Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Catawba said:

After inheriting a country headed for another great depression and two simultaneous wars, president has reduced the deficit. Who was the last GOP president to do that?

Click to expand...

He came into office it was 10 trillion......after his first term it was 16 trillion...its not almost 17 trillion..........You can use smoke and mirrors all you want but the figures don't lie and Obama has spent more in 4 years then all the presidents before him combined.

Catawba said:

Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

Click to expand...

Obama, Sept. 23: First of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up

Click to expand...

:laughat: even Obama himself admits that the deficit has gone up. Of course, he blames it all on Bush.

Navy Pride said:

He came into office it was 10 trillion......after his first term it was 16 trillion...its not almost 17 trillion..........You can use smoke and mirrors all you want but the figures don't lie and Obama has spent more in 4 years then all the presidents before him combined.

Click to expand...

Why?

In the last year of Bush's term...164 billion in Feb 2008 and another 750 billion in Oct 2008 for "stimulus" money and he gave 25 billion to the auto industry... because the economy crashed on his watch...

Bush drove up the national debt from 5 trillion. Yes? No?

And if you take 17 (current) - 10 (before) = 7

So 7 isn't more than 10. Therefore the addition tot the national debt isn't more than all the previous presidents combined.

Removable Mind said:

Why?

In the last year of Bush's term...164 billion in Feb 2008 and another 750 billion in Oct 2008 for "stimulus" money and he gave 25 billion to the auto industry... because the economy crashed on his watch...

Bush drove up the national debt from 5 trillion. Yes? No?

And if you take 17 (current) - 10 (before) = 7

So 7 isn't more than 10. Therefore the addition tot the national debt isn't more than all the previous presidents combined.

Click to expand...

the accurate statement is that the national debt is more than all previous presidents Washington - Clinton combined.

debt increased by 4.899 trillion during the two terms that Bush was in office
debt increased by 4.939 trillion during the first term Obama was in office

Obama has increased the debt more in one term than Bush did in two. Obama would have to reduce the debt by over 5 trillion in this second term to be responsible for less debt than Bush.

OscarB63 said:

the accurate statement is that the national debt is more than all previous presidents Washington - Clinton combined.

debt increased by 4.899 trillion during the two terms that Bush was in office
debt increased by 4.939 trillion during the first term Obama was in office

Obama has increased the debt more in one term than Bush did in two. Obama would have to reduce the debt by over 5 trillion in this second term to be responsible for less debt than Bush.

Click to expand...

Alright...but why the 5 plus trillion added to the debt when we clearly know that by Oct 2008 the economy basically crashed?

Removable Mind said:

Alright...but why the 5 plus trillion added to the debt when we clearly know that by Oct 2008 the economy basically crashed?

Click to expand...

that's a good question. maybe Obama can give us an answer other than "it's bush's fault"

OscarB63 said:

that's a good question. maybe Obama can give us an answer other than "it's bush's fault"

Click to expand...

Well, actually...there are people I blame. Bill Clinton, Phil Graham, Allan Greenspan...Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers...just to name a few.

Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Click to expand...

(Reuters) - "Al Qaeda's wing, Islamic State of Iraq, has formally declared its links with the militant al-Nusra Front, at the forefront of Syria's rebellion, saying the two would now operate under one name, according to a U.S.-based monitoring group.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, or Islamic State of Iraq as the group is also known, is one of several Sunni Islamist insurgent groups still active since the withdrawal of the last American troops more than a year ago.

The group, which has claimed a string of attacks since the start of the year, said it and Syria's al-Nusra Front would now jointly go under the name Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Here is a look at the Iraqi group:

* The group was founded in October 2004 when Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. An Egyptian, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, is said to have become the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq after Zarqawi was killed in 2006.

* In October 2006, the al Qaeda-led Mujahideen Shura Council said it had set up Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), an umbrella group of Sunni militant affiliates and tribal leaders led by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. In April 2007 it named a 10-man "cabinet", including Masri as its war minister.

* High-profile attacks in 2009 and 2010 kept the group in the headlines after U.S. troops pulled out of Iraqi cities. Its top two leaders, Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, were killed in April 2010, but the attacks continued. In May 2010, Al-Nasir Lidin Allah Abu-Suleyman was named replacement leader.

* Once weakened by years of fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces, security experts say Iraq's al Qaeda wing has regained strength from the two-year-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in neighboring Syria, which is drawing funds and Sunni Islamist fighters to its cause.

* Al Qaeda in Iraq is hostile to Shi'ites in general, especially the Shi'ite-led government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Assad's minority Alawite sect. The group sees Shi'ite Islam as a heretical oppressor of Sunnis in the region."

Factbox: A look at Al Qaeda in Iraq | Reuters

Navy Pride said:

He came into office it was 10 trillion......after his first term it was 16 trillion...its not almost 17 trillion..........You can use smoke and mirrors all you want but the figures don't lie and Obama has spent more in 4 years then all the presidents before him combined.

Click to expand...

That's not the deficit, that's the debt. As long as there is any deficit, the debt will continue to increase.

