Question: If you have $10 in your pocket and the shirt you really want is $15, what should you do?
Answer: Find another shirt. Or save for the future so you can afford it.
Answer: Find another shirt. Or save for the future so you can afford it.
But what do most people do? They put it on their charge card, thereby setting off a chain of events that basically in the end destroy any chance of ever living free from the control of greedy and heartless leviathans.
What does the government do? They buy the shirt and stick the bill on others who really don't want the shirt to begin with. We become their charge card. The problem? There is no limit to the charge. They just just keep raising the limit. The amount of debt keeps on raising.
Sure spending total amounts are always going to go up. You have more people and things to deal with then you spend more. But if the percentage as a whole keeps growing and no one makes any cuts then spending becomes irresponsible. If a family does this kind of spending the repo man comes and collects; the bill collector calls and harasses you; your credit for future loans is ruined; people have to file for bankrupt, etc. But the government does it and they get away with it. And it has gotten worse in the last two years!
Every chart on this website http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts shows that spending has gotten worse in the last two years. People complained about Bush and the deficit after 8 years of "deficit reduction" by President Clinton (umm...who did a little voodoo economics to get there, but let's give credit), But if you look closely at all the charts on the site then the years of reduction in the Clinton years came after the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994 and the years of increase during the Bush years came in 2006 after the DEMs won Congress back. And has now gotten worse in the 2 years that the DEMs have controlled both the White House and Congress. But then people will argue that President Bush spent too much on wars. Blah, blah, blah, that is another argument. Remember we didn't start this fight on terrorism but we have to finish it.
And now President Obowma wants to raise the deficit ceiling, just like your credit card company does every once in awhile. Does anyone know what a ceiling is for?
- Protection from the elements!
- To make sure you stay within your safe zone!
If you keep raising the limit then why set a limit in the first place? And how do you think we are going to pay for this new limit? Taxes. Only the president doesn't call it a tax hike. Even liberal talk show host/comedian (same thing) saw this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/jon-stewart-obama-budget-_n_849585.html.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/jon-stewart-obama-budget-_n_849585.html.
Jon Stewart closed out this week of "The Daily Show" talking about President Obama's budget speech on Wednesday, which offered a broad alternative to the Republican budget plan even though it somehow managed to make a tax hike sound like a spending reduction.
There is a reason why he made it sound like one...uh, Obama said it! This government is the most irresponsible when it comes to spending than any other administration in the history of the US. http://state-of-the-nation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/US_National_Debt_Chart_2010.gif
Here are some direct links to the charts above:
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending
Here are some direct links to the charts above:
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending
34 comments:
1,184,711,115,000 (estimated and growing by the second).
One TRILLION, 184 BILLION, 711 MILLION, 115 THOUSAND and CHANGE.
On what? War, since 2001.
Not Defense. Not National Security. War.
To find fictitious weapons, kill an old, insane man, and locate a 6'4" (without turban) terrorist. Out of those three objectives, only one has been reached. And that was eight years ago.
Why are we still fighting?
I'm not an Obama fan. He lied, just like every politician on the face of the earth. But, in his expensive defense, he inherited a lot of crap. I prophesied before the last election that WHOEVER became president after Baby Bush would go down as the worst president in the history of the United States. My prophesy is coming true.
Why? Because he's an idiot? Because he's an ineffective leader? Because he's black? Because he was born in another country?
No. Because he is in way over his head. Anyone would have been. Baby Bush left us a mess to clean up. And it's not as easy as it looks. It's as if BB bought a house real cheap in a poor neighborhood, slapped some paint on it, raised the price to three or four times what it was worth and sold it to some uninformed fool...oh wait. That's what caused the housing crisis.
Okay. So what's the answer? What programs do YOU cut? All Republicans yell about is cutting spending. Unless it affects their pork barrel. Or the drug company backing them.
And where do they want the cuts? Education and health care. Why? To create more soldiers. Because our kids won't have a future without joining the military. They'll be sedated with all the new drugs out there. Ritilan and Paxil will be handed out as standard military issue. But, hey. At least we will be able to keep fighting!
I don't know the answer. Except cut military spending. Seems to be a surplus there. Bring our soldiers home. Oh wait. No jobs for them. Guess they better stay there.
Man. I hope there's a pill for that! (Enter Trump)
I guess we can tighten our belts a bit. Not buy the shirt at all. Go shirtless. Or better yet, buy the shirt, go in debt and give it to the rich. I know how they suffer.
America is not broke. It is broken. And no one wants to fix it. Capitalism has failed. Well, for 97 percent of us. And that's almost half!
Really. How much money do we need anyway? What did Jesus say about rich men and camels?
Guess we know where the Forbes folks are going!
Hugs.
RE: first response
I guess you said all that with some tongue in cheek since part of the Paper said people will argue about war. But your points are still well taken.
However...
“Fictitious weapons” again is an argument that is not valid. Say some known murderer broke into your house. Said he had a gun but never showed you the actual gun, what do you do? The biggest thing you need to do is believe him about the gun. Case closed. Please read comment section on: http://ideasoftim.blogspot.com/2011/03/79-fist-bumps-and-swagger.html for more insight on this argument. Yes, I know, our "house" was not attacked by him. That is not the point.
The "old insane man" makes it sound like he was neither a threat nor a villain. It almost makes it sound like he was the innocent victim of circumstance. He murdered 100,000(+) innocent people in "Kurdistan". He had WMDs at some point in time with threat of more, which he DID use in 2002 on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Isra'el called SCUD missiles. He destabilized the area even more with his contributions to terrorists groups. He rallied other anti-West organizations like Hezbollah and even al-Qaeda. His sons were ruthless SOB's who did horrible things to their own people. Some of these are so detestable I would rather not mention. The man and his family had to go; same with the old insane men from Iran and North Korea.
Killing and finding (either order)bin Laden is a matter of national security.
Why are we still fighting? Because democracy is not achieved yet. Why? The people are not ready for it. BUT, neither were we in 1776. We were trying to be a democracy from that day on but the Articles of Confederation were lousy. We won our independence officially in 1783 but we were lucky even to still be a country under the Articles. It wasn’t until national disasters happened that cause us to try again and finally in 1787 we became a new nation but even then it wouldn’t be until 1791 that the Constitution as we know it came into being. So in essence, it took us 14 years to become a democracy. We, the greatest example of democracy on the earth in the history of man, took 14 years for our laws to finally work. And then we added even 17 more amendments to keep making it better. Iraqis are still learning. If we leave now and insurgents retake the place, the men who have died there have died in vain, even more than you feel now. Why are we allowed to be free but no other country can?????
Obama did inherit a lot of crap; 231 years’ worth. Not all of it is Bush’s fault, who by the way inherited national security crap (for lack of netter word) from Clinton and a bank fallout/economic bubble burst from Bawney Fwank and some of his cohorts with the bank situation. In all fairness to Mr. Obama though, President Bush was not the greatest of presidents and did not do enough to help us all out so he was left with things to clean up. And I wouldn’t say that Obama is the worse. Oh in our life time yes but not over all.
He lied! Thank you. 1000 points for saying that. I hope Mama Pelosi doesn’t hear you say that. Just joking.
RE: 2nd response
No. Because he is in way over his head. Anyone would have been. Baby Bush left us a mess to clean up. And it's not as easy as it looks. It's as if BB bought a house real cheap in a poor neighborhood, slapped some paint on it, raised the price to three or four times what it was worth and sold it to some uninformed fool...oh wait. That's what caused the housing crisis.
Please research what President Clinton and Barney Frank did in the 1990's to the housing market by forcing banks into sub prime mortgages. Here is a quote:
"The changes in underwriting standards were pushed to accomplish what many called a "noble goal" -- an increase in home ownership among poor and minority Americans -- but the changes created a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline. The new rules involved eliminating verification of income or assets, little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage, and virtually eliminating down payments."
There by creating an increase in the demand for housing driving up inflated prices. Once the market tried to right itself it was too late. Bush didn't do this. BUT he didn't do anything to stop it.
For the rest fo your post, I can't really argue. But cutbacks across the board are needed. But these cuts should have been made years and years and years ago. Even better, we should never have driven the bill up that high.
The shirt is still needed but it doesn't have to be Bloomingdale's. It could be from Target, figuratively speaking. Or buy only one, not 1000, figuratively speaking.
Can't stand Trump by the way. Please never put him in the "hero" section of this blog because I will not.
If Huckabee or Gingrich is not the candidate then I am going third party.
Good post, my favorite Liberal.
Do you happen to know what your debt is a a % of gdp? we have an issue over here where public spending levels were pretty reasonable but small government activists have taken advantage of the economic situation and used our external debt (380% of gdp) rather than our public debt (78%) to make it look as if we're bankrupt when in actuality we're doing fine.
I couldn't tell you what the exact number is but some of the charts I have looked at including the one linked says around 90%. But I wouldn't trust those numbers completely.
If you're at 380%, then I should be quiet! Why is it so high over there?
No 380% is external debt, that's down from 500% which is actually reasonable. Public debt, which is effectively the operating debt is 78%. This is why arguments about reducing spending are completely without basis here. we're in, actually, a better financial state than we were in for almost all of the 20th century. We have areas where if we invest could treble in size within a year and our operating debt is at one of the lowest levels of the 20th century. after ww2 we had a huge huge deficit and an external debt of nearly 500%, we invested in growth and created 1) the nhs, now one of the largest employers in europe 2) social housing, kick starting the construction industry and providing employment for returning troops 3) the welfare state 4) secondary education. now we have barely as much debt and we have better opportunities for growth and the university budget is being slashed by 80%. it just doesn't compute as a computer might say.
"“Fictitious weapons” again is an argument that is not valid. Say some known murderer broke into your house. Said he had a gun but never showed you the actual gun, what do you do? The biggest thing you need to do is believe him about the gun. Case closed. Yes, I know, our "house" was not attacked by him. That is not the point."
Uh...yeah it is. What you're asking me to do in this situation is to disarm his neighbor, who is NOT in my house! A stranger comes in, I take care of the stranger, not his neighbor!
I will concede one point about the WMD. WE armed him! That's how we got the hostages back from Iran. In true Orwellian fashion, we were "friends" with Iraq back then. "Oh no, we've ALWAYS been at war with Iraq". Or Iran. Or Iraq. Or Iran....Throw it down the memory hole...sigh...
Better yet, learn from Mary Shelley...The creator always goes down with the monster he created.
We probably did find them, but having "Made in USA" stamped on the cores made them undesirable to showcase!
And now another "objective" has been reached, since last blogging. Osama has been shot in the head. So, can we stop fighting now? Can we bring the soldiers home?
Nope. Now we have to be prepared for retaliation. And besides, WAR is MONEY. Fear opens the pocketbooks quicker than peace. Ask Bush. His entire presidency was based on fear. International and domestic.
"Democracy is not achieved yet." LOL! So, we have to keep fighting them until they WANT democracy? ROFLMAO! That's like forcing an addict into rehab! The whole idea is ludicrous! Forcing and democracy are not compatible. The difference between what happened in 1776 and what's happening in Iraq now are NOT the same thing. We WANTED democracy! It wasn't FORCED on us. That's the whole point! We're forcing these people to adopt something they don't want. Our whole problem is that we want everyone to want our way of life. And while, that would certainly be easier for us, it's against the very meaning of the word.
And we're wasting money that could be used to lower the deficit to do it. Be sure to tell the children left behind in our school system how important democracy in another country is. I'm sure they'll want to know about it someday when they're standing in line for their unemployment/welfare check. And let them know who we are at war with that day...Iran. Iraq. Iran. Iraq. Who's your buddy?
Oh. Yeah. Pakistan! Or Afghanistan. I guess they need democracy (read capitalism) too. Lots of untapped resources there! Disney World in Pakistan anyone? Anyone? Or could it be a new Trump Tower? He could call it "The REAL Sands Casino"!
And I thought it was hard to understand Indian operators! "Ell-O, my name es Bob"! LOL!
I do have a question for you. I've been dying to ask a Republican/Conservative this for a long time now, but I haven't been able to find one smart enough to answer it. The only answer I've been given is, "Because".
Let me get it straight. The reason the Clinton years were so lucrative was because of Reagan. But the Bush years were horribly bankrupt because of Clinton. But now the Obama years stink because of .... Obama? Why is Bush never at fault? (Because)
Again. Not an Obama fan. Nor am I a Trump trumpet. Do NOT make that mistake! I'm technically a fan of revolution. We need to shake off these fleas and start all over. It's not working anymore. We are no longer a true democracy. We are more an oligarchy than anything. Our "representatives" are owned by the drug and oil companies (and Wal-Mart)and they vote to do their bidding. We've been forgotten. Ninety-seven percent of the population has been left to die without a voice.
Last time I checked, 97 is greater than 3. Then again, everyone on facebook thinks 6/2(1+2)=9! LOL!
Hugs.
So, what's the answer to the deficit? Besides a FLAT income tax (which I still don't trust the rich people to pay!)?
Get rid of the income tax.
That's right. I said it! HERESY! LUNATIC FRINGE! I'm a nut.
Fair would be a federal sales tax. Then, illegal immigrants would pay their fair share. Rich people would pay their fair share. Everyone would pay for the programs needed to support all people. Even visitors to our country would have to help pay for our upkeep.
Take one item. Toilet paper. Everyone uses toilet paper. Take one city. Cincinnati. The average price of toilet paper in Cincinnati is (for math sake) about 4 for a pack of 4 that usually lasts a week. There are approximately 148,000 households in Cincinnati. Let's have a 10 percent sales tax added on to our 4 dollar toilet paper and let's say the average household uses one of those four packs a week. In one week, 59,000 dollars would be generated. In one year, about 3 million would be generated, in one city, for one product. And the public would hardly notice the difference. For one thing, you would only be taxed on what you buy. You want cheaper taxes, buy less (or cheaper) toilet paper (and reduce your footprint)! YOU have the power. We would all receive a raise in our paychecks. And we would all pay, regardless of our job. It would actually be a benefit to work for a living instead of living off the government.
The average household has about 2500 items in their home. That's a lot of money that could be used to fund programs important to the American people.
And get rid of that silly tax exemption for churches! Sorry! But there's a lot of waste there, too. I wonder how much tax money was spent putting out the Touchdown Jesus statue a tax exempt church erected?
If anything, I bet Americans would learn to live with less. And that CAN'T be a bad thing!
Oh, what about free enterprise? What about capitalism? It would still be there. It would just be available to many more people. You could literally decide how much money you wanted to contribute to government programs.
Ah. Keep the income tax. It's easier. And the rich will reward you for it.
NOT!
Hugs.
Johnathan,
I agree. Nothing adds up. That is politics. Investment as you have said is important and can help businesses, education, and all the like. The problem is when government thinks they are CEOs and think they know about everything when they don't. Making cut backs just to make cut backs is redundant causes you to run low on necessities. But if you are constantly running a bill higher without making the necessary cut backs then sooner or later everything has to get cut. And then what do you do? This is where I believe we are at in the US. Now that some cut backs are needed, some don't want to do that and just blame others for the mess we are in.
I like your thought process. Are you involved at all in your local politics?
Hawk,
I will address these one at a time. I am not going to get suckered in to answering questions that can take us off topic.
I asked all not to miss the point. You threw it in there anyway. Saddam did not attack us. He did attack other countries who asked us to help back in 1989. If I remember right that was a scary time. My sister said "WWIII just started" that day when I got home and heard about it for the first time. Then we started to really learn how crazy this man was. The point again is this was a crazy maniacal dictator who had to go.
And yes we were stupid to give the man the weapons. But all that means is it should have been our responsibility to disarm him. And we tried using diplomacy to do that. From 1990 to 2002 we tried. We know what he had. We knew what he was capable of. We were afraid of what he could have done. If it wasn't for Israel he may even had had nuclear weapons. WMDs were real. We supplied some. He claimed he had some. A crazy man with dynamite has to be disarmed. A crazy man who claims he has dynamite has to be believed. This is not the boy who cried wolf.
We were friends with Iraq because the situation called for it. A regime in Iran had changed the status quo. We didn't agree with the old regime but the new regime was not friendly. They took Americans hostage. So when Iraq and Iran got into over that stupid little island. We chose the lesser of two evils. No one could foresee the future. Perhaps we should have stayed out of it completely. Maybe on of Reaqan's mistakes.
Word count.....
We stay until the idea of democracy is established and firm. Look what is happening around the Muslim world today as we speak. Democratic ideals are starting to take effect. Dictators are falling. Millions are not feeling these effects. Now we can start pulling our troops and start more diplomatic action. Sending aid when we can.
You are assuming the majority does not want democracy in Iraq. You said they do not want it. I would disagree. I feel the majority wants it. (It's not like the Obama healthcare where the real majority is forced into it). I think the whole world wants it but do not realize they have the option. Why did we want democracy? Because we heard of the ideas. We read John Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu and others. They wrote these things in the 1700s. These ideas spread. But not of the American colonists wanted these freedoms. Loyalists wanted to remain part of a tyrannical regime and became "insurgents" of their time. The same with Iraq. They are learning about democracy. Give it time to sink in.
