"Aging Out" Fans...

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Obviously "Obama phones" benefit the carriers, etc. at what I am sure special "government" rates.

You know those "Obama phones" came from Ronald Reagan, don't you? (And then the program was expanded upon under the Clinton and GWBush administrations. Obama had nothing to do with it.)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

See, this is the stuff that simultaneously both irks me and cracks me up. People like you and Timkeys so desperately want to believe that Obama is responsible for everything you think is wrong with the government that all somebody has to do is send out an email talking about "Obamaphones" and you just simply HAVE to believe it. Such an easy target for the people selling this crap it's embarassing. You're like a teenage girl lapping up the latest Justin Bieber single and thinking it's the greatest song ever written.

You're changing the argument again.

I'm not changing any argument. I'm simply responding to the incorrect cannards you haphazardly toss out as part of your regular conversation.

TIMKEYS started with the argument Obama is spending disproportionally more (trillions) than in the past - irrespective of "automatic increases" tied to entitlements.

It's not just increases tied to "entitlements". The whole budget operates in that manner. Putting it all on Obama in the manner TIMKEYS does is just political nonsense. I was simply calling him out on it.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

...

These charts are hilarious.

"Savings" relative to exactly what? Letting people die in more terrorist attacks?

Then there's the "Medicare drug benefit" - but wait, I don't see "ObamaCare" listed on the right side - oh, I forgot, that's doesn't