The ..2012.... Political thread
-
rich n:
Dems have pushed this country closer to the brink of bankruptcy in just the past two year than either party has in the past 50-75 years. Their 'robinhood' approach, while noble on some levels, is over the top and pure fantasy
So, you're OK with the reckless spending under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress 2001-2007? Without using the evasive tactic of how much worse the Dems are, I'd like to hear your characterization of the irresponsible spending that occurred throughout the previous decade.
-
BOTH Parties spend it like they've got the printing press in the basement. Oh wait, they DO!!!
-
Here's the biggy...bush's personal Iraq War and it's costs your taxpayer money for his little escapade I got your deficit right here... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15377059/ns/business-answer_desk/
National Priorities Project, and Amherst-Mass.-based group that tracks the impact of federal spending on local communities. Using a ?top-down? calculation based on U.S. budget appropriations, the group estimates the total money spent or allocated comes to about $255 million per day, or a little less than $1.8 billion a week. That figure includes both military and non-military spending on things like reconstruction.
If you add these costs, and others, to the total tab, the cost of the war has jumped from $4.4 billion to $7.1 billion a month since the 2003 fiscal
And any final accounting will have to include the loss of life and injuries to the Iraqi people. For now, that number is unknowable.
CRS: "Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion" for operations "initiated since the 9/11 attacks" through the end the 2009 fiscal year. In a September 2009 report titled "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) stated, "Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans' health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks." CRS added, "This $944 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs through FY2009," which ended September 30, 2009.
Time for the ditto head anthem again:
-
audi:
rich n:
Dems have pushed this country closer to the brink of bankruptcy in just the past two year than either party has in the past 50-75 years. Their 'robinhood' approach, while noble on some levels, is over the top and pure fantasy
So, you're OK with the reckless spending under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress 2001-2007? Without using the evasive tactic of how much worse the Dems are, I'd like to hear your characterization of the irresponsible spending that occurred throughout the previous decade.
No, I'm not ok with every single action a Republican has ever taken...but the occasional misfire (or bad egg) isn't going to cause me to abdandon my overall beliefs. And in regards to the spending of this past decade, a lot of it was due to war related spending - so naturally you're opinion on whether it's responsible or not is going to tie in to your opinion of the 2 wars themselves. My feelings on the Iraq situation (and it's related cost to the US) is this - I was not, and still am not opposed to the general notion that we needed to do something there. However, Bush fully mishandled it by jumping the gun without actual knowledge of WMDs were located (although I'm fully convinced Iraq had them). And the overall stragedy was wrong as a long term ground war was not going to be successful for a long time, if ever. We could've still defeated Iraq and not spend even a fraction of the money. But in saying that, it was still better than sitting on our butts and saying 'well Saddam says he doesn't have anything' (duh)...and to blame the middle east 'hatred' of the US on relatively recent events - they haven't like us since we were involved Israel's creation as a country and given to the Jewish people in the wake of the events during WWII. It's funny that Japan (who suffered more by our actions in WWII) has basically took a 'the past is the past' approach in their relationship with the US, yet the middle east has never forgiven us because we didn't allow them to hate. The world keeps turning everywhere but in the middle east. And to have that fact distorted because the media shows a picture of a middle eastern mommy and baby is a complete shame...