Everyone in the world deserves to hear about democracy. Are we doing it in the wrong way? I would agree that we have made many mistakes. How much though does freedom cost? I can't answer that.
I will not even enteratin a comment if you think President Bush created a war just to get money. That is just as absurd as saying FDR attacked Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII. Bush didn't fly the planes into the Trade Center. Bush didn't plan a whole war. The economy was fine at this point in time. He made it clear that those who harbored, trained, or supported terrorist were just as bad as the actual terrorist (aka Pakistan). And he said this AFTER 9-11. Comments that claim he concocted the trade center bombings will not be published.
I will not even enteratin a comment if you think President Bush created a war just to get money. That is just as absurd as saying FDR attacked Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII. Bush didn't fly the planes into the Trade Center. Bush didn't plan a whole war. The economy was fine at this point in time. He made it clear that those who harbored, trained, or supported terrorist were just as bad as the actual terrorist (aka Pakistan). And he said this AFTER 9-11. Comments that claim he concocted the trade center bombings will not be published.
NO! Not saying that at all! But, we're still fighting and many, many Americans are making a lot of money over there. Unfortunately, not our troops...
I don't know why conservatives can't answer your question.
All presidents have to clean up messes the former president made. Most of course are economic issues. But all presidents have to be held accountable for their own administration too. Which is not what Obama is doing. Everything ood he is taking credit for (not much) and everything bad he is blaming Bush.
Reagan had to clean up the Iran hostages, high interest rates, gas prices, and jobs that Carter left.
GHW Bush had to clean up the economic bubble Reagan left but didn't have the chance to since most clean ups take 5-10 years. And he was lethargic on top of that. The man had great ideas but didn't do anything to make him great. So he left it for Clinton.
Clinton then was left with the bubble. But instead of cleaning it up, he expanded it. So his economics looked great. But if you really look at what he did, he created short term solutions to long term problems.
Now one problem they all left was the Middle East and terrorism. It finally came to a head in 2001. Reagan, GHW Bush, and Clinton all had chances to do something about it and they didn't. Then the one quietest out of all of them, GW Bush, had to deal with it. Then he became loud like the others. And he paid the price. He became "arrogant". The bubble burst. And he spent too much money while it was bursting. But we were kept safe and his tax breaks actually helped the middle class. His breaks got me a new car and the down payment of a house. Obama's "tax break" gets me a tank of gas each week.
So to answer the question, Clinton rode the high the Reagan created. The peace and prosperity that we had in the 90's were due to the fall of communism and economic growth from the 80's.
Bush's problem he got from Clinton was mostly the housing market and a weaker military, or at least a presumed weaker one by the Arab world and terorists.
Obama's problem is Bush didn't finish any job. But that does not give him the excuse to keep running higher deficits.
Hope that gives some insight.
Goz,
I just finished reading all of your Clinton posts. One thing I can connect from this one and those is what you said about Hillery. Peace and prosperity (democrat double talk). Peace? Bosnia, Somalia, Israel, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Rwanda and Burundi, just to name a few. Why did we have peace? Because we didn't do anything about these places. We let people die. We forgot about the world and then in 2001 the world paid us back. We were so high with this peace and prooperity that we forgot the world had problems. So yeah, thank you Democrats. That was one thing you should have said about Bush cleaning up Clinton's mess.
Why did we have peace? Because we didn't do anything about these places. We let people die. We forgot about the world and then in 2001 the world paid us back. We were so high with this peace and prooperity that we forgot the world had problems. So yeah, thank you Democrats. That was one thing you should have said about Bush cleaning up Clinton's mess.
LOL! Oh...you're serious.
What did we do about them? You seem to question everything but have no answers.
We let Rwanda fall into genocide. We dropped bombs on Bosnia and walked away.
We put our hands in our pockets to protect our pocket books and when we did that we left our guard down.
If you don't fight, sure that is peace, but it also makes you open for someone to hit you. Which on 9-11 we were. Oh but at least Clinton saved our economy...until now.
Are you implying we were attacked on 9/11 because of our NON involvement in Bosnia and Rwanda? Really? (Two more questions, by the way--what are you going to do about it)<--third
We were attacked because of our lip-locked, hand holding love affair with Israel. I'm all about live and let live. The middle east has nothing to with us. Nor did Bosnia. Nor did Rwanda. We are not the boss of the world. The original post spoke of the National Debt. I pointed out how much money we have WASTED on foreign soil (let alone wasted lives). The National Debt continues to grow at a ridiculous rate because we CAN'T MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS.
While our esteemed Republicans can't even pass spending cuts that THEY CAME UP WITH, our debt continues to grow, programs for our citizens continue to disappear, one percent continues to prosper and the rest of us are left to sink or swim while trillions are being pumped over "there". Just a fact.
Our shiny Conservatives use controversy to get elected and create stalemates. Divisive issues like gay marriage, abortion, immigration, birth certificates. No wonder we can't get anything done. "Distract them with something shiny, George, while we do this over here."
PFFT! Typical conservative response. "Blame Clinton". Okay fine. I blame him. Happy? Now get to work, get us home and get us out of debt so that we all have a future. We can save 1 trillion this year if we pull out now.
Our shiny Conservatives use controversy to get elected and create stalemates. Divisive issues like gay marriage, abortion, immigration, birth certificates. No wonder we can't get anything done. "Distract them with something shiny, George, while we do this over here."
Not quite accurate. Some of these issues only became divisive when they came into American lifestyles created by the more liberal crowds. Abortion was not a divisive issue until 1973. It was not looked upon as acceptable. As a matter of fact it was used by the hippies of the 1960's to cover up their lifestyle of "free love" when their actions gave them consequences, i.e., unwanted pregnancies. Then it became an issue. Gay marriage is the same thing. It was not part of American culture, then the more liberal groups pushed for it and now it is a divisive issue. Conservatives just try to "conserve" culture. Now, if you said just Republicans, then it is more accurate. The birth certificate issue, although Trump pushed it too far, is a Constitutional issue and could have been avoided if Obama was straight up to begin with. He waited two years to do anything official about it.
Stalemates are done on both sides. The GOP had an opportunity in the 1990's when they took back the House but sat on their tuffets while Clinton was with Little Miss Muffett. The Dems just had two straight years of filibuster-free Senate and a whopping majority in the House since 2007 and all they did was get a healthcare bill passed by (illegally) forcing votes without reading the bill. I understand your frsutartion but let's give both sides the full story. Clinton should not be blamed for all of it, and I will be waiting patiently to hear what the equalizer has to say about his/her statement. But He was not the cure all and he definitely has balme on his shoulders, which he refuse to admit. Bush has some blame. Obama has some blame. The problem is no one takes the responsibility to work anything out. It's all about politics. i hate it. I say get rid of them all, but some areas (ones who are in certain areas who get 89% of the vote because of the people they suck up to) won't get rid of them at all.
I will stay out of your discussion about the rest but I do have a question. Should we have let the genocide go on in Rwanda?
PS. A lot of our problems started with Iran in the 1970's, not because of our friendship iwth Israel. That problem was started by Britain and the Balfour Declaration. And Israel doesn't blow us up.
Should we have let the genocide go on in Rwanda?
What about the one in Dafur? What about the one in Tibet? What about the one in Ireland? What about the one in Somolia? What about the one in Australia? What about the one in Germany (we only got involved when Japan attacked us)? What about the one in Italy? What about the one in Afghanistan? What about the one in Iraq (pre 1991)? What about all of the genocides committed by Russia? What about all the genocides committed by China? What about the genocide committed against the Palestinians? What about the Congo? India? Argentina? Ethiopia? Libya? Egypt? How about the genocide of the Native American Indians?
Whew. Talk about spreading ourselves a little thin...
The only reason Rwanda and Bosnia are brought up is because Clinton was in office. In the manner of Palin and Bachman, let's just rewrite history.
We get involved when oil is involved. Everyone knows that. Or Israel. No. They don't blow us up. They're smarter than that. Like the little, yappy dog in the old Looney Tunes cartoon, "Whaddya wanna do today, Spike? HUH? HUH? Ya wanna chase cars or somethin'?" You know, that little dog ALWAYS gets Spike in trouble! If Spike would just slap him and walk away, all would be well with Spike and he wouldn't end up in the hospital.
Ugh. I give up on this "conversation". I'll leave it with the words of E.Cartman:
"I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft p**** protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."
Hugs
And once again. The original post was about the National Debt. And I still believe we are spending TOO MUCH MONEY ON WAR!
