Obama

#76
#76
utvolpj said:
that number has become to arbitrary it's ridiculous. Even Obama dropped it to around 30mil IIRC
Click to expand...
It's a sham. I wonder how many additional people this socialism is really covering, not counting lazy people, intentionally uninsured people, or illegals..
 
#77
#77
All I'm saying, is that if we HAVE to spend that kind of money, I want it spent domestically and not fighting senseless wars.

What's so unrealistic about cutting defense by 50%?? It's improbable - not unrealistic.
 
#79
#79
truefan said:
Who said our military wouldn't continue to be strong? I am as pro-military as the next guy, but there are cuts that can be made. Do you have any idea the amount of money that has been wasted by some of our defense contractors and nothing to show for it?
Click to expand...

agreed. Our procurement process is littered with a bunch of GS-12s and up contracting and is hindered badly by our congress fighting for pet projects in states forcing piecemeal solutions. Hideous, costly and time consuming process.
 
#80
#80
There's a good topic on the AZ law in this forum, you should go check it out. AZ is only trying to do it's best with a bad situation and everyone is calling them racist.
 
#81
#81
truefan said:
Who said our military wouldn't continue to be strong? I am as pro-military as the next guy, but there are cuts that can be made. Do you have any idea the amount of money that has been wasted by some of our defense contractors and nothing to show for it?
Click to expand...

and in the history of the gov't when has cutting spending ever reduced waste? the military will continue to be as inefficient if all you do is cut spending across the board, we'll just have less of it.
 
#82
#82
Vol Doll said:
All I'm saying, is that if we HAVE to spend that kind of money, I want it spent domestically and not fighting senseless wars.

What's so unrealistic about cutting defense by 50%?? It's improbable - not unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at per capita education spending in this country?

How are we helping anything if we simply shift funding rather than eliminate it? If we're cutting it from the military, which is the best use of gov't funds in my mind, then it needs to simply go away. Shifting to the sinkhole that is public education or more entitlements programs is senseless.
 
#84
#84
Vol Doll said:
There's a good topic on the AZ law in this forum, you should go check it out. AZ is only trying to do it's best with a bad situation and everyone is calling them racist.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE is not calling them racists. Those trying to procure some votes for the left are doing the namecalling.
 
#85
#85
Vol Doll said:
I really should be folding laundry but I just can't pull away. Besides, you all need someone to shake things up around here. How much fun is it when everyone agrees with you.

You're spot on when you say I want to shift focus. I still maintain our budget needs to be cut. I just happen to put priorities elsewhere. I don't think defense should take up the portion that it does; and that what portion it does take shouldn't be spent on ICBMs and sending our army places it doesn't (yes in MY opinion) need to be. The Middle East is far worse than it was before we entered Iraq.

So yes, I would prefer spending our money on fighting in the 21st century. And, yes if the government is going to tax me, I want mine to go to Education and providing health care to 55 million. Wouldn't it be great if we could specify where we each wanted our tax dollars to go?
Click to expand...

There is no way you are or ever have been a Republican.

Sadam had and used WMDs, so most would disagree with you that Iraq was better off before.

Education has way too much money already, they waste too much. And I don't want my tax dollars going to people who don't want to take on the responsibility and get their own insurance.
 
#88
#88
volinbham said:
Iraq is complicated. I don't think there's a clear answer to this question.
Click to expand...

This is true. We're better off in the ME from a strategic standpoint. Iraq is slowly moving toward some sort of representative government and that's probably a good thing, but I don't think we really care. We want an ally and staging base.
 
#90
#90
kev20 said:
damn, bpv, 2 in one week? you sure do know how to baptize by fire. :)
Click to expand...

I definitely took the "Military Welfare" comment poorly, especially from someone who has no idea what military personnel do.

I would even agree that there is a welfare element to the military personnel situation and policies, but not what Ms College Repub was suggesting.
 
#91
#91
They have to cut something to pay for these ever increasing government jobs and pay raises. Someone already mentioned food stamps.
 
#92
#92
Vol Doll said:
Sorry BigPapa, but I gotta throw one last one in before I go:
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." - Thomas Jefferson 1807 (during his Presidency).
Click to expand...


"One of the best ways to keep peace is to be prepared for war." - Gen. George Washington
 
#94
#94
volfanjustin said:
There is no way you are or ever have been a Republican.

Sadam had and used WMDs, so most would disagree with you that Iraq was better off before.

Education has way too much money already, they waste too much. And I don't want my tax dollars going to people who don't want to take on the responsibility and get their own insurance.
Click to expand...

Excuse, me but the Republican party of Ronald Reagan may not be enough for those of you today, but in the day, it was how I viewed the world. The nuclear threat we faced in that day was real and present. It isn't today.

It's sad that Ronald Reagan would not be considered conservative enough today.
 
#96
#96
Vol Doll said:
Excuse, me but the Republican party of Ronald Reagan may not be enough for those of you today, but in the day, it was how I viewed the world. The nuclear threat we faced in that day was real and present. It isn't today.

Reagan would throw up at you advocating education and free healthcare spending in lieu of military spending. The conventional threat, and even nuclear threats, we face today are much more plausible than they were in Reagan's time. Reagan simply blitzed it because he knew the Russians would eventually succumb to our economic might.

It's sad that Ronald Reagan would not be considered conservative enough today.
Click to expand...
See Bold.

Who on earth wouldn't view Reagan as conservative enough? The Christian Coalition loonies might not like that he wouldn't push their agenda, but everyone else would welcome him with open arms.
 
#100
#100
I was a poli sci major, so get off your high horse about presuming you're the only ones with a brain around here. But, then again, you aren't in the majority in this country anymore so I guess you need to flaunt in the few places you can.

If you all would welcome Ronald Reagan with open arms, then why can't you all seem to get people like him elected?? You've allowed your party to be completely dominated by right wing fascists and the christian coalition. THAT's why Reagan isn't conservative enough. Look inward on that one guys.

And exactly where is this real nuclear threat coming from??
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top