US military cutbacks

MarineTpartier said:

The 90's? Yeah, in the 90's I was wearing Vietnam era body armor, with no bulletproof plates, and holding the body armor closed with bungee cord. I only shot my M-16 once a year, for 3 days. We could only go train in field craft once every 3 months. That's what we should go to? I think not.

I have said NUMEROUS times that I am fine with some cuts. The thing is, Obama's not cutting anything else. He double dips on the military but doesn't touch other major programs. No one's mentioning the automatic cuts that come into play due to the super committee failure.
Did you not look at the graphs I provided? Bush had less DOD spending than Obama. Did you ignore that little fact? I even picked 2007 as the Bush year because it was the peak of the surge in Iraq and he still had the House and Senate. So, during the peak time of the most expensive war he had and while he had the House and the Senate, he still spent less on the military and in general than Obama did in 2010. I'll answer my question to you from my last post? Where is all that extra spending? Look at welfare. Oh, and Obama cut education. The GOP are the ones saber rattling though right? The guys who spend more on education and less on military? Riiiiight

Click to expand...

There were no trillion dollar wars adding to our debt nor thousands of our service people being killed, and we didn't have tens of thousands of maimed Veterans either. I think I can handle you being bored as an alternative.

Glad to hear you support the cuts Obama proposed to the military, maybe you can convince the GOP candidates before the election, who think we need to increase military spending.

The extra spending on welfare is due to 30 years of Reaganomics. With the majority of the wealth concentrated at the top now, there are more poor people/less middle class. You want to reduce welfare? Pay people a living wage for full time work. Reaganomics has half the country with an average income of $15,800.

You keep going back and forth on military spending. You say you think we should cut military spending but you are pissed it is Obama doing it and not the GOP???

Catawba said:

There were no trillion dollar wars adding to our debt nor thousands of our service people being killed, and we didn't have tens of thousands of maimed Veterans either. I think I can handle you being bored as an alternative.

Glad to hear you support the cuts Obama proposed to the military, maybe you can convince the GOP candidates before the election, who think we need to increase military spending.

The extra spending on welfare is due to 30 years of Reaganomics. With the majority of the wealth concentrated at the top now, there are more poor people/less middle class. You want to reduce welfare? Pay people a living wage for full time work. Reaganomics has half the country with an average income of $15,800.

You keep going back and forth on military spending. You say you think we should cut military spending but you are pissed it is Obama doing it and not the GOP???

Click to expand...

No, not bored. There's a difference between bored and under trained. I don't know what your profession is, but, the military is a strange job to train for. I can't practice killing people everyday. We have to arrange training to do that, and you still can't train to the actual job. I don't think anyone would like us doing Starship Troopers type training (I wouldn't either). During the Bush years, we trained a week out of every month. That was enough to keep skills sharp. Training doesn't mean we necessarily go shoot a range everytime either. There are a lot of training goals you can accomplish without spending a lot of money, and trust me, we get creative if we are trying to save money for a big training op. Each unit is allotted a certain amount of money to train each fiscal year. This fiscal year, which started in October, we are already to the point where we can't do anything until May. When I say anything, I mean we can't even afford the fuel to drive to a training area. We have trained for a total of 8 days this year. Would you want to go to another country, where you might lose your life, with 8 days of training? I think not.
I have said numerous times, I am okay with SOME military cuts. Not to the extent Obama is doing it. Like I said, he has already double dipped on us and no one's talking about the failure of the "super committee" to reach a deal. What happens when that automatic cut goes into effect?
Now you're blaming Reagan? Last time I checked, Bill Clinton headed welfare reform in the 90's. So, we are living with Clinton welfare plans right now, not Reagan. Keep trying to blame every conservative you can bro. I will agree, Bush did nothing to help our economy. You can look through every post I have put up on this website and this thread is the first time I have defended Bush. And I only defended him on this thread because you made a false claim that he spent more than Obama on the military, which is factually inaccurate. Now, 2012 will be a different story. Yes, Obama will spend much less that Bush ever did. Of course, it's an election year too...........

