If government spending is a concern...

Commy

why isn't anyone up in arms over the $1 trillion spent on the war in Iraq?


remember we were lied to to start this war.


any tea partiers have an answer as to why this huge part of our budget is overlooked when it comes to spending cuts?

blackredyellow

Because silly, they are only against government spending that they don't like...

Electric_Delta

I don't necessarily agree with the decision to invade Iraq, though I think removing Saddam Hussein from office was ultimately a great thing. Just ask the Kurds - I'm sure they would agree. Don't make assumptions. Not all conservatives agree with the way George W. Bush handled the economy. He was not, by definition, a fiscal conservative. Quite the opposite was true.

I don't see how this spending has anything to do with the billions and billions President Goodwrench has spent. This man has racked up more debt than several of his predecessors COMBINED. The "stimulus" and his other pork-laden initiatives were independent of military appropriations.

Sure, he inherited some of his problems, but he sure as hell is doing anything about them.

TriumphantAngel

Electric_Delta wrote:

I don't necessarily agree with the decision to invade Iraq, though I think removing Saddam Hussein from office was ultimately a great thing. Just ask the Kurds - I'm sure they would agree.

oh i'm sure the kurds are delighted.

Who sold Saddam those chemical weapons and continued to sell them to him after he gassed the Kurds?

good old uncle uncle sam, the biggest weapons dealer on the planet.

mikepegg44

Commy wrote:

why isn't anyone up in arms over the $1 trillion spent on the war in Iraq?


remember we were lied to to start this war.


any tea partiers have an answer as to why this huge part of our budget is overlooked when it comes to spending cuts?

if you think no one has complained over the war spending you are kidding yourself

he still stands

Electric_Delta wrote:

I don't see how this spending has anything to do with the billions and billions President Goodwrench has spent. This man has racked up more debt than several of his predecessors COMBINED.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q259 ... s-debt.gif

which several of his predecessors? Taft and McKinley?

Bush - 5 TRILLION
Bush/Clinton - 6.5 trillion
Bush/Clinton/Bush - 8 trillion
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan - 9.7 trillion

Obama has contributed about 2 trillion more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Shawshank

GW was by no means a conservative, and it always surprises me the number of people who want to fool themselves into believing he was. Bill Clinton was far more conservative than GW or his father for that matter. As far as Iraq is concerned, I believe a part of the motivation may have been the imagery that we were going to "free" those people. Free them how, I have no idea, but that is at least part of the driving force behind it. When you look at the big picture in our world, I believe (as a conservative), that there were much harsher enemies to human rights than Saddam. Was he a bad guy? Absolutely! He and his sons were extreme masochists and the world is better off without them. Unfortunately there are people like that all over the world. Africa would be a good place to start if you really want to stick up for the oppressed.

Newch91

Shawshank wrote:

Africa would be a good place to start if you really want to stick up for the oppressed.

I completely agree with you. Africa is a place every one, every where should be helping out.

gimmesometruth27

we did not go to iraq to free those people. we went to take wmds away from saddam, which were not there...that was the FIRST "justification" anyway...later on it became "to give them freedom"...

know1

I am "up in arms" about it. I can't stand that we've allowed the government to take such control of our personal resources that they could wage a war like that.

But to twist your question around, why is it that the people most "up in arms" about the war are usually the quietest about government spending elsewhere?

There are lots of hypocrites out there.

blackredyellow

know1 wrote:

I am "up in arms" about it. I can't stand that we've allowed the government to take such control of our personal resources that they could wage a war like that.

But to twist your question around, why is it that the people most "up in arms" about the war are usually the quietest about government spending elsewhere?

There are lots of hypocrites out there.

I somewhat agree, but for the most part, people who are up in arms about the war/war spending aren't the ones running around screaming about government spending... they aren't against spending, but just are anti-war.

But the ones running around screaming about government spending usually seem to be quiet about war/defense spending.

VINNY GOOMBA

I've said it once, and I'll say it a million times: RON PAUL.

No one in any party has been a more outspoken critic of the overseas empire and the wars than this man, and he and his movement IS the ORIGINAL GANGSTA Tea Party. It started with his supporters with no official campaign ties (true grassroots) organizing a "money bomb," a one day campaign contribution from thousands of donors to garner media attention on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party in 2007. Rallies with speakers were also held on this date, and just like Dr. Paul, gained little attention from the media.

Since then, others have hopped on the bandwagon and have claimed the Tea Party as their own, despite their views straying in many ways from the true libertarian foundation that started it-- the most glaring examples of differences in tea party philosophy being expenditures on the war and overseas empire. The fact remains though that the true origin of the tea party is "classically liberal" in nature. Classical liberalism involves the most amount of freedom for everyone with an understanding to take care of your fellow man by CHOICE, not coercion. We see how efficient government force is at taking care of the disenfranchised-- horrible. There seems to be quite a bit of tax money lost along the way as wealth is transferred-- could it be that the same system that is designed to help out the needy is also the greatest target of special interests, who are much more formidable at obtaining government money through creation of special agencies and rules created by members of special interests? Nahhh.

Edit: Classical liberalism also promotes the adoption of a sensible, non-interventionist foreign policy.*

Paul repeatedly talks about first cutting spending on the empire ENTIRELY to allow us to spend money on programs and departments here at home, while working on a transition to phase out wasteful government spending in many of those programs.

Yes, if the good doctor completely had his way there would be quite a few government programs cut, with taxes to follow, the abolition of the IRS and Federal Reserve, competition would be legalized in every industry where big business has used the law to eliminate competition (from health care, to energy, to even the currency), and people could opt out of social security and plan their own retirements. To clarify, privitization of social security does not automatically equal putting this money into some untouchable Wall Street account where your earnings could be gambled away just as easily as it is stolen away in the government's hands (equally terrible). It definitely could either stay in your paycheck, OR, go into an account that only the person who is paying into it has access to-- not some government slush fund where it can be robbed from repeatedly to pay for government waste somewhere else. I do not see how anyone can argue with giving themselves that option with their own money. The correct portion of that money can still go to others out there who need it now, (vets, disabled, etc...), but the portion that is yours, for YOUR retirement should be put into your hands and out of the reach of government while your money still has actual value.

But should those ideas not resonate with, or even scare some people out there, first ask yourselves which presidents have ever accomplished even 50% of their stated agenda? The reality is with any elected official in America, the people will get a very watered down version of that person's true ideals.

Liberals and Democrats should get behind this guy NOW, even if there are no plans to vote for him in 2012. At the very least, this guy would keep Obama on his toes with regards to the wars and cronyism with Wall STreet-- Paul would make Obama look like Henry Kissinger in a debate about foreign policy, and force him to be accountable for what this country is doing overseas. The man has also forecasted the current economic crisis, as well as past economic crises due to his thorough understanding of Austrian Economics.

We've got two years to make it happen-- to say the guy is unelectable was unfortunately true in 2008. Things are much different now, and the guy is polling much higher in every poll, and even won the CPAC poll this year. The poll mentioned in the other thread where Christie was the winner, Paul was 3rd with just a few votes behind Palin. His understanding of the economy and social issues has him on news shows on every news network as his message does strike a chord with many people, and doesn't pander to his party when they go against his principles.

Above all else, why not push for a guy that has proven to be honest and consistent for 30 years? He would be the easiest of all elected officials to be held accountable for what he says versus what he actually does.

End the wars. End the Fed. Support the only guy out there who is not afraid to do both, by calling the Tea Party out on this very real fact that government waste in the military is greater than or equal to government waste in all other sectors of the budget combined.

Electric_Delta

There absolutely needs to be defense spending. That is the last thing we need to cut back on. We are in a very precarious situation right now and I'm all for protecting innocent lives.

By the way, why does America get all the fingers pointed at them for strengthening their armed forces? I don't see anyone chastising China for beefing their army up AND selling arms to rogue states (IRAN).

It seems to always fall back on the "Blame America" game.

gimmesometruth27

i can never rationalize beefing up military and defense (which with our recent record has been offensive instead of defensive) spending at the expense of our own citizens when we have about 50 million with no health care coverage...but that is just me. you can not have a strong military and a benevolent society at the same time...

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can never rationalize beefing up military and defense (which with our recent record has been offensive instead of defensive) spending at the expense of our own citizens when we have about 50 million with no health care coverage...but that is just me. you can not have a strong military and a benevolent society at the same time...

I disagree. How many decades has it been that way? Our military strength has influenced and protected the world. European countries haven't focused on their militaries because WE protect them.

Also, I don't disagree with your point about health care. There may even be a few provisions in Obama's plan which are decent, however, there are far more that are not. This plan should be defunded and repealed, then replaced with something else.

blackredyellow

Electric_Delta wrote:

There absolutely needs to be defense spending. That is the last thing we need to cut back on. We are in a very precarious situation right now and I'm all for protecting innocent lives.

By the way, why does America get all the fingers pointed at them for strengthening their armed forces? I don't see anyone chastising China for beefing their army up AND selling arms to rogue states (IRAN).

It seems to always fall back on the "Blame America" game.

But we spend more that the rest of the world combined... say that out loud a couple of times... You don't think that's a bit excessive?

You don't think that we could cut down on spending some? Really?

blackredyellow

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can never rationalize beefing up military and defense (which with our recent record has been offensive instead of defensive) spending at the expense of our own citizens when we have about 50 million with no health care coverage...but that is just me. you can not have a strong military and a benevolent society at the same time...

I disagree. How many decades has it been that way? Our military strength has influenced and protected the world. European countries haven't focused on their militaries because WE protect them.

Why do we need to protect them? Isn't it a core conservative principle to avoid foreign entanglements? I understand that there are always exceptions, and if an ally is attacked, we should help, but why are we responsible to foot the cost of being the Earth's protector?

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can never rationalize beefing up military and defense (which with our recent record has been offensive instead of defensive) spending at the expense of our own citizens when we have about 50 million with no health care coverage...but that is just me. you can not have a strong military and a benevolent society at the same time...

I disagree. How many decades has it been that way? Our military strength has influenced and protected the world. European countries haven't focused on their militaries because WE protect them.

Also, I don't disagree with your point about health care. There may even be a few provisions in Obama's plan which are decent, however, there are far more that are not. This plan should be defunded and repealed, then replaced with something else.

i disagree that military spending should be the main priority. we control things in this world from behind a gun. we threaten to use our military might in all foreign spats. how many times to we hear "all options are on the table" meaning even war, when we deal with other countries? we control things by manipulating the UN to impose sanctions and use our veto power in order to protect the israeli government from ever being accountable for anything to anyone. we control things by dictating who we will trade with and who we will not. that is NOT defensive at all. it is offensive and it is abhorrent. we are bullies plain and simple and the "you are either with us or against us" mentality has to stop right here and right now. i thought obama would be different, but nope, he is cut from the same cloth as all the rest of the politicians...

and yes, i agree that that health plan should be repealed because it is not what most of the country wants because it does not go far enough. it is too watered down now. we need universal single payer for everyone.

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can never rationalize beefing up military and defense (which with our recent record has been offensive instead of defensive) spending at the expense of our own citizens when we have about 50 million with no health care coverage...but that is just me. you can not have a strong military and a benevolent society at the same time...

I disagree. How many decades has it been that way? Our military strength has influenced and protected the world. European countries haven't focused on their militaries because WE protect them.

Also, I don't disagree with your point about health care. There may even be a few provisions in Obama's plan which are decent, however, there are far more that are not. This plan should be defunded and repealed, then replaced with something else.

i disagree that military spending should be the main priority. we control things in this world from behind a gun. we threaten to use our military might in all foreign spats. how many times to we hear "all options are on the table" meaning even war, when we deal with other countries? we control things by manipulating the UN to impose sanctions and use our veto power in order to protect the israeli government from ever being accountable for anything to anyone. we control things by dictating who we will trade with and who we will not. that is NOT defensive at all. it is offensive and it is abhorrent. we are bullies plain and simple and the "you are either with us or against us" mentality has to stop right here and right now. i thought obama would be different, but nope, he is cut from the same cloth as all the rest of the politicians...

and yes, i agree that that health plan should be repealed because it is not what most of the country wants because it does not go far enough. it is too watered down now. we need universal single payer for everyone.

We don't owe the UN anything. If they had their way, we would be paying our taxes to them.

Also, if you want to talk about bullying, let's talk about China. What about their currency manipulation which is exponentiating their growth? What about their refusal to join the rest of the world in sanctioning Iran? Why is America always the bully?

gimmesometruth27

Electric_Delta wrote:

We don't owe the UN anything. If they had their way, we would be paying our taxes to them.

Also, if you want to talk about bullying, let's talk about China. What about their currency manipulation which is exponentiating their growth? What about their refusal to join the rest of the world in sanctioning Iran? Why is America always the bully?

no but we owe the rest of the world to play by the rules and accept the treaties and the opinion of the UN. last time i checked the UN is the United Nations, NOT the United States...you can not have countries like the US and Israel acting above the authority of the the United Nation(S) because it is not fair to he rest of the world....we are no more entitled to skirt international law than anyone else, yet we do it all the time and are never reprimanded. why?

and i do not want to talk about china. china owns our ass. they own so much of our debt, and they seem to be our main trading partner. their economy is booming so they must be doing something right. and they are a sovreign nation, they have the right to condemn or not condemn whatever country they want. who cares if they will not condemn iran? iran is a topic for another thread because i think it is wrong how our media is quoting their leader with partial quotes and out of context quotes. the new york times did that 2 weeks ago and issued an apology for it.

america is always the bully because america is always doing the bullying...

Electric_Delta

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

We don't owe the UN anything. If they had their way, we would be paying our taxes to them.

Also, if you want to talk about bullying, let's talk about China. What about their currency manipulation which is exponentiating their growth? What about their refusal to join the rest of the world in sanctioning Iran? Why is America always the bully?

no but we owe the rest of the world to play by the rules and accept the treaties and the opinion of the UN. last time i checked the UN is the United Nations, NOT the United States...you can not have countries like the US and Israel acting above the authority of the the United Nation(S) because it is not fair to he rest of the world....we are no more entitled to skirt international law than anyone else, yet we do it all the time and are never reprimanded. why?

and i do not want to talk about china. china owns our ass. they own so much of our debt, and they seem to be our main trading partner. their economy is booming so they must be doing something right. and they are a sovreign nation, they have the right to condemn or not condemn whatever country they want. who cares if they will not condemn iran? iran is a topic for another thread because i think it is wrong how our media is quoting their leader with partial quotes and out of context quotes. the new york times did that 2 weeks ago and issued an apology for it.

america is always the bully because america is always doing the bullying...

I'm going to respectfully bow out of this conversation. I can't stomach the "blame America for everything" stuff any longer.