Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wrong again......discretionary spending...do you understand? Discretionary spending means shit that is nice to have but in some cases not really necessary....i.e. PORK!!!!!!!!!!To do this would require radical cuts in either the military, social security, or Medicare, possibly in all 3.
READ THE FUCKING POSTS PRIOR TO YOURS.
2/3 of the Budget is made up of Military Spending, Social Security, Medicare and Interest on pre-existing debt..
The deficit is equal to 40% of the budget.
Now, you could eliminate the entire government, and live in anarchy, with no roads, no disaster relief, no unemployment, etc, etc...
AND YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO CUT SOME OF THE ABOVE PROGRAMS.
"PORK" makes up .6% of the budget.
Learn to do math.
And "discretionary spending" is "discretionary", because the Government is not legally bound to spend it. It includes things like Roads, schools, emergency medical care at disaster sites, the legislative branch, the judiciary, etc, etc.
That is the kind of jackass politicized doublespeak which gets the country into debt.In what way, specifically, did the democrats decide to "spend more"?
You mean to fund this year's budget at about the same level of the previous year? That would be "spending the same".
The vote was whether to increase the national debt ceiling. One party, the Democrats voted overwhelmingly YES while the other, the Republicans voted no.
Or this more Obama using the Blame Bush defense?
Annual U.S. spending 1934-2006 with adjustment for inflation.2011 United States federal budget - $3.83 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.55 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.63 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
The President's budget also contains revenue and spending projections for the current fiscal year, the coming fiscal years, as well as several future fiscal years. In recent years, the President's budget contained projections five years into the future. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues a "Budget and Economic Outlook" each January and an analysis of the President's budget each March. CBO also issues an updated budget and economic outlook in August.
Actual budget data for prior years is available from the Congressional Budget Office [83] and from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)[84].
I would include reducing SS and Medicare as they are both unconstitutional programs.and if there are any budget cuts it should be ACROSS THE BOARD with the exception of SS and Medicare.
Budgets numbers are garbage, track the national debt to see the truth.
It's people like VLWC who want to cut defense spending while the country is involved in 2 wars that is responsible for the attacks that happen on U.S. assets around the world and here at home.
//
LMAO, just read what that statement says.
I have always said that our iraq invasion was responsible for generating more terrorism. I am suprised that a rightie would agree though.
In the history of this country, nobody has embraced deficit spending like the Republicans
February 04, 2010 Roll call number 48 in the House Question On Adoption of the second portion of the divided question: H J RES 45 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act
Ayes: 233 (Democrat: 233; Republican: 0)
Nays: 187 (Democrat: 16; Republican: 171)
Abstained: 14 (Democrat: 8; Republican: 6)
House Roll Call #48 Details - OpenCongress
Republican politicians vote against pay as you go. They apparently like deficit spending.
Right wing sheep - stop believing their lies. They aren't trying to balance the budget. They vote against it.
They are hypocrites and liars.
It's people like VLWC who want to cut defense spending while the country is involved in 2 wars that is responsible for the attacks that happen on U.S. assets around the world and here at home.
//
LMAO, just read what that statement says.
I have always said that our iraq invasion was responsible for generating more terrorism. I am suprised that a rightie would agree though.
Perhaps in your own convoluted logic that's the way you interpret it but the reality is this...when you cut defense spending you weaken the country and allow us to be attacked. That's what I said.
It's people like VLWC who want to cut defense spending while the country is involved in 2 wars that is responsible for the attacks that happen on U.S. assets around the world and here at home.
//
LMAO, just read what that statement says.
I have always said that our iraq invasion was responsible for generating more terrorism. I am suprised that a rightie would agree though.
Perhaps in your own convoluted logic that's the way you interpret it but the reality is this...when you cut defense spending you weaken the country and allow us to be attacked. That's what I said.
The United States spends more than the rest of the world combined on "Defense" spending.
We spend 6 times as much as our closest competitor, China.
We have enough Nuclear weapons to obliterate every nation on the face of the planet.
Most of our military funding goes into programs that will not be of any use in fighting terrorism, which is our main focus at the moment.
So, who exactly do you propose the bulk of our Defense spending is protecting us from?
Your problem is that you simply assume that the US acting as policeman for the rest of the world is somehow "protecting us from attack". I disagree.
I feel that we can certainly make major cuts to our military spending with little to no difference in how strong our own actual defense is. I'm quite sure that many people would agree with me.
That is the kind of jackass politicized doublespeak which gets the country into debt.In what way, specifically, did the democrats decide to "spend more"?
You mean to fund this year's budget at about the same level of the previous year? That would be "spending the same".
The vote was whether to increase the national debt ceiling. One party, the Democrats voted overwhelmingly YES while the other, the Republicans voted no.
Or this more Obama using the Blame Bush defense?
Perhaps in your own convoluted logic that's the way you interpret it but the reality is this...when you cut defense spending you weaken the country and allow us to be attacked. That's what I said.
The United States spends more than the rest of the world combined on "Defense" spending.
We spend 6 times as much as our closest competitor, China.
We have enough Nuclear weapons to obliterate every nation on the face of the planet.
Most of our military funding goes into programs that will not be of any use in fighting terrorism, which is our main focus at the moment.
So, who exactly do you propose the bulk of our Defense spending is protecting us from?
Your problem is that you simply assume that the US acting as policeman for the rest of the world is somehow "protecting us from attack". I disagree.
I feel that we can certainly make major cuts to our military spending with little to no difference in how strong our own actual defense is. I'm quite sure that many people would agree with me.
we are obviously one of the most afraid nations on earth?
Nope. But we are definitely the one nation on Earth than only the religious wacko crazies would dare attack. And we are the one nation on Earth that has enough clout to ensure nobody with a real army will attack those nations we are allied with too. And that is probably why there isn't even a possibility, much less probability of a WWIII at this time. But there almost certainly will be if some of the numbnuts get their way and demand that we unilaterally disarm.
Nope. But we are definitely the one nation on Earth than only the religious wacko crazies would dare attack. And we are the one nation on Earth that has enough clout to ensure nobody with a real army will attack those nations we are allied with too. And that is probably why there isn't even a possibility, much less probability of a WWIII at this time. But there almost certainly will be if some of the numbnuts get their way and demand that we unilaterally disarm.
Yeah, I would never, ever suggest that we unilaterally disarm, in any circumstance.
I was simply suggesting that if we spent, perhaps 3 times as much as China, instead of 6 times, that we would still be safe.
Call me crazy...
Clever abuse of the languageIt's not "political doublespeak" at all, it's the cold hard truth.
I refer you to the earlier posts in the thread, where it was pointed out that even if you cut the deficit by 75%, which would require spending cuts in Social Security, Medicare and the Military, you would still need to raise the debt ceiling.
This has to do with mathematical realities.