MarineTpartier said:

No, not bored. There's a difference between bored and under trained. I don't know what your profession is, but, the military is a strange job to train for. I can't practice killing people everyday. We have to arrange training to do that, and you still can't train to the actual job. I don't think anyone would like us doing Starship Troopers type training (I wouldn't either). During the Bush years, we trained a week out of every month. That was enough to keep skills sharp. Training doesn't mean we necessarily go shoot a range everytime either. There are a lot of training goals you can accomplish without spending a lot of money, and trust me, we get creative if we are trying to save money for a big training op. Each unit is allotted a certain amount of money to train each fiscal year. This fiscal year, which started in October, we are already to the point where we can't do anything until May. When I say anything, I mean we can't even afford the fuel to drive to a training area. We have trained for a total of 8 days this year. Would you want to go to another country, where you might lose your life, with 8 days of training? I think not.
I have said numerous times, I am okay with SOME military cuts. Not to the extent Obama is doing it. Like I said, he has already double dipped on us and no one's talking about the failure of the "super committee" to reach a deal. What happens when that automatic cut goes into effect?

Click to expand...

Unless the GOP figures out a way to weasel out of it, hopefully we will finally get some spending cuts. And you have come no where close to convincing me we need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined to provide training for defense. We managed for almost 200 years without spending as much as the rest of the world combined.

Now you're blaming Reagan? Last time I checked, Bill Clinton headed welfare reform in the 90's. So, we are living with Clinton welfare plans right now, not Reagan. Keep trying to blame every conservative you can bro. I will agree, Bush did nothing to help our economy. You can look through every post I have put up on this website and this thread is the first time I have defended Bush. And I only defended him on this thread because you made a false claim that he spent more than Obama on the military, which is factually inaccurate. Now, 2012 will be a different story. Yes, Obama will spend much less that Bush ever did. Of course, it's an election year too...........

Click to expand...

Reagan is the father of our borrow and spend problem. As has been documented Reagan started our big debt to GDP problem with his excessive military spending. Clinton working with the GOP to both cut military spending and increase taxes was the only time in the last 30 years we have seriously reduced our deficit spending. I did not make the claim that Obama spent less on military. How could he? Both of the Bush wars were still going when he became president. Now that he has ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan, we don't need to be spending so much money on military. You both blame Obama for spending too much on the military and for his planned cuts. Let me know when you land on one or the other position.

Catawba said:

Unless the GOP figures out a way to weasel out of it, hopefully we will finally get some spending cuts. And you have come no where close to convincing me we need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined to provide training for defense. We managed for almost 200 years without spending as much as the rest of the world combined.

Click to expand...

Hopefully we do get some spending cuts, on ridiculous programs started by Obama, such as his garbage healthcare reform. I don't need to convince you about defense spending. Whether you want to believe it or not, the fact of the matter is that there are far more countries that hate us and than like us. You can blame that on whatever you like (I'm sure it will be a Republicans fault with you) but it's a fact.

Catawba said:

Reagan is the father of our borrow and spend problem. As has been documented Reagan started our big debt to GDP problem with his excessive military spending. Clinton working with the GOP to both cut military spending and increase taxes was the only time in the last 30 years we have seriously reduced our deficit spending. I did not make the claim that Obama spent less on military. How could he? Both of the Bush wars were still going when he became president. Now that he has ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan, we don't need to be spending so much money on military. You both blame Obama for spending too much on the military and for his planned cuts. Let me know when you land on one or the other position.

Click to expand...