Now, the deficit is still way too much, but it is, at least finally and at long last going in the right direction.

Now, there is some truth to the idea that "leftists" (read - Democrats) aren't quite as big on military expenditures as that other party whose name starts with R, but they haven't cut back the military, don't advocate cutting the military, haven't cut the military.

But, someone should.

We need to cut spending. Nothing should be off the table, not the military, not means tested welfare, not subsidies, not giveaways to foreign nations, nothing.

Our government is too big, and too expensive, and neither party is really advocating any meaningful cuts.

Dittohead not! said:

That's not the deficit, that's the debt. As long as there is any deficit, the debt will continue to increase.

Now, the deficit is still way too much, but it is, at least finally and at long last going in the right direction.

Now, there is some truth to the idea that "leftists" (read - Democrats) aren't quite as big on military expenditures as that other party whose name starts with R, but they haven't cut back the military, don't advocate cutting the military, haven't cut the military.

But, someone should.

We need to cut spending. Nothing should be off the table, not the military, not means tested welfare, not subsidies, not giveaways to foreign nations, nothing.

Our government is too big, and too expensive, and neither party is really advocating any meaningful cuts.

Click to expand...

"WASHINGTON — President Obama’s effort to control federal spending would require the largest cuts from the government’s biggest programs — health care and the military — while preserving or increasing spending on favored initiatives like early education, manufacturing and research."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/politics/obamas-budget-cuts-focus-on-medicare-medicaid-and-military.html?_r=0

Dittohead not! said:

That's not the deficit, that's the debt. As long as there is any deficit, the debt will continue to increase.

Now, the deficit is still way too much, but it is, at least finally and at long last going in the right direction.

Now, there is some truth to the idea that "leftists" (read - Democrats) aren't quite as big on military expenditures as that other party whose name starts with R, but they haven't cut back the military, don't advocate cutting the military, haven't cut the military.

But, someone should.

We need to cut spending. Nothing should be off the table, not the military, not means tested welfare, not subsidies, not giveaways to foreign nations, nothing.

Our government is too big, and too expensive, and neither party is really advocating any meaningful cuts.

Click to expand...

I know the difference between the debt and the deficit and Obama has increased the debit almost 7 trilion dollars and as far as the military goes he originally cut it 500 billion and wants to cut another 500 billion......Even his own SECDEF was protesting that to the congress.......Those are the facts......He is trying to turn our military into a 3rd rate organization.

Navy Pride said:

I know the difference between the debt and the deficit and Obama has increased the debit almost 7 trilion dollars and as far as the military goes he originally cut it 500 billion and wants to cut another 500 billion......Even his own SECDEF was protesting that to the congress.......Those are the facts......He is trying to turn our military into a 3rd rate organization.

Click to expand...

The military budget never has been a trillion dollars. Cut it 500 billion, then another 500, and it would be paying us.

This is more like reality. The military budget went up for the wars, then back down when they wound down, just as expected:

Catawba said:

"WASHINGTON — President Obama’s effort to control federal spending would require the largest cuts from the government’s biggest programs — health care and the military — while preserving or increasing spending on favored initiatives like early education, manufacturing and research."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/politics/obamas-budget-cuts-focus-on-medicare-medicaid-and-military.html?_r=0

Click to expand...

That's where cuts have to be, but adding yet another expenditure for education, which is a function of the states after all, is not the way to go.

and manufacturing? Since when has manufacturing been a function of the federal government?

Dittohead not! said:

That's where cuts have to be, but adding yet another expenditure for education, which is a function of the states after all, is not the way to go.

and manufacturing? Since when has manufacturing been a function of the federal government?

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with, but states are struggling with education, and manufacturing is not what it once was. Demands that the government create jobs will lead to the government acting, and there is little they can actually (realistically) do that wont cost money

Boo Radley said:

I don't disagree with, but states are struggling with education, and manufacturing is not what it once was. Demands that the government create jobs will lead to the government acting, and there is little they can actually (realistically) do that wont cost money

Click to expand...

Exactly, and if you're trying to balance a budget, adding expenses is not the way to do it.

The government getting involved in manufacturing brings to mind a word, one that is not too popular in the USA, one that starts with an S.... let's see.... what was that word again? has something to do with government ownership of the means of production.

Hm.. Can't think of it right off hand. Can you?

Dittohead not! said:

Exactly, and if you're trying to balance a budget, adding expenses is not the way to do it.

The government getting involved in manufacturing brings to mind a word, one that is not too popular in the USA, one that starts with an S.... let's see.... what was that word again? has something to do with government ownership of the means of production.

Hm.. Can't think of it right off hand. Can you?

Click to expand...

Oh, I know that word. Lets not get the nutters going though. We're. Mixed economy and likely to stay that way. Bu I keep cautioning people on calling on the government act. They will. And if they are going to be blamed, and taking credit is a plus, they will do something.