HUGS! OR I'LL KILLYA~
By the way, since my first comment, we've spent another 32,000,000,000...
You seem to be a little inconsistent. It seems as though you feel like we shouldn't have done anything in some of these places because we didn't go into some of the ones you mentioned. But then it sounds like you think we should have gone into Germany and stopped that one. But that is the same thing you're getting upset with about what we are saying.
Should we have let the genocide go on in Rwanda?
NO!
What about the one in Dafur? Tibet? Ireland? Somolia? Australia? Germany (we only got involved when Japan attacked us)? Italy? Afghanistan? Iraq (pre 1991)? Russia? China?Palestinians? Congo? India? Argentina? Ethiopia? Libya? Egypt? Native American Indians?
NO! But not even the indigenous peoples can stop it.
Genocide should never be allowed to continue. But the UN doesn't do anything about it. Should we stand alone? It seems like we have to sometimes. Can we stop all of them? No. But who is going to fight for those who can not fight for themselves?
Israel is the only stable country in the region. That is one reason why we need to back them. They were put together by Europeans and attacked by those around them. They defended themselves and only took land after they had been attacked and decided they needed to keep the land for better protection. I am all for two states, even the two having the same capital with two separate buildings. But I do not support countries who blow innocent people up.
And once again. The original post was about the National Debt. And I still believe we are spending TOO MUCH MONEY ON WAR!
Yes, it was. But my original post claimed some would say the debt was cause by GW Bush and war. I outlined why it was not. One of your first points was "War and fictitious weapons". So that started the other topics.
Other things you need to check with history. German "extermination" and the Final Soultion did not go into effect until after we joined the war. Ghettos and camps were started and that is when the League of Nations should have stepped in, but waited until the invasion of Poland, even after all the violations of the Treaty of Versailles that Hitler did, they still waited. If they stepped in in 1936 when he first violated they may have stopped all of the genocide.
Another thing, NOT RUSSIA, the Soviet Union!! Historian pet peeve.
The Congo genocide started because of Rwanda, which Clinton Administration refused to admit was a genocide.
BTW, since your first post, now 2 out of the 3 have been accomplished :)
I don't disagree with all of your opinions. I do disagree on some of the facts.
Goz,
I agree. It wasn't one person's fault. I just get so tired of people blaming Bush for everything when a lot of things were done before him and after him.
Hawksong68,
I am not implying that we got attacked because of Rwanda. I am saying that people think Clinton was so good because we had peace during his reign. But in reality the peace we had was only because we let things happen in the world and probably should have been involved to stop some of it. He cut back military, had a chance to take out bin laden but didn't, only dropped a few bombs on Bosnia, claiming we were making progress. He put band aids on open wounds and spun his legacy into "peace and prosperity". Both were false but masked well.
In 2001, the band aid fell off. In 2007, the wound broke open. And apparently in 2010, Obama it cut more. However, so we are not too far off each other I will add Bush tried a tourniquet. It stopped the bleeding but now gangrene is setting in...all of course metaphors.
We need someone to actually heal the wounds!
BTW, I am Sean from Illinois. I am male. So you can call me a "he".
...still growing...
Here's a question to BOTH of you...since you don't want to stop the war and bring our troops and our money home:
What's your bright ideas? What programs do YOU cut?
Just curious...
And as to the genocides...which ones do you stop? Which ones? We either stop none or we stop them all. Do you really want to pick and choose the people "worthy" of our armed forces and our money?
We can't control the world. We are not their boss. We are not their god. We are not their salvation. We can't solve our own problems, let alone theirs.
BRING OUR MONEY AND OUR TROOPS HOME.
Period.
Whoah! It may have been inadvertently but you put a spin on this and made at least me sound bad.
I want to stop the war. I want to go back in time and never start a war. I hate war. It's not that I want it to go on. But I feel it was necessary. Big difference.
I want the troops to come home. But I feel that if they come home too early and nothing was accomplished then people died in vain. You feel they died for a lie. I do not.
And we can use all kinds of reasoning or rationalization for why people in the middle east hate us, but the end result is that we were still attacked and not just military targets. Our civilians are hit in all of these terrorists attacks, which are illegal acts, even in war time.
The only way to pay for things and make cut backs is across the board and eliminate ANYTHING that is just waste. A penny here, and a penny there adds up. Again, if the shirt is $15 and all you have is $10, you can buy it!
I agree that genocide is a sticky situation. But if a country calls on you for help like Rwanda and Bosnia did, do you ignore those voices crying out in the wind???? The Clinton administration and Janet Reno denied genocide was happening in Rwanda. This is where the UN needs to step up and do what they need to do, not just what the French want and what the Russians do not want.
And another $32 million + has now been added to the deficit due to [b]Obama[/b] since the last time I have posted.
And growing...
See, that's the thing. Cuts "across the board". But not the war.
Our soldiers have already died in vain. And they continue to do so. This is NOT a war we can win. Terrorism is not a country. It is an idea. Bring our troops home and tighten up our borders. Give them jobs to do here. Security. Here. Jobs. Here. Money. Here.
I guess I have to repeat it again. NOT an Obama fan. Not a fan of anyone these days. No one is saying what needs to be said.
Tax oil companies? Sure. Like we won't be paying the difference. Force people to buy health care? How? Without a job, there's no money to do that. How about a freeze on health care costs? Raise the spending limit? How about tax breaks to companies to BRING OUR JOBS HOME? Build a wall? Imprison the jerks who hire illegals! And stop fighting wars and pumping money into countries that turn around and spit in our face.
Waiting. Just waiting for the Chinese to walk in and say..."Pay up, b!+@#...we own you now!"
And, you will NEVER convince me Bush started a war with Iraq because of terrorism. Not gonna happen. Stop trying.
When are coming to visit? Open invitation to family. Just call before you come to see if we're home. And let me know if you hear of any cheap washer and dryers. :(
Hugs
See, that's the thing. Cuts "across the board". But not the war. Our soldiers have already died in vain. And they continue to do so.
If they are fighting, you can't cut their budget. Not paying for their safety would be detrimental. But I am sure that is not what you meant.
This is NOT a war we can win. Terrorism is not a country. It is an idea. Bring our troops home and tighten up our borders. Give them jobs to do here. Security. Here. Jobs. Here. Money. Here.
If you mean that terrorism is something we will be dealing with for the rest of our existence, yes. Terrorism has been around since the first man did not get his way or felt cheated out of something. But trying to secure a nation can be done, with the right cooperation. Bringing the troops home is what we all want. But you can not just put them all on planes, ships and get them back here. That would give rise to even more nationalistic feelings of terorists saying they have us in their grips. You may not agree with the start of the war. But they are in one and you just can't turn your backs on them. That is what we did in Vietnam. That means we would leave all of those who we are fighting for out to dry and let them die. Over 50 million people now have an opportunity to start a new country. Women have citizenship rights for the first time in history. If Bin Laden and Hussein were still around and left to rule then their sons would then take over. This gave them hope.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Our military are there and we have to secure all paths to home for all who are there.
Tax oil companies? Sure. Like we won't be paying the difference. Force people to buy health care? How? Without a job, there's no money to do that. How about a freeze on health care costs? Raise the spending limit? How about tax breaks to companies to BRING OUR JOBS HOME? Build a wall? Imprison the jerks who hire illegals! And stop fighting wars and pumping money into countries that turn around and spit in our face.
Careful, starting to sound a little conservative in some areas. Still a little inconsistant. You talk about getting rid of tax loopholes but want to offer tax breaks, which would help the rich which you don't want to do. But I would agree there needs to be changes such as what we already agreed on; flat taxes. Stop aid to any country who is not fair, or trying to hurt our country? YES!!! Screw Pakistan now! Hello India.
Waiting. Just waiting for the Chinese to walk in and say..."Pay up, b!+@#...we own you now!"
Each stupid president has made China, the most favored nation in trade. That has been a mistake for decades. USA, first. North America, second. Western Hemisphere, third. Democratic allies, fourth. Any hurting nation that is not hostile, can get what is left over. Everyone else should be on a waiting list. China would be on that list.
And, you will NEVER convince me Bush started a war with Iraq because of terrorism. Not gonna happen. Stop trying.
Not trying. But being fair. Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism. The axis of evil speech was done before we attacked Iraq. Maybe we should have hit Iran first. Going after Iraq was the "easiest", but it did not turn out the way it was planned. Main point, Hussein needed to go, period. Okay end of that discussion.
A tax break on corporations to bring jobs back to America (opposite NAFTA) is NOT a loophole, ergo...not inconsistent...
Post a Comment