global standards.

In a free society, you own what you own. Taxation is confiscation, and "progressive" taxation is discriminatory confiscation.

By "global standards" we have too much freedom. Hadn't we better take some away so that we're more like, say, Zimbabwe?

After all, why should they pay to maintain the society that made them wealthy in the first place?

And there is the biggest load of crap in the whole piece.

It was society that made Warren Buffett wealthy? Not a lifetime of study and a brilliant mind for the markets? Society handed Oprah her empire? Bill Cosby got it all on a silver platter?

Bullcrap.

If being rich were easy or given away, we'd all be rich. Most millionaires in the country today are first-generation, and most of those are entrepreneurs (Read "The Millionaire Next Door" -- it's fascinating).

This leftist screed is full of the false assumptions and class warfare that drove me toward my mildly conservative views.

The only thing I could find to agree with is the idea that you shouldn't spend more than you make. I get that; why doesn't the President?

[CAnnoneer]

There is not a person on this planet that will revel in paying taxes. Just because you hate it, it does not mean it does not have to be done. Kind of like a dental appointment.

The welfare state in a way produces a temporary stability by keeping the poorest from jumping on the communist bandwagon. Is it a form of racket? Certainly. Is it better than the alternative? Most definitely.

Many of you guys simply do not want to follow the analysis to its end and see that the poor, the dumb, the unsuccessful, the failures, etc. will not just curl up and die, or kill themselves for the public good, or accept their social-Darwinian lot. If not paid off by welfare, they will just proletariatize, grab some guns, and it will be 1917 again.

So the next time you complain loudly about your taxes feeding the slackers, think about if you prefer the alternative.

Oh, yeah, some of you will go load their AKs, ARs, and SKSs and say "let them come". They will, and you will lose. It is simple numbers and they have far more.


As far as the article goes, it is a nice exercise in logic but for all its glitter, it is flawed. The wealthy want to keep their money and power, and get some more. Destabilizing the system to get less tax is just the dumbest thing to do in view of my points above. Thus it is not a mastermind conspiracy. It is simply Bushahidin being stupid and shortsighted instead, sacrificing the future for temporary short-term gains and throwing a bone to their "base".

The most dangerous destabilizing element in any system is not those that are already rich and powerful, but those that are not yet while being willing to do ANYTHING to become such.

[LawDog]

The welfare state in a way produces a temporary stability by keeping the poorest from jumping on the communist bandwagon.

So, instead, we gently place them on the socialist bandwagon?

The US had no form of government welfare for the first -- what -- hundred? Hundred and fifty years?

So, the poor would jump on the communist bandwagon now, but wouldn't before the 20th century?

I don't buy it.

LawDg

[Waitone]

Of every dollar appropriated for "welfare" something like $0.75 goes to administration and $0.25 goes to "clients." The welfare state is an employment scheme for bureaucrats. Until that changes, there will be no reduction in money wasted. Control of the flow of money is were power resides.

[Henry Bowman]

Trent Lott even declared that the massive bloated pork filled budget this year had 'no fat left to trim', The quote should correctly be attributed to Tom Delay, not Trent Lott. If they can't even get this right, I'm suspect of the rationale. It shows that the speaker is less informed than they think they are.

[Hutch]

From the artillerymanThe welfare state in a way produces a temporary stability by keeping the poorest from jumping on the communist bandwagon. Is it a form of racket? Certainly. Is it better than the alternative? Most definitely. emphasis mine.

False choice, bro'. There are MANY alternatives, including the one most would find desirable, attaining self-sufficiency. Remember the welfare reform outcome? Hysterical predictions of the rise in crime, the abject squalor of those so ruthlessly kicked off the welfare roles? Most got jobs, instead. Funny how that works. (no pun intended)

Editted to add: BTW, Beerslurpy, what portion of that drivel did you agree with?

[jacobtowne]

"Franklin Roosevelt 'Great Society' entitlements."

Excuse me? Roosevelt was the New Deal. Great Society was LBJ. Who wrote this stuff?
JT

[nonquixote]

I also have an issue with Cannoneer's post;
The welfare state in a way produces a temporary stability by keeping the poorest from jumping on the communist bandwagon.
As long as there aren't nearly enough truly poor to come close to a majority of the population, let the poor jump onto the communist bandwagon. Most of them lean that way anyhow, but there's nowhere near enough of them to truly make a difference nationally. When there are that many poor, we'll have big problems anyway.

