• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama wants record $708 billion for military next year [edited]

Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

The bottom line is: We cannot afford to continue to throw money into wars that we really shouldn't be in in the first place.

You want to improve the financial situation of this country? Then stop spending billions of dollars fighting these endless wars.

Seriously. People cry about the deficit and the state of the economy and then cheer loudly and think nothing about throwing billions of dollars into these wars.

Seems a little inconsistent to me.

You are aware of what pulled us out of the Great Depression, right?
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

You are aware of what pulled us out of the Great Depression, right?

Government spending.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

Just out of curiosity, how is this war unconstitutional?

"Consider the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.

Again, reflect on the words of Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same."
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

Government spending.

Actually, War spending.... the great depression didn't end until we got into WWII.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

"Consider the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.

Again, reflect on the words of Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same."

And your point is? Last I heard, congress signed off on both of these wars.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

Actually, War spending.... the great depression didn't end until we got into WWII.

War spending is government spending. Hello? The government created millions of jobs to wage war.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

War spending is government spending. Hello? The government created millions of jobs to wage war.

True... in a way, but just giving the government $787,000,000,000 to fritter away on pork won't help the economy one little bit, but spending billions of dollars to wage war does.... which was my point all along.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

True... in a way, but just giving the government $787,000,000,000 to fritter away on pork won't help the economy one little bit, but spending billions of dollars to wage war does.... which was my point all along.

What does it matter if the money is spent for war or anything else.
Government spending is government spending. Government spending during WWII put people back to work. Be it as soldiers or building war materials. Following the Depression, World War II abruptly boosted federal spending to approximately 42 percent of GDP.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

In what way is this war unconstitutional??????? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Article II, Section 8, "Congress has the power to declare war".

This is not a "declared war by congress. They made a law called the "war powers act" that delegated their powers to the president. This is against the "separation of powers" enumerated in the constitution.

Also there is an enumeration in the constitution that states, "congress shall make no laws" pertaining to a particular enumeration.

Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.

That's it in a nutshell but it is a complicated subject. Check out the federalist papers pertaining to Article II, Section 8.

Also check the federal papers about the "separation of powers.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

"Consider the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.

Again, reflect on the words of Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”

Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same."

You are the first person I have read on a forum who knows what he is talking about. I agree with you completely. Now, I don't feel so lonely. Thanks.:2wave:
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

Wanna bet?

I think we will see both the dems and reps voting for more money for this unconstitutional war.

We have the best government money can buy.
I never mentioned the Reps, we know they are for defense. I thought we were pulling out? What happened, another broken campaign promise. :( boohoo
 
I wonder how much Hussein Obama iss going to give for a pay raise next year........This year for the first time in 30 years they got noting..........Thanks Hussein...........
 
Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year - Yahoo! News


"The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.

Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public."




Simply answer: No. End these wars. Enough is enough.

I wish the fiscal conservatives could regain better control of the GOP, because this **** needs to be reigned in. During a recession to boot. Nice priorities.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

I never mentioned the Reps, we know they are for defense. I thought we were pulling out? What happened, another broken campaign promise. :( boohoo

As far as I am concerned it is a broken promise. I voted for Obama. I did not vote for McCain because it was too scary to think that Palin could possibly become president. Put simply, she is far to ignorant to be president. I probably would have voted for McCain when he was campaigning against Dubya but Duyba did some really dirty tricks agaomst McCain. McCain was too honorable a man to fight the likes of junior Bush.

McCain seems like he is a little loopy, nowdays but I like him.

Obama really jump started his bid for the presidency by inferring that he would quickly end the war, if elected. I expected him to know and respect our constitution enough to end this faux war. I mean he has enough education to know.
 
I wonder how much Hussein Obama iss going to give for a pay raise next year........This year for the first time in 30 years they got noting..........Thanks Hussein...........

I don't quite know what you are saying, sailor. Could you elaborate? Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

What does it matter if the money is spent for war or anything else.
Government spending is government spending. Government spending during WWII put people back to work. Be it as soldiers or building war materials. Following the Depression, World War II abruptly boosted federal spending to approximately 42 percent of GDP.

True, but that was when most of the money spent on ww2 was spent in this country and went fairly quick into american worker's pockets. Now it goes to China and the corrupt regimes that we support in the war.:(
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

As far as I am concerned it is a broken promise. I voted for Obama. I did not vote for McCain because it was too scary to think that Palin could possibly become president. Put simply, she is far to ignorant to be president. I probably would have voted for McCain when he was campaigning against Dubya but Duyba did some really dirty tricks agaomst McCain. McCain was too honorable a man to fight the likes of junior Bush.

McCain seems like he is a little loopy, nowdays but I like him.

