I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney

[Conservative]

Not my responsibility to search out you should have done in the first place.

Been there done that like when you compare nominal and real numbers.

So what do you think we pay debt service on nominal or real numbers? What is being spent and received in a particular year nominal or real numbers? Keep buying the Obama rhetoric and ignoring reality. You don't seem to have any problem accepting leftwing rhetoric so it shouldn't be too much to ask for you to verify it

 

[Catawba]

You don't even know what you are posting. This is amazing lack of knowledge which probably makes you an Obama supporter. 56% increase in discretionary spending over 10 years! How do you explain Obama's defense spending higher than Bush's and the war in Iraq is over? Do you know what discretionary spending is? What part of the budget does that entail and are you claiming that the 56% increase over 10 years is all deficit spending? You really need to learn about budgets and expenditures.

Don't know how to make this any clearer to you, 56% of discretionary spending from 2001 through 2010, that was above the 2000 spending levels ($4.25 trillion), was for the military.

A simple calculation shows that 56% of $4.25 trillion is $2.38 trillion spent on the military industrial complex between 2001 though 2010. And that doesn't count the trillions that will be required to replace used equipment and munitions, and the cost to care for the rest of their lives, the tens of thousands of Veterans that were maimed and injured.

 

[winston53660]

So what do you think we pay debt service on nominal or real numbers? What is being spent and received in a particular year nominal or real numbers? Keep buying the Obama rhetoric and ignoring reality. You don't seem to have any problem accepting leftwing rhetoric so it shouldn't be too much to ask for you to verify it

Zoom....and back to change the subject :lamo

Keep buying the Obama rhetoric and ignoring reality

Obama has rhetoric about you supporting your own argument. :shock: You're really important ain't ya.

 

[Conservative]

Don't know how to make this any clearer to you, 56% of discretionary spending from 2001 through 2010, that was above the 2000 spending levels ($4.25 trillion), was for the military.

A simple calculation shows that 56% of $4.25 trillion is $2.38 trillion spent on the military industrial complex between 2001 though 2010. And that doesn't count the trillions that will be required to replaced used equipment and munitions, and the cost to care for the rest of their lives, the tens of thousands of Veterans that were maimed and injured.

It wasn't 56% a year it was 56% over 10 years nor does it explain why Obama's defense budget is more than Bush's with the war in Iraq over? You have so much invested in hatred for Bush it has clouded your judgement. The Bush defense Last defense budget was 616 billion dollars, last years budget(2010 was over 700 billion dollars. Where is your outrage?

 

[Catawba]

It wasn't 56% a year it was 56% over 10 years nor does it explain why Obama's defense budget is more than Bush's with the war in Iraq over?

No one said it was 56% a year. Military spending was 56% of the discretionary spending (above 2000 levels) between 2001 and 2010. This is 2.38 trillion, most of it for a needless war in Iraq.

How do you suggest we pay for that $2.38 trillion?

How do you suggest we pay for a war with Iran that you want?

You have so much invested in hatred for Bush it has clouded your judgement. The Bush defense Last defense budget was 616 billion dollars, last years budget(2010 was over 700 billion dollars. Where is your outrage?

There is no hatred, there is the hard fiscal reality, that we can no longer afford to spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, no matter who is president. You get no argument from me that Obama has continued the Bush wars longer than he should. If there were a more liberal viable candidate than Obama, I would vote for him or her.

All the GOP candidates are more hawkish than Obama.

 

[Conservative]

No one said it was 56% a year. Military spending was 56% of the discretionary spending (above 2000 levels) between 2001 and 2010. This is 2.38 trillion, most of it for a needless war in Iraq.

How do you suggest we pay for that $2.38 trillion?

How do you suggest we pay for a war with Iran that you want?




There is no hatred, there is the hard fiscal reality, that we can no longer afford to spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, no matter who is president. You get no argument from me that Obama has continued the Bush wars longer than he should. If there were a more liberal viable candidate than Obama, I would vote for him or her.

