• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Debt Clock

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,778
Reaction score
7,659
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Run your mouse over the window to see definitions of each item.

Look at the Largest Debt Items... Pure Socialism, except for the military... which defends the Western World and is permitted by The Constitution and vital to our national security.

Thanks for nothing socialists.

.
 
Last edited:

Pal

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
211
Reaction score
64
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Run your mouse over the window to see definitions of each item.

Look at the Largest Debt Items... Pure Socialism, except for the military... which defends the Western World and is permitted by The Constitution and vital to our national security.

Thanks for nothing socialists.

.
It never ceases to amaze me that conservatives can within the confines of a single sentence condemn our massive spending on social programs and defend our massive spending on the military throughout two senseless wars. If you're against government spending and the debt alarms you, I'm fine with that. That's a very valid political opinion. But if you're going to be against massive public spending at least have the decency to be against all massive public spending. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It never ceases to amaze me that conservatives can within the confines of a single sentence condemn our massive spending on social programs and defend our massive spending on the military throughout two senseless wars. If you're against government spending and the debt alarms you, I'm fine with that. That's a very valid political opinion. But if you're going to be against massive public spending at least have the decency to be against all massive public spending. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Why is someone a hypocrite if they have priorities?

Even our Democratic Government has priorities when it comes to what they consider to be acceptable debt and what they don't - and, thus, they aren't shoving everything through.
 

Pal

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
211
Reaction score
64
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Why is someone a hypocrite if they have priorities?

Even our Democratic Government has priorities when it comes to what they consider to be acceptable debt and what they don't - and, thus, they aren't shoving everything through.
It's not an issue of priorities when many conservatives would eliminate social programs altogether.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's not an issue of priorities when many conservatives would eliminate social programs altogether.
Statistics on that?

I'm fiscally conservative yet I don't support eliminating any social programs - only making the current ones more efficient and require more strict standards of inclusion and qualification.

A lot of people feel the same way I do.

I, also, support culling our military expenses . . . and other things.

Overall, we need to reign in our spending which means cutting a little bit from every single thing.
 

Pal

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
211
Reaction score
64
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Statistics on that?

I'm fiscally conservative yet I don't support eliminating any social programs - only making the current ones more efficient and require more strict standards of inclusion and qualification.

A lot of people feel the same way I do.

I, also, support culling our military expenses . . . and other things.

Overall, we need to reign in our spending which means cutting a little bit from every single thing.

That's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to have as far as I'm concerned. But there's a difference between that and claiming that our military is the one thing preventing the collapse of western civilization and thus valid for public spending, while the social programs which help our own citizens struggling with poverty or medical issues are totally invalid. I can't go out looking for sources right now, but I know there are people advocating the total elimination of several social programs. All you have to do is look around on this website and you'll see thread titles like "How is welfare legal" and others claiming that social security and medicare on the verge of cataclysmic collapse, seemingly happy about it.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to have as far as I'm concerned. But there's a difference between that and claiming that our military is the one thing preventing the collapse of western civilization and thus valid for public spending, while the social programs which help our own citizens struggling with poverty or medical issues are totally invalid. I can't go out looking for sources right now, but I know there are people advocating the total elimination of several social programs. All you have to do is look around on this website and you'll see thread titles like "How is welfare legal" and others claiming that social security and medicare on the verge of cataclysmic collapse, seemingly happy about it.
I guess that's why I'm moderate - cleaved in two - rather than on one side or another. :)

Yeah, there are always the extreme who want to end one thing or another completely - just like there are extreme liberals who want to end the full military altogether, so there are extreme conservatives who want to end everything but military.

Social Security needs an overhaul, actually.
Ending it is out of the question.

Right now the SSA is required to take all of it's surplus and buy up government securities with it.
The government then sells those securities and applies that money to whatever spending they see necessary.
That money, then, becomes part of the intra-governmental debt - which the government MUST pay back with interest.

So - the way I see it - I think that is where our problem comes from with the SS. Not that SS is a bad thing, but the fact that it leads to the government having to OWE SS back to the SSA/people . . . and it's forever a loop of borrow - debt.

I think they should end the government dependence on SS. Permit the SSA to just save any surplus and, thus, it wouldn't continually be trapped in a loop and it would ease the government's burden to pay back, pay back, pay back . . . and wouldn't deprive future SS from people.

It was a doomed system that, now, we've become so dependent on the government can't think straight without it.

*edit*
The loop with Social Security is the same loop that the government has itself in with Medicaid - people pay their premiums, the government spreads it around to different things, and then covers the cost of people's medical expenses.

Thus - the more people who receive benefits from Medicaid the more the government will be in deficit to cover the cost.

So it is with the new Health care bill that they passed. in the CBO report that preceded it's passing they said that the premiums that people pay into it for the next 20 years will be a surplus - which the government will apply back to those people when they need to see the dr, etc, as reimbursement.
But, with the remaining non-reimbursement medical surplus - they will apply that to other government things that they see fit to spend it on, promising to pay it back with interest.

Which means that in 20+ years they *know* that they will be bringing in less surplus from the premiums as more people who, now, are young and healthy will, then, be older and less healthy and needing more benefit reimbursement for Dr's visits, etc. And so the government already knows and admits that in the future they will be in debt to the new Gov-health insurance and they will, then, have to take money from other areas of income and apply it to cover the benefits-payouts for those people.

Thus, it will become another deficit - another government pay-back burden - and will not be balanced and will not be self-sufficient.
 
Last edited:

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,778
Reaction score
7,659
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
WARNING! LIB EDUCATION ALERT

It never ceases to amaze me that conservatives can within the confines of a single sentence condemn our massive spending on social programs and defend our massive spending on the military throughout two senseless wars. If you're against government spending and the debt alarms you, I'm fine with that. That's a very valid political opinion. But if you're going to be against massive public spending at least have the decency to be against all massive public spending. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
No.

As finally written and ratified, the Constitution raises military issues in five sections located in Articles I (legislative branch) and II (executive branch), mostly in the former...The heart of the Constitution's military provisions rests in the enumerated powers given to Congress in Section 8, Article I, including the key right to "provide for the common Defense." The actual wording follows rather closely on the August debates over the military clauses.
The Constitution
I see you don't know history or The Constitution.
Find for me something about "spreading the wealth" in the Constitution. Ain't there.

Military spending is justifiable under The Constitution.
Funding wars are too.

Socialism isn't.
If states want to do it... fine, but not the feds.

Perhaps 1990 was before your time.
So how about a Reader's Digest History Lesson about the two wars ignorant lefties knee-jerk about.

You see we were attacked on 911.
WE WERE ATTACKED. (Not by Saddam, incase you got excited).
We did not know what else could be coming our way.

We did know there were threats, and they grew in dimension with each passing year, from Beruit in the early 80's to our African Embassies in the 90's.

War in Afghanistan was to rid us of the terrorista's there, and help the natives establish a government of their own.

Iraq was to eliminate a serious threat.

How you folks forget.
Saddam began a war, Gulf War 1... He lost that war and signed on to give up all his WMD. A job that took South Africa a handful of people and a couple years.

Saddam? After 12-years there was no concrete evidence he had given up his WMD arsenal.
Just read the cat calls from Democrat representatives in both houses, the Democrat President and his VP claiming Saddam was a deadly serious threat.
Just Do It.

What did Saddam do for 12 years?
Played games, and kicked out the UN Inspecteurs de la Sortie.
16 USELESS UN Resoluations in 12 years.
He tried to assasinate a former US President.
He shot at our planes in the NFZ almost daily.

I would say he was hostile and uncooperative.

Now, post 911... Bush gave Saddam one last chance to come clean.
Remember that?
Of course not.

Unlike our Perjerous, Perverted Impeached president before... Bush knew our enemies were paying particular attention and backed up his threat.

It got Libya out of the Nuke Business, and busted a Nuke Blackmarket.
I'd say those are two pretty big victories.
He got Pakistan to side with the US.

There is a long, long list of Democrats on the Congressional Record claiming Saddam had WMD and was a deadly serious threat who would use WMD AGAIN.

David Kay stated Saddam's regime was so corrupt it was very possible one of his team would hook up with a terrorista and supply them with WMD. he said it may have happened, but if it didn't we were lucky.

You see, there is a basis for national defense in our Constitution. There is none for socialist redistribution schemes.

The wars were justified and voted on. IN FACT THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE WANTED AND GOT A SECOND VOTE SHOWING SUPPORT.

Why? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE PERCEIVED AS BEING PUSSIES ON MATTERS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.

Then these scum turned around and stabbed our troops in the back for political gain as the brave men and women were fighting for us. Dems called the troops Nazi's, terrorizers (Kerry and Obama), and one A-hole, the Senate Majority leader said "The war is lost".

Too bad Lincoln wasn't around. he would have hung these jerk stains, and rightly so.

If military cost is such a concern for you, perhaps we should get the Kanuckistani's, Euro's and Asians to start subsidizing the protection we provide around the world. They've gutted their militaries, relying on Uncle Sam to save their asses... in their own damn backyard to boot. We had no reason to be in The Balkans, but the Euro's protested for us to be there because their militaries are so lame..

There was justification for both wars.
There is none for turning the USA into the USSA.

.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,090
Reaction score
32,916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Can you find me the constitutional justification for the Air Force? The specific sentence, I mean.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,698
Reaction score
8,519
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The US air force is not mentioned in the US constitution though now is it. Nor is Nasa
A lot of things aren't that are accepted under what is detailed out - granted powers and rights by proxy.

But because the Air Force serves as an extension of the military it's all the same thing, with just a different mission it's been assigned to see to. . . it's all part of the military in the end.

Though, with Nasa, you have more of a point. . .so, if you think it's Unconstitutional - then take it to the Supreme Court and have it challenged :thumbs: That's well within your right as a citizen.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,090
Reaction score
32,916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A lot of things aren't that are accepted under what is detailed out - granted powers and rights by proxy.

But because the Air Force serves as an extension of the military it's all the same thing, with just a different mission it's been assigned to see to. . . it's all part of the military in the end.

Though, with Nasa, you have more of a point. . .so, if you think it's Unconstitutional - then take it to the Supreme Court and have it challenged :thumbs: That's well within your right as a citizen.
The enumerated powers lists only land and naval forces.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The enumerated powers lists only land and naval forces.
:doh

So you're suggesting that we shouldn't be able to fly in the sky to protect our land?
 

Porchev

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
2,491
Location
GA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Can you find me the constitutional justification for the Air Force? The specific sentence, I mean.
Just because airplanes are a new technology that fly through the air surely does not forbid their use by the military. All services have them.

As for a specific sentence in the Constitution that mentions Air Force, there of course isn't one, but the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution could possibly be used to justify the Air Force.

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Look at the Largest Debt Items... Pure Socialism, except for the military... which defends the Western World and is permitted by The Constitution and vital to our national security.

Thanks for nothing socialists.

.
Y'know, I'm getting kinda tired of getting blamed for every little thing that's wrong in the country by people who couldnt define Socialism if their lives depended on it.
 

Pal

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
211
Reaction score
64
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Y'know, I'm getting kinda tired of getting blamed for every little thing that's wrong in the country by people who couldnt define Socialism if their lives depended on it.
Yeah, agreed. It's funny how they can blame socialists even though there is a grand total of 1 (one) socialists in our entire elected government.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,090
Reaction score
32,916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:doh

So you're suggesting that we shouldn't be able to fly in the sky to protect our land?
No, that is most definitely not what I'm suggesting. I use it as an example to point out that extremely strict interpretation of the enumerated powers doesn't really work.
 
Top Bottom