Bill Maher Calls Out Teabaggers' Deficit-Spending Mantra

[Velo Vol]

Video at link:

Next question, so what government spending do you want to see cut? Answer: nothing. Not a thing.

America is like a family that spends way more than they bring in. But Mom won't give up her shopping sprees and Dad won't give up that big stupid boat he bought. Even now when we utterly can't afford a big stupid boat.

And you know what America's stupid boat is? It's our empire. We have an empire. We have half a million of our troops in other peoples' countries all over the world. That is our boat. And maintaining that empire and everything that goes into defense costs us about $1 trillion dollars a year. Most of which goes to fighting the Russians in 1978.

What defense spending really is. Is a giant welfare program. A jobs program for defense workers to build crap we don't need. So... scream about handouts. This is what they should be protesting.

We spend more on weapons than the next top 15 military powers combined. Let's cut it in half so we only spend as much as the next 8 countries behind us and see if anyone invades us.

Teabaggers, If you'll look into that, I will believe you really are 'we the people,' 'what about our grandchildren' patriots. But if you're unwilling to cut defense and give up the empire, you don't really care about the debt. And you have to admit: you're just a racist sore loser.

This is one policy area where Ron Paul makes a good point. Why aren't the teabaggers following suit?

 

[MG1968]

Bill Maher is a douchebag and a self-loathing Jew.

military spending is Constitutionally mandated, but that doesn't mean there isn't waste

and the leftards that call them "teabaggers" are forgetting one important detail, the "teabagger" is the one standing over the "teabaggee". If that's the case, you dimwitted jackasses can call them "teabaggers" all you want, your view of the world isn't going to change anyway.

 

[hmanvolfan]

You can never trust someone that laughs at their own so called jokes when they deliver them.

 

[MG1968]

You can never trust someone that laughs at their own so called jokes when they deliver them.

or with a nose that ugly

 

[ridethelightening]

Well if Bill Maher says it, engrave it in stone
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Cartervol]

Bill is a idiot. He should move to France.

 

[GAVol]

and the leftards that call them "teabaggers" are forgetting one important detail, the "teabagger" is the one standing over the "teabaggee".

It's sort of like the morons who chant "Overrated" after beating somebody.

 

[gsvol]

Bill Maher couldn't call a hog to a trough full of slop much less understand what the tea party movement is all about.

I look up 'dumb as a box of rocks' in the dictionary and get this picture:

I look up 'should really be in a straight jacket' and get this picture:

Velo, you do nothing to enhance the idea that you know the first thing about anything to be quoting the moron masquerading as a comedian, Bill Maher, on anything of a political nature.

 

[Brog]

Republicans need to chill out. He's a comedian.

 

[GAVol]

Republicans need to chill out. He's a comedian.

Exactly . . . No matter how hard he tries to be some sort of social commentator, he's just a stand up comic with strong opinions.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Republicans need to chill out. He's a comedian.

That's right. The OP threw this out as a skit, but we somehow misunderstood.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[chavisut]

Republicans need to chill out. He's just a grade A douche.

I concur.

 

[gsvol]

Republicans need to chill out. He's a comedian.

Well if he would be a comedian if he was at all funny.

You probably think Wanda Sykes is funny also??

If you think all that is funny then you probalby think Sandra Bernhard's feeble piece of crap attempt at humor is funny too??

The point is that velo is trying to portray dipsh!p Maher's stupid comment as serious political commentary.

Now that IS funny!!!

lol:

Exactly . . . No matter how hard he tries to be some sort of social commentator, he's just a stand up comic with strong opinions.

Plus he is as stupid as a box of rocks and is about as funny as your average turd in a punchbowl.

 

[orangeblooded2]

Bill Maher.

He started as a comic. Morphed into a political Satirist. Became a politician. He teaches though what is left of his comedy.

He is a needed segment of our society in that he may show and live left. But he pulls no punches to either party.

I am not a real fan. But I get it.

 

[rjd970]

As a % of GDP we really don't spend that much on the military.

 

[Velo Vol]

How about commenting on the substance instead of the messenger?

Why do we need to spend more for our military than the next 15 nations combined?

And why do all these people whining about spending our "children's money" never talk about the pointlessness of us playing policemen between warring tribes on the other side of the globe?

 

[Velo Vol]

How about commenting on the substance instead of the messenger?

It's a rhetorical question. I realize rightists are trained by talk radio to focus on personality rather than policy.

 

[bam15]

How about commenting on the substance instead of the messenger?