All the GOP candidates are more hawkish than Obama.

You really are stuck on lies, hard to communicate with someone who refuses to go to the bank acccount of the United States and find out how much the wars cost, but keep ignoring that the Obama spending is leading to trillion dollar deficits and we have zero positive results to show for it.

If you cut the entire military budget and didn't spend a dime there would still be over 500 billion in deficits. if you taxed every dollar that the rich make or have you wouldn't put a dent in the debt. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Obama is a snake oil salesman and you are buying the rhetoric. He was unqualified when you voted for him and hasn't improved today. His incompetent leadership is a disaster and the results prove it, results that will be on the ballot in 2012

 

[Catawba]

You really are stuck on lies, hard to communicate with someone who refuses to go to the bank acccount of the United States and find out how much the wars cost, but keep ignoring that the Obama spending is leading to trillion dollar deficits and we have zero positive results to show for it.

If you cut the entire military budget and didn't spend a dime there would still be over 500 billion in deficits. if you taxed every dollar that the rich make or have you wouldn't put a dent in the debt. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Obama is a snake oil salesman and you are buying the rhetoric. He was unqualified when you voted for him and hasn't improved today. His incompetent leadership is a disaster and the results prove it, results that will be on the ballot in 2012

$2.38 trillion dollars in excess military spending over a decade, adds up to $7.14 trillion over 3 decades.

Without those kinds of spending cuts together with tax revenue increases, you are never going to seriously reduce our national debt.

And you like your GOP brethren have a real avoidance problem on debt for military spending.


You've yet to tell me how you think we should pay for the $2.38 trillion in excess military spending over the last ten years, or how you think we should pay for a new war with Iran that you advocate?

 

[Conservative]

$2.38 trillion dollars in excess military spending over a decade, adds up to $7.14 trillion over 3 decades.

Without those kinds of spending cuts together with tax revenue increases, you are never going to seriously reduce our national debt.

And you like your GOP brethren have a real avoidance problem on debt for military spending.


You've yet to tell me how you think we should pay for the $2.38 trillion in excess military spending over the last ten years, or how you think we should pay for a new war with Iran that you advocate?

How do you know it was excessive spending and who approved it? Do you know how our govt works and who approves spending? What was the Democrat influence in those budgets? You do realize that Democrats controlled the purse strings when most of the debt was created during the last 10 years. Sad how little some people know yet claim to be experts

 

[Catawba]

How do you know it was excessive spending and who approved it? Do you know how our govt works and who approves spending? What was the Democrat influence in those budgets? You do realize that Democrats controlled the purse strings when most of the debt was created during the last 10 years. Sad how little some people know yet claim to be experts

If you had read the link, you would have learned that $2.38 trillion (over a decade) in military spending is the amount above the baseline amount in 2000.

You are trying to simultaneously to defend the excess military spending while trying to blame the Democrats for it. Which story are you going to stick with? Was it a good reason for National Debt, or was it wasteful spending that the Democrats are to blame for?

 

[Conservative]

If you had read the link, you would have learned that $2.38 trillion (over a decade) in military spending is the amount above the baseline amount in 2000.

You are trying to simultaneously to defend the excess military spending while trying to blame the Democrats for it. Which story are you going to stick with? Was it a good reason for National Debt, or was it wasteful spending that the Democrats are to blame for?

Yes, and if you paid any attention at all you would understand who controlled the purse strings and further you would understand taht 56% over 10 years isn't a lot of money per year but that isn't your agenda. As I stated you could totally cut out the military and still Obama would have a deficit of over 500 billion dollars. Your problem is you look at 56% as a big number but ignore what that number respresents in actual dollars. That is what a biased, partisan liberal always does.

 

[Conservative]

If you had read the link, you would have learned that $2.38 trillion (over a decade) in military spending is the amount above the baseline amount in 2000.

