Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like they are just supporting the Democratic spending which has been taking place..
More deflection, everyone look at what Republicans said, don't dare look at what Democrats have been doing..
just for the record I agree that spending needs cut from the defense budgets, but I find the "look over there" by Democrats pretty humorous. Tell me when do you start to look at WHO HAS BEEN INCREASING SPENDING?
Look, Republicans claimed it was a "MANDATE" to control spending this election cycle and from day one, they come out of the gate ready to massively increase spending. Now I think it is pretty fair to say that I'm not one of those who just forget the 2006 "mandate" by the people to end our involvement in Iraq, which was the Democrat slaughter on that day. I've always chided the Democrat Congress for rubber stamping every single thing George Bush ever sent down the pike and I bet I'm one of the few here who has.
I went back and read the long version of that Halifax article I posted and there was another thing in which Graham is seeking to "confront" and that is China. It is clear by Lindsey Grahman's rhetoric he seeks an antagonistic approach to foreign policy and it is of no surprise that he has pretty much always been this way. While he is referring to economic confrontation over currency fixing, I always thought that competition makes winners.
Another line from that article that in retrospect is more telling than anything but I bet everyone missed it, "His remarks stunned many in the audience at the Halifax International Security forum."
What seems natural dialog here today is seen as "stunning" by the international community. The fact that most people wish to put our current wars down the memory hole should serve as a warning of how easy it is to start a war. .5% of Americans fight 100% of our wars and the rest are eerily silent at one of the most expensive and futile foreign policy debacles in human history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
If I remember correctly, 8 out of those 10 years were lead by a Republican President. No congress is going to tell the President no on defense spending, once troops are engaged.
Nice deflection by you from reality.
Look at the spending from 2003 on. See how it jumped.
One word
IRAQ
If we'd have never gone in there, we'd have been out of Afghanistan by now, and our economy would be considerably better.
Consider what I pointed out above, that in 2005 the Democrats ran on a platform of disengaging from Iraq. This country had weekly anti-war protest in the thousands and it was on the tip of everyones tongue, and I recall attending a few candle light vigils on behalf of our soldiers with every sort of folk demanding an end. Yet once the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, next to nothing was done to fulfill the peoples mandate, despite the press at the time admitting they should have resisted and not cow towed the Presidents fear campaign and the whole, "with us or against us" ignorant crap that only a moron would espouse to fifth graders.
After Democrats stalled any action for their first year, we then jumped right into the 2008 election season and slowly but surely over the year, the anti-war movement pittered down to hollow shell of its former self. I have stated several times before Obama was elected that the worst possible thing for the anti-war movement was the election of Obama as his foreign policy was essentially "Bush light" and all that changed was the manner of motions, but the fundamental aspects of US foreign policy remained the same.
Everyone on the left tucked their "End the war now" signs next to the Volvo in the garage and went on their merry little way flipping houses as was all the rage.
Looking back, I wish to heck that McCain had won the election, because this economy would still suck bog water and the anti-war movement would be alive and well and discussions would be front page.
Republicans and Democrats share a few things in common, the most important is their love of spending other peoples money. The next is their belief that Democracy can be spread at the end of a gun barrel and that America is some kind of mythological manifestation of divine right. Its repugnant beyond reproach and it is non-sustainable, were merely living on borrowed time along with all the borrowed money.
I'm pissed about it, I want out of Iraq tomorrow, and Afghanistan by the end of this winter.
I'd like to be as well but we wont be.. common sense dictates that for numerous reasons that we stay and finish the job..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
But trying to deflect the proper party and groups that got us into this mess, by including that someone has continued a mistake, by trying to end a mistake, does not forgive those who caused the first mistake.
But we arent discussing the mistake, or even debating it.. we are discussing the cost of increased DOD budgets.. This isnt a thread about the wars, not turning it into one.. its about a discussion that a Republican suggested the DOD budgets be increased and Democrats HAVE BEEN DOING IT...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
President Obama is trying to get out of mistakes by winning the war, when we don't know what winning means.
Obama is following the timeline setup by Bush before he left. If he wanted to be out, he wouldnt have tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Leave the countries, let the people there do as they will under a sovereign nation. If they allow splinter groups to operate within their borders, use our amazing ability to attack and extradite criminals to the United States on their soul. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective than full scale war.
911 was very detrimental to the nation, it cost us far more money than any war.. Increased security for travel that will never go away, it eroded away at our freedom of lifestyle, it made us realize that some guy in a cave could devastate the nations economy.. Sorry the cost of war pales in comparison to the cost of our freedoms and liberties which were taken away from us due to 911.. You might tolerate other attacks, I for one fear the next one.. But again, thats not the topic.. The topic is a member of the GOP discussing an increased DOD budget, and now liberals are outraged, but not a peep from them in regards to Democrats increasing those budgets 25% in the last several years..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I've written the Obama administration with my displeasure with their handling of Afghanistan and Iraq. But honestly, do you think there'll be a Republican that wouldn't continue the same policies started under the Bush administration?
Not the topic.. Even Obama is following the Bush plan
It's still an very incomplete picture of the situation. What can anybody learn about the total defense budget when such a large piece of it is missing?
Thats why I gave you the chart with the dollar figure showing the war spending included... It is excluded from the % increase but it doesnt change the fact because the war spending continues to be today what it was several years ago.. Its the DOD budgets in question.. Which excludes the war figures..
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric
Plus I'm always amused by the President versus Congress argument regarding spending. The process of budgeting is the responsibility of both branches of government. The President submits the budget, the Congress enacts, the President vetoes if he doesn't like it.
Almost, the president actually submits a proposed budget, its nothing more than a wish list. Congress actually doesnt have to follow anything the president offers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric
In the end it's a compromise and you certainly can't let Presidents off the hook when they submit budgets that are as big as the ones that are eventually passed (and when they sign into law the ones that are eventually enacted).
Agreed. When the president discusses the high spending of Congress, he ultimately holds the blame, unless of course he vetod the budgets and Congress overwritten his vote.. That hasnt happened in lord knows how long..
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric
However, I think the total defense budget is way too large and I hold both parties responsible. Democrats have generally been a disappointment to me when it comes to foreign policy. But on the Republican-side you have a clash of talking-points: on the one hand we are spending too much and on the other there is never enough for defense.
Thats because defense is one of the basic items listed in the Constitution. If the government can suddenly come up with hundreds of billions to do jobs not delegated to the federal government, then clearly it can come up with the money to defend the nation. I think we spend enough, we just dont spend it in the right location. Border security for example.. But that'll lead into another discussion..
Well it should be noted that the cost of the wars has only been 1% of our GDP over the whole course of those events. Agree with the wars or not, they're not what's crippling this country financially.
To be fair, its about 5% of the federal budget.. But yes, the GDP figure is correct, and no it is not crippling the nation. The money gets spent and therefore is a stimulus to the nation.. Not a crippler. Anyone who's studied economics would know what you say is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Defense spending accounts for about 25% of our total budget.
Defense spending would continue at 20+% even without the wars.. It always has..
Look, Republicans claimed it was a "MANDATE" to control spending this election cycle and from day one, they come out of the gate ready to massively increase spending.
Someone needs to explain to you that $325M to the DOD budget isnt even close to massive spending increases.. its the equivalent of 1/2 of an aircraft carrier. In addition, its unfair if he would propose cutting other items to pay for it, or if the money would come from the standard DOD budgets..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Now I think it is pretty fair to say that I'm not one of those who just forget the 2006 "mandate" by the people to end our involvement in Iraq, which was the Democrat slaughter on that day. I've always chided the Democrat Congress for rubber stamping every single thing George Bush ever sent down the pike and I bet I'm one of the few here who has.
The problem Democrats have is not only did the rubber stamp Bush spending, they INCREASED it.. To set the record straight, Bush rubber stamped Congressional spending, its Congress that spends.. The amount in question is about .02% of the INCREASE in the DOD budget ALONE since the Democrats have taken over Congress.. Thats not the total budget, thats JUST the increase, excluding the war spending..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I went back and read the long version of that Halifax article I posted and there was another thing in which Graham is seeking to "confront" and that is China. It is clear by Lindsey Grahman's rhetoric he seeks an antagonistic approach to foreign policy and it is of no surprise that he has pretty much always been this way. While he is referring to economic confrontation over currency fixing, I always thought that competition makes winners.