I don't see that Reagan had much of a choice, do you? Remember something called The Cold War? He ended that by winning the arms race with Russia. I don't know how old you are, but I remember being in grade school and having to do "tornado" drills all the time. Years later I would find out those were nuclear blast drills. I know one thing, you can't put a price on security. Nothing can be accomplished without security.
Also on Clinton, his weak "just launch a cruise missile" response to the terrorist attacks during his tenure helped foster the environment we're in today. I've already told you how poorly equipped and trained we were during his tenure. I applaud the guy for his compromises. I think he was a great economic POTUS. However, if anything would have happened during his presidency, we would have been hurting bad. I personally believe that when a president's strategy for controlling spending heavily involves the military, it is bad economics. The military is the only part of the gov't that can be called to action by outside sources. If someone attacks us, the cuts made are negated because now you have to spend and you leave yourself unprepared to counter the threat.
You did make the claim Bush spent more than Obama though, and that was proved wrong. Like I said, I agree with some cuts. I was merely proving your typical lib claim of Bush spending false.The war in Iraq was very much over by the time Obama took over. It was a formality at that point. He was the one who turned the focus to Afghanistan prematurely before ending Iraq. Bush didn't make that mistake. There was clearly a pecking order as far as the wars went. Iraq came first, Afghanistan second. BTW, Obama supported the war in Afghanistan and was wrong about Iraq. Kinda funny the war he "took ownership of", that being Afghanistan, is going to be a failure. Iraq was a success, by all accounts. We left a country that had held elections, has one of the better militaries in the region, and will become economically sound once they figure a way to tap into their oil reserves, which are substantial. You can make claims about the recent bombings over there all you want. They are still better off than before we got there.

MarineTpartier said:

Hopefully we do get some spending cuts, on ridiculous programs started by Obama, such as his garbage healthcare reform. I don't need to convince you about defense spending. Whether you want to believe it or not, the fact of the matter is that there are far more countries that hate us and than like us. You can blame that on whatever you like (I'm sure it will be a Republicans fault with you) but it's a fact.

Click to expand...

Of course many hate us, we invade and occupy more countries than any nation on the planet. If you want respect, you have to earn it. You don't do that by being responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone else. What programs did Obama start that have added as much expense as our excessive military spending? The health care reform saves $500 billion over a decade.

I don't see that Reagan had much of a choice, do you? Remember something called The Cold War? He ended that by winning the arms race with Russia. I don't know how old you are, but I remember being in grade school and having to do "tornado" drills all the time. Years later I would find out those were nuclear blast drills. I know one thing, you can't put a price on security. Nothing can be accomplished without security.
Also on Clinton, his weak "just launch a cruise missile" response to the terrorist attacks during his tenure helped foster the environment we're in today. I've already told you how poorly equipped and trained we were during his tenure. I applaud the guy for his compromises. I think he was a great economic POTUS. However, if anything would have happened during his presidency, we would have been hurting bad. I personally believe that when a president's strategy for controlling spending heavily involves the military, it is bad economics. The military is the only part of the gov't that can be called to action by outside sources. If someone attacks us, the cuts made are negated because now you have to spend and you leave yourself unprepared to counter the threat.
You did make the claim Bush spent more than Obama though, and that was proved wrong. Like I said, I agree with some cuts. I was merely proving your typical lib claim of Bush spending false.The war in Iraq was very much over by the time Obama took over. It was a formality at that point. He was the one who turned the focus to Afghanistan prematurely before ending Iraq. Bush didn't make that mistake. There was clearly a pecking order as far as the wars went. Iraq came first, Afghanistan second. BTW, Obama supported the war in Afghanistan and was wrong about Iraq. Kinda funny the war he "took ownership of", that being Afghanistan, is going to be a failure. Iraq was a success, by all accounts. We left a country that had held elections, has one of the better militaries in the region, and will become economically sound once they figure a way to tap into their oil reserves, which are substantial. You can make claims about the recent bombings over there all you want. They are still better off than before we got there.

Click to expand...

How do we continue to spend as much as the rest of the world combined and continue to give tax breaks to the rich?

If you think we need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on military spending, how do you propose to pay for it??? Because , in case you haven't noticed, The GOP practice of simply adding it to our National debt for the last 30 years has not been working too well!

We are making the same mistake the USSR made by letting our economy fail to keep up our military spending levels.
Bin Laden, said he would not defeat us on the battlefield, but in depleting our financial resources fighting endless wars in the middle east.