Nonq

[JohnBT]

"Every time bush spends another 100 billion"

You do realize that only Congress can appropriate money and spend it? A President can submit a budget and lobby for it, but the final deal is up to Congress all the way down the line to the point of overriding a veto.

John

[Azrael256]

So, the poor would jump on the communist bandwagon now, but wouldn't before the 20th century? Yeah, pretty much. If we amend that slightly to "the late 19th century," you'd be spot-on. The idea that the poor could become less poor by robbing the wealthy through a (theoretically) legitimized government has only been around for 130 years or so. Before that, it was just grinding poverty, life is hard, "here's a straw, suck it up."Every time bush spends another 100 billion on something stupid, we get that much closer to dismantling the welfare state forever. No, we get that much closer to me having to spend the vast majority of my productive life (I'm 23) un-f**king a bankrupt socialist system by bailing it out with my hard-earned money. Sure, the entitlements system (including Social Security) might eventually run into some long term problems (baby boomers retiring) but that is forecasted as still being 10 - 20 years out, and the estimations keep inching outward the closer we get to them. ZUH?!? Might run into problems? Ya think, perfesser? Good lord, somebody get this guy a math book. This is what I have to look forward to. Forty-ish years of dealing with a massive government charlie foxtrot, and to add insult to injury, idiots like this guy who can't seem to figure out addition. It makes suicide seem attractive.

[Joejojoba111]

I understand that government is boring, and the real information never is read on televison. But people who seem to care about politics could at least use some reason and realize that Bush is not the go-to guy to blame for budget issues.

IMO the combination of gigantic tax-cuts with ginormous spending and military equipment falling apart = crisis time for American power. This is the sort of thing that falls empires, and when they look back they say, "Ah, that's where it started."

About communism, poor people resort to that system when they perceive a systemic failure. For instance, when the system makes their capitalistic efforts illegal. Prostitution, drugs, gambling. And STILL people risk imprisonment by adhering to capitalism, rather than believe in communism. When self-sustaining bureaucracy justifies its existence through excessive regulation of all that is good and holy, it is a large 'barrier to entry' for entrepreneurs. Little kid's lemonade stands are illegal in at least 100 ways.

And on the subject of progressive taxation, it often correlates to the ability to legally avoid paying taxes. The lower you are on the taxation scale, the less you are likely to know, the less you are likely going to be able to avoid taxes. Anything from investing in domestic oil production to incorporating in the Bahamas. If you think big business is paying taxes you are truly ignorant.

And as for socialism, few people acknowledge that corporate welfare is just as repugnat as other forms. Sadly. It is acceptable once the numbers become large enough. $10,000 sounds like a lot, we can comprehend that. Poor people get money for free, it is wrong! But $100 million, that is different, that's a business number. It has no grounding in reality, we cannot comprehend it, we accept it.

And you want a law that is even further unfair? Try to go bankrupt, you will find it decidedly impossible now. Now as in today, not 5 years ago. It is now impossible. UNLESS you are in a position such as CEO of a large enough company. Then your multiple mansions, yahts, cars, savings funds, they are all protected assets then. I said LARGE company, mind you. The ordinary person with a corner store is still responsible to mastercard, for the rest of their life.


As for reality, I doubt anyone really wants to know. But CAnnoneer is almost spot-on. The most obvious correlation with wealth is crime. The wealthier you are the less likely you are to indulge in many forms of crime. Conversely, the less wealthy you are the more likely. If you believe that man is inherently lazy, then giving a man enough money to subsist on will prevent him from stealing.

If I lost you there, then I'd like to hear why.

To continue, if you can pay a man $10,000 per year, let us say that 50% will be content to watch television and sit on the couch. Others will still desire to better their position in life, 25% legally, 25% illegally. (simplistic numbers).

The cost of policing the society will be greater than all the $10,000 bribes combined. The cost of the judicial system will likewise be greater. And the cost of imprisoning, once again greater.

What you are really doing is bribing everyone, including those who would break laws, and a percentage of them accept the terms, including some that would commit crimes. The bribe is incredibly cost-effective, even if it has only a 10% success rate.


This is reality. I do apologize for the intrusion. Poor will exist as long as there is a rich, and crime will exist as long as there is poor and ambition. We use money because we have a complex society.

Other countries with less window-dressing found cost-effective means to dealing with the relation of Rich, Poor, Ambition and Crime by large numbers of executions. Or torture. Or simply shipping them to Australia. No solution is 100% effective, you use what works best and is most acceptable in your situation.

[Chrontius]

Joejojoba111 -- +1 insightful. Cannoneer, you too.

