Wrong linky, that was from answering on a different forum. Ironically it was ALSO the new york times and that blowhard Paul Krugman. It’s in other places as well though:
[/quote]
Wrong linky again buddy. There’s nothing in either of those articles about government jobs increasing by 3.1% in Reagan’s first three years.
Well not really no because you have claimed that government jobs increased by 3.1% in Reagan’s first three years and you have yet to provide a source. Only three wrong linkys.
First off I realize World War 2 was also insanely expensive. Let me ask you this. At what point would you have left Iraq? Did we leave too early or too late?
[/quote]
President SexMachine never would’ve gone into Iraq. He would’ve gone into Iran.
He would’ve made it clear to the Taliban’s backers in Pakistan and the Sunni petro regimes that they must stop backing the Taliban and must crack down on private citizens within their territories who aid them. He would’ve bombed the smithereens out of the Pashtun strongholds in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
When the Taliban and AQ central are dead.
See above.
When they’re no longer bombing anyone.
The Afghans will never be secure. America needs to be the ‘strong horse’ and they’ll leave us alone.
LOL! The defense budget has been cut to oblivion. The US Navy doesn’t even have the capability of defending the East and West coasts similtaneously anymore. Obama has presided over the greatest defence cuts of $450 billion slashing the defence budget by 31% in the middle of the largest counterinsurgency since Vietnam. He’s in the process of ‘sequestering’ hundreds of billions more leaving the US without the capability of even protecting overseas embassies with results already seen in Benghazi. Obama has exchanged US defence for a policy of appeasement.
See above.
[quote]
*And please for the love of God don’t go down the “oh so you’d fire all our soldiers and put the ones left in shit equipment road.” As if we don’t have TONS of waste in programs that don’t require me massively laying off soldiers or having them go to war with nerf weapons. (Though with me as President we would be very likely to avoid war as well). [/quote]
Yes I’m sure al Qaeda wouldn’t mess with America once you’d cut the military down to banana republic size. And Putin, Chavez and China wouldn’t do anything either once the military is dismantled. As I said, you’re deranged like all Ron Paul supporters.[/quote]
So when Al Qaeda is defeated. I thought you would say that. At what point will we know every terrorist is dead? Do you really think we are going to eradicate the world of all crazy people? We have terrorism here at home as well. And I would argue our actions abroad may cause MORE terrorism. After all when a country invades yours and bombs the shit out of you and kills your civilians even unintentionally this doesn’t exactly make people like you even more. So you’re a the war is never over type of guy.
It’s interesting you say when they no longer bomb anyone. So you have a problem when someone in another country is bombed. It bothers me as well as it should bother all humans. So I assume you also advocate wiping out world hunger, helping poor areas get clean water and much more spending than we are currently doing to help out other countries in these areas? Surely you can’t say we have to stop people from bombing them, but don’t worry about them starving. Or dying of diseases that we can help with. Or better schools. I’d say this sounds quite liberal of you. If this isn’t the way you feel then I’m quite confused. Aren’t you against bombs because they cause death to people in other countries? Shouldn’t you also be against other things that cause death to people in other countries? If you support spending a lot of money to stop one, shouldn’t you also support spending a lot of money to stop another one? How much should we increase foreign aid?
What is the right amount to spend on defense? You didn’t answer this. You said we couldn’t protect ourselves or some other bullshit. We are the world’s number one military superpower. It isn’t even close. We could kick ANYONE’s ass that messed with us. It’s interesting you bring up Benghazi, but not 9/11. If money is the solution why did 9/11 happen? It’s not like military spending was low then. We have been spending more money than everyone else for a long time now. You act as if the defense budget got cut a bit that immediately all that stuff goes down the drain. Hilarious.
Anyways, again I ask about the right amount to spend on defense. At what point did we become weak? Was it if we spent one dollar less? Should we be spending more than the next 20 countries on defense instead of the next 10? Please don’t point out PLANNED cuts as part of the fiscal cliff talk that was agreed to both sides for one purpose…to force them to deal with the issues. That hasn’t even happened yet.
And why do all these charts show defense spending being up under Obama when you claim otherwise? Are they all wrong?
