Democrats to blame if there is a shut down

[jillian]

hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....

I prefer a point to discuss; so, do you think say, 60 billion dollars is to much to cut from the rest of the years budget?

Do you have a counter offer?

Do you know how much we are borrowing each and every day?

yes... i do know. which is why is was such an absurd move to continue the bush tax cuts.

also, the cuts they're making all target the middle class. none of it targets corporations and the wealthy. (and no, i'm not interested in hearing them called job creators because if they were job creators, the tax cuts, which have been in effect for more than 10 years, would already have worked).

to me the drumbeat of the freshmen is to do exactly what was said years ago... starve government until you can drown it in a bathtub.

until you have a dialogue about military spending, we are going to run on deficits. i also don't think it's appropriate to cut budgets and taxes in the face of a fragile recovery. i also think it's clear that there's an agenda there, because it helps the repubs in 2012 if unemployment is still high.

does that make me a cynic? i don't know. i think it makes me a realist.

and visceral? maybe.

 

[Care4all]

the democrats don't want a shutdown....RGS..... they never want gvt to be shut down, they love our gvt too much.....and the gvt spending that goes with it, so the Republicans used to say.... and now you seem to be changing your tune on that to cover up the tea party members that have told the GOP that they ain't gonna compromise anymore, ''if that results in a gvt shutdown, then so be it.'' you did read the link provided on that in the military would not get paid thread, didn't you?

What part of only a 60 billion cut don't you understand? More to the point the Senate only offered 10 billion. 10 billion from a 1.1 trillion dollar budget. What part of we CAN NOT afford to keep borrowing don't you get? What part of " the American people elected Republicans to cut spending " don't you get.

As for specifics? Guess what? Those bills were available to the public to see what cuts were in them.

Once again the democrats are not in charge anymore, the House is run by the Republicans and the Senate is barely in Democratic control. The Democrats were voted out because they were spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. What part of ELECTIONS have consequences don't you understand?

The MERE fact the dems think they can get away with only offering 10 billion in cuts and that YOU support them blindly as they keep spending money we FUCKING don't have, is proof enough who the hell the loons are.

Once again JUST for you, YOUR party thinks they can get away with out cutting the budget and then blaming any shut down on Republicans doing the will of the people.

And YOU defend them.

no, I think the Democrats want to CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET, and they are playing moves to get that to take place.

the total defense budget has risen from 290 billion in 2000, to $850 BILLION PLUS, a year.....

and it is what is the major thorn in the side, that caused most of our National debt, thus far.

Yes, the Democrats and Obama did get blamed by the voice box, for spending on tarp and the gm bail out and the entire recession.....even though it was a build up and occurred under the Bush reign...including the bail out for gm....it was president bush that went around congress and began that bail out....

I realize facts may not matter to you.

 

[WillowTree]

hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....

I prefer a point to discuss; so, do you think say, 60 billion dollars is to much to cut from the rest of the years budget?

Do you have a counter offer?

Do you know how much we are borrowing each and every day?

yes... i do know. which is why is was such an absurd move to continue the bush tax cuts.

also, the cuts they're making all target the middle class. none of it targets corporations and the wealthy. (and no, i'm not interested in hearing them called job creators because if they were job creators, the tax cuts, which have been in effect for more than 10 years, would already have worked).

to me the drumbeat of the freshmen is to do exactly what was said years ago... starve government until you can drown it in a bathtub.

until you have a dialogue about military spending, we are going to run on deficits. i also don't think it's appropriate to cut budgets and taxes in the face of a fragile recovery. i also think it's clear that there's an agenda there, because it helps the repubs in 2012 if unemployment is still high.

does that make me a cynic? i don't know. i think it makes me a realist.

and visceral? maybe.

how are we supposed to "have a dialogue" about military spending with obie wan running around unilaterally starting wars in the middle east? pray sistah tell us how?

 

[WillowTree]

the democrats don't want a shutdown....RGS..... they never want gvt to be shut down, they love our gvt too much.....and the gvt spending that goes with it, so the Republicans used to say.... and now you seem to be changing your tune on that to cover up the tea party members that have told the GOP that they ain't gonna compromise anymore, ''if that results in a gvt shutdown, then so be it.'' you did read the link provided on that in the military would not get paid thread, didn't you?

What part of only a 60 billion cut don't you understand? More to the point the Senate only offered 10 billion. 10 billion from a 1.1 trillion dollar budget. What part of we CAN NOT afford to keep borrowing don't you get? What part of " the American people elected Republicans to cut spending " don't you get.

As for specifics? Guess what? Those bills were available to the public to see what cuts were in them.

Once again the democrats are not in charge anymore, the House is run by the Republicans and the Senate is barely in Democratic control. The Democrats were voted out because they were spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. What part of ELECTIONS have consequences don't you understand?

The MERE fact the dems think they can get away with only offering 10 billion in cuts and that YOU support them blindly as they keep spending money we FUCKING don't have, is proof enough who the hell the loons are.

Once again JUST for you, YOUR party thinks they can get away with out cutting the budget and then blaming any shut down on Republicans doing the will of the people.

And YOU defend them.

no, I think the Democrats want to CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET, and they are playing moves to get that to take place.

the total defense budget has risen from 290 billion in 2000, to $850 BILLION PLUS, a year.....

and it is what is the major thorn in the side, that caused most of our National debt, thus far.

Yes, the Democrats and Obama did get blamed by the voice box, for spending on tarp and the gm bail out and the entire recession.....even though it was a build up and occurred under the Bush reign...including the bail out for gm....it was president bush that went around congress and began that bail out....

I realize facts may not matter to you.

obie wan has three wars going now,, and now you want to gut military spending? Kool beans.

 

[Care4all]

850,000 millions A YEAR, is too much money....even if there were 10 wars going on!

 

[WillowTree]

850,000 millions A YEAR, is too much money....even if there were 10 wars going on!

then you mights needs to tell him to stop his wars,,but he won't, he's a war mongerer.

 

[WillowTree]

I remember when President Bush was in office, the hypocrites screamed over each piece of equipment the soldiers didn't have, now they want to take it all away from them now that they izz war mongerers, soldiers can shoot spit balls.

 

[rightwinger]

I remember when President Bush was in office, the hypocrites screamed over each piece of equipment the soldiers didn't have, now they want to take it all away from them now that they izz war mongerers, soldiers can shoot spit balls.

Don't we still have a military strength larger than the next ten nations combined?

 

[Intense]

I remember when President Bush was in office, the hypocrites screamed over each piece of equipment the soldiers didn't have, now they want to take it all away from them now that they izz war mongerers, soldiers can shoot spit balls.

Don't we still have a military strength larger than the next ten nations combined?

You are very wrong about that.

 

[Intense]

GlobalFirepower.com: Strength in Numbers

History and Warfare
If history has shown the observer one thing, it is that war follows man like a shadow. According to one source, documented history has recorded an estimated 300 years of known peace on our planet - leaving thousands of years open to conflicts of varying degrees. Interestingly enough, this mostly unknown fact forces us to recognize that there has been some source of conflict - be it religious, ethnic, territorial or otherwise - between two or more groups on our planet on a consistent basis for thousands of years.

GlobalFirepower.com (GFP)
GFP provides a unique analytical display of information covering nations from around the world with statistics based on various public sources. Countries covered include the major global players prominent in today's international landscape along with other smaller nations making the news - this spectrum helping to produce a broad comparison of military strengths from across the globe. This is a personal and experimental site meant for entertainment and to stir up dialogue.

Things You Should Know
The user should note that nuclear capability is not taken into account. This listing is purely a "numbers game" meant to spark debate and including such game-changers as nuclear weapons would clearly defeat the purpose of such an experiment. In any case, most any nation going to war would more than likely refrain from using such destructive warfare being that since the atomic bombs dropped in 1945, no nation has utilized this form of warfare for at least 60+ years despite there being a good amount of conflicts since then and more nuclear powers at play in the world. If there is a World War 3, it will most likely still be of the conventional sort.

The comparisons here are for consideration in a "straight-up" war based solely on a nation's capabilities from land, sea and through the air with other statistics covering the logistical and financial aspects of waging such a campaign. Statistic sources and years are stated whenever possible. Some statistics may be estimated if concrete numbers are not available.

Final Thoughts
It goes without saying that lists such can be completely subjective, though the GFP intention is to be wholly unbiased. No list could ever offer a proper display of accurate military firepower unless one had a full-time staff researching these numbers daily with many connections to these world governments. This listing is updating approximately once every 12 months based on new (if any) information garnered from various print and online sources.