Why do we need to spend more for our military than the next 15 nations combined?

And why do all these people whining about spending our "children's money" never talk about the pointlessness of us playing policemen between warring tribes on the other side of the globe?

Good question.

 

[rjd970]

How about commenting on the substance instead of the messenger?

Why do we need to spend more for our military than the next 15 nations combined?

And why do all these people whining about spending our "children's money" never talk about the pointlessness of us playing policemen between warring tribes on the other side of the globe?

Saying this is like saying a billionare spends more on a house than the next 15 middle class people behind him.

Just out of curiosity, where do we rank in the world in military spending as a percentage of GDP?

 

[T-TownVol]

As a % of GDP we really don't spend that much on the military.

ding, ding, ding

 

[paul1454]

It's a rhetorical question. I realize rightists are trained by talk radio to focus on personality rather than policy.

Maher's statement is implying that reducing the military budget would do just as well as cutting entitlement programs - a method often advocated by conservatives. I think there are a lot of posters on here that would agree that we don't spend money on the military efficiently and would advocate more efficiency. Just recently, for example:

i see so you think we spend trillions a year on the military efficiently? you know considering its' a success story and all. . .

not quite understanding your logic. if we could cut the military budget by billions and still have the same quality military but just be more efficient i'd be very happy.

If we were to cut out the mountains of waste in the defense budget we could do the same job we're doing now for at least 80% of the current costs. Cutting waste does not equal lower quality just the same as cutting quality does not translate into cutting waste.

Despite this sentiment, I think Maher's argument misses the point. Sure military spending has inefficiencies, but that is true of ALL government programs. True fiscal conservatives want to cut down on ALL thee inefficiencies, not simply those in entitlement spending. Given the magnitude of entitlement spending, however, it is natural to seek to ween out inefficiencies in those programs first. Moreover, most do not see entitlement spending as a necessary evil - as is the case with defense spending. Finally, defense spending historically does not constitute more than a 5% portion of our GDP. The reason it is so high right now is because we are engaged in a large number of anti-terrorism operations abroad Together, these factors seem to make it intuitive that defense spending would get a bit of a pass relative to entitlement spending.

Take a look at this graph. Look at how little we currently spend on the military budget DURING WARTIME compared to the aggregate amount of entitlement programs. While our defense spending constitutes 18% of our budget, take a second to add up the percent of the budget devoted to entitlement spending and you will see why most want them reduced. Currently, it stands close to 60%.

 

[paul1454]

Saying this is like saying a billionare spends more on a house than the next 15 middle class people behind him.

Just out of curiosity, where do we rank in the world in military spending as a percentage of GDP?

Well, with what's going on now, our spending is relatively high. However, if you look at our pre-Sept 11th spending, it was much lower as a percentage of GDP than most countries (usually hovering around 3-4%). Take a look at the tables at the end of Comparisons of U.S. and Foreign Military Spending: Data from Selected Public Sources and you will see that, although our defense budget constitutes a huge amount of money, it is a rather small portion of our GDP compared to most other nations.

 

[T-TownVol]

Looking FIRST to military cuts, in todays climate of unrest, is a bad idea. I am not saying that there is no waste because ALL government run programs have waste. I feel that cutting any military programs right now will be used as a rally point for our enemies.

 

[MG1968]

let's not forget that the spending for the wars is a supplemental item, and Obama and the democrat led Congress could stop the spending at any time. In fact, since the democrats took control of the House in 2007, they've had the ability to stop funding the wars and bring all US troops home.

so, it's just a tad bit intellectually dishonest of Maher and Velo to chastise the "rightists" here.

also, given who is running Congress, should the war funding cease, instead of just no longer spending the money on top of a deficit, the democrats would think, "hey, look at all this money we're not spending on the war, let's spend it on something else now!"

 

[T-TownVol]

let's not forget that the spending for the wars is a supplemental item, and Obama and the democrat led Congress could stop the spending at any time. In fact, since the democrats took control of the House in 2007, they've had the ability to stop funding the wars and bring all US troops home.

so, it's just a tad bit intellectually dishonest of Maher and Velo to chastise the "rightists" here.

also, given who is running Congress, should the war funding cease, instead of just no longer spending the money on top of a deficit, the democrats would think, "hey, look at all this money we're not spending on the war, let's spend it on something else now!"

this is the real reason that they want the money that is spent on Military.......they look at all the votes that could be bought with that money and the bigger wedge they can drive between the classes in America