Some apparently want to prove him right.

Catawba said:

Of course many hate us, we invade and occupy more countries than any nation on the planet. If you want respect, you have to earn it. You don't do that by being responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone else. What programs did Obama start that have added as much expense as our excessive military spending? The health care reform saves $500 billion over a decade.

Click to expand...

Do I really need to outline spending? Okay, here it goes.
Commercial Paper Funding Facility: 1.8 trillion
GSE mortgage-backed securities purchases: 1.25 trillion
Term Asset-backed securities Loan Facility: 1 trillion
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 787 billion
Military spending 2010: 687 billion
Money Market Investor Funding Facility: 600 billion
Term Auction Facility: 500 billion
Citigroup: 224 billion
GSE Debt purchases: 200 billion
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008: 168 billion
Bank of America: 97 billion
Automotive bailouts: 80.1 billion
AIG: 70 billion
Solyndra: 527 million
Tesla: 465 million
I could keep going but I would just be running the score up on you. I do believe in the mercy rule in some theaters. Heres a link, btw, I only scrolled down half the page. As far as health care. I don't think its constitutional, but, that's not the topic here. The topic is spending. So, what kind of idiot tries healthcare reform in a recession?! That's my point with this guy. He doesn't know what he's doing. He should have left that to run on in his second term. Instead, he has the SCOTUS about to make him look bad in an election year. Perfect example of the fact that he is in over his head.
Follow the money: Bailout tracker - CNNMoney.com

Catawba said:

How do we continue to spend as much as the rest of the world combined and continue to give tax breaks to the rich?
If you think we need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on military spending, how do you propose to pay for it??? Because , in case you haven't noticed, The GOP practice of simply adding it to our National debt for the last 30 years has not been working too well!

We are making the same mistake the USSR made by letting our economy fail to keep up our military spending levels.
Bin Laden, said he would not defeat us on the battlefield, but in depleting our financial resources fighting endless wars in the middle east.

Some apparently want to prove him right.

Click to expand...

See examples of how to pay for it above. You can add right? Also, don't bring that tired, Occupy Wall Street, tax the rich crap on here. Maybe if more than 47% of the country paid taxes, we wouldn't have this problem. But that would mean the entitlement half of the population that is sucking on the tit of big government would have to be weened off. That, in turn, would result in the GOP running roughshod over the whole lot of them. Can't have that huh?

MarineTpartier said:

Do I really need to outline spending? Okay, here it goes.
Commercial Paper Funding Facility: 1.8 trillion
GSE mortgage-backed securities purchases: 1.25 trillion
Term Asset-backed securities Loan Facility: 1 trillion
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 787 billion
Military spending 2010: 687 billion
Money Market Investor Funding Facility: 600 billion
Term Auction Facility: 500 billion
Citigroup: 224 billion
GSE Debt purchases: 200 billion
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008: 168 billion
Bank of America: 97 billion
Automotive bailouts: 80.1 billion
AIG: 70 billion
Solyndra: 527 million
Tesla: 465 million
I could keep going but I would just be running the score up on you. I do believe in the mercy rule in some theaters. Heres a link, btw, I only scrolled down half the page. As far as health care. I don't think its constitutional, but, that's not the topic here. The topic is spending. So, what kind of idiot tries healthcare reform in a recession?! That's my point with this guy. He doesn't know what he's doing. He should have left that to run on in his second term. Instead, he has the SCOTUS about to make him look bad in an election year. Perfect example of the fact that he is in over his head.
Follow the money: Bailout tracker - CNNMoney.com

Click to expand...

Your link doesn't back up your figures above. You are opposed to the $500 billion savings to Medicare over a decade? If you do a little study of economics, you will learn that its necessary to spend in a recession and cut spending during boom times. Obama did not inherit boom times.

