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.
More like that's the Democrat-controlled Congress for you. Whom spent, on average, 2.8% more than Reagan asked for and whom spent a cumulative 24.5% more than Reagan asked for during his 8 years as President.
Then anything good that happened with Reagan in office should also be attributed, NOT to Reagan but to the congress.
What do you think of Reagan going against conservatives to save Social Security, increase payroll (and in 1986, corporate tax rate), expand EIC...?
Waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement are a concern in government today. Obviously, we should have zero tolerance for the misuse of taxpayer dollars. But there's a limit to how much money we're likely to recoup in this area. Frankly, eliminating every dime of wasteful government spending wouldn't even come close to closing our fiscal gap.
We've all heard the rhetoric. We'll be just fine if we can just get rid of congressional earmarks, foreign aid, or National Aeronautics and Space Administration missions back to the moon and on to Mars. Similar arguments are being made for eliminating the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. But candidly, these actions don't get the job done. In fact, even shutting down the entire Department of Defense, which obviously makes no sense, wouldn't come close to closing our fiscal gap.
Today, nothing less than a top-to-bottom review of federal programs and policies is needed...Entitlement reform is especially urgent and needs to be a top priority. Based on historical
tax levels, it's clear that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone are on track to absorb virtually the entire federal budget based on historical tax levels if they aren't reformed!
Wow! That's Reagan for you. Putting it all on a credit card for future generations to pay....LOL
And they worship him like a God?
And notice how Clinton made a great strides a cleaning the GOP crap up?
Reagan meant to say:
"The era of payingfor big government is over." The budget absolutely exploded under his watch. You know there's a theory that conservatives rack up such huge debt to prevent liberals from being able to spend money when they attain power. I think there's something to that.
Conservatives like to talk about the ineptness and wastefulness of the Federal government. And when they get into power, they prove their own point.
Does anyone know the true military budget of Russia and China? I don't believe those numbers one bit. China spends way more than $122 billion on defense. It must be at least twice that amount based on all the new weapons they are building and purchasing.
There is one very, very important point being omitted here: the Constitution had provisions for military spending, and for very good reason. It's a national issue, national defense. The founding fathers recognized how critical the auspices of federal government were to 'provide for national defence'.
In total contrast, programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc, were never, ever, ever, a consideration when authoring the constitution, and they shouldn't be. The federal government, as set up by the Constitution, was never intended to accommodate, or provide for the welfare of individuals. You have a right to pursue liberty, or happiness. You ARE NOT entitled to it. We are not entitled to these federal government programs, as they are constituted today. Some of these endeavors can arguably be accommodated better on a state level, such as education. Others really shouldn't be accommodated by any form of government. And that is why I maintain that the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, on a domestic level, will go down as one of the two most destructive and deleterious administrations in the last 100 years, coupled with LBJ. The amount of damage that has been done to the culture of this country I'm afraid will never, ever be reversed. I see the individual posts of so many on this forum and I just cringe. There is absolutely no regard to civics today, on an educational basis. I have to conclude this is intentional, for the inculcation of future generations of Americans to embrace this political philosophy is important to public schools, so they can sustain future funding. And guess what folks: I have to conclude that side of the political spectrum is winning. They are winning big.
There is one very, very important point being omitted here: the Constitution had provisions for military spending, and for very good reason. It's a national issue, national defense. The founding fathers recognized how critical the auspices of federal government were to 'provide for national defence'.
In total contrast, programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc, were never, ever, ever, a consideration when authoring the constitution, and they shouldn't be. The federal government, as set up by the Constitution, was never intended to accommodate, or provide for the welfare of individuals. You have a right to pursue liberty, or happiness. You ARE NOT entitled to it. We are not entitled to these federal government programs, as they are constituted today. Some of these endeavors can arguably be accommodated better on a state level, such as education. Others really shouldn't be accommodated by any form of government. And that is why I maintain that the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, on a domestic level, will go down as one of the two most destructive and deleterious administrations in the last 100 years, coupled with LBJ. The amount of damage that has been done to the culture of this country I'm afraid will never, ever be reversed. I see the individual posts of so many on this forum and I just cringe. There is absolutely no regard to civics today, on an educational basis. I have to conclude this is intentional, for the inculcation of future generations of Americans to embrace this political philosophy is important to public schools, so they can sustain future funding. And guess what folks: I have to conclude that side of the political spectrum is winning. They are winning big.
Social programs shouldn't be funded according to you and the other 2% of the Nation comprised of Ron Paul and Libertarian voters. For the other 98% of red, white and blue Americans and the Supreme Court of the USA it's both legal and wise to do so.
If you doubt this...have Ron Paul campaign on a promise to end Social Security...make it his primary focus....You'll see just how radical your views are.
Prime A1 example of why the USA is going down hill.
You cannot spend as much as the rest of the World combined on the military with just 20% of World GDP. Other countries will leave you in the dust by spending more on education, infrastructure, saving more, investing more, and spending more on direct technology research, etc.
But thanks to defense industry lobbying and right wing ideology infecting conventional wisdom this is where we are at.
Between the "a" and the "t"? Wow, man, you cool.
Education, infrastructure, saving and investing more, and spending more on direct technology research is find and dandy; however, if you don't have a military contingent to thwart physical attacks, well, dude, you ain't got sh, ah, nothing but hyperbole.
There is one very, very important point being omitted here: the Constitution had provisions for military spending, and for very good reason. It's a national issue, national defense. The founding fathers recognized how critical the auspices of federal government were to 'provide for national defence'.
Yes, but where does it state a military industrial complex that sucks off the taxpayers?
They build plants across many states and then get all of the lawmakers to support their companies, because no rep wants to be the one to lose jobs in his district.
Education, infrastructure, saving and investing more, and spending more on direct technology research is find and dandy; however, if you don't have a military contingent to thwart physical attacks, well, dude, you ain't got sh, ah, nothing but hyperbole.
But who here has proposed not spending on the military? ......NOBODY.
It's right wingers that can't make the connection.... That can't look at military spending in context.
Again...I could have been arguing against spending 1 Trillion in US defense spending rather than 600 Billion a year and they would still be accusing "liberals" of trying to gut the military!!.....The actual costs mean nothing to them. They can't get a hold of it in their head that you could actually spend too much on defense!
It's like hard wired into them.
Last edited by padcrasher; 02-03-2009 at 05:36 PM..
You want to skimp on a defense budget? There are LOTS of things America can do without, but having a weak military just isn't one of them.
The Pentagon itself is saying it has to cut back. Sorry.
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.