What's more, that 10,000 each might just be enough for some to bootstrap themselves into self-sufficiency.

The system ain't working that well, but it could be a heluva lot worse. My family is single-income, a government employee who's singlehandedly saving the US a few million in contractor fees. That system is, unfortunately, a comforting thought whenever talk of closings are heard; I definitely believe that the government could be short-sighted enough to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

[longeyes]

Bush is FDR on a bicycle.

Stand back.

[JohnBT]

"About communism, poor people resort to that system when they perceive a systemic failure."

That explains the success of communism in Russia somehow I suppose. Not.

[CAnnoneer]

"About communism, poor people resort to that system when they perceive a systemic failure."

That explains the success of communism in Russia somehow I suppose. Not.

It certainly does. Study the history of Czarist Imperial Russia, especially 1850-1917, and you will see systemic failure at every level - economic, military, political.

+1 Joejojoba111

As long as there aren't nearly enough truly poor to come close to a majority of the population, let the poor jump onto the communist bandwagon.

I wish it were so. Problem is, poverty is in the eye of the beholder. Some slacker can be happy with 10k, while many are really bitter at 20-35k at the same time, especially if sick, single-parent, etc. When the leftists start courting the 10k guy, it is the rest that listen the most. Add to that the disintegrating middle class and you have a growing instability. Then come back and complain about the leftist shift of the country over the past 50 years. It all adds up. Keeping the slacker happy while preserving the middle class should be the goal. Drop the slacker, disintegrate the middle class, and you have a LOT of angry people voting for leftists.

The US had no form of government welfare for the first -- what -- hundred? Hundred and fifty years?

Sure. That is when people "sucked it up", horse thieves got branded, drugs and prostitution were legal, and killers got lynched by vigilantes or hanged after a day's trial. After Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Roehm, Hitler, Goebbels, FDR, Mao, LBJ etc. good luck expecting people to accept the same. Let's face it. The culture is very different from those days and so are the expectations and a new sense of entitlement.

Again, you can't unring a bell and nobody will just curl up and die when he feels entitled and knows politicians would fight for his vote. To convince yourselves that it is so, just look at what hoops "conservative" gov jumps through to rebuild the NO fleatrap.

Finally, I'd rather have a sleepy slacker at 10k annual, than a criminal at 500k for trial and 40k annual in prison.

[Kaylee]

Feh. Since when did paying protection money to slackers become sound public policy? For that matter, who came up with this "buy off the poor(er) or they'll revolt and burn your house down" sillyness?

[NMshooter]

When the majority of us became too lazy to do anything else? ;)

:D

[xd9fan]

Does anybody really believe that all this Govt spending(I cant tell Bush from Clinton on this) will make people see the self sufficancy light? This spending has turned me off from the GOP. The LP are the only ones that walk the walk on becoming pro-self sufficant. The GOP has turned into a bunch of spending, (pro Govt...our way) moderates. :barf:

[TrapperReady]

xd9fan:

The LP are the only ones that walk the walk on becoming pro-self sufficant.


When did the LP get enough political power and influence to do anything more than talk the talk?

[Alex45ACP]

xd9fan: Welcome!

[Glock Glockler]

So the next time you complain loudly about your taxes feeding the slackers, think about if you prefer the alternative

If you really do think welfare rats would get violent if not given their checks you are essentially rewarding their threat of violence, which will only embolden them and entice others to demand money for not working which will then grow the numbers of those very bad people. Nah, that doesnt seem too smart, rewarding what is essentially terrorist behavior and then helping them enlarge their numbers.

Oh, yeah, some of you will go load their AKs, ARs, and SKSs and say "let them come". They will, and you will lose. It is simple numbers and they have far more

I don't think so, I'd rather have it out with them now than be slowly bled into the USSA. I have known many welfare rats in my life, and they are all cowardly and weak people who have no problem pulling a lever to take my money from me via some POS politician but they would never dare confront me face to face and demand it. They are only comfortable when the govt does it, they don't have the mettle to cut out the middle man and go for it themselves.

Slowly phasing out welfare and entitlement programs would work just fine, doing it overnight would be foolish, but they can be ended just as surely as they were started.

Add to that the disintegrating middle class and you have a growing instability. Then come back and complain about the leftist shift of the country over the past 50 years. It all adds up

Yes, it does. You reward some people with a dole and other people want to jump on it as well, then you have more and more people demanding doles.

Not very smart.

