• 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!

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion

What the **** are you talking about?

England doesn't need a military because you fight all our battles?

Did you go into the falklands?

Excuse me but the only battles there's really been in the last 20 years for us to get involved in, was ones YOU CAUSED.

You went into Iraq I and II and Afghanistan and we sent our boys over there with you.

How dare you defile the memory of British Soldiers who went over there in support of you.

And you accuse Obama of disrespecting your allies.

Jesus Christ.

Guess this was the part where honour was restored eh?

**** ** ** ***** *** *** ****

I think you misunderstood what he meant. It didn't appear to me he was disparaging the British military, but rather the policies being championed now, and also that of Europe in general. The Brits have always been our best ally in modern times; no question there. And there are other countries as well who have been good allies.
 
I think you misunderstood what he meant. It didn't appear to me he was disparaging the British military, but rather the policies being championed now, and also that of Europe in general. The Brits have always been our best ally in modern times; no question there. And there are other countries as well who have been good allies.

Spending on the Military as a percentage of GDP. Notice European spending is less than half of that of the U.S.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Good gosh. Spending less money on ways to kill people. WHAT A TRAGEDY!

(The militaries of Europe will be just fine, no ones gonna challenge them, they'd still pwn.)

Why don't you go to the caves of Pakistan and tell those people to stop killing us since rhetoric trumps reality? You can and do bury your head in the sand regarding the enemy we face. Maybe if you had a loved one killed you would change your tune.

Why is it that Conservatives seem to care more about you living than you do?
 
Why don't you go to the caves of Pakistan and tell those people to stop killing us since rhetoric trumps reality? You can and do bury your head in the sand regarding the enemy we face. Maybe if you had a loved one killed you would change your tune.

Why is it that Conservatives seem to care more about you living than you do?

Dude... you've spent probably over a trillion dollars fighting those guys up there, and we're no closer to defeating them today, then we were almost 10 years ago.

I think we can afford to cut $200 Billion dollars of stuff we probably don't need for those operations anyway.
 
Dude... you've spent probably over a trillion dollars fighting those guys up there, and we're no closer to defeating them today, then we were almost 10 years ago.

I think we can afford to cut $200 Billion dollars of stuff we probably don't need for those operations anyway.

I wonder how much we could save by cutting bribes to govts that hate us....did I say bribes? Some call it "foreign aid"....
 
Dude... you've spent probably over a trillion dollars fighting those guys up there, and we're no closer to defeating them today, then we were almost 10 years ago.

I think we can afford to cut $200 Billion dollars of stuff we probably don't need for those operations anyway.

Yes, in almost 10 years, 100 billion a year but that never was the poin. As stated this thread is about who is entitled to the money, the govt. or the people that earned it. 100-200 billion a year didn't create the debt we have today and the 3 trillion that Obama added to the debt in two years. Keep things in the right perspective.
 
I wonder how much we could save by cutting bribes to govts that hate us....did I say bribes? Some call it "foreign aid"....

I have no problem cutting foreign aid from countries that hate us, most of whom are the dictators in the Muslim countries around the world that want to keep their power by imprisoning the hearts and minds of their own people.
 
Yes, in almost 10 years, 100 billion a year but that never was the poin. As stated this thread is about who is entitled to the money, the govt. or the people that earned it. 100-200 billion a year didn't create the debt we have today and the 3 trillion that Obama added to the debt in two years. Keep things in the right perspective.

So there's nothing wrong with cutting it then?

You didn't really address my point.

Again: "I have nothing to say... time to spout my rhetoric"
 
So there's nothing wrong with cutting it then?

You didn't really address my point.

Again: "I have nothing to say... time to spout my rhetoric"

100 billion dollars is less than 10% of the Obama deficit this year. There are bigger problems than just the war which as I continue to point out is the basic responsibility of the President. The war is an easy target for foreigners who don't have a clue as to where all the Federal Spending goes.
 
Yes, in almost 10 years, 100 billion a year but that never was the poin. As stated this thread is about who is entitled to the money, the govt. or the people that earned it. 100-200 billion a year didn't create the debt we have today and the 3 trillion that Obama added to the debt in two years. Keep things in the right perspective.

Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion - WSJ.com

THAT is the original post....

Cutting spending isn't the only answer....SOME things are essential..

How do we pay the govts expenses without taxation?
What share should the rich, who benefit the most from wars, pay?
 
Panel Chairmen Recommend Cutting Federal Spending by $200 Billion - WSJ.com

THAT is the original post....

Cutting spending isn't the only answer....SOME things are essential..

How do we pay the govts expenses without taxation?
What share should the rich, who benefit the most from wars, pay?

First of all I reject the fact that cutting 200 billion a year will have much of an impact on the budget deficit which was 1.29 trillion last year. There is nothing in that recommendation that focuses on economic growth. It is economic growth that affects tax revenue which is why providing incentive to make money affects that growth.

Right now Entitlement spending is over 60% of the budget, Defense is less than 1/6 of the budget and without a strong defense nothing else matters. 9/11 according to the GAO cost over a trillion dollars and was a one day event.

The question is not how do we pay for the govt. expenses, the question is why do we need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt? We have 50 states that provide most of the services to the citizens thus why do we need that duplicated by the federal govt?

The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes now therefore any cut will affect them more as it should. Why are we arguing over what part of personal income one should keep? As stated Conservatives don't really care how much someone else makes, why do you?
 
First of all I reject the fact that cutting 200 billion a year will have much of an impact on the budget deficit which was 1.29 trillion last year. There is nothing in that recommendation that focuses on economic growth. It is economic growth that affects tax revenue which is why providing incentive to make money affects that growth.

Right now Entitlement spending is over 60% of the budget, Defense is less than 1/6 of the budget and without a strong defense nothing else matters. 9/11 according to the GAO cost over a trillion dollars and was a one day event.

The question is not how do we pay for the govt. expenses, the question is why do we need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt? We have 50 states that provide most of the services to the citizens thus why do we need that duplicated by the federal govt?

The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes now therefore any cut will affect them more as it should. Why are we arguing over what part of personal income one should keep? As stated Conservatives don't really care how much someone else makes, why do you?

200 billion is 15% of 1.29 trillion.
 
First of all I reject the fact that cutting 200 billion a year will have much of an impact on the budget deficit which was 1.29 trillion last year. There is nothing in that recommendation that focuses on economic growth. It is economic growth that affects tax revenue which is why providing incentive to make money affects that growth.

Right now Entitlement spending is over 60% of the budget, Defense is less than 1/6 of the budget and without a strong defense nothing else matters. 9/11 according to the GAO cost over a trillion dollars and was a one day event.

The question is not how do we pay for the govt. expenses, the question is why do we need a 3.8 trillion dollar govt? We have 50 states that provide most of the services to the citizens thus why do we need that duplicated by the federal govt?

The rich pay the lion's share of the taxes now therefore any cut will affect them more as it should. Why are we arguing over what part of personal income one should keep? As stated Conservatives don't really care how much someone else makes, why do you?
First thing we should do is submit a bill for a trillion dollars to the Saudi govt....
And cons do care what others make, it is the measuring stick they use to gauge "success"...What gets me is how the middle class is so willing to support tax cuts for the rich. The middle class gets a few hundred in tax savings, the rich get so much more.
 
What the **** are you talking about?

England doesn't need a military because you fight all our battles?

Did you go into the falklands?

Excuse me but the only battles there's really been in the last 20 years for us to get involved in, was ones YOU CAUSED.

You went into Iraq I and II and Afghanistan and we sent our boys over there with you.

How dare you defile the memory of British Soldiers who went over there in support of you.

And you accuse Obama of disrespecting your allies.

Jesus Christ.

Guess this was the part where honour was restored eh?

**** ** ** ***** *** *** ****

Absolutely no disparagement meant to the fine British soldiers.

But the fact is, America ends up doing the heavy lifting, thanks to the passive nature of European governments these days.

Why do the hard stuff when America will do it for us?
 
First thing we should do is submit a bill for a trillion dollars to the Saudi govt....
And cons do care what others make, it is the measuring stick they use to gauge "success"...What gets me is how the middle class is so willing to support tax cuts for the rich. The middle class gets a few hundred in tax savings, the rich get so much more.

Do you realize that tax cuts for anyone means they get to KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARNED? You don't like the rich, then stop supporting them with your purchases. Try doing that with your tax payments? Class envy and liberal class warfare is counter productive and violates the foundation upon which this country was built.
 
why are you against cutting spending?

Because all military spending is sacred. It must increase every single year without fail, if it doesn't, that president is weak, limp wristed America Hater.
 
Because all military spending is sacred. It must increase every single year without fail, if it doesn't, that president is weak, limp wristed America Hater.

i know, right? even though we spend stupidly.
 
why are you against cutting spending?

Not at all, in order to do that first you take SS and Medicare OFF BUDGET so the money that you pay in isn't spent on something else. Then you eliminate departments like the Dept. of Energy and Dept. of Education which serve no purpose. You then bill foreign countries for the healthcare provided to people from those countries or deduct it from foreign aid. The current 3.8 trillion dollar budget should be about 1.8 trillion to truly provide the services required by the taxpayers. If you truly worried about revenue you would first define responsibility, state or federal, then you would look at the taxes being paid such as exise taxes on gasoline, income taxes, property taxes and see where that money is going. The problem we have in this country as shown by liberals is an education problem where liberals don't seem to have a clue about where our tax dollars were supposed to go and where they do go

It is easy to blame the wars for the deficits while ignoring that the wars were a small part of those deficits.
 
Do you realize that tax cuts for anyone means they get to KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARNED? You don't like the rich, then stop supporting them with your purchases. Try doing that with your tax payments? Class envy and liberal class warfare is counter productive and violates the foundation upon which this country was built.

i have plenty of money. i don't envy anyone their money.........how utterly silly. why do you hate poor people?
 
Because all military spending is sacred. It must increase every single year without fail, if it doesn't, that president is weak, limp wristed America Hater.

All budget items increase each year, that is called baseline budgeting and is wrong.
 
i have plenty of money. i don't envy anyone their money.........how utterly silly. why do you hate poor people?

I probably give more to poor people than you make and that is where the responsibility lies, not forced giving by the Federal govt. that never solves a social problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom