Jump to content

Raising the US debt ceiling


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll wait. Take your time.

What are you waiting for?

When has the military budget in the USA ever been decreased? If not, why not? And if not, what makes you think they are going to do it this time?

You asked has the budget ever decreased. I gave you plenty of dates.

Just say..."okay, the budget has decreased from time to time..."

....and move on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure..even if, it would be relative...a drop in spending in 1956 to 57 is still a drop whether in 1956 dollars or 2011 dollars

Right...during WW2, US defense spending exploded (42% of GDP) and was obviously reduced after the war...DUH!


Comparison of World War II Defense Spending
(millions of dollars)

1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948

1,660 	6,435 	25,658 	66,699 	79,143 	82,965 	42,681 	12,808 	9,105 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's not off topic. It is part of the problem that the US is in with their debt. You cannot operate that kind of military without that kind of cost. it's part of the budget, hence part of the problem with the national debt.

Right...First you claimed they wouldn't cut the military budget...When shown that it is indeed a topic in politics...you brushed it aside and you limply tried to claim that the US has never reduced the military budget.

Thus shown they have in the past, you have no argument that they won't in the future.

Next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that about half their budget is in the military. Wherever public money gets used to such an extent for so long, there will be abuses and inefficiency. Seems there should be room to make some cuts there.

We talk about welfare people being drunk and lazy, living on public money. These organizations need to be scrutinized, trimmed, made leaner and meaner. From this perspective the military is a left-wing, socialist organization!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right...First you claimed they wouldn't cut the military budget...When shown that it is indeed a topic in politics...you brushed it aside and you limply tried to claim that the US has never reduced the military budget.

Thus shown they have in the past, you have no argument that they won't in the future.

Next!

The budget however is different from actual spending, but still part of the problem. So the budget may be X,, but the spending is Y. So it's not off topic, because the budgets don't mean much if your actual spending is way over. And since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, were not on the budget, but funds appropriated through congress/senate in order to provide funding for the wars, that is how you circumvent certain things like an actual budget when throwing those costs under some other item line at the end of the day. it's still money spent on the military no matter how you slice it (or not).

Either way, the spending is occurring on the military and the wars and overall spending has increased, when you factor that all in. I know you like you compartmentalize yourself into a narrow way of thinking, and that is why you fail to see the bigger picture all the time. Not your fault, really, you've been conditioned to think this way. But compartmentalizing yourself gives you that narrow way of thinking to make you think you are 'winning'.

Do you know how much the current war in Libya has cost the American taxpayer so far?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001778/Libya-war-costs-US-taxpayers-2m-day-Gaddafi.html

About 2 million a day. I know I know... does not mean anything at all right? 2 million per day could be spent on something else, like perhaps more bail outs for the too big to fail banks? Because it's obvious that education and healthcare don't need their budgets increased.

Wonder how much all this security theater with the TSA is costing the taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that about half their budget is in the military. Wherever public money gets used to such an extent for so long, there will be abuses and inefficiency. Seems there should be room to make some cuts there.

Nope..not even close to 50% of the US federal budget. As member MDancer has pointed out, cuts have been made in the past, and will be made in the future.

We talk about welfare people being drunk and lazy, living on public money. These organizations need to be scrutinized, trimmed, made leaner and meaner. From this perspective the military is a left-wing, socialist organization!

The US Constitution actually mandates a national defense, not welfare or "free" health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope..not even close to 50% of the US federal budget. As member MDancer has pointed out, cuts have been made in the past, and will be made in the future.

The US Constitution actually mandates a national defense, not welfare or "free" health care.

Actually the people that wrote the constitution were highly leary of the idea of having a large standing army. The government was only supposed to raise an army temporarily by organizing state militias in response to some threat, and they were supposed to disband it within two years.

To suggest that the constitution calls for a trillion dollar global police force specifically designed to fight on foreign shores is a bit of a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See how they run……

Standard & Poors has a specific justification for downgrading the U.S. bond rating, and it's deadly for Republicans. It wasn't just that Congress showed itself to be reckless and dysfunctional, or that the GOP shows no sign of ever ending their anti-tax jihad. It's that for a period of weeks, some lawmakers (read: Republicans) were quite literally shrugging off the risks of blowing past the August 2 deadline, running out of borrowing authority, and missing payment obligations.

"[P]eople in the political arena were even talking about a potential default," said Joydeep Mukherji, senior directior at S&P. "That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable," he added. "This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/after-triggering-downgrade-debt-default-skeptics-try-to-run-from-their-records----but-they-cant.php??ref=fpblg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope..not even close to 50% of the US federal budget. As member MDancer has pointed out, cuts have been made in the past, and will be made in the future.

I have read the point that it is 50% of all income taxes or somesuch, which fuzzies the point as there are other sources of income for the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope..not even close to 50% of the US federal budget. As member MDancer has pointed out, cuts have been made in the past, and will be made in the future.

The US Constitution actually mandates a national defense, not welfare or "free" health care.

Army first and good teeth and health second. Kind of dumb to spend millions defending a nation of people with rotten teeth about to contract a diabetic condtion spawned from obesity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the people that wrote the constitution were highly leary of the idea of having a large standing army. The government was only supposed to raise an army temporarily by organizing state militias in response to some threat, and they were supposed to disband it within two years.

Nope...you only have half the story:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 11 - 16 give Congress further direction and authority in this area, including the power "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy".

The two year requirement is easily met by annual budgets, appropriations, or continuing resolutions.

To suggest that the constitution calls for a trillion dollar global police force specifically designed to fight on foreign shores is a bit of a stretch.

No it's not....the army and navy mandated in writing did just that from the git go....to the shores of Tripoli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope...you only have half the story:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 11 - 16 give Congress further direction and authority in this area, including the power "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy".

The two year requirement is easily met by annual budgets, appropriations, or continuing resolutions.

No it's not....the army and navy mandated in writing did just that from the git go....to the shores of Tripoli.

Oh God he's broken into song!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On appeal that Judges ruling will be overturned. That might be why he never put an injunction on the act. Oh wait that ruling was already overturned. Ouch it must suck to be mis informed so much eh Shady? Citing rulings which have already been ruled null-in-void.

OK..time to settle up here....let's see...you owe one member an apology over this appeals court ruling:

ATLANTA - A federal appeals panel struck down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul Friday, moving the argument over whether Americans can be required to buy health insurance a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the so-called individual mandate, the first such decision by a federal appeals court. It's a stinging blow to Obama's signature legislative achievement, as most experts agree the requirement that Americans carry health insurance — or face tax penalties — is the foundation for other parts of the law.

Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull found in a 207-page opinion that lawmakers
cannot require residents to "enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die
."

...and you owe the entire United States an apology as promised because America did not "default" by 12:00AM on August 5th.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK..time to settle up here....let's see...you owe one member an apology over this appeals court ruling:

ATLANTA - A federal appeals panel struck down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul Friday, moving the argument over whether Americans can be required to buy health insurance a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the so-called individual mandate, the first such decision by a federal appeals court. It's a stinging blow to Obama's signature legislative achievement, as most experts agree the requirement that Americans carry health insurance — or face tax penalties — is the foundation for other parts of the law.

Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull found in a 207-page opinion that lawmakers
cannot require residents to "enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die
."

...and you owe the entire United States an apology as promised because America did not "default" by 12:00AM on August 5th.

You are right on the first account I was wrong the 11th ruled much different then I had hoped.

On the second the 5th was if no deal was reached remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right on the first account I was wrong the 11th ruled much different then I had hoped.

On the second the 5th was if no deal was reached remember?

But you said there would be no deal because of the Tea Party Republicans...dooming America forever! Plus you lost in Wisconsin too. You are not having a good week.

So take your medicine and repeat after me....S-H-A-D-Y....W-A-S....R-I-G-H-T

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mandate SHOULD be struck down, its a bad idea.

Bad idea or not that is not how the legal system in the US should work. That was the problem with the 11th's ruling when read. Instead of ruling on the law they ruled on the idea. I hope we see this go en blanc and have the whole court rule on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...