When you combine that with a tax structure that essentially targets the middle class, the real elite are not affected by the income tax, as well as laws that unnaturally increase the power of corporations and then you have problems. Socialism/Fascism got us into the mess and to get out of it we need less, not more.

[CAnnoneer]

I only wish you are right, Glocker. I simply don't see a pathway to that result. The political will is lacking, while the country is being demolished by corrupt politicians, the middle class is falling down, and the leftists are only getting stronger...

[Glock Glockler]

I think it will be foreign competition that will force us to cut the fat and nonsense regulation from our economy in order to remain competative. The more that other countries around the world tread towards capitalism the more empirical data we will have to show that it actually does work and the more that will necessitate our following suit.

Excellent examples can be found in many former eastern block countries getting rid of their "progressive" tax policies and adopting a flat tax.

[JohnBT]

That explains the success of communism in Russia somehow I suppose. Not. - me

It certainly does. Study the history of Czarist Imperial Russia, especially 1850-1917, and you will see systemic failure at every level - economic, military, political. - you
____________________________________

What success of Communism in Russia? The system was never a success, not even a small one, and imploded.

Are you so out of touch you think Communism succeeded in Russia? Study the history of Communism in Russia and you will see it failed worse than the last Czar.

John

[Art Eatman]

Poor = crime? Hmmm. I always wondered why the crime rates of the 1930s were so much, much greater than in the last ten or so years--you should pardon the sarcasm. I mean, we only had 25% unemployment, back then. My mother talks about only being able to pay part of the debt for my medicines at the druggist's--but she didn't hustle on the street or rob banks.

Now, I can agree with the view of Welfare as essentially used as Dane Geld. That's just because we've gone away from any real concept of personal responsibility for the consequences of not behaving in class and not learning in those twelve years of free schooling, and not learning any marketable skills. Call it "How to be permanently poor".

Once we became tolerant of ideas such as "Society's fault", we wound up buying into the whole package of personal irresponsibility which is built into the do-good programs. About four or five generations of it, now, what with children having children.

To me, it's truly sad that the obvious solutions are nowhere near being politically feasible...

Aw, well. Mack Reynolds wrote science fiction books about today's world--40 years ago.

Art

[perception]

Quote:
The wealthy (i.e. the top 1%, none of us, and certainly not enough to affect any election through the simple act of voting) don't like like the Franklin Roosevelt 'Great Society' entitlements.


I'm in the top 40%, I guess, and I sure as hell don't like it either.

Heck, I fall below the poverty line, but I sure don't care for the entitlements either.

[CAnnoneer]

That explains the success of communism in Russia somehow I suppose. Not. - me

It certainly does. Study the history of Czarist Imperial Russia, especially 1850-1917, and you will see systemic failure at every level - economic, military, political. - you
____________________________________

What success of Communism in Russia? The system was never a success, not even a small one, and imploded.

Are you so out of touch you think Communism succeeded in Russia? Study the history of Communism in Russia and you will see it failed worse than the last Czar.


Ah. I see the problem. Semantics. We have different definitions of success. Communism succeeded in Russia in the sense that the bolsheviks succeeded in toppling the previous (czarist) regime and establishing their own. The czarist regime had shown systemic failures not dissimilar to what we are regrettably starting to observe now here in the US. That was the point in discussion.

We are worried that the leftists here can eventually execute a similar takeover, by election, force, or both. Beyond that, I have no doubt that if "successful" the leftists will run everything into the ground just like the Soviets did.

[Spiphel Rike]

I think germany has a solution to the welfare problem. The person goes on welfare, and gets a "get a job notice" and every now and then the government halves the amount the dole gives them. This keeps going until they get a job.

[JohnBT]

"That explains the success of communism in Russia somehow I suppose." - me

How you can be confused by my use of the word success in the above sentence is beyond me.

"Communism succeeded in Russia in the sense that the bolsheviks succeeded in toppling the previous (czarist) regime and establishing their own." - you

That's called winning the a battle and then losing the war. They failed miserably right from the beginning. I wonder, who killed more Russians, the Czars or the Communists? Not that a body count is necessary to prove failure.

John

[Joejojoba111]

I do hate to burst bubbles, but communism was in fact more efficient and more effective than the economic system it replaced, in Russia. (ducks, coffee cups crash into wall)

If you simply compare the armies of 1914 and 1940, the differences are astounding. Where the 1914 army was equipped with 1 rifle for 2 men, the 1940 army matched or outclassed the Germans in almost every area.