See examples of how to pay for it above. You can add right? Also, don't bring that tired, Occupy Wall Street, tax the rich crap on here. Maybe if more than 47% of the country paid taxes, we wouldn't have this problem. But that would mean the entitlement half of the population that is sucking on the tit of big government would have to be weened off. That, in turn, would result in the GOP running roughshod over the whole lot of them. Can't have that huh?

Click to expand...

Obama did not create the Great Recession he was charged with fixing. It is a lie that 47% of the country pays no taxes. That is ignoring payroll taxes which make up over half of federal revenue. SS has not added one dime to our debt. The world's most expensive health care cost is what is driving the problem with Medicare. In order to fix that, we will have to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done. If you want to continue spending as much as the rest of the world combined, we will have to raise taxes or continue to increase our debt. Which will it be?

Catawba said:

Your link doesn't back up your figures above. You are opposed to the $500 billion savings to Medicare over a decade? If you do a little study of economics, you will learn that its necessary to spend in a recession and cut spending during boom times. Obama did not inherit boom times.

Click to expand...

How does it not back the figures? I cut and pasted it! Who's economics are you studying? Wow, this quote will go at the bottom of my posts from now on. Let me get this straight, just so I'm not overreacting. Spend when you don't have money, save when you do? Is that correct?

Catawba said:

Obama did not create the Great Recession he was charged with fixing. It is a lie that 47% of the country pays no taxes. That is ignoring payroll taxes which make up over half of federal revenue. SS has not added one dime to our debt. The world's most expensive health care cost is what is driving the problem with Medicare. In order to fix that, we will have to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done. If you want to continue spending as much as the rest of the world combined, we will have to raise taxes or continue to increase our debt. Which will it be?

Click to expand...

Its been 3 years, Reagan fixed his in 2. Payroll tax goes directly to Social Security. Healthcare should be privatized. Oh, and "rest of the industrialized world" you're speaking of is worse off than we are, minus China. What else you got? Look bro. If you're not going to come with anything better than what you have so far, I'm gonna move on to another thread. This is getting old.

MarineTpartier said:

How does it not back the figures? I cut and pasted it! Who's economics are you studying? Wow, this quote will go at the bottom of my posts from now on. Let me get this straight, just so I'm not overreacting. Spend when you don't have money, save when you do? Is that correct?

Click to expand...

No, you don't have it correct. The great majority of all economists agree that you cut spending in boom times so as not to make the recession worse. Quote that if you like.

You cut and pasted them from where? I could not find all your figures in the link you provided.

Its been 3 years, Reagan fixed his in 2.

Click to expand...

Reagan fixed his what?

Payroll tax goes directly to Social Security.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. SS receipts go right in the the general fund, and we have used those funds to pay for our excessive military spending over the last decade so the rich could get tax cuts, providing IOUs to the SS Trust Fund for the money borrowed.

Healthcare should be privatized. Oh, and "rest of the industrialized world" you're speaking of is worse off than we are, minus China. What else you got? Look bro. If you're not going to come with anything better than what you have so far, I'm gonna move on to another thread. This is getting old.

Click to expand...

Privatizing doesn't fix the problem of the most expensive health care system in the world.

Catawba said:

No, you don't have it correct. The great majority of all economists agree that you cut spending in boom times so as not to make the recession worse. Quote that if you like.

Click to expand...

Show me some proof. I'm tired of hearing your thoughts. They prove nothing. I want to see a recession recovered by spending. Don't give FDR's New Deal either because WWII saved his butt. Economics are a subjective thing. However, the proof that cutting spending while still increasing military spending, and still pulling out of a recession is provided during Reagans two terms. Where's the proof that Obama's methods work?

Catawba said:

You cut and pasted them from where? I could not find all your figures in the link you provided.

Click to expand...

My mistake. There are two figures I posted that are not on the CNN link. Solyndra and Tesla. Other than that, they're all on there. I just opened the link again.

Catawba said:

Reagan fixed his what?

Click to expand...

His recession. You know, the one he inherited from Obamas mentor Jimmy Carter. But you don't hear me claiming that everywhere and neither did Reagan.

Catawba said:

No it doesn't. SS receipts go right in the the general fund, and we have used those funds to pay for our excessive military spending over the last decade so the rich could get tax cuts, providing IOUs to the SS Trust Fund for the money borrowed.

Click to expand...

Quoted from Wikipedia: In the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers under the Social Security system and out of which benefit payments to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and general administrative expenses are paid.
Show proof of your claims about the excessive military spending and rich tax cuts are what bankrupted Social Security.

Catawba said:

Privatizing doesn't fix the problem of the most expensive health care system in the world.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm done talking to you after this. You need to read a book or something, seriously. It does drive costs down because it becomes competitive. Kinda like your car insurance. Providers will continually try to be lower than their competitors. If the patient can choose the doc, the doc has to be polite and actually act like he cares about the patient instead of the crap we get now. He actually has to treat the patient instead of throwing medications at him and sending him home. Then, when the government comes in with Medicaid and Medicare, the prices are lower due to the market being driven by the consumer.

neocon ass kissers: corp. republicon media of the 1%,

800 billion a year to kill 200 militants in afghanistan with drones?

Come on ten years in Iraq to get one guy Saddam?

"divide and conquer thats the game,Beneath their haircut and clothes we're really all the same.They threaten our lives with nuclear war. Gonna cruficy usjust once more"

"The television cannot lie. Controlling media with smokescreen eyes. Nuclear politicians picture show. The acting's lousy but the blind don't know. They scare us all with threats of war. So we forget just how bad things are. You taste the fear when you're all alone. "

- Stiv Bators

Kane said:

neocon ass kissers: corp. republicon media of the 1%,

800 billion a year to kill 200 militants in afghanistan with drones?

Come on ten years in Iraq to get one guy Saddam?

"divide and conquer thats the game,Beneath their haircut and clothes we're really all the same.They threaten our lives with nuclear war. Gonna cruficy usjust once more"

"The television cannot lie. Controlling media with smokescreen eyes. Nuclear politicians picture show. The acting's lousy but the blind don't know. They scare us all with threats of war. So we forget just how bad things are. You taste the fear when you're all alone. "

- Stiv Bators

Click to expand...

Wow, left field. I love the way you enter an honest debate with punk rock poems. Awesome.
Where did you get your data about 200 militants?
We spent 687 billion, not 800
We were in Iraq 8 years, not ten.
We got Saddam in '03 and stayed until '11. I think our mission was more than getting Saddam.
Thanks for posting, have a good day. Good bye.

MarineTpartier said:

Show me some proof. I'm tired of hearing your thoughts. They prove nothing. I want to see a recession recovered by spending. Don't give FDR's New Deal either because WWII saved his butt. Economics are a subjective thing. However, the proof that cutting spending while still increasing military spending, and still pulling out of a recession is provided during Reagans two terms. Where's the proof that Obama's methods work?

Click to expand...

Spending for WWII was stimulus for our economy.

"In seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted its policies. And the result seems to be nothing less than the extinction of the economic depression! Before World War II, eight U.S. recessions worsened into depressions (as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893, 1920, 1933, and 1937). Since World War II, under Keynesian policies, there have been nine recessions (1945-46, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1960-61, 1970, 1973-75, 1980-83, 1990-92 ), and not one has turned into a depression. The success of Keynesian economics was such that even Richard Nixon once declared, "We are all Keynesians now."

After the war, economists found Keynesianism a useful tool in controlling unemployment and inflation. And this set up a theoretical war between liberals and conservatives that continues to this day, although it appears that Keynesianism has survived the conservatives' attacks and has emerged the predominant theory among economists."

His recession. You know, the one he inherited from Obamas mentor Jimmy Carter. But you don't hear me claiming that everywhere and neither did Reagan.

Click to expand...

The recession was mostly over when Reagan came into office. Unemployment was already down to 6.9%. And Reagan didn't inherit wars in two different countries.

Quoted from Wikipedia: In the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers under the Social Security system and out of which benefit payments to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and general administrative expenses are paid.
Show proof of your claims about the excessive military spending and rich tax cuts are what bankrupted Social Security.

Click to expand...

How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go?

Okay, I'm done talking to you after this. You need to read a book or something, seriously. It does drive costs down because it becomes competitive. Kinda like your car insurance. Providers will continually try to be lower than their competitors. If the patient can choose the doc, the doc has to be polite and actually act like he cares about the patient instead of the crap we get now. He actually has to treat the patient instead of throwing medications at him and sending him home. Then, when the government comes in with Medicaid and Medicare, the prices are lower due to the market being driven by the consumer.

Click to expand...

Private insurance is more expensive than through Medicare as their overhead is lower and there is zero profit.

Catawba said:

Spending for WWII was stimulus for our economy.

"In seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted its policies. And the result seems to be nothing less than the extinction of the economic depression! Before World War II, eight U.S. recessions worsened into depressions (as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893, 1920, 1933, and 1937). Since World War II, under Keynesian policies, there have been nine recessions (1945-46, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1960-61, 1970, 1973-75, 1980-83, 1990-92 ), and not one has turned into a depression. The success of Keynesian economics was such that even Richard Nixon once declared, "We are all Keynesians now."

After the war, economists found Keynesianism a useful tool in controlling unemployment and inflation. And this set up a theoretical war between liberals and conservatives that continues to this day, although it appears that Keynesianism has survived the conservatives' attacks and has emerged the predominant theory among economists.".

Click to expand...

Give me your source, not some dribble. How do I know you didn't just type that? In addition, they say all capitalist governments adopted its policies. Look where that got us!!! You do understand we are in a recession now and we aren't coming out of it nearly as fast as we should right? You do get that? Right?

Catawba said:

The recession was mostly over when Reagan came into office. Unemployment was already down to 6.9%. And Reagan didn't inherit wars in two different countries..

Click to expand...

The early 1980s recession was a severe recession in the United States which began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982 (Wikipedia). No, he didn't inherit two wars, just one huge one getting ready to kick off, the Cold War.

Catawba said:

How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go?.

Click to expand...

You post a black balled authors story? Come on. I find it hard to believe the guy was the subject of some massive conspiracy. If this was the case, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would get their books pulled, etc. Interesting article though. If the source were better, I'd say you have a point honestly.

Catawba said:

Private insurance is more expensive than through Medicare as their overhead is lower and there is zero profit.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is the government is more effecive at running a business than an actual business that cares about making money? You contradict the point you tried to make about Social Security. That's the whole point. Gov't can't and shouldn't run any business. Medicare and Medicaid should benefit from the private market, not dicatate it.

MarineTpartier said:

Give me your source

Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot the link: A Review of Keynesian Theory

In addition, they say all capitalist governments adopted its policies.

Click to expand...

We replaced Keynesian economics in 1981. For the last 30 years we have operated under supply sided economics and deregulation that was coined as Reaganomics.

Look where that got us!!!

Click to expand...

Exactly!



OK back to topic, how do you propose to pay for continuing excessive military spending despite our ending two wars?

Through taxes, debt or cutting benefits to seniors?

Catawba said:

OK back to topic, how do you propose to pay for continuing excessive military spending despite our ending two wars? Through taxes, debt or cutting benefits to seniors?

Click to expand...

Those are my only three choices?

MarineTpartier said:

Those are my only three choices?

Click to expand...

That's the only ones that have been brought up by Congress to pay for it, what you got?

Just a note to all this, tldr thread so I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but the budget isn't actually getting "cut" in an absolute sense, they're just increasing the budget at a slower rate than originally planned.

Catawba said:

That's the only ones that have been brought up by Congress to pay for it, what you got?

Click to expand...

So, I have to be confined to the choices of our lameduck Congress? If so, this debate is over because you remove my ability to respond as I would want to. We will continue this tomorrow, I have a 6 hour drive ahead of me.:yawn:

MarineTpartier said:

So, I have to be confined to the choices of our lameduck Congress? If so, this debate is over because you remove my ability to respond as I would want to. We will continue this tomorrow, I have a 6 hour drive ahead of me.:yawn:

Click to expand...

