Vote on Debt Limit increase?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Nobody said that the South Koreans can't get armed and defend themselves. They've had about 60 years to do that, and unlike when we defended them the first time, they make all the steel, not us.

NATO's original purpose was to counteract the Warsaw Pact alliance backed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is no more. Modern day Russia is not expansionistic. The Warsaw Pact is dissolved. Some of the original members of the Pact have actually joined NATO. So why are we still supporting (and spending on) it?

the soviet union may be no more, but there are certainly still reasons to have nato. and again, we are there to keep us closer to places we need to be, or might need to be.
i'm for cutting defense, but we certainly don't need to get rid of all our foreign bases. some, perhaps. all? no. trust russian and disband nato? hell no. go read up on iran and russia, and then tell me they are no concern at all.

[Riot]

I agree with 'Zig. We have held onto our small incursions into the rest of the world because they form valuable footholds we can't afford to let go of, and we shouldn't let go entirely.

Pakistan - US helicopter dispute on Af-Pak border today.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by jms62

Just to be clear. Your track record of postings NOT your anti Obama stance defined you as a racist..

I was trying to save you some typing. I'm sure you hated Bush because he was caucasian.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree with 'Zig. We have held onto our small incursions into the rest of the world because they form valuable footholds we can't afford to let go of, and we shouldn't let go entirely.

Pakistan - US helicopter dispute on Af-Pak border today.

Hey, I'm very pro-military myself. Just pointing out that every war we get into, and this goes back to World War II, we never leave. So then you have for all intents and purposes a permanent foothold which obviously is expensive when you talk about 70 years in Europe, 60 years in South Korea... they forced us to leave Vietnam or we'd be there too, the U.N. had us go into Bosnia and never leave - the list goes on and on.

Of course the deployment costs are not the same as a full blown invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but the time factor is the other multiplier and that number is huge when you're talking about decades.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Hey, I'm very pro-military myself. Just pointing out that every war we get into, and this goes back to World War II, we never leave. So then you have for all intents and purposes a permanent foothold which obviously is expensive when you talk about 70 years in Europe, 60 years in South Korea... they forced us to leave Vietnam or we'd be there too, the U.N. had us go into Bosnia and never leave - the list goes on and on.

Of course the deployment costs are not the same as a full blown invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but the time factor is the other multiplier and that number is huge when you're talking about decades.

I thank you for your appreciation of the military.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I thank you for your appreciation of the military.

Why not put your signature that says you were former milatary... It'll save you the hundreds of posts you make on this forum telling us so in the hopes it will gain you an iota of respect.. While we respect the military, you are a slug and I am 100% certain any military man worth his salt would be disgusted by you and your actions.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by jms62

Why not put your signature that says you were former milatary... It'll save you the hundreds of posts you make on this forum telling us so in the hopes it will gain you an iota of respect.. While we respect the military, you are a slug and I am 100% certain any military man worth his salt would be disgusted by you and your actions.

Spoken like the trash that you are. No military person would take the crap from you either. Go back to your miserable life. Didnt you say in a previous post that the military didnt deserve retirement pay instead it should be a 401K fund? Did you you forget that moron? By the way moron you mispelled military. Don't ping on my about my spelling from now on.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Spoken like the trash that you are. No military person would take the crap from you either. Go back to your miserable life. Didnt you say in a previous post that the military didnt deserve retirement pay instead it should be a 401K fund? Did you you forget that moron? By the way moron you mispelled military. Don't ping on my about my spelling from now on.

I said that and I stand by it. Why should the military and police be allowed to collect a pension at 40 while they are looking to raise SS age to 70. It is a job they chose. And you the hypocrite railing on about the deficit and entitlements yet gladly cashing your check every month.. LOL.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

I said that and I stand by it. Why should the military and police be allowed to collect a pension at 40 while they are looking to raise SS age to 70. It is a job they chose. And you the hypocrite railing on about the deficit and entitlements yet gladly cashing your check every month.. LOL.

