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.
I wonder if Rumsfeld found the $1.3 trillion the Pentagon couldn't account for back in '01?
The most liberal caucus in all of Congress laid out their vision for the federal budget and they had a $400 billion per year Pentagon budget. This is from the Progressive Caucus. The most left-wing caucus in all of Congress is saying that's what they would be spending per year and some people label that "low cost."
New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being "rich", or what tax rate is "too much." But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy *******.
And let's be clear: that's 3.6% only on income above 250 grand -- your first 250, that's still on the house
Common analysis shows that the Republicans really have no plan for reducing the deficit - they speak in platitudes about "ear marks" and "wasteful programs," but hold the military as a sacred cow and have every intention of extending the Bush tax cuts. They will NOT improve the situation, guaranteed, but their words may get them elected.
The Dems, meanwhile, know what they have to do to balance the budget, but don't have the balls to do it. Military spending needs to come down about 50% over the next 10 years, and the tax cuts need to expire. And then there needs to be more tax increases until the deficit is eliminated, and a plan put in place for long term fiscal stability. I have yet to hear a logical Republican plan for doing that.
Penn and Teller have a show names Bull*****, and that's usually what comes out of their mouths. The upper classes in this country have been taking ever more of the pie over the past few decades, so should I feel bad for them?
Wealth redistribution is a bad word in this country, at least when the direction in downward. But what about upward redistribution? That's exactly what successive governments in this country have been doing! Take from the poor and give to the rich...
It makes me want to puke when stupid people cry for the rich - they are NOT crying for you.
Conservatives refuse to talk about 70% of the budget.
Thats the military and medicare. So they focus on the 30% that don't benefit their political backers directly, welfare, unemployment, social security.
The fact is we spend 4 times what the rest of the world does on military expenses. In the mean time, those that enjoy our protection don't have to spend any money on their military, because they know we'll back them in a fight. So we keep spending our money on what amounts to foreign aid.
Why do we continue to do this? Lets spend equal amounts to what the rest of the world does, and only 4 times what China does on their military. Lets take 25% of our budget, and cut that out.
Ah............ the liberal eddy current.
I already pointed out to you these three facts-
1. The military makes up 21% of the budget
2. Social spending and entitlements make up 53% of the budget
3. If you cut the military 100%, it would not make a dent in the deficits
Liberals are unable to actually say it..............that which cannot be said.......... CUT SPENDING ON ENTITLEMENTS!
We need to cut spending EVERYWHERE. That, coupled with a VAT tax, may be able to curb our headlong path into oblivion.
Common analysis shows that the Republicans really have no plan for reducing the deficit - they speak in platitudes about "ear marks" and "wasteful programs," but hold the military as a sacred cow and have every intention of extending the Bush tax cuts. They will NOT improve the situation, guaranteed, but their words may get them elected.
The Dems, meanwhile, know what they have to do to balance the budget, but don't have the balls to do it. Military spending needs to come down about 50% over the next 10 years, and the tax cuts need to expire. And then there needs to be more tax increases until the deficit is eliminated, and a plan put in place for long term fiscal stability. I have yet to hear a logical Republican plan for doing that.
Penn and Teller have a show names Bull*****, and that's usually what comes out of their mouths. The upper classes in this country have been taking ever more of the pie over the past few decades, so should I feel bad for them?
Wealth redistribution is a bad word in this country, at least when the direction in downward. But what about upward redistribution? That's exactly what successive governments in this country have been doing! Take from the poor and give to the rich...
It makes me want to puke when stupid people cry for the rich - they are NOT crying for you.
I already pointed out these facts to you which make your argument useless without massive cuts in entitlements and a large VAT tax on top of it-
1. Military spending is 21% of the budget
2. Entitlements and social programs make up 53% of the budget
3. If you taxed "the rich" at a 100% rate (slavery with no money for food or housing for the slaves), you could generate $1.3 trillion per year. That would be for only one year, as slaves cannot control industry and employ other people. That being said, we would still have an annual deficit.