The GFP final ranking is based on an in-house formula used to generate an average of all applicable statistics found on this website when compared against each country with applicable modifiers (bonuses and penalties) added to each nations score to present a more accurate list. The last major statistics review was in February of 2009. The GFP ranking list was updated in May of 2009. Changes to the list now include factors for current/recent military experiences, training levels and equipment quality. Denmark, South Africa and Georgia are new-adds bringing the country total to 42 nations.

Enjoy the numbers! It is hardly a super-accurate scientific measurement of military strengths but still entertaining to consider at the very least.

World Military Strength Ranking

 

[Trajan]

so, 10 billion in cuts is enough? do you know how much we are borrowing every single day?






whatever, the only person I saw playing the impeachment game was Kucinich....

A. Our debt is entirely servicable and it's an extremely idiotic idea to start austerity measures in the middle of a weak recovery. When things get humming again..that's the time to make cuts and :gasp: raise taxes.

so cutting spending is a bad thing? I see.

you never answered the other question as to what we are borrowing....because that would make your first sentence here look like, well what it is, totally and completely off the wall.

We have to service that debt. for the money we borrow TODAY, the less we borrow the less interest we have to pay there fore add to future liabilities.

Ask Toro how that works..., I mean, do you read? seriously? Greece? Portugal? Bond markets and interest rates?


sallow-I don't know what happened to you in the last month to 6 weeks, I have seen a gradual change over that time, you're barely reasonable or logical anymore, if you are just going to knee jerk every single response, well, good luck with that amigo....but don't expect any serious or thoughtful responses anymore, you reap what you sow.

B. Darrell Issa said that the Obama administration was the most corrupt in history. I am pretty sure he's looking to oust the President.

see what I mean?

 

[ABikerSailor]

hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....

I prefer a point to discuss; so, do you think say, 60 billion dollars is to much to cut from the rest of the years budget?

Do you have a counter offer?

Do you know how much we are borrowing each and every day?

yes... i do know. which is why is was such an absurd move to continue the bush tax cuts.

also, the cuts they're making all target the middle class. none of it targets corporations and the wealthy. (and no, i'm not interested in hearing them called job creators because if they were job creators, the tax cuts, which have been in effect for more than 10 years, would already have worked).

to me the drumbeat of the freshmen is to do exactly what was said years ago... starve government until you can drown it in a bathtub.

until you have a dialogue about military spending, we are going to run on deficits. i also don't think it's appropriate to cut budgets and taxes in the face of a fragile recovery. i also think it's clear that there's an agenda there, because it helps the repubs in 2012 if unemployment is still high.

does that make me a cynic? i don't know. i think it makes me a realist.

and visceral? maybe.

Getting rid of government........wouldn't that make them anarchists?

And......you're right.......the Bush Jr. tax cuts have had a full decade to prove if they worked or not. Its readily apparent to even the most casual observer they didn't.

 

[ABikerSailor]

850,000 millions A YEAR, is too much money....even if there were 10 wars going on!

then you mights needs to tell him to stop his wars,,but he won't, he's a war mongerer.

Speaking of war mongers.....wanna talk about Newt and McStupid? When Libya first came out they both said we needed a no fly zone.

Then, after Obama did it, they did a complete 180 and said we should stay out of Libya because we had no national interests there.

Now? They're giving grudging support but still state they are against it.

Yeah.....sure.......Obama is the "war monger"/sarcasm.

 

[kwc57]

hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....

I prefer a point to discuss; so, do you think say, 60 billion dollars is to much to cut from the rest of the years budget?

Do you have a counter offer?

Do you know how much we are borrowing each and every day?

yes... i do know. which is why is was such an absurd move to continue the bush tax cuts.

also, the cuts they're making all target the middle class. none of it targets corporations and the wealthy. (and no, i'm not interested in hearing them called job creators because if they were job creators, the tax cuts, which have been in effect for more than 10 years, would already have worked).

to me the drumbeat of the freshmen is to do exactly what was said years ago... starve government until you can drown it in a bathtub.

until you have a dialogue about military spending, we are going to run on deficits. i also don't think it's appropriate to cut budgets and taxes in the face of a fragile recovery. i also think it's clear that there's an agenda there, because it helps the repubs in 2012 if unemployment is still high.

does that make me a cynic? i don't know. i think it makes me a realist.

and visceral? maybe.

how are we supposed to "have a dialogue" about military spending with obie wan running around unilaterally starting wars in the middle east? pray sistah tell us how?