Says the “libertarian” who defends Obama on a daily basis. Want to talk insanity? You are the very definition![/quote]
I’m convinced he’s no libertarian.[/quote]
No question he’s a liberal and I actually think I have it narrowed down to which one. He used to haunt this site a couple of years ago. Same attack lines, same animosity toward conservatives. And not coincidentally the same hate for Ronald Reagan using almost the same phraseology.
i just want to point out that the revenues for 2003-2008 are only 1.1 trillion less than Clinton’s entire 8 years…
So, yes tax rates were lowered, revenues really were not if you take into account the economic conditions of both periods. If it were not for the meltdown in 08, and the failure of the economy to rebound, tax revenues would not be an issue.
i just want to point out that the revenues for 2003-2008 are only 1.1 trillion less than Clinton’s entire 8 years…
So, yes tax rates were lowered, revenues really were not if you take into account the economic conditions of both periods. If it were not for the meltdown in 08, and the failure of the economy to rebound, tax revenues would not be an issue. [/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m FOR cutting taxes. I just think it’s highly irresponsible to drastically spend what you don’t have. So if Bush wanted to do all this spending AND increase taxes I would be against it…but at least he’d be saying we need to raise more money because we need to do x, x, x. This is essentially what liberals say. While I disagree with it, at least they are admitting what they want to do. You can’t spend like a drunken sailor and also say ok no one pays the piper either!
[quote]Hfactor wrote:
So when Al Qaeda is defeated. I thought you would say that. At what point will we know every terrorist is dead?
[/quote]
We already did this. I said when they stop bombing people.
No. There will always be people like Ron Paul.
Oh please! Must we play these games?
So would I. Appeasement, announcing that we’re leaving and when etc. But you mean in the Ron Paul kind of way don’t you?
No I’m not that kind of guy.
I don’t want to play games. They’re bombing us and our allies in an attempt to destabilise their governments and undermine our interests.
$12.43
Shit you’re annoying. Clinton didn’t use the military to kill OBL when he had several chances in the 90’s. There’s one reason for starters.
$12.43
Silly games.
You posted the same link twice. And firstly, I would dispute those figures and suggest they have been manipulated. And secondly, Obama wastes military funds on crap like $27 a gallon bio-fuel, $59 a gallon alcohol fuel and investment in ‘renewable energy’ which shouldn’t count as defence spending even though it comes out of the defence budget.
I already gave you the link. Then another poster gave you this one. http://www.opm.gov/...ntsince1962.asp Which makes mine seem closer to right than yours.
You don’t want to play games, you don’t want to talk about defense. You want to ignore my questions. That’s pretty typical round these parts. I’ve got a list of about three people I can count on to have an issue if the Republican party is called out. They will yell and scream about how wrong anyone that questions them are. And when asked why they feel that way or when asked how much they will just skate right on by with their fingers in their ears.
Silly games, stupid questions, already answered that. It’s all the same. A massive handwave and copout. And LOL at the numbers being manipulated. You what glance at them and say the numbers are wrong?
It’s just silly games though. Why talk about specifics? Just say 12.43 so you look all cute and stuff. Ha, look at me I’m so above this. 12.43! Wrong numbers! You’re probably undefeated in arguing, you’ll just handwave away anything you don’t like. And now lmao it’s Obama (that was shocking) who’s responsible for military waste so all these numbers are skewed anyway. Zero waste under anyone else, then Obama got in and manipulated all these numbers. Still waiting for you to point out all the drops in defense. And the amount we should spend.
You don’t need to do this though. Why start getting specific now? Why discuss now? Just keep saying you don’t want to play games.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I already gave you the link.
[/quote]
LOL! You haven’t provided ANY link to substantiate your assertion that government jobs increased by 3.1% in Reagan’s first three years. Now you’re being dishonest.
That source refutes your claim.
Whatever you say.
I call out the Republican party all the time. And I’ve answered all of your questions bar the idiotic ones like ‘how much should we spend on defence.’
I gave you examples of why they’re wrong - i.e. defence funds being ‘invested’ in ‘renewable energies’ for example.
No you’re not still waiting as I gave specific numbers.
Ok, 12.43 it is. Good discussion. Very productive. I don’t think we should drop defense that much, but you don’t really want to talk about it. It seemed like you were saying less was bad. So I asked how big should it be? 1.1 trillion? 1 trillion? Higher? Lower? All I did was ask how much. And you think renewable energies is responsible for those numbers? Bahaha, this is almost as good as Zeb keeping Medicare, and defense and getting the debt to 0 without raising taxes. You won’t look at the numbers, but you’re sure renewable energies is the reason they are so high. FWIW, people were complaining about waste and fraud in the military long before Obama.
Independent panels have attempted to calculate the waste and fraud and you can google search and get tons of examples of what I would call needless spending, fraud, and poor decisions. This didn’t start when Barack Obama got in office, it didn’t end when he got in, and it won’t quit when he leaves. Why think the government can run all these other programs so poorly, but it gets defense absolutely right? Why are so many righties sure the government fucks up most of what it touches, but isn’t fucking anything up when it comes to one of our biggest expenses? How does that make sense? Again, I’m honestly asking.
You win again SM. When you get to a certain territory of insanity I have to stop asking questions. and you never start answering them so…