You are trying to simultaneously to defend the excess military spending while trying to blame the Democrats for it. Which story are you going to stick with? Was it a good reason for National Debt, or was it wasteful spending that the Democrats are to blame for?

Although a waste of time let's see if you understand it this way.

Defense spending by year

Defense Spending by Year in billions

2010 696.1
2009 662.8
2008 616.1
2007 560.1
2006 521.8
2005 493.9
2004 455.5
2003 404.9
2002 348.5


So let's see how good you are and put whatever number you want in for the Defense spending and then deduct the difference from the debt. That make you feel better? If we cut the 2010 spending back to 2002 levels the deficit would be 350 billion less or still over a trillion dollars for fiscal year 2010. Amazing how you hitch a ride to a losing issue.

 

[Catawba]

Yes, and if you paid any attention at all you would understand who controlled the purse strings

So you are saying the Democrats are to blame for the wasteful military spending???

and further you would understand taht 56% over 10 years isn't a lot of money per year but that isn't your agenda.

Now you are saying the spending on the military wasn't wasteful???

We spent $2.38 trillion dollars in excess of year 2000 military spending levels without increasing taxes to pay for that dramatic increase in spending. How do you propose we pay for that $2.38 trillion???

How do you propose we pay for the war you advocate with Iran?

Just put it on the tab, with the rest of the GOP wars?

 

[Catawba]

So let's see how good you are and put whatever number you want in for the Defense spending and then deduct the difference from the debt.

As documented above, by cutting military spending back to 2000 levels (still more than any other country on the planet) we would reduce spending by $7.14 trillion over 3 decades.

 

[Conservative]

As documented above, by cutting military spending back to 2000 levels (still more than any other country on the planet) we would reduce spending by $7.14 trillion over 3 decades.

What a great number until you divide it by year, 3 decades is 30 years and that is less than 250 billion a year out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. You really have been brainwashed and have no idea how foolish you look with these results.

 

[Conservative]

So you are saying the Democrats are to blame for the wasteful military spending???




Now you are saying the spending on the military wasn't wasteful???

We spent $2.38 trillion dollars in excess of year 2000 military spending levels without increasing taxes to pay for that dramatic increase in spending. How do you propose we pay for that $2.38 trillion???

How do you propose we pay for the war you advocate with Iran?

Just put it on the tab, with the rest of the GOP wars?

Actually doubt there will be a war with Iran with a strong leader in the WH. Obama/Clinton aren't leaders and scare no one.

 

[AdamT]

Actually doubt there will be a war with Iran with a strong leader in the WH. Obama/Clinton aren't leaders and scare no one.

Right, and Bush scared the Iranians out of pursuing nuclear technology. :lol:

 

[Conservative]

Right, and Bush scared the Iranians out of pursuing nuclear technology. :lol:

You, your ilk, and the media destroyed Bush after the 2004 elections and the Obama victory in 2008 emboldened them. how did you do at the BEA.gov site proving my numbers wrong?

 

[Psychoclown]

What a great number until you divide it by year, 3 decades is 30 years and that is less than 250 billion a year out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. You really have been brainwashed and have no idea how foolish you look with these results.

I call that a good start. We need to couple defense cuts with entitlement cuts, but defense certainly to be on the table as well. After all it is the 3rd largest expenditure inthe budget, right after SS and Medicare/Medicaid. The biggest problem we have is Republicans have a sacred cow in defense spending and Democrats have one in entitlements so "compromise" ends up looking like I won't cut your stuff if you don't cut mine. That's how we got into this mess.

 

[Conservative]

I call that a good start. We need to couple defense cuts with entitlement cuts, but defense certainly to be on the table as well. After all it is the 3rd largest expenditure inthe budget, right after SS and Medicare/Medicaid. The biggest problem we have is Republicans have a sacred cow in defense spending and Democrats have one in entitlements so "compromise" ends up looking like I won't cut your stuff if you don't cut mine. That's how we got into this mess.