This is why the liberal "solutions" make no sense, as they rely on an emotional response against the ancient enemies- the military and "the rich". A 100% tax rate on "the rich" and a 100% cut in the military budget would currently balance the budget. Of course, these "solutions" are completely unrealistic. The only actions which can actually reduce the debt are-
Massive across the board cuts in spending (including medicare, social security, medicaid, the military, and eliminating Obamacare)
A very large VAT tax
I actually agree with you. We should extend the middle class tax cuts for two more years and then let them expire and let the upper class tax cuts expire at the end of this year.
Again-
I already showed you-
If we tax "the rich" at a 100% tax rate (slavery), that would generate $1.3 trillion extra annually. We would still have an annual deficit. Slavery is illegal in America and the whole scheme would work for only a fraction of time, as the "slaves" would not be able to generate thier large incomes, as they would be slaves. That, of course, is assuming that we did not feed or house the slaves as well.
good points Now, what specific parts of the military budget should get cut? are you willing to live with a low-cost military?
Personally, I feel that we should cut 50% of all personnel. I agree that we should keep the technological advantage, but UAV's, armed UAV's, UGV's, thats the future. Less people, sitting far away with robotic units carrying out precision strikes against terrorist and other targets thousands of miles away. Use US ground forces for protecting the homeland, and the homeland only. If one of our allies are invaded, or the UN agrees that there is an overtly dangerous action taken by a sovereign nation, then we can discuss sending in ground forces, and possibly the navy. Hell, do we even need the navy of the size we have now?
Scrap the obsolete weapon systems designed to fight large scale wars with countries that have nuclear weapons. The fact is, China, the United States, Europe, and Russia aren't going to war anymore. MAD assures that will never happen. Our threats are small groups, halfway around the world, and its obvious that invasion isn't a viable option militarily or financially. Smaller, more effective, more precise strikes are needed for that.
Personally, I feel that we should cut 50% of all personnel. I agree that we should keep the technological advantage, but UAV's, armed UAV's, UGV's, thats the future. Less people, sitting far away with robotic units carrying out precision strikes against terrorist and other targets thousands of miles away. Use US ground forces for protecting the homeland, and the homeland only. If one of our allies are invaded, or the UN agrees that there is an overtly dangerous action taken by a sovereign nation, then we can discuss sending in ground forces, and possibly the navy. Hell, do we even need the navy of the size we have now?
Scrap the obsolete weapon systems designed to fight large scale wars with countries that have nuclear weapons. The fact is, China, the United States, Europe, and Russia aren't going to war anymore. MAD assures that will never happen. Our threats are small groups, halfway around the world, and its obvious that invasion isn't a viable option militarily or financially. Smaller, more effective, more precise strikes are needed for that.
Well................. let's see.................
$3.4 trillion budget. $1.5 trillion deficit. $650 billion on the military.
So if we cut the military by 50%, as you ask, we cut the annual deficit to just under $1.2 trillion.
Why cannot liberals say that "which cannot be said" by liberals? We have to massively CUT ENTITLEMENTS! They just cannot say it, yet the math for cuts everywhere else, as well as VAT taxes and increase in income taxes all point to the same conclusions- ENTITLEMENTS MUST BE CUT!
Personally, I feel that we should cut 50% of all personnel. I agree that we should keep the technological advantage, but UAV's, armed UAV's, UGV's, thats the future. Less people, sitting far away with robotic units carrying out precision strikes against terrorist and other targets thousands of miles away. Use US ground forces for protecting the homeland, and the homeland only. If one of our allies are invaded, or the UN agrees that there is an overtly dangerous action taken by a sovereign nation, then we can discuss sending in ground forces, and possibly the navy. Hell, do we even need the navy of the size we have now?
Scrap the obsolete weapon systems designed to fight large scale wars with countries that have nuclear weapons. The fact is, China, the United States, Europe, and Russia aren't going to war anymore. MAD assures that will never happen. Our threats are small groups, halfway around the world, and its obvious that invasion isn't a viable option militarily or financially. Smaller, more effective, more precise strikes are needed for that.
please forgive me, but who is MAD?
I do agree that smaller, more precise strikes are needed. But, it takes highly skilled & qualified people to perform those strikes.
Drastically cut military spending and these overseas meddling in other countries affairs, reform medicare spending by putting pricing pressure on health care providers and rationing, and raise taxes on the wealthy.
It's that simple.
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.
Now, what specific parts of the military budget should get cut? are you willing to live with a low-cost military?