If we're going to cut entitlements, lets start with those who didn't put their lives on the line to defend the country. All those worthless individuals who are crying because Oprah won't be broadcasting anymore, so their days on welfare will be a little less entertaining.

Military benefits would be the last thing to cut. Those guys earned it, and frankly, it isn't enough.

Those who would rather do nothing all day don't deserve a penny.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I spent my whole life wanting fiscal conservatism and reasoned social responsibility from my government. I spent decades voting Republican under the grossly mistaken impression that's what they stand for, and what they would do for the country. History shows I was wrong. The GOP is a fiscal disaster for us. No more. They brought us to the brink of collapse, yet they still want to keep repeating their Reaganomics mistakes.

and this is what you were waiting for?

Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as CARS, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway, regardless of the existence of the program.

Ironically, the average transaction price for a new vehicle in August 2009 was only $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.



http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/c...dmundscom.html

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Pakistan - US helicopter dispute on Af-Pak border today.

Little more than a dispute as the Paki military were firing on our troops in Afghan and after sending up a helicopter to investigate they fired on it. We then fired back and killed two of their troops. Hopefully like the american reporter that was sexually assoulted by hundreds in Cairo they'll be OK.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If we're going to cut entitlements, lets start with those who didn't put their lives on the line to defend the country. All those worthless individuals who are crying because Oprah won't be broadcasting anymore, so their days on welfare will be a little less entertaining.

Military benefits would be the last thing to cut. Those guys earned it, and frankly, it isn't enough.

Those who would rather do nothing all day don't deserve a penny.

Never said they didnt deserve benefits but 40 years old? The problem is the cuts have to be DEEP and affect everybody.. Problem is everyone wants to defend their turf so NOTHING is done. Everyone wants something done that doesn't affect them so we are at a stalemate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Little more than a dispute as the Paki military were firing on our troops in Afghan and after sending up a helicopter to investigate they fired on it. We then fired back and killed two of their troops. Hopefully like the american reporter that was sexually assoulted by hundreds in Cairo they'll be OK.

Happy Birthday

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

Happy Birthday

thanks

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

thanks

Racist

Happy BDay Steve!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Racist

Happy BDay Steve!

Thank You comrade.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

and this is what you were waiting for?

Yes. Turns out I'm absolutely thrilled with President Obama. During the campaign I didn't want Hilary, nor Obama. But when McCain went with Palin, the light bulb went on. McCain's blatant disrespect for the well being of this country with that pick was too overwhelming. Made me sick to my stomach, what Palin did on the campaign trail, the words coming out of that empty head. I looked back on what the Republicans have done to this country in my lifetime. Their words and actions are in direct opposition. History showed me what they have done in the past, and the future promised to be all that financial disaster starting with Reagan, plus the social takeover. The social takeover is a big deal. Big lightbulb moment.

I've been wrong. No more of that. It's too dangerous to our country and our freedoms. At the very least, the Dems always stand up for individual freedoms and rights far better than the GOP. They have proven themselves more fiscally responsible. The proof is in the past 60 years of action.

Do I agree with everything Obama has done? Not at all. But he's turned out quite a strong, capable, intelligent President who has made good and tough decisions, and you bet I'll vote for him again. I wish I could give him three terms.

And Happy Birthday <g>

[dellinger63]

I just had a chance to look up the national debt in regards to W. Bush and Obama. Interesting.

1/18/01 Bush begins National Debt $5.725 trillion

1/20/09 Bush leaves and Obama begins $10.626 trillion

1/20/10 End of Obama's first year $12.327 trillion

1/20/11 End of Obama's second year $14.056 trillion

Incidently today 4 months later it's $14.345 trillion


So under Bush in 8 years the National Debt rose a total of $4.901 trillion or an average of $0.612 trillion/year

Not so surprisingly considering Obama's giveaway budget (not some fraction of such) he has managed a $1.611 trillion increase in his first year and a $1.729 trillion increase in year two. A 2 year total of $3.34 trillion. Should he manage to continue at the same pace for the next 6 years with no increase, he's on target to smash Bush down with a $13.6 trillion increase to Bush's $4.901 almost three times as much. The theory that a dollar given away comes back at a $1.60 is David Blaine stuff. It's actually a dollar we finance and pay interest on.

