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.
Just reread the numerous threads on here during the primaries. The angrier and more outlandish the statements by candidates the more the were liked by the die-hards around here.
I meant "nut-ball," I guess autocorrect thought "neutral" was a nicer word.
As I stated in another post, Huntsman is and was not as revered as you claim. There is a valid reason why many opposed him. Number one would be that he did not reflect the values of the people he was elected to serve.
The Iraq war accounted for less than 3% of the deficits over the 8 years that it lasted. I don't know the number off-hand for Afghanistan, but it was even less.
This requires some actual numbers to be cited.
A few years ago, the subject regarding the cost of these wars came up on C-D. It might have been either 2012 or 2013 when the topic was discussed.
The figure cited at the time by some on the right side of the aisle for the cost of wars was roughly $850 billion. However, this figure only represented the actual money spent. This figure did not include worn-out and destroyed equipment that needed to be replaced nor ammunition and ordnance expended and not replaced. Additionally, it ignored the future costs of providing for military veterans of these wars through pensions and medical care, including care for those wounded in the wars. Finally, the $850 billion did not take into account the interest that would have to be paid, as the wars were fought "on the nation's credit card".
Depending on which economist you choose to believe, the total cost of both wars is estimated to be somewhere between 2 trillion and 4 trillion dollars.
A few years ago, the subject regarding the cost of these wars came up on C-D. It might have been either 2012 or 2013 when the topic was discussed.
The figure cited at the time by some on the right side of the aisle for the cost of wars was roughly $850 billion. However, this figure only represented the actual money spent. This figure did not include worn-out and destroyed equipment that needed to be replaced nor ammunition and ordnance expended and not replaced. Additionally, it ignored the future costs of providing for military veterans of these wars through pensions and medical care, including care for those wounded in the wars. Finally, the $850 billion did not take into account the interest that would have to be paid, as the wars were fought "on the nation's credit card".
Depending on which economist you choose to believe, the total cost of both wars is estimated to be somewhere between 2 trillion and 4 trillion dollars.
The number according to the Congressional Research Service was $806 billion. If someone can't decide whether the number is $2 trillion or $4 trillion, that is clue number one that they are making stuff up.
edit $806 billion is Iraq only. I don't know about Afghanistan, and in any case that was supported strongly by Obama and most Democrats, so you can't put the onus entirely on W Bush.
The number according to the Congressional Research Service was $806 billion. If someone can't decide whether the number is $2 trillion or $4 trillion, that is clue number one that they are making stuff up.
edit $806 billion is Iraq only. I don't know about Afghanistan, and in any case that was supported strongly by Obama and most Democrats, so you can't put the onus entirely on W Bush.
That's correct, the number from the CBO was $806 billion.
And as I pointed out, it wasn't a full accounting of the entire cost of the wars.
I'm not saying that Democratic members of Congress didn't vote for the actions in Iraq. I'm not saying that President Obama didn't support the war in Afghanistan.
I'm only saying that the $806 billion isn't the final cost.
$806 billion is the money that was spent according to the CRS. Any others are speculation. We don't know what might have happened had we not gone to Iraq. Maybe all the terrorists who came to Iraq go to Europe instead, and we have to deal with them there. Who knows.
Bottom line, the Iraq war accounted for about 3% of deficits for the 8 years it lasted. Even if you double it to 6%, we are left w/ 94% of the remaining debt problem, w/ or w/out the Iraq invasion.
As governor, he not only made Utah into a leading high tech center in the intermountain west, and he did it while cutting state taxes and streamlining the government and improving law enforcement at the same time.
Huntsman is all about efficiency. He was the only recent governor who had the ability to stop the Republican squabbling, which is eternal in Utah, and get all elements, from the extremes to the middle, to not only get along with each other but pull them all into transforming Utah from an agricultural state to a cutting edge industrial and technology state without alienating any side in the transformation.
He's very conservative in many of the hottest social issues, but they don't rule his mind. Ideology always takes a back seat to practicality with him, but he's skillful in getting all conservatives a little something they all want. At the same time, he's such a good negotiator that he was always able to pull all the Salt Lake City liberals into his camp. His policies were so sound that Utah was one of the states hit least hard by the Great Recession that followed shortly after he left office.
The guy is too cool a customer to be elected Prez right now. Obama is a 'no drama' kind of guy, but Huntsman defines no drama. He never gets ruffled in public ever, and always knows the answer to a question before its asked.
His party isn't ready for that kind of leadership at the moment and he knows it. He's way too smart to ever tip his hand prematurely, and it could be possible he's lost the fire in his gut for gaining the Presidency, but of any potential candidate, he's the only one his party has who could swing independents and a lot of Democrats over.
At 55, he's still young enough to wait it out until his time has come. The only thing that's uncertain is whether the Republicans will ever come to understand they need a leader who has his abilities instead of another grandstanding candidate who only offers emotion, not intelligence.
Great post, except the part about Jon having an IQ higher than Obama. That really was not saying much, as We all know how smart Jon is, but Obama's IQ is really debatable at this point in time.
I'll add, I love a guy in a plaid flannel
So the guy who supported Paul Ryan's crazy budget plans, advocated for printing Freddie and Fannie, and hated No Child Left Behind isn't conservative enough?
He was the very popular governor of one of the most conservative states in the US, and did a good job by most accounts. But because he didn't come across as a rage filled, nonsense spewing neutral, he's deemed not conservative.
Democrats complimented Huntsman not because they wanted him for President, but rather if a Republican was to become president they'd prefer that Republican not be a wing-nut. They did;t want Huntman, they could have lived with Huntsman.
Stay classy.
He grew government. That is the opposite of conservative.
Ryans plans increased the budget. That is the opposite of conservative.
the only rage filled, nonsense spewing here is in your ignorant post.
btw Dems complimented him because he was Obamas Ambassador to China. As if they have any idea what would make a good President. They picked Obama
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 03-18-2015 at 06:20 PM..
The reality is, whether you care to admit it or not, that despite claims to the contrary, conservatives are perfectly willing to grow government and spend like drunken sailors when it suits their agenda.
Agreed. But they are really the neo-cons which conservatives hate.
"Look at the spending and debt numbers under Pres. Obama. They dwarf what we had under Reagan. Right now the debt is projected to be $20 trillion by the end of Obama's second term. He will have more than doubled the debt, which was unacceptably high even before he took office in 2009."
Sure, but you have to remember that none of Reagan's predecessors had run a deficit of between 2.7% and 5.9% of GDP for the entirety of his term. So Reagan started out with relatively little debt. But it's the trajectory that really matters. When Reagan took office, federal outlays were 21.6% of GDP and the deficit was -2.5%. Both figures peaked in 1983 at 22.8% and -5.9%, respectively, before dropping to 20.5% and -2.7% during the last Reagan budget (FY 1989). In Obama's case, federal outlays were 24.4% and the deficit was -9.8% of GDP when he assumed office. Since then, both spending and the deficit (as a % of GDP) has declined precipitously. In FY 2014 (the latest year available), outlays were 20.3% of GDP and the deficit was -2.8% -- lower than 7/8 of Reagan's years in office, and comparable to his last budget. So the Obama Administration has been more fiscally responsible than the Reagan Administration, but we already knew that -- fiscal conservatism is spending more money on defense, the elderly, and farm subsidies, cutting programs that benefit minorities (Medicaid, food stamps, etc.), and blowing the rest on tax cuts regardless of the red ink generated.
Last edited by drishmael; 03-19-2015 at 08:55 PM..
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.