You cant solve our economic problems without dealing with currency price fixing. Something we began taking part in this week. Its disasterous and you cant allow them to inflate their currency while we devalue ours. Now is that Chinas problem.. No, its ours, but it needs delt with and delt with fast..
China doesnt have "competition", they have state owned industries that the government will take a loss on product A to harm competition so they can then increase profits on the backs of american jobs..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Another line from that article that in retrospect is more telling than anything but I bet everyone missed it, "His remarks stunned many in the audience at the Halifax International Security forum."
I bet they would.. I dont support his ideas, but I understand why he made them
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
What seems natural dialog here today is seen as "stunning" by the international community. The fact that most people wish to put our current wars down the memory hole should serve as a warning of how easy it is to start a war. .5% of Americans fight 100% of our wars and the rest are eerily silent at one of the most expensive and futile foreign policy debacles in human history.
It wasnt even close to easy to start a war.. It took decades upon decades of "intelligence".. nor was it a debacle. I'm not going to stand here and debate the wars because thats not the topic..
To be fair, its about 5% of the federal budget.. But yes, the GDP figure is correct, and no it is not crippling the nation. The money gets spent and therefore is a stimulus to the nation.. Not a crippler. Anyone who's studied economics would know what you say is true.
Defense spending would continue at 20+% even without the wars.. It always has..
I take issue with the whole "based upon GDP", because it does not account for actual size. If America had a GDP 1000 times what it is now and spent 1000 times more on its military, would it really need to when the rest of the world remains at its current level? I don't think so. Yet right now the defense spending which is a hilarious term since it is ALWAYS used for offense, is way beyond that of any nation on earth, or any 15 nations combined for that matter. Yet it is not enough because for some it will never be enough.
5% of GDP for a nation the size of Luxemburg's does not equal 5% GDP for the United States and trying to use this comparison is wholly wrong.
I've noticed that most people who argue for larger military, greater spending, etc... all tend to share this notion that there is some perfect achievable defense. That is you spend enough, then we'll all be safe, pay no mind that we will end up like the people in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
From now on, no more defense spending, it will be referred to by its actual used name, OFFENSE SPENDING
Always with name calling. I swear most of you lefties never left grade school. The rest of your rant is just that chidish ranting.
You are blinded by your hatred and don't see the hand writing on the wall.
Grahm is RINO. Most RINO's were thrown out on Nov. 4. If he had been running this time, he mght have been thrown out.
The ones who do not see the writing on the wall are folks who think the "TEA Party" is in charge. They are not.
Palin, the TEA Party's darling, is a neo con unless of course she was lying during the 2008 campaign.
NOTHING is going to change in Congress. Sen Lindsay Graham (R-SC) get thrown out? Will not happen.
I actually read the GOP's "Pledge to America". All they are going to do is roll back the clock to 2008. Right off the bat: no cuts in defense whatsoever. They also want to go to war with Iran. They're still talking about "winning the war" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Translation: Bush never did anything wrong.
Their solution to joblessness: tax cuts. Wow. That didn't work for Bush, it didn't work for Obama. It is not enough.
PS: If you can say RINO and lefties , I can say suckers.
5% would be the entire defense budget -- $735 billion/year -- (offense if that's how you choose to look at it).
I'd be interested in seeing intelligence assessments on Jan. 21st, 2013 -- 2017 -- 2021. Something has to account for the very minimal change in foreign policy that presidents have taken since 1945.
I take issue with the whole "based upon GDP", because it does not account for actual size. If America had a GDP 1000 times what it is now and spent 1000 times more on its military, would it really need to when the rest of the world remains at its current level? I don't think so. Yet right now the defense spending which is a hilarious term since it is ALWAYS used for offense, is way beyond that of any nation on earth, or any 15 nations combined for that matter. Yet it is not enough because for some it will never be enough.
5% of GDP for a nation the size of Luxemburg's does not equal 5% GDP for the United States and trying to use this comparison is wholly wrong.