Be safe on the road and don't forget this part of my post, as I am not limiting you to Congress's proposals: "what you got?"

Khayembii Communique said:

Just a note to all this, tldr thread so I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but the budget isn't actually getting "cut" in an absolute sense, they're just increasing the budget at a slower rate than originally planned.

Click to expand...

um... that is actually not correct.





note FY 2012 to FY 2013.

Abolish TSA: 8.1 billion
National Labor Relations Board: 2010 Budget: $287 Million
Agricultural Marketing Service: 2010 Budget: 3.1 Million
National Endowment of the Arts: 2010 Budget: $167.5 Million
National Endowment for the Humanities: 2011 Budget: $161.3 million
US Commission of Fine Arts: 2010: 1.2 Million
Make gov't employees fly coach: 146 million
Cut "sanding" beaches: 3 billion
Follow Bowles-Simpson: 200 billion
Cut Obamacare- 115 billion
Abolish Dept of Energy- 26.5 billion
Follow Paul Ryan recovery plan- 300 billion

Total: 653.65 billion

There you go, that meets the need with all cuts. This doens't even take into effect the corporate tax gained by abolishing the TSA and privatizing it. Just think, I did that with no inside knowledge and a lap top.

MarineTpartier said:

Abolish TSA: 8.1 billion
National Labor Relations Board: 2010 Budget: $287 Million
Agricultural Marketing Service: 2010 Budget: 3.1 Million
National Endowment of the Arts: 2010 Budget: $167.5 Million
National Endowment for the Humanities: 2011 Budget: $161.3 million
US Commission of Fine Arts: 2010: 1.2 Million
Make gov't employees fly coach: 146 million
Cut "sanding" beaches: 3 billion
Follow Bowles-Simpson: 200 billion
Cut Obamacare- 115 billion
Abolish Dept of Energy- 26.5 billion
Follow Paul Ryan recovery plan- 300 billion

Total: 653.65 billion

There you go, that meets the need with all cuts. This doens't even take into effect the corporate tax gained by abolishing the TSA and privatizing it. Just think, I did that with no inside knowledge and a lap top.

Click to expand...

how about we take also away benefits for our wealthy by means-testing the entitlements before we take them away from veterans?

MarineTpartier said:

Abolish TSA: 8.1 billion
National Labor Relations Board: 2010 Budget: $287 Million
Agricultural Marketing Service: 2010 Budget: 3.1 Million
National Endowment of the Arts: 2010 Budget: $167.5 Million
National Endowment for the Humanities: 2011 Budget: $161.3 million
US Commission of Fine Arts: 2010: 1.2 Million
Make gov't employees fly coach: 146 million
Cut "sanding" beaches: 3 billion
Follow Bowles-Simpson: 200 billion
Cut Obamacare- 115 billion
Abolish Dept of Energy- 26.5 billion
Follow Paul Ryan recovery plan- 300 billion

Total: 653.65 billion

There you go, that meets the need with all cuts. This doens't even take into effect the corporate tax gained by abolishing the TSA and privatizing it. Just think, I did that with no inside knowledge and a lap top.

Click to expand...

Without going through every line, what is your basis for claiming that cutting ObamaCare would reduce the deficit? CBO says that repealing ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit.

AdamT said:

Without going through every line, what is your basis for claiming that cutting ObamaCare would reduce the deficit? CBO says that repealing ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit.

Click to expand...

Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin pointed out that the law appeared less costly in its first decade because it “front-loads revenues and backloads spending.” He explained further that “the taxes and fees [Obamacare] calls for began immediately in 2010, but its new subsidies are largely deferred until 2014. This contributes to the illusion that [Obamacare] reduces the deficit.” The true 10-year cost of Obamacare will be apparent only once CBO is able to score a full 10 years of both revenue and spending changes under the new law.