Obama really jump started his bid for the presidency by inferring that he would quickly end the war, if elected. I expected him to know and respect our constitution enough to end this faux war. I mean he has enough education to know.
So you vote for Biden? :roll: :rofl
 
I wish the fiscal conservatives could regain better control of the GOP, because this **** needs to be reigned in. During a recession to boot. Nice priorities.

Exactly...they are soo predictable. The cry and cry about the state of the economy...and yet they gladly throw billions and billion to fight a war that we shouldn't be in in the first place.

At least their inconsistency is consistent.
 
Re: Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

So you vote for Biden? :roll: :rofl

I like Biden and I dislike Palin. At least Biden has some experience and he is no Dr. Strangelove like Cheney.
 
Last edited:
Exactly...they are soo predictable. The cry and cry about the state of the economy...and yet they gladly throw billions and billion to fight a war that we shouldn't be in in the first place.

At least their inconsistency is consistent.

I guess they want Obama and our country to fail for their own selfish interests.:(
 
Exactly...they are soo predictable. The cry and cry about the state of the economy...and yet they gladly throw billions and billion to fight a war that we shouldn't be in in the first place.

At least their inconsistency is consistent.

It isn't thrown gladly, that's an incorrect presumptive statement. And our Sons and Daughters are in those conflicts and thus there is no question...gladly or otherwise...that we pour monies into these wars. Both Congressionally Authorized specifically, both seeing over 100,000 troops in theater after Obama's surge is implemented(the anti-war, Cindy Sheehan type, Lancet believing nonsense now vanished), there is no excuse for standing there and whining about this decision to go in.

Disney...you watch any football? Gonna glare at any playoff games this weekend? If not, why don't you....I want you to see an analogy there. See...once the game has begun. Once the stakes are set down. If you're already there....then you are useless standing there and whining about how we got there in the first place. As long as you have boots on the ground....helmets on any field...then you must strap up. Hit somebody. Tackle a running back, deflect a pass...do something. Bring gatorade on timeouts if that is more your expertise, your role matters not. You simply and plainly cannot be successful at any endeavor while infighting on your own sidelines.

Argue beforehand, strive to change or alter strategy. Elect or vote or assign someone to call plays...but don't stand there afterwards and impotently complain. It adds nothing. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to expose a political agenda.

The billions "thrown" are necessary discretionary spending that happens to be a mere fraction of the entitlement spending that's now throwing trillions at problems created by guess what......massive government corrupt and inefficient programs. We have soldiers with their lives on the line every second of everyday, would you like to discuss throwing billions with their parents?

And we won't care to ride into this health care debate or where this argument of yours stands on "throwing billions", my guess is your argument hypocritically supports government run health care. Speaking of inconsistent.;)
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel, I think he was making a moral point and you are making a military point.

Is this war moral?
 
Charles Martel, I think he was making a moral point and you are making a military point.

Is this war moral?

War is never moral. No matter what you say or how hard you try you can NEVER justify the taking of a human life. But some things, moral or otherwise, must be done regardless. War is one of these things.
 
It isn't thrown gladly, that's an incorrect presumptive statement. And our Sons and Daughters are in those conflicts and thus there is no question...gladly or otherwise...that we pour monies into these wars. Both Congressionally Authorized specifically, both seeing over 100,000 troops in theater after Obama's surge is implemented(the anti-war, Cindy Sheehan type, Lancet believing nonsense now vanished), there is no excuse for standing there and whining about this decision to go in.

Disney...you watch any football? Gonna glare at any playoff games this weekend? If not, why don't you....I want you to see an analogy there. See...once the game has begun. Once the stakes are set down. If you're already there....then you are useless standing there and whining about how we got there in the first place. As long as you have boots on the ground....helmets on any field...then you must strap up. Hit somebody. Tackle a running back, deflect a pass...do something. Bring gatorade on timeouts if that is more your expertise, your role matters not. You simply and plainly cannot be successful at any endeavor while infighting on your own sidelines.

Argue beforehand, strive to change or alter strategy. Elect or vote or assign someone to call plays...but don't stand there afterwards and impotently complain. It adds nothing. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to expose a political agenda.

The billions "thrown" are necessary discretionary spending that happens to be a mere fraction of the entitlement spending that's now throwing trillions at problems created by guess what......massive government corrupt and inefficient programs. We have soldiers with their lives on the line every second of everyday, would you like to discuss throwing billions with their parents?

And we won't care to ride into this health care debate or where this argument of yours stands on "throwing billions", my guess is your argument hypocritically supports government run health care. Speaking of inconsistent.;)

THANK YOU!!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

But regardless of how [much] we contribute the war is being fought and we are not winning. So since you're so very knowledgable please tell me, why in the hell are we spending billions on a war we are losing??? :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom