If government spending is a concern...
Commy
Posts: 4,984
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?
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?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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.
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.
if you think no one has complained over the war spending you are kidding yourself
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
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.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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.
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.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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.
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?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
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?
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...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm going to respectfully bow out of this conversation. I can't stomach the "blame America for everything" stuff any longer.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It seems that some people value security to the point where cost is completely ignored-- but only on a national scale, and when money can be printed to pay for it. I would wager to guess that a lot of these so-called "tea partiers" who see no limit to defense spending have a much more conservative and stream-lined approach to the security of their own families and homes. How many of them have round-the-clock security systems or in-home surveillance? How many of them kick down the doors and kick the asses of people who threaten them or look at them funny? How many of them pay extra for police benefits, or have some sort of other private security on top of what their town taxes already provide? How many pay close friends or relatives to permanently set-up camp on a neighbors yard to keep watch of a questionable neighbor two houses down the block, despite having no legal right to be in their neighbor's yard in the first place?
Probably not many. Most of them probably have guns, fences, dogs, and probably avoid unnecessary confrontation with their neighbors-- all of which work perfectly fine. Our national defense should be a mirror image of this model.
It's part of the same pipe dream that is shared by so many others that throwing money at a problem will fix it. It doesn't work with welfare, health care, or defense. Just because their is a law, agency, or appropriation to alleviate some problem, doesn't mean it will actually work.
Define "America," is what I say. I purposely try to go out of my way to avoid using the word "we" when talking about the bullshit brought upon the good people of this nation and other nations around the world by the Congress, The White House, various government agencies and the corporations for which they stand. They are NOT America, and they sure as fuck do not represent me. So, it's not "blame America for everything" in my eyes, it's "blame the cocksuckers who hijacked a great country and put the rest of us at risk everyday in their lust for power and control." I think step one in reform of our nation would be to not take criticism of "America" so personally. I believe more of us would then recognize that as a collective most of us are on the same page with each other with varying approaches as to how make this country a better place. The fact of the matter is that the people who claim to represent us are doing a horrible job and have given themselves too much power. Granted, the populace has been duped into allowing this to happen. It is our fault for being fooled into giving banks the legal authority to counterfeit money, and if that isn't bad enough, they have the ability to do it without disclosure. That is the head of the beast, and that is why it is never discussed in the mainstream media.
Bow out if you want. I hope that you and everyone else also feels that you are unbelievably misrepresented as an American, which should mean "citizen of the nation most dedicated to the freedom of its people." I personally will not blame "America," because I feel my defintion of American best fits its original definition-- not the one created by the assholes who ruined our reputation around the world. It's like Office Space where Michael Bolton refuses to go by "Mike." As he puts it, "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks!"
You make a lot of sense i will give you that, and i'm far enough left that i actually agree with a lot of conservatism.
I use the bully analogy quite a bit. you're out there kicking everyone's asses all day, and occasionally they throw a punch back.....if you don't like being punched maybe stepping up the asskicking isn't the best way to solve that problem.
terrorists have never attacked Canada, there is a reason for that.
some things just don't require an institution (government, private). anytime power concentrates it corrupts, the institution that at first acted altruistically or for a goal, inevitably ends up serving itself primarily. this is true from haliburton to PETA.
collectives, things like co-op stores, worker run companies, places that aren't fascist institutions (corporations have a top down structure, very fascist) could be expanded on. the workers running the company, as opposed to renting ourselves out to companies to survive; communal farms, shared labor. things like that go a long way to dealing with things fairly.
and naturally leaving people alone, domestically and abroad. the goal of course should be to maximize personal freedom. but you do this by doing for yourself what you have had government or corporate institutions do for you all of this time.
and given a choice between obama, palin, or paul i'd vote for ron paul in a second.
Godfather.
http://www.spamlaws.com/welfare-fraud.html
lots of stuff to get angry about
Godfather.
Only occupy another country if Congress declares war.
Put those recalled troops on our borders and ports. Defend this country from those that choose to break laws by coming here illegally.
End the war on drugs, shoot to kill all drug smugglers when they attempt to cross onto US territory. Defend the nation but no more monetary assistance to other nations for drug wars.
Jail CEO's of companies that hire illegal aliens.
Bring manufacturing back to the US by offering large tax breaks to said companies to do so. Any time "stimulus" money is spent buying goods require by law that those goods are made in USA.
Withdraw from the UN.
End NAFTA.
Rewrite the welfare laws, end welfare to able bodied people that have sucked the taxpayers tit for years without valid reason. All welfare recipients must do something for the money, read to kids, pick up garbage, something to contribute.
Stop wasting money on buying road signs as propaganda for your agenda Mr Obama.
Spend money on conservation. Create more national parks.
Charge politicians with perjury for voting for unconstitutional laws.
Enact term limits.
Reduce our dependence on oil from countries that wish to do us harm.
Deport all liberals.
Make everyone tattoo my name on their forehead.
So I just saved about ~$1T a year, when are you going to elect me?
BTW I was just kidding about the tattoo thing.
wow !!! you just won my vote...go get em killer.
Godfather.
but this is a huge part of our budget, you can't deny that. its 20% before war....and the war spending is usually not included in that budget, its just money they come up with later. like the bailouts
Sometimes truth does hurt - hyperbole never does.