Boo Radley said:

Oh, I know that word. Lets not get the nutters going though. We're. Mixed economy and likely to stay that way. Bu I keep cautioning people on calling on the government act. They will. And if they are going to be blamed, and taking credit is a plus, they will do something.

Click to expand...

No doubt they will do something. No matter what it is, someone won't like it.

Dittohead not! said:

Exactly, and if you're trying to balance a budget, adding expenses is not the way to do it.

The government getting involved in manufacturing brings to mind a word, one that is not too popular in the USA, one that starts with an S.... let's see.... what was that word again? has something to do with government ownership of the means of production.

Hm.. Can't think of it right off hand. Can you?

Click to expand...

Read it and weep my left wing friend....that was 500 billion over 10 years.


Panetta warns of degraded military readiness from spending cuts - CNN.com

Navy Pride said:

Obama has increased the debit almost 7 trilion dollars and as far as the military goes he originally cut it 500 billion and wants to cut another 500 billion......Even his own SECDEF was protesting that to the congress.......Those are the facts......He is trying to turn our military into a 3rd rate organization.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If the U.S. defense budget was cut in half it would still be more than China and Russia combined spend, with a good bit left over.

How is that 3rd rate?

You need to explain that one.

Navy Pride said:

Read it and weep my left wing friend....that was 500 billion over 10 years.


Panetta warns of degraded military readiness from spending cuts - CNN.com

Click to expand...

Baloney. Panetta is talking about "sequestration" once again. The "cuts" are not really cuts at all, but reductions in the rate of increase.

One would expect some real reductions as troop levels decrease in Afganistan and troops are brought home from Iraq.

This so called "cut" is nothing but a liberal smoke and mirrors exercise in creative mathematics. First, you propose a 10% increase in spending, then lower that to only 5%, and claim it was a 5% cut over what was planned to be spent.

The government does the same thing with non military spending as well. When has the actual spending ever been less than the year before for anything? As long as the big government statists are in power telling the right wing we must continue to expand the military, and the left wing that we must continue to increase social spending, the government will never be reigned in.

Dittohead not! said:

Baloney. Panetta is talking about "sequestration" once again. The "cuts" are not really cuts at all, but reductions in the rate of increase.

One would expect some real reductions as troop levels decrease in Afganistan and troops are brought home from Iraq.

This so called "cut" is nothing but a liberal smoke and mirrors exercise in creative mathematics. First, you propose a 10% increase in spending, then lower that to only 5%, and claim it was a 5% cut over what was planned to be spent.

The government does the same thing with non military spending as well. When has the actual spending ever been less than the year before for anything? As long as the big government statists are in power telling the right wing we must continue to expand the military, and the left wing that we must continue to increase social spending, the government will never be reigned in.

Click to expand...

Pretty much on the money.

Cutting the rate of increase is not a real cut.

If we spent $700 billion on 'defense' last year, and we want to cut our defense spending 10%, this year's spending must be no more than $630 billion.

Like you say slapping on a 10% increase and then cutting that 5% is no cut at all.

shrubnose said:

If the U.S. defense budget was cut in half it would still be more than China and Russia combined spend, with a good bit left over.

How is that 3rd rate?

You need to explain that one.

Click to expand...

good point.

Military expenditure by nation ....

US: 41%
China: 8.2%
Russia: 4.1%

the US spends more of its GDP on the military as well ...

US: 4.7% (second largest by % GDP)
China: 2.0%
Russia:3.9% (third largest by % GPD)

although ... Saudi Arabia spends almost double what the US does in GDP terms .... 8.7%

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not in the U.S.A.,no more war's because of lies, being told to the American people.

shrubnose said:

Pretty much on the money.

Cutting the rate of increase is not a real cut.

If we spent $700 billion on 'defense' last year, and we want to cut our defense spending 10%, this year's spending must be no more than $630 billion.

Like you say slapping on a 10% increase and then cutting that 5% is no cut at all.

Click to expand...

No, no, no. This is not how it works.

Here:

The right hand of the State submits a proposal:

"Let's build a laser cannon capable of blowing away the planet of Jupiter. The intelligence is incomplete at this point, but doesn't this "Red Spot" give you the creeps? According to our back-of-the-envelope calculation, it will cost us mere $666 trillion dollars over the next 777 years. Can we afford NOT to do it?"

The left hand of the State levels its scathing criticism: "This is totally, absolutely, preposterously insane. You people are unbelievable. Six trillion over the next seven years, inflation adjusted, and not a penny more"

Both hands, in unison: "It took a lot of personal courage and bipartisan cooperation, but look: We just have cut our defense spending by more than 90%!"

Navy Pride said:

I know the difference between the debt and the deficit and Obama has increased the debit almost 7 trillion dollars and as far as the military goes he originally cut it 500 billion and wants to cut another 500 billion......Even his own SECDEF was protesting that to the congress.......Those are the facts......He is trying to turn our military into a 3rd rate organization.

Click to expand...

How about an iota of honesty, Navy....what you are expressing so loudly is only your opinion.
The world is ever so slowing, despite its kicking screaming, being dragged into more peaceful times..