-
not adding bush's war to the deficit come on : That's ONE TRILLION usd you people are in la la land :
-
mustangsally10:
not adding bush's war to the deficit come on : That's ONE TRILLION usd you people are in la la land :
Once again - your inability to read shines on. The question was to explain the 'irresponsible' spending of the past decade. Not whether it 'counts' Surely the costs of war contributed to the deficit. But for all the mistakes made in that war, it was still more worthy than 'obama care and that ridiculous stimulus package, which very little money went to where it was supposed to. Here's a little snippet for you to chew on btw:-) "Below are the numbers through 2009. * 2010 has not concluded and I did not want to use estimated numbers (at the time this was written). Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008 Year GDP-US $ billion Total Spending-fed $ billion Federal Deficit-total $ billion 2000 9951.5 1789.22 a -236.24 a 2001 10286.2 1863.19 a -128.24 a 2002 10642.3 2011.15 a 157.75 a 2003 11142.1 2160.12 a 377.59 a 2004 11867.8 2293.01 a 412.73 a 2005 12638.4 2472.20 a 318.34 a 2006 13398.9 2655.44 a 248.19 a 2007 14077.6 2728.94 a 160.94 a 2008 14441.4 2982.55 a 458.55 a Spending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a significant contributing factor to the massive deficit. The seven years of high war costs are part of the Bush administration, not Obama. This is obviously a significant factor in understanding the countries path to a large federal deficit. For clarity, Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplemental?s (not the regular budget process), but the spending is reflected in the numbers above. Now, we have one full year of factual numbers to dissect Obama?s spending. Let?s take a look at the numbers. Year GDP-US $ billion Total Spending-fed $ billion Federal Deficit-total $ billion 2009 14601.4 3517.7 a 1412.7 a Obama spent approximately $535 billion more year-over-year then Bush?s highest year of spending. Because of the continuing recession and slowed GDP, the deficit increased by a staggering $960 billion. $794 billion was spent on military expenditures, more than in 2008 while Bush was still president. That cost is almost a wash, but it is a surprising number considering the anti-war stance Obama drove during his campaign. Below are the numbers through 2009. * 2010 has not concluded and I did not want to use estimated numbers (at the time this was written). Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008 Year GDP-US $ billion Total Spending-fed $ billion Federal Deficit-total $ billion 2000 9951.5 1789.22 a -236.24 a 2001 10286.2 1863.19 a -128.24 a 2002 10642.3 2011.15 a 157.75 a 2003 11142.1 2160.12 a 377.59 a 2004 11867.8 2293.01 a 412.73 a 2005 12638.4 2472.20 a 318.34 a 2006 13398.9 2655.44 a 248.19 a 2007 14077.6 2728.94 a 160.94 a 2008 14441.4 2982.55 a 458.55 a Spending increased every year through 2008. $730 billion of that spending was attributed to military expenditures. That is about 24% of the government spending. It is safe to assume that the war was a significant contributing factor to the massive deficit. The seven years of high war costs are part of the Bush administration, not Obama. This is obviously a significant factor in understanding the countries path to a large federal deficit. For clarity, Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplemental?s (not the regular budget process), but the spending is reflected in the numbers above. Now, we have one full year of factual numbers to dissect Obama?s spending. Let?s take a look at the numbers. Year GDP-US $ billion Total Spending-fed $ billion Federal Deficit-total $ billion 2009 14601.4 3517.7 a 1412.7 a Obama spent approximately $535 billion more year-over-year then Bush?s highest year of spending. Because of the continuing recession and slowed GDP, the deficit increased by a staggering $960 billion. $794 billion was spent on military expenditures, more than in 2008 while Bush was still president. That cost is almost a wash, but it is a surprising number considering the anti-war stance Obama drove during his campaign." Info above from this site: http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/ Fortunately, for us republicans, we'll gladly wear the 'ditto head' for listening to a particular personality on the radio (although I don't listen to Rush) vs being an overall illiterate, peter pan wishing robinhood wanna be.
-
Altanon:
BOTH Parties spend it like they've got the printing press in the basement. Oh wait, they DO!!!
I don't disagree with that - the one-two punch to America from the Clinton/Bush combo certainly proves that - especially with the housing fiasco...Clinton served it up by setting up the environment for the trend while Bush continued to gobble it down like a fat kid eating a whopper in Burger King...and now Obama has done nothing to address this, save for a few bandaids (or bones thrown our way) near the beginning of his term as far as being able to refinance (which still doesn't work out in your favor)
-
This came up on Facebook:
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women who serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their base pay. While politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term! Re-post if you believe this is absolutely WRONG!!
BOTH Parties! They're in this together, folks!
-
Altanon:
This came up on Facebook:
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women who serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their base pay. While politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term! Re-post if you believe this is absolutely WRONG!!
BOTH Parties! They're in this together, folks!
There is a school of thought that's quite firm in that point of view. And there are times when I think that, as well.
-
So, robinhoods rob from the rich and give to the poor...and republicans rob from the poor to give to the rich? While, those who call for peace amongst ALL people are to be called peter pans?
-
rich n:
audi:
rich n:
Dems have pushed this country closer to the brink of bankruptcy in just the past two year than either party has in the past 50-75 years. Their 'robinhood' approach, while noble on some levels, is over the top and pure fantasy
So, you're OK with the reckless spending under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress 2001-2007? Without using the evasive tactic of how much worse the Dems are, I'd like to hear your characterization of the irresponsible spending that occurred throughout the previous decade.
No, I'm not ok with every single action a Republican has ever taken...but the occasional misfire (or bad egg) isn't going to cause me to abdandon my overall beliefs. And in regards to the spending of this past decade, a lot of it was due to war related spending - so naturally you're opinion on whether it's responsible or not is going to tie in to your opinion of the 2 wars themselves. My feelings on the Iraq situation (and it's related cost to the US) is this - I was not, and still am not opposed to the general notion that we needed to do something there. However, Bush fully mishandled it by jumping the gun without actual knowledge of WMDs were located (although I'm fully convinced Iraq had them). And the overall stragedy was wrong as a long term ground war was not going to be successful for a long time, if ever. We could've still defeated Iraq and not spend even a fraction of the money. But in saying that, it was still better than sitting on our butts and saying 'well Saddam says he doesn't have anything' (duh)...and to blame the middle east 'hatred' of the US on relatively recent events - they haven't like us since we were involved Israel's creation as a country and given to the Jewish people in the wake of the events during WWII. It's funny that Japan (who suffered more by our actions in WWII) has basically took a 'the past is the past' approach in their relationship with the US, yet the middle east has never forgiven us because we didn't allow them to hate. The world keeps turning everywhere but in the middle east. And to have that fact distorted because the media shows a picture of a middle eastern mommy and baby is a complete shame...
you so believe all those lies...I guess you haven't read Rumfield's book where he says that they all knew that Iraq did not have WMD I guess you're going to make excuses for them again...right? transpript from Chris Matthews show Chris Matthews: Let me finish tonight with a call to arms: I want everyone watching to call your United States Senator and ask him or her to support hearings into the corrupt, bogus, downright unpatriotic way this country was marched to war eight years ago. Here's the number for the capitol switchboard: 202 224 3121. We now know from the Secretary of Defense's own hand that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, no production facility to make them, no evidence of any purchases of such weapons, no attempt to buy such weapons. Nada. This being the case, why are 4400 Americans dead, why are 100,000 Iraqis killed, why did we violate our own opposition to aggression by being the aggressor ourselves? I ask you to call your senator and cite the Rumsfeld book, cite the National Intelligence estimates of late 2002 which he cites, and the report of the intelligence director for the joint chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense - all this in the book - all this evidence that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, despite all the talk by President Bush and his people about mushroom clouds. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's John Kerry - you can call him but the best people to call are your own senators, Democratic or Republican - Don't they want an explanation of this historic fraud against the American people? A fraud that cost thousands of our lives, their spouses, their fathers, their brothers. "Senator," you could say or write, "Secretary Rumsefeld admits in his new book that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. Had he admitted this during the war, or before the war, rather, the American people would not have backed the war. Why aren't you and the rest of the Senate raising Hell about this? If we'd gotten this confession from Rumsfeld before shots were fired, we could have stopped the U.S. attack on Iraq. Those lost people would be with us today. Start making your excuses
-
rich n:
Altanon:
BOTH Parties spend it like they've got the printing press in the basement. Oh wait, they DO!!!
I don't disagree with that - the one-two punch to America from the Clinton/Bush combo certainly proves that - especially with the housing fiasco...Clinton served it up by setting up the environment for the trend while Bush continued to gobble it down like a fat kid eating a whopper in Burger King...and now Obama has done nothing to address this, save for a few bandaids (or bones thrown our way) near the beginning of his term as far as being able to refinance (which still doesn't work out in your favor)
let alone the corruption and not one of the players are serving a day in Jail.. Name one person who was involved in the banking scandal who has been sentenced. In the last SL scandal thousand went to jail...except Jeb Bush.
-
SurSteven:
Amongst all of the profiteering and self concerned financial survivalism going on..........Does this mean that working people will still get the rightful and functional benefits from the social and medical insurance premiums they've been paying all of these years?
-
mustangsally10:
rich n:
audi:
rich n:
Dems have pushed this country closer to the brink of bankruptcy in just the past two year than either party has in the past 50-75 years. Their 'robinhood' approach, while noble on some levels, is over the top and pure fantasy
So, you're OK with the reckless spending under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress 2001-2007? Without using the evasive tactic of how much worse the Dems are, I'd like to hear your characterization of the irresponsible spending that occurred throughout the previous decade.
No, I'm not ok with every single action a Republican has ever taken...but the occasional misfire (or bad egg) isn't going to cause me to abdandon my overall beliefs. And in regards to the spending of this past decade, a lot of it was due to war related spending - so naturally you're opinion on whether it's responsible or not is going to tie in to your opinion of the 2 wars themselves. My feelings on the Iraq situation (and it's related cost to the US) is this - I was not, and still am not opposed to the general notion that we needed to do something there. However, Bush fully mishandled it by jumping the gun without actual knowledge of WMDs were located (although I'm fully convinced Iraq had them). And the overall stragedy was wrong as a long term ground war was not going to be successful for a long time, if ever. We could've still defeated Iraq and not spend even a fraction of the money. But in saying that, it was still better than sitting on our butts and saying 'well Saddam says he doesn't have anything' (duh)...and to blame the middle east 'hatred' of the US on relatively recent events - they haven't like us since we were involved Israel's creation as a country and given to the Jewish people in the wake of the events during WWII. It's funny that Japan (who suffered more by our actions in WWII) has basically took a 'the past is the past' approach in their relationship with the US, yet the middle east has never forgiven us because we didn't allow them to hate. The world keeps turning everywhere but in the middle east. And to have that fact distorted because the media shows a picture of a middle eastern mommy and baby is a complete shame...
you so believe all those lies...I guess you haven't read Rumfield's book where he says that they all knew that Iraq did not have WMD I guess you're going to make excuses for them again...right? transpript from Chris Matthews show Chris Matthews: Let me finish tonight with a call to arms: I want everyone watching to call your United States Senator and ask him or her to support hearings into the corrupt, bogus, downright unpatriotic way this country was marched to war eight years ago. Here's the number for the capitol switchboard: 202 224 3121. We now know from the Secretary of Defense's own hand that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, no production facility to make them, no evidence of any purchases of such weapons, no attempt to buy such weapons. Nada. This being the case, why are 4400 Americans dead, why are 100,000 Iraqis killed, why did we violate our own opposition to aggression by being the aggressor ourselves? I ask you to call your senator and cite the Rumsfeld book, cite the National Intelligence estimates of late 2002 which he cites, and the report of the intelligence director for the joint chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense - all this in the book - all this evidence that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, despite all the talk by President Bush and his people about mushroom clouds. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's John Kerry - you can call him but the best people to call are your own senators, Democratic or Republican - Don't they want an explanation of this historic fraud against the American people? A fraud that cost thousands of our lives, their spouses, their fathers, their brothers. "Senator," you could say or write, "Secretary Rumsefeld admits in his new book that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. Had he admitted this during the war, or before the war, rather, the American people would not have backed the war. Why aren't you and the rest of the Senate raising Hell about this? If we'd gotten this confession from Rumsfeld before shots were fired, we could have stopped the U.S. attack on Iraq. Those lost people would be with us today. Start making your excuses
My first 'excuse' is you don't have any idea of what WMDs are? You only know that nukes is one of them (mmm - I guess that's 'some' idea - so I amend and say you don't have much of an idea )
-
rich n:
mustangsally10:
rich n:
audi:
rich n:
Dems have pushed this country closer to the brink of bankruptcy in just the past two year than either party has in the past 50-75 years. Their 'robinhood' approach, while noble on some levels, is over the top and pure fantasy
So, you're OK with the reckless spending under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress 2001-2007? Without using the evasive tactic of how much worse the Dems are, I'd like to hear your characterization of the irresponsible spending that occurred throughout the previous decade.
No, I'm not ok with every single action a Republican has ever taken...but the occasional misfire (or bad egg) isn't going to cause me to abdandon my overall beliefs. And in regards to the spending of this past decade, a lot of it was due to war related spending - so naturally you're opinion on whether it's responsible or not is going to tie in to your opinion of the 2 wars themselves. My feelings on the Iraq situation (and it's related cost to the US) is this - I was not, and still am not opposed to the general notion that we needed to do something there. However, Bush fully mishandled it by jumping the gun without actual knowledge of WMDs were located (although I'm fully convinced Iraq had them). And the overall stragedy was wrong as a long term ground war was not going to be successful for a long time, if ever. We could've still defeated Iraq and not spend even a fraction of the money. But in saying that, it was still better than sitting on our butts and saying 'well Saddam says he doesn't have anything' (duh)...and to blame the middle east 'hatred' of the US on relatively recent events - they haven't like us since we were involved Israel's creation as a country and given to the Jewish people in the wake of the events during WWII. It's funny that Japan (who suffered more by our actions in WWII) has basically took a 'the past is the past' approach in their relationship with the US, yet the middle east has never forgiven us because we didn't allow them to hate. The world keeps turning everywhere but in the middle east. And to have that fact distorted because the media shows a picture of a middle eastern mommy and baby is a complete shame...
you so believe all those lies...I guess you haven't read Rumfield's book where he says that they all knew that Iraq did not have WMD I guess you're going to make excuses for them again...right? transpript from Chris Matthews show Chris Matthews: Let me finish tonight with a call to arms: I want everyone watching to call your United States Senator and ask him or her to support hearings into the corrupt, bogus, downright unpatriotic way this country was marched to war eight years ago. Here's the number for the capitol switchboard: 202 224 3121. We now know from the Secretary of Defense's own hand that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, no production facility to make them, no evidence of any purchases of such weapons, no attempt to buy such weapons. Nada. This being the case, why are 4400 Americans dead, why are 100,000 Iraqis killed, why did we violate our own opposition to aggression by being the aggressor ourselves? I ask you to call your senator and cite the Rumsfeld book, cite the National Intelligence estimates of late 2002 which he cites, and the report of the intelligence director for the joint chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense - all this in the book - all this evidence that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, despite all the talk by President Bush and his people about mushroom clouds. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's John Kerry - you can call him but the best people to call are your own senators, Democratic or Republican - Don't they want an explanation of this historic fraud against the American people? A fraud that cost thousands of our lives, their spouses, their fathers, their brothers. "Senator," you could say or write, "Secretary Rumsefeld admits in his new book that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. Had he admitted this during the war, or before the war, rather, the American people would not have backed the war. Why aren't you and the rest of the Senate raising Hell about this? If we'd gotten this confession from Rumsfeld before shots were fired, we could have stopped the U.S. attack on Iraq. Those lost people would be with us today. Start making your excuses
My first 'excuse' is you don't have any idea of what WMDs are? You only know that nukes is one of them (mmm - I guess that's 'some' idea - so I amend and say you don't have much of an idea )
yep, true to form the excuse's and rationalizations have started...I feel like I have to disinfect my laptop screen after reading your posts.
-
That's too bad - it means you're wedged over on the dark side (probably from the fumes of the disinfectants)
-
In order to save the United States of America more money...and to be an example...in this process..........The Speaker of The House...has decided to immediately cut his benefits and wages in half.
-
John Boehner receives government-run healthcare. Just a random comment.
-
we all know it...and they know it too
-
SurSteven:
we all know it...and they know it too
Of course. That's what makes them blindly partisan hypocrites.