Even into the 1980's the Soviets made progress they shouldn't have been able to, largely due to the decreased costs. Where technical experts cost $100k per annum in the west, they were paid high in Russia, but nowhere near that high. Savings like that, like a defence firm, instead of maximizing profits for investors they maximize output or capability, for the customers.

That's partly theoretical, though, because the whole system would have to work, everyone had to have what they needed, and this didn't always happen. And quality fell near the end of the deadlines. In fact the very existence of Zis men shows that the largest problem Communist Russia had, economically, was the command and control of their resources.


[end reality]
[engage dogma]

...But they were all stupid and useless, lol, stupid commies. They're so stupid and useless.

[longeyes]

"...but communism was in fact more efficient and more effective than the economic system it replaced, in Russia."

In systems where Man is a means rather than an end, "efficiency" will prevail, yes. I'll take inefficient liberty if you don't mind.

[Joejojoba111]

You have to look far back to see a time when there was liberty in Russia.

[JohnBT]

"shows that the largest problem Communist Russia had, economically, was the command and control of their resources."

Like I said, they failed. Big time.

Old Communist maxim: "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work."

There appears to be more than the usual nugget of truth to this, eh?

John

[CAnnoneer]

How you can be confused by my use of the word success in the above sentence is beyond me.

The context of the preceding discussion in the thread.


+1 Joejojoba111, logeyes

By far the most efficient and productive system is an omniscient infallible dictatorship of complete order and complete lack of ethics. In a sense, a huge human machine governed by a supercomputer.

But, nobody in their right minds would support such a system because humans are inherently individualistic, and that is a good thing too.

Also, on a fundamental level, processes in nature are governed by probability (or its slummy partner, chance) and there is inherent quantum mechanical uncertainty that precludes omniscience. So, a system like that is impossible for fundamental physics reasons too.

[Fletchette]

Beerslurpy,

I have heard of this theory too (intentional bankrupting of the nation to kill off welfare) but I am skeptical. First, I will admit this theory does explain a LOT of what is going on. Seemingly incompatible directives from a GOP controlled House, Senate and Presidency. The reason I am skeptical however, is I do not see this working out for the rich in the end. What does the rich expect will happen? The poor, uneducated masses line up to serve them? Do they not see the potential for riots and revolution? How will the rich keep their wealth when faced with such unrest?

By far the most efficient and productive system is an omniscient infallible dictatorship of complete order and complete lack of ethics. In a sense, a huge human machine governed by a supercomputer.

I agree with this completely. My long-term worry for the Republic is that we will be forced into this type of dictatorship due to the need to be efficient. Free societies can only exist when there are more than enough resources for everyone. If we run out of resources, we run out of Freedom.

[LawDog]

Where the 1914 army was equipped with 1 rifle for 2 men, the 1940 army matched or outclassed the Germans in almost every area.

From 1939 to 1940 the Soviet Army lost 200,000 men, 700 planes and 1,600 tanks to Finland, with Finland agreeing to peace on 12 Mar 1940.

The Soviet Army outnumbered the Finns by an estimated three to one. The initial Soviet attack was with twenty-three divisions totalling about 450,000 men vs. the 160,000 man mobilized Finnish Army -- only some of whom had weapons and uniforms.

The performance of the Soviet Army (whom "outclassed the Germans in almost every area") against the Finns is charitably characterized as "poor", although the phrase "military disaster" is also used.

On June 22, 1941, the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa. In the first month, German troops encircled large Soviet armies at Minsk and Smolensk while also travelling 2/3's of the distance to Moscow and Leningrad.

In Spetember, the Germans surrounded Kiev and Bryansk-Vyazma, taking +/- one million prisoners. Kiev being the single worst defeat in the Soviet Army's history.

The only thing that saved Moscow from becoming Paris East was the onset of the winter rains and snow.

Gvien the opportunity to regroup and resupply by General Winter, the Soviet Army launched a counter-attack at spring thaw and managed to drive the Germans back until March of 1942, when the German Army managed to beat the Soviet Army (whom "outclassed the Germans in almost every area") to a stand-still.

Now, when you say that "the 1940 army matched or outclassed the Germans in almost every area" do you mean the 1940 Army after getting hammered by a rag-tag bunch of Finns, but before getting chased back to Moscow by the Third Reich?

LawDog

[Joejojoba111]

I meant almost, leadership excluded, of course. Air power was somewhat dated in 1940, but they were already revving up that area too. Treatment of good Generals is something most countries are poor at. But Soviet soldiers had every advantage in material over the Germans, who were supposed to be the best. Like I said, air power maybe the Germans had supremacy for a little while, but otherwise the Russians were superior in every material category.

