• 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!

Perry Leads Republican Field in National Poll

We already let one Governor of Texas mortgage the integrity of this country and lead us to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. I think America learned its lesson from the last Texas debacle. Perry would be another GWB.
 
We already let one Governor of Texas mortgage the integrity of this country and lead us to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. I think America learned its lesson from the last Texas debacle. Perry would be another GWB.

Honestly, I don't think they did (learn their lesson). It baffles the mind.
 
I don't know if Perry will get the nomination or whether it will be Romney, either one has my vote vs Obama
Can you give me an issue where Romney hasn't covered both sides? And again Romney's biggest albatross is his involvement with Bain Capital who is in the business of creating pink slips.
 
I hear the bolded portion all too often from liberals and the like. As a soldier, I'm still trying to figure out where this alleged over-spending is. My broke ass doesn't see any of it nor does my unit's budget.

Perhaps you would like to audit us so you know what the hell you're talking about?

Soldiers and their needs are severely underfunded. That is not where the waste is. Are you aware that we spend almost as much on military spending as the rest of the world combined???

Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think


"To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2009, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $636.5 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.7 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $51.7 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $36.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $95.5 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $54.9 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2009 total by nearly half again, to $901.5 billion.

Finding out how much of the government’s net interest payments on the publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spending—military, veterans, and international affairs—to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 67.6 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2009. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $126.3 billion.

Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone."

"the government is currently spending at a rate well in excess of $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes."
 
Soldiers and their needs are severely underfunded. That is not where the waste is. Are you aware that we spend almost as much on military spending as the rest of the world combined???

And, you know what they are looking at first when it comes to making defense department budget cuts? Military member benefits, including pay, bonuses, health care, retirement, etc. The other stuff seems to be off-limits.
 
And what does SS have to do with your fantasy and how did the "rich" benefit through SS by the wars ??

That was just explained in the post you responded to without reading.

Does everyone that is rich make money from military spending ??

No, its mostly those connected with big oil and military contractors, the GOP's clients.

I guess the Dems support from the rich in Hollywood, lawyers, and unions does not count, right ??

I don't know of any way these groups take money from SS to fight unnecessary wars, but I'm sure you will make up something. :sun
 
Not with the braindead who believe their money is in a lock box and waiting for them to retire. By definition SS is a ponze scheme

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors so what would you call your money going to me or someone else at retirement?

Insurance is what I would call it, because that is what it is. All insurance is collected and distributed in the same manner as SS.
 
And, you know what they are looking at first when it comes to making defense department budget cuts? Military member benefits, including pay, bonuses, health care, retirement, etc. The other stuff seems to be off-limits.

It is disgraceful! And sending over 5,000 US soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis to their deaths in Iraq on behalf of big oil should have been treated as a war crime.
 
Right now, I'd vote for Romney over anyone else who we know is running.

Perry and Bachmann are both nutcases, IMO.

Romney has a better chance than anyone else of leading this nation out of the quagmire it's currently in. I don't know whether he can do it or not, but if he can't, then probably none of the candidates on either side can.

Just my humble opinion. It could be wrong.

I was wrong about LBJ vs Goldwater. I voted for LBJ because I was afraid Goldwater would get us into a war. Such irony.

We really aren't that far apart as I did the same thing for the same reason. I really like Romney's business experience and that is what we need in this country today. Perry isn't as bad as you think or TX would be in worse shape than it is which isn't bad at all.
 
Can you give me an issue where Romney hasn't covered both sides? And again Romney's biggest albatross is his involvement with Bain Capital who is in the business of creating pink slips.

Romney balanced the MA budget and got a credit upgrade. Romney took the Salt Lake Olympics and turned them into a profit. You voted for Obama, why? What was there in his resume that generated that support?
 
Romney balanced the MA budget and got a credit upgrade. Romney took the Salt Lake Olympics and turned them into a profit. You voted for Obama, why? What was there in his resume that generated that support?

The answer is obvious.............he has a "D" at the end of his name. Nothing else matters to blind partisans.
 
Thanks for finally admitting that you lied in your post.

If you voted against Obama in 2008 because you're a racist - and let's face it, a lot of you did - then you'll vote against him in 2012 for exactly the same reason.
 
If you voted against Obama in 2008 because you're a racist - and let's face it, a lot of you did - then you'll vote against him in 2012 for exactly the same reason.

Lame ...... Surely you can come up with something better than that.

Did you vote against Palin because you are a misogynist??
 
Last edited:
Lame ...... Surely you can come up with something better than that.


No, I'm pretty happy with that. I put as much thought into that as you did into your signature.
 
We already let one Governor of Texas mortgage the integrity of this country and lead us to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. I think America learned its lesson from the last Texas debacle. Perry would be another GWB.

Look, Texas has a long history of writing their own history. I heard once Pecos Bill roped a tornado but I digress. Davy Crockett and a band of other do or die heroes were killed running away from the alamo but that ain't how Texan's tell the story. I can imagine how, in 40 years or so, how their children will be studying how Bush saved the world from Muslim domination in their
9th grade Texas history books..

I have many friends and family living in Texas and I speak with them daily. You will find no better people on the face of this planet. But their reality is a world apart from the rest of the country in so many ways. That is the beauty and wonder of Texas. But it can be quite detrimental to politics and other issues that should be dealt with within the dictates of reason when Peco's Bill's rope ain't long enough to reach the tornado.
 
Last edited:
That's a lovely lefthanded compliment. You and I have in common family in both Wisconsin (Edgerton and Jaynesville mainly) and Texas (Houston, Austin, and East Texas). I think there's more to unite us than there is to divide us.
 
The answer is obvious.............he has a "D" at the end of his name. Nothing else matters to blind partisans.

And let me guess, you vote for the man not the party................;)
 
After W. it should be illegal for a Texas Gov to run for prez. Make it a constitutional amendment.



Call it the "Fool me once" law. Err on the side of caution and all that.
 
Surpluses!?!?!?!?! Why do we need SURPLUSES to pay our obligations? We will have lots of revenue.

that is already tagged for other purposes. would you prefer that we not pay our "obligations" to Medicare? that's the only program where we can cut enough to cover Social Security.
 
According to the trust fund administrators, SS is solvent until 2036.

no, according to the trustees, SS is solvent so long as the Federal Government is able to pay back what it took from the Trust Fund.

Since the Federal Government can't do that (we dont' have the money), SS is screwed.

To make it solvent for the long term all that is needed is to raise the FICA cap from its current $106,000 to $180,000.

so long as you can find a spare $17 Trillion in the Federal Government's books, yes. unfortunately, we do not have $17 Trillion. We have negative $10 Trillion.

SO, find us $27 Trillion; and yes, we can "just" raise the FICA cap to 180K and be good :).
 
After W. it should be illegal for a Texas Gov to run for prez. Make it a constitutional amendment.


Call it the "Fool me once" law. Err on the side of caution and all that.

Like all liberals you buy what the media feeds you. I welcome you putting side by side the Bush results vs. the Obama results in actual numbers to show just how bad Bush was. Let me help you, he had a net job gain, he had a growing labor force, he had more people working when he left office than when he started, he added almost 5 trillion to the GDP, and left the country with a AAA credit rating. your turn?
 
If you voted against Obama in 2008 because you're a racist - and let's face it, a lot of you did - then you'll vote against him in 2012 for exactly the same reason.

I voted for somebody else, somebody whose views were much more closely aligned with my views, not against Obama. Now that I've seen how weak and ineffectual he is, however, I hope to do my part in seeing that he's a one-term President. He hasn't earned another one.

Trying to play the race-card here is just...sad.
 
Back
Top Bottom