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.
" The Obama administration's budget will cost every American nearly $2,000 next year."
Is that figure based on the number of all Americans or just the tax paying Americans?
I think the author might have found it to hard to say that the O'budget won't cost a cent to non tax payers, but cost nearly $4000 per tax payer.
And for those just browsing the thread, please don't take the 2000 figure out of context. When the author adds in peripherals the figure is over $2700 (per American/ his calc) JUST FOR National Defense.
Is that figure based on the number of all Americans or just the tax paying Americans?
I think the author might have found it to hard to say that the O'budget won't cost a cent to non tax payers, but cost nearly $4000 per tax payer.
And for those just browsing the thread, please don't take the 2000 figure out of context. When the author adds in peripherals the figure is over $2700 (per American/ his calc) JUST FOR National Defense.
exactly
Here
"The administration plans to withdraw some U.S. troops from Europe, but as many as 70,000 are likely to remain. Meanwhile, the number of troops in Asia will be increased.
The end result is that Americans pay more. The Obama administration's budget will cost every American nearly $2,000 next year. The figure rises by hundreds of dollars when one accounts for homeland security, payments to veterans, and the few billion dollars tucked away in the Department of Energy for the nation's bloated nuclear arsenal. All told, every American will likely shell out more than $2,700 on spending classified as national defense.
People (well some) will always consider Republicans war mongers when Democrats started the majority of wars.
Civil war = Democrats fired on fort Sumter to protect slavery. Lincoln a republican was trying to keep the union together and end slavery without war.
We can argue this one. There were former Republicans in the south that supported the war of "states rights" and "northern aggression" Lincoln hadn't taken office yet when the states started to secede, and South Carolina had already left the union. Occupation of Sumter was seen as an aggression from the north as it was on South Carolina land.
Spanish American war = McKinley. Republican
World War I= Wilson, Democrat
Really, we got into this war late. What were we supposed to do, just let the Germans sink our civilian ships with impunity?
World War II= Roosevelt, Democrat
Pearl Harbor ring a bell?
Korea= Truman, Democrat
Vietnam= Kennedy, Democrat Kennedy started Johnson escalated.
Desert Storm= Bush I, Republican
War on Terror= Bush II, Republican
As the old saying goes, “the greatest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist”
Feel free to address my post without resorting to character attacks.
That's not a character attack, it was a very good point.
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.