And in WW1 they lacked rifles, ammunition, uniforms, even free stuff like cryptography for their radios.

If you assume that during war time a nation exerts it's economy to the fullest, the 1940 economy was far superior to the 1914, even accounting for a healthy growth rate (which wasn't there).

I'm not espousing any ideals, just that the truth is the truth.

[GunGoBoom]

Joejojo, although I agree with most of what you say, I think you are mistaken about one thing:

But people who seem to care about politics could at least use some reason and realize that Bush is not the go-to guy to blame for budget issues.

IMO the combination of gigantic tax-cuts with ginormous spending and military equipment falling apart = crisis time for American power.

Well, the 'ginormous spending and military equipment falling apart' is largely due to the fact that we are waging two wars (one of which is unnecessary), and that is, as you correctly point out, one of two sides of the budget crises (income vs. expenses). Well it was Mr. George W. Bush, our prez, who LED THE CHARGE to war. He and Cheney et al had the bully pulpit and used it to the fullest to lead the Congress and the people along to war, without hesitation. So he most certainly DOES bear part; in fact most of the blame for the current budget issues. The deficit would not be nearly what it is but for the war. And the war would likely have stopped where it should have, in Afghanistan, had it not been for W. strongly urging to extend the war (purportedly because of WMDs) and choosing to invade Iraq, which has cost billions upon billions upon billions. I think Bush did the right thing in cutting taxes. In fact, I think the tax cuts should have been many many times LARGER. But we sure as hell had no national interest in a place where that brutal dictator had those numbskull towelheads under his thumb, and no involvement whatsoever in the attacks against us.

[CAnnoneer]

The Soviets faced disaster with the Finns in 1940 because Stalin had executed 4 out of the 5 fieldmarshals and 40,000 officers with a rank above lieutenant in political purges in 1938-1939. The only surviving fieldmarshal, Voroshilov, was a notoriously bad leader and a total toady, the latter being the reason for his dodging an NKVD bullet. Imagine what even the US armed forced would look like in the field if decapitated so.

The deplorable incompetent leadership combined with enormous political pressure to produce results fast and with lack of intelligent preparation and logistics on the Soviet side. On the Finnish side by comparison, there was the Mannerheim line, the equivalent of the Maginot line in France, but more so in deep snow, subzero tempretures, and dense virtually non-negotiable forestry. Finally, the Finns offered a dogged, competent, vicious defense with troops ideally equipped and trained for the terrain of operations.

Under such circumstances, we see the result is not surprising and does not reflect negatively on Jjj's argument about the material superiority of the Soviets.

Next, the Germans were so successful in 1941 again due to enormous shock, poor deployment, bad leadership, bad morale, and poor training on the Soviet side and excellent leadership, high morale, great training, real combat experience, great communications, combined arms approach, and meticulous logistics on the German side.

It is important to note that many division-level formations were commanded by freshly promoted former lieutenants in their 20s on the Soviet side exactly because of the 1938-39 purges of the officer corps.

Still, in 1941, the Soviet did have great superiority in numbers of troops, numbers of tanks, numbers of aircraft, and quality of newest tank designs. Much of the aircraft was outdated and got destroyed on the ground or by aces in the air, and much of the tank forces were light tanks of inferior characteristics. However, the Germans quickly realized to their chagrin that the Soviet new tanks completely outclassed them, namely the medium T-34 and heavy KV-1.

Next, the Germans could not have taken Moscow no matter what revisionists say. If you read Guderian's memoirs, it is obvious that the Germans were completely overstretched by Dec 1941 and totally counting on a political victory through inflicting terror, while a military one became increasingly clearly impossible because no matter how many soldiers and material they lost, the Soviets would always put forth more.

Furthermore, the Soviets mounted a counteroffensive in Dec 1941, in the snow, in subzero temperatures with elite reserve fresh Siberian divisions they kept in the far east expecting Japan to pull something. So, they did not actually wait for the spring to push off the Germans.

1942 was the year of great hopes but also bitter disappointment for the Germans, culminating in a backbreaking defeat at Stalingrad, from which they never recovered and which forever lost the initiative to the Soviets at the eastern front.

Finally, at no time during the war did the Germans produce more tanks than the Soviets. After 1942, the Germans also lost air superiority and most of their air fleet was outclassed by the Soviet counterparts, e.g. Me109s vs Yaks, FW's vs La's, Stukas vs IL-2's.

So, I must agree with Jjj's points.