- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yes you were, you claimed that defense spending is "required", ie, mandatory:
I said only a small portion is mandatory, which you agreed is correct....meaning you were incorrect in stating it was mandatory.
Where did you get that data? I distinctly remember that prior to Bush's reelection, democrats wanted to push as fact that he was the first President to have a net job loss, but were unable to because job growth increased and he was a positive in net jobs by the election.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: 20,000
AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXCLUDING THE DISASTROUS LAST YEAR: 65,000
NUMBER OF MONTHS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH THERE WERE 500,000 OR MORE JOBS CREATED: 0.
(In fact, there were no months in the Bush Administration in which there were 400,000 jobs created).
Source: The BLS
Read more: Number Of Jobs Created Per Month By George Bush - Business Insider
And yet, that is not ALL of defense spending, ie, not all of defense spending is mandatory.....to which you agreed to previously.I gave defense spending as an example and in my book salaries and benefits for our military personnel is mandatory just like the Constitution says it is the responsibility of the Federal Govt. to PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. Sounds mandatory to me or at least our Founders thought it was mandatory.
I have seen no evidence that you are capable of thinking at all and have no idea what you have just posted, a chart that makes you look foolish that has no relevance to the economic conditions today.
Then why don't you find out what the state did with the money?
You people really have a sickness, looking for gotcha politics. You just aren't smart enough to handle the challenge
Normally I would argue that point. But give the lunacy that is taking place in one of the Houses of Congress lately I tend to agree with you. The T's have brought this to a whole new level, no doubt. Crash and burn is in the air tonight.
I wonder what it is about liberalism that creates people like you, people who are so partisan and biased that they ignore actual economic results and distort historical data. I can tell people like you really don't care at all bout the high unemployment for people between the ages of 16-19, African Americans, single mothers. Yes that liberal compassion is more concerned about continuing the Obama economic agenda than actually generating positive results.
I wonder what it is about liberalism that creates people like you, people who are so partisan and biased that they ignore actual economic results and distort historical data. I can tell people like you really don't care at all bout the high unemployment for people between the ages of 16-19, African Americans, single mothers. Yes that liberal compassion is more concerned about continuing the Obama economic agenda than actually generating positive results.
Really, do you have any mirrors in your house? Any at all? :lamo:lamo:lamo
That was before the real estate bubbled he helped to inflate popped in 2008 and wiped out all the jobs he "created". Even when you leave that out he had the worst job creation record of any President modern history .
Not exactly an unbiased site that "Business Insider", now is it?
I'd really have to check out a few reputable sources before agreeing. After all, when I see Krugman appear in the first sentence, well all credibility then goes out the window. Then, they have link to a post encouraging Obama to raise the debt ceiling on his own. Really, they want him to commit an impeachable offense? Just blatantly violate the Constitution?
I didn't go any further into that mess, but now I have a better idea of where all these horribly wrong posts come from on the left here. I mean, you people relly need to stop swallowing everything they feed you.
Not exactly an unbiased site that "Business Insider", now is it?
I'd really have to check out a few reputable sources before agreeing. After all, when I see Krugman appear in the first sentence, well all credibility then goes out the window. Then, they have link to a post encouraging Obama to raise the debt ceiling on his own. Really, they want him to commit an impeachable offense? Just blatantly violate the Constitution?
I didn't go any further into that mess, but now I have a better idea of where all these horribly wrong posts come from on the left here. I mean, you people relly need to stop swallowing everything they feed you.
Krugman isn't credible? Really? He's only a Nobel prize in economics winner, one of the top twenty highest rated economists among all kinds of other things. If you follow what he says over the years you'd find he's almost always right about everything. The people and views he goes after as being wrong so very often are. Yet he sucks? Ok then, who would you say is credible?
Should we go back to the Bush 43 results?
Since your direction for the Universe didn't happen Pero, we have a showdown at the DC corral.
I just wish I knew all that gun term stuff, I could expand.
Let Linc enter and help.
Act like POTUS Christie and get all sides in and not let them out until they agree.
Bring in comfortable everything.
Extra clothes and make sure showers are close.
UNDER the table, DEMS are already giving.
Our tithing is always more than theirs/per se.
KEYSTONE, please Mr. president
Medical Equipmenmt Tax repeal for a year, Please.
acceptance of 986 Billion not 1.2 TRillion as Obama asked
Now Repubs are moving it down to 966
It is the sequester/Paul Ryan budget
Chained CPI, and we don't know the ages--hitting the elderly
I'll get the Sen. Coburn plan to you.
Good grief. Wrong on both. Way wrong. You lefties seem to always see race first.
“An irony of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is that one of its key provisions, the individual insurance mandate, has conservative origins. In Congress, the requirement that individuals to purchase health insurance first emerged in Republican health care reform bills introduced in 1993 as alternatives to the Clinton plan.
On the day the Affordable Care Act takes effect, the U.S. government is shut down, and it may be permanently broken. You’ll read lots of explanations for the dysfunction, but the simple truth is this: It’s the culmination of 50 years of evolving yet consistent Republican strategy to depict government as the enemy, an oppressor that works primarily as the protector of and provider for African-Americans, to the detriment of everyone else. The fact that everything came apart under our first African-American president wasn’t an accident, it was probably inevitable.
Actually both are much more correct than you dare to admit.
The Irony of Obamacare: Republicans Thought of It First | Wall St. Cheat Sheet
Yeah, I know--facts have a liberal bias. :roll:
No, that is your opinion. There are no debt obligations for fiscal year 2014 yet so now is the time to stop spending. 2013 is in the books.
I think we are saying the same thing very differently, but are on the same sheet of music. I agree. The ACA law doesn't effect me, I am an old fart and a military retiree to boot.
Um, during Bush's 2 terms he only created 1.1M non-farm jobs, Obama has surpassed that in less time.
Facts have a liberal bias---so I'm sure our friend Conservative will argue that what you wrote is just lefty propaganda.Back-in-Black plan -- Sen. Coburn(R-OK) July, 2011; Balances the budget in 4-5 years; 10 years of cutting actual budget deficits each ensuing year by a total of 9 TRILLION overall in 10 years -- it had the 8-for-one swap. I believe this was the beinning of the "grand bargain idea". Eight parts in cuts to one part in revenue. Most of his revenue came from closing loopholes. Norquist and TEAcrazies trashed him from the right and Liberals weren't too thrilled either. THIS PLAN IS PAINFUL but can be done. The sequester doesn't come close, and that's before the priorities.
Sequester will not come close to these numbers. Remember the debate when Romney had to raise his hand to be against a 10-for-1 swap, a critical mistake in the general. Doc. Coburn left room for "conversation" in his plan. That Obama/Boehner couldn't close the deal in 2011, we start on very thin ice.
Then why did the Republican controlled House pass a budget for which there was not enough revenue???The point is entitlement costs, interest expense, defense, Veterans affairs are required govt. spending, nothing else is required. It is amazing to me how brainwashed people like you have become in believing we need a 3.8 trillion dollar federal govt. That is a sad state of affairs and time for a real dose of reality. Liberals are going to run out of other people's money to spend.
Good. Then Congress should agree to pay all existing debt, no strings attached, and we should have a fresh fight over a new budget.
I think we should cut the Defense spending by 50%. No $50B to NSA; No 50B to Statel; No $50B to Homeland Security--cut all those to $25 or less. Next, chop that huge $667B Military Budget down to 300--tops. Lastly, look closely at what we give Vets. Maybe we should cut what we give them by 50% too...that is if we are to cut Foodstamps and other gvt assistance programs.
Then why did the Republican controlled House pass a budget for which there was not enough revenue???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?