I've noticed that most people who argue for larger military, greater spending, etc... all tend to share this notion that there is some perfect achievable defense. That is you spend enough, then we'll all be safe, pay no mind that we will end up like the people in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
From now on, no more defense spending, it will be referred to by its actual used name, OFFENSE SPENDING
I'm not arguing that the DOD budget isnt too large.. I think it should be scaled back some, and not a little.. maybe 20% minimum... but Washington being Washington, would divert that $150B and use it for social programs instead of paying down debt which is far more important to our national security then the large DOD budget is at the moment.
But comparing the DOD budget to the GDP is indeed important because its how a lot of budgets are determined. Its how taxes are raised, and even the "acceptable" borrowing amount for the debt ceiling.
Cutting the DOD by 20% will only return it to the pre-Democratic levels of 2007 and doesnt sound unreasonable. The same could be true with just about every other federal program which has also increased in size. The Obama/Democratic combination has increased the federal budget 21% since taking office 2 years ago, this excludes the stimulus, and the war costs. No one has yet to justify this increase but I dont hear a big massive call from Democrats to cut the federal budget. All I hear is.. Raise taxes, raise taxes, we dont have enough.. Sorry but that doesnt cut it for me. taking 100% of the wealth from the wealthiest americans wouldnt put a dent in americas debt.. It needs to be delt with and people need to face the cause where it rests. I'm just waiting again for Democrats to question where that extra 20% is going and to justify it. We dont have 20% better roads, dont have 20% better police, fire, security, our schools arent 20% better etc.. where is it going?
Someone needs to explain to you that $325M to the DOD budget isnt even close to massive spending increases.. its the equivalent of 1/2 of an aircraft carrier. In addition, its unfair if he would propose cutting other items to pay for it, or if the money would come from the standard DOD budgets..
Well DUH, its not "just" that 325 million, that is just a single item that is redundant and unnecessary.
Quote:
The problem Democrats have is not only did the rubber stamp Bush spending, they INCREASED it.. To set the record straight, Bush rubber stamped Congressional spending, its Congress that spends.. The amount in question is about .02% of the INCREASE in the DOD budget ALONE since the Democrats have taken over Congress.. Thats not the total budget, thats JUST the increase, excluding the war spending..
So this is not about what Democrats did, this about Republicans who ran on the publicly stated mandate to control and reduce government spending. To which they wish to increase MORE and I could care less right now as to what is done or who did what. It is about what is being spent NOW and what is going to be added to spending tomorrow. Democrats didn't run on the platform of "America has spoken on government spending" blah blah.
Face it, Graham is lying and full of bull chips, as are many of the Republicans who are going to vote on behalf of yet even more offense spending.
Quote:
You cant solve our economic problems without dealing with currency price fixing. Something we began taking part in this week. Its disasterous and you cant allow them to inflate their currency while we devalue ours. Now is that Chinas problem.. No, its ours, but it needs delt with and delt with fast..
By doing what? What do you propose we should do about it, send them a note that says, "please stop?" Should we just a few bombs, or impose tariffs, or what exactly are the methods we are going to employ to get China to act in our best interest?
Quote:
China doesnt have "competition", they have state owned industries that the government will take a loss on product A to harm competition so they can then increase profits on the backs of american jobs..
Sounds like they are doing a great job of it then. Too bad America is up to its neck in hock to them huh. Guess all those years of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama borrow and spend are coming back to bite us ehy. Who's stupid idea was this borrow and spend crap anyway. I mean what moron would borrow money from future generations to spend and live easy today, how repugnant.
Quote:
It wasnt even close to easy to start a war.. It took decades upon decades of "intelligence".. nor was it a debacle. I'm not going to stand here and debate the wars because thats not the topic..
Wasn't easy to start a war, are you out of your flipping mind? People were foaming at the mouth, chomping at the bit to get in there and smoke'm out of their holes.
Americans have more important concerns like Kitchen Nightmares, American Idol, and Deadly Catch and if you so much as put up a little button on their TV that took up half the screen that said should we go to war-click with your remote here, 90% of the idiots would push it so they could continue watching TV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