Edumacation is a onerful thang! Unilateral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[M14 Shooter]

hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....

I prefer a point to discuss; so, do you think say, 60 billion dollars is to much to cut from the rest of the years budget?

Do you have a counter offer?

Do you know how much we are borrowing each and every day?

yes... i do know. which is why is was such an absurd move to continue the bush tax cuts.

Didn't you mean that it "was such an absurd move - for Obama - to continue the Bush tax cuts"?

No surprise that you left that part out - admitting to the truth would require you to criticize your secular messiah.

Until you have a dialogue about military spending, we are going to run on deficits.

Until you have a dialogue about entitlement spending, we are going to run much larger deficits

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, Obama wanted to stop the tax cuts. It's the GOP that stopped him and forced a compromise.

I'm still wondering why I have to pay taxes, and GE not only owed NOTHING, but they also got a 3.5 BILLION dollar tax credit.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's the tea party rightwingnuts who want to make a name for themselves by shutting down the government. They don't want government to work. They hate government. They shouldn't be running government.

It's really not that complicated an equation.

Is Howard Dean a tea party right wing nut?

NationalJournal.com - Howard Dean: Democrats Should Be 'Quietly Rooting' for Shutdown - Tuesday, March 29, 2011

 

[Sallow]

I remember when President Bush was in office, the hypocrites screamed over each piece of equipment the soldiers didn't have, now they want to take it all away from them now that they izz war mongerers, soldiers can shoot spit balls.

Don't we still have a military strength larger than the next ten nations combined?

You are very wrong about that.

Yeah..its probably more like all the nations, combined.

This country could destroy all life on the planet..many times over.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the democrats don't want a shutdown....RGS..... they never want gvt to be shut down, they love our gvt too much.....and the gvt spending that goes with it, so the Republicans used to say.... and now you seem to be changing your tune on that to cover up the tea party members that have told the GOP that they ain't gonna compromise anymore, ''if that results in a gvt shutdown, then so be it.'' you did read the link provided on that in the military would not get paid thread, didn't you?

What part of only a 60 billion cut don't you understand? More to the point the Senate only offered 10 billion. 10 billion from a 1.1 trillion dollar budget. What part of we CAN NOT afford to keep borrowing don't you get? What part of " the American people elected Republicans to cut spending " don't you get.

As for specifics? Guess what? Those bills were available to the public to see what cuts were in them.

Once again the democrats are not in charge anymore, the House is run by the Republicans and the Senate is barely in Democratic control. The Democrats were voted out because they were spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. What part of ELECTIONS have consequences don't you understand?

The MERE fact the dems think they can get away with only offering 10 billion in cuts and that YOU support them blindly as they keep spending money we FUCKING don't have, is proof enough who the hell the loons are.

Once again JUST for you, YOUR party thinks they can get away with out cutting the budget and then blaming any shut down on Republicans doing the will of the people.

And YOU defend them.

no, I think the Democrats want to CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET, and they are playing moves to get that to take place.

the total defense budget has risen from 290 billion in 2000, to $850 BILLION PLUS, a year.....and it is what is the major thorn in the side, that caused most of our National debt, thus far.

Defense spending FY2000: $295B
Defense spending FY2009: $655B
Increase, defense spending, FY2000-2009: $360B, 122%

Entitlement spending FY2000: $1031B
Entitlement spending FY2008: $1788B
Entitlement spending FY2009: $2288B
Increase, entitlement spending, FY2000-2009: $1257B, 122%

Increase, entitlement spenidng, FY2008-2009: $500B
Increase, defense spending, FY2000-2009: $360B
The increase in entitlement spending -- in one year --- is 140% the increase in defense spending over 10 years.

But, defense spending causes the defecits and runs up the debt.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml

 

[Sallow]

Actually, Obama wanted to stop the tax cuts. It's the GOP that stopped him and forced a compromise.

I'm still wondering why I have to pay taxes, and GE not only owed NOTHING, but they also got a 3.5 BILLION dollar tax credit.

No he didn't.

Especially after the mid terms.

Politically it would have been bad for him to increase taxes during a recovery.