Incidently the amount the budget has been raised from year to year is close to a direct correlation to the amount the debt has risen. Whatever bailout and stimulus packages that have been tried have failed miserably by both Bush and Obama.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Incidently the amount the budget has been raised from year to year is close to a direct correlation to the amount the debt has risen. Whatever bailout and stimulus packages that have been tried have failed miserably by both Bush and Obama.

That's an opinion that isn't shared by any of the well-known economists I've seen write about it over the past 3 years. No matter their political affiliation, all have said it kept us out of depression.

That our economic mess just "spontaneously reversed" all on it's own is a pretty rare opinion, without much to support it.

Your budget figures are a very simplistic way to look at it. I don't suppose you'd care to pull the military budget out of there (which ballooned after W's watch on a prepredicted pattern, no matter who would be elected President) There are obviously different components you are failing to specify: the military that Bush initiated, the stimulus bailouts that will not be repeated, then our regular discretionary budget. Ignoring that much of those budgets were one-time expenditures seems simplistic if presented under the guise of "analysis".

Not so surprisingly considering Obama's giveaway budget

Really? Why don't you post the breakdown of what that budget included - including the cuts to discretionary.

What did you think of the national debt chart I posted, that put the debt to the President who created it?

And here's another national debt chart - it doesn't agree with your figures at all, either. I trust it because it's CBO figures. It also shows that, since Roosevelt-Truman, the most massive increases in our national debt - for everything - occurred under Republican watch, the worse being George W and his two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare drug benefit, and unfunded tax cuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

The facts simply show that the Republican party has had terrible economic policy for this country, and has increased our national debt every single time they are in office starting with Reagan.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I just had a chance to look up the national debt in regards to W. Bush and Obama. Interesting.

1/18/01 Bush begins National Debt $5.725 trillion

1/20/09 Bush leaves and Obama begins $10.626 trillion

1/20/10 End of Obama's first year $12.327 trillion

1/20/11 End of Obama's second year $14.056 trillion

Incidently today 4 months later it's $14.345 trillion


So under Bush in 8 years the National Debt rose a total of $4.901 trillion or an average of $0.612 trillion/year

Not so surprisingly considering Obama's giveaway budget (not some fraction of such) he has managed a $1.611 trillion increase in his first year and a $1.729 trillion increase in year two. A 2 year total of $3.34 trillion. Should he manage to continue at the same pace for the next 6 years with no increase, he's on target to smash Bush down with a $13.6 trillion increase to Bush's $4.901 almost three times as much. The theory that a dollar given away comes back at a $1.60 is David Blaine stuff. It's actually a dollar we finance and pay interest on.

Incidently the amount the budget has been raised from year to year is close to a direct correlation to the amount the debt has risen. Whatever bailout and stimulus packages that have been tried have failed miserably by both Bush and Obama.

Happy Birthday Dell. Do you even consider for 1 second that the 2 unfunded wars that Bush started had any impact on the Debt going up under Obama?? It's quite basic. If you start an unfunded war and continue with that war the debt will continue to go up. We as a country learned so much from the fall of the Soviet Union due to the war in Afghanastan.
What has Obama done wrong.
1. Didnt put an end to the 2 unfunded wars.
2. Has done nothing for the continued Rape of the Middle class by Wallstreet and CEO's
What Obama has done right
1. Got Osama the way it should have been done all along. Crack Team and good Intel.. If Bush goes that route it would have saved a few Trill.

Full Disclosure...
Voted for Obama. Looking for a viable candidate other than him next election. The Repubs have trotted out the Zippy Chippy's of candidates thus far.