It should be the number one expenditure in the budget per the Constitution. SS and Medicare have no business being on budget today

 

[Catawba]

What a great number until you divide it by year, 3 decades is 30 years and that is less than 250 billion a year out of a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. You really have been brainwashed and have no idea how foolish you look with these results.

Cutting wasteful spending by $7.14 trillion over 3 decades is chicken feed eh? I guess that's nothing compared to $90 million in spending the GOP cut from NPR.

Let me know when you are serious about reducing the National debt.


Oh, and how do you propose we pay for the $2.38 trillion dollars in excess military spending over the last ten years? Over the next ten years?


Increased taxes, or just pile it on the National debt?

 

[Catawba]

Actually doubt there will be a war with Iran with a strong leader in the WH. Obama/Clinton aren't leaders and scare no one.

Let's pretend Obama lost the election and you got your wish and the GOP takes us to war with Iran. How should we pay for it, increased taxes or increased debt?

 

[Psychoclown]

Except that's a losing battle and anyone with common sense knows it. For one reason, the restrictions the Constitution placed on government have been gutted a thousand times over by the courts. For another Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid aren't going anywhere for the forseeable future due to the reality of politics today.

The winnable fight right now is to reduce their size and scope. They weren't created as massive government entitlements in one big swoop - they were slowly expanded and increased over time. Similarly, they won't be eliminated in one fell swoop either. They will have to be slowly reduced and cut back.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a reasonable, efficient, and modest safety net for folks. But our entitlements don't meet any of those standards. I would like to see them authorized by an amendment to the Constitution, but that would mean going back to respecting the Constitution as a document that put meaningful limits on government. I'm not really counting on seeing that happen any time soon.

Anyway, that's all secondary to a discussion about getting the budget under control in today's political climate. Defense AND entitlements need to be on the table both of them have contributed to the runaway deficits.

 

[Conservative]

Cutting wasteful spending by $7.14 trillion over 3 decades is chicken feed eh? I guess that's nothing compared to $90 million in spending the GOP cut from NPR.

Let me know when you are serious about reducing the National debt.


Oh, and how do you propose we pay for the $2.38 trillion dollars in excess military spending over the last ten years? Over the next ten years?


Increased taxes, or just pile it on the National debt?

Let me know when Democrats are going to get serious about cutting the national debt which cannot be done by buying votes like they always do. Obama spending is 3.8 trillion dollars this year so when are you going to stop blaming someone else for his own failures and yours for supporting him? I just don't see much logic and common sense from a liberal as you continue to buy the rhetoric and ignore reality.

 

[Conservative]

Let's pretend Obama lost the election and you got your wish and the GOP takes us to war with Iran. How should we pay for it, increased taxes or increased debt?

If we go to war with Iran costs are the least of your problems. We will do what we have to do to hopefully this time win and not just contain.

 

[teamosil]

Except that's a losing battle and anyone with common sense knows it. For one reason, the restrictions the Constitution placed on government have been gutted a thousand times over by the courts. For another Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid aren't going anywhere for the forseeable future due to the reality of politics today.

The winnable fight right now is to reduce their size and scope. They weren't created as massive government entitlements in one big swoop - they were slowly expanded and increased over time. Similarly, they won't be eliminated in one fell swoop either. They will have to be slowly reduced and cut back.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a reasonable, efficient, and modest safety net for folks. But our entitlements don't meet any of those standards. I would like to see them authorized by an amendment to the Constitution, but that would mean going back to respecting the Constitution as a document that put meaningful limits on government. I'm not really counting on seeing that happen any time soon.

Anyway, that's all secondary to a discussion about getting the budget under control in today's political climate. Defense AND entitlements need to be on the table both of them have contributed to the runaway deficits.

The patriot act and the mandate are both borderline IMO, but other than that, is there anything that you think goes beyond the constitution?