• 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!

Foreign demand falls for Treasuries

Catawba said:
That is because it was twice as large as needed for defense, and reduced our debt in the process.

Bush doubled spending to twice the amount the needed for defense, and increased our debt in the process.

I guess when our debt is a big enough for people to become concerned about it, we will again cut the waste from our military spending.
Click to expand...

Clinton gutted the Military and made us less able to do what we need. You can't cut the military in half and expect to be able to fight a war.
 
ptif219 said:
Clinton gutted the Military and made us less able to do what we need. You can't cut the military in half and expect to be able to fight a war.
Click to expand...


We spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world, combined!!!


That is not needed for defense unless the rest of the world attacks you at once. Is that what you are expecting?
 
Catawba said:
We spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world, combined!!!


That is not needed for defense unless the rest of the world attacks you at once. Is that what you are expecting?
Click to expand...

We have to defend much of the world.
 
ptif219 said:
Clinton gutted the Military and made us less able to do what we need. You can't cut the military in half and expect to be able to fight a war.
Click to expand...

Okay Genius, tell me, what is the purpose of funding a large military designed to stop an enemy that no longer exists?

Should we spend money on wooden spikes to stop English Cavalry charges?
Should we spend money on special armor to stop French Crossbows?
Should we spend money on special forts to stop Italian early renaissance bombards?
 
obvious Child said:
Okay Genius, tell me, what is the purpose of funding a large military designed to stop an enemy that no longer exists?

Should we spend money on wooden spikes to stop English Cavalry charges?
Should we spend money on special armor to stop French Crossbows?
Should we spend money on special forts to stop Italian early renaissance bombards?
Click to expand...

Enemy doesn't exist? What was 911?

We are in Iraq,Afghanistan, Pakistan, and have concerns about Iran. Then there is the Israel problems that occur every couple of years.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Yeah Germany would have to increase its military Budget to defend against the massive Polish army accross the boarder waiting to invade when the US leaves. Or is it the Italians Germany needs to worry about?

Russia does not have the capability to invade Europe. It's population is around double that of Germany, no more then 1/4 that of the EU. It's military budget is propably 20% that of the UK, France, Germany, and Italy (when combined). It has plenty of its military tied down in the Georgia, Chechnya region.

Or of course Europe needs a massive military to defend against the massive muslim navy just waiting to cross the med and invade
Click to expand...

Those are all good arguments for us to bring our troops home and close any bases..... I wonder why we don't, do you?
 
ptif219 said:
You fixed nothing you showed your bias and hate for our military.
Click to expand...

There is no hate for the military, just wasteful military spending beyond what is needed for defense. Unless you are planning to take on the whole world, you don't need to spend as much as the whole world.
 
Catawba said:
There is no hate for the military, just wasteful military spending beyond what is needed for defense. Unless you are planning to take on the whole world, you don't need to spend as much as the whole world.
Click to expand...

When was the last time the US. faced an attack on our own soil?

How big was our military when that attack occurred?

See a correlation?
 
Crunch said:
When was the last time the US. faced an attack on our own soil?

How big was our military when that attack occurred?

See a correlation?
Click to expand...

I see, if you dominate the world militarily, you don't have to worry about defense. Several others throughout history had a similar plan.
 
Catawba said:
There is no hate for the military, just wasteful military spending beyond what is needed for defense. Unless you are planning to take on the whole world, you don't need to spend as much as the whole world.
Click to expand...

Tell that to NATO and the UN.
 
ptif219 said:
The point is Bush had to rebuild the military and you complain about the spending.
Click to expand...

There was no defensive need. The only "need" was Bush's undertaking to make the Iraq safe for big oil. Let the oil companies pay for it!

I am talking about defending against actual threats, not an old fat man with a shotgun standing in the way of big oil's exploitation of the oil under their sand.

But back to somewhere close to the OP, how does the UN prevent us from reducing military spending?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
There was no defensive need. The only "need" was Bush's undertaking to make the Iraq safe for big oil. Let the oil companies pay for it!

I am talking about defending against actual threats, not an old fat man with a shotgun standing in the way of big oil's exploitation of the oil under their sand.

But back to somewhere close to the OP, how does the UN prevent us from reducing military spending?
Click to expand...

You show your bias and lack of knowledge.
 
Catawba said:
There was no defensive need. The only "need" was Bush's undertaking to make the Iraq safe for big oil. Let the oil companies pay for it!

I am talking about defending against actual threats, not an old fat man with a shotgun standing in the way of big oil's exploitation of the oil under their sand.

But back to somewhere close to the OP, how does the UN prevent us from reducing military spending?
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmm........ The US attacked Iraq for the oil companies profits?

This week, the Senate will hold hearings on rising oil and fuel prices and the subsequent record earnings recently posted by U.S. oil companies. Some lawmakers have suggested that these profits are unseemly and, thus, should be subject to a new “windfall profits” tax.

Before rushing to create a new federal tax, lawmakers should ask two questions:

(1) Do oil companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits?
(2) What was the effect of the last windfall profits tax enacted in 1980?

The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.
Click to expand...

The Tax Foundation - Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax?

Sounds like you have that backwards.... we attacked Iraq for our government's profits, and the oil companies paid for it. You might want to do some research next time.
 
Hatuey said:
You commented on Obama's "out of control spending". I pointed out you're a partisan hack who doesn't care about how the money is being spent unless there is a Democrat is in power.
Click to expand...
Speaking of partisan hacks...
...what's your latest excuse for not criticizing The Obama for running up the debt at ~2.75x the rate the GWB did?
 
Goobieman said:
Speaking of partisan hacks...
...what's your latest excuse for not criticizing The Obama for running up the debt at ~2.75x the rate the GWB did?
Click to expand...

Remember the near collapse of the financial system?
 
ptif219 said:
You show your bias and lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...

Can you not back up your claim?

"How does the UN prevent us from reducing military spending?
 
Crunch said:
Hmmmmmmm........ The US attacked Iraq for the oil companies profits?
Click to expand...

No, the US and its partners attacked Iraq for an admittance ticket for bit oil exploitation, which was forbidden in Iraq before our invasion/occupation/new oil law.

Big oil was kicked out of Iraq 38 years ago when Saddam Nationalized Iraqi oil. We fixed that problem for big oil for which we are dependent.

Otherwise we have a very short shelf life for our economy which cannot function without Middle East oil into the future.
 
Catawba said:
Can you not back up your claim?

"How does the UN prevent us from reducing military spending?
Click to expand...

Iraq was not about oil.

Who does the UN always look to for help. When Saddam attacked Kuwait did we go there on our own or was the UN involved?
 
ptif219 said:
Iraq was not about oil.

Who does the UN always look to for help. When Saddam attacked Kuwait did we go there on our own or was the UN involved?
Click to expand...

Please show what requirements the UN placed on our funding for the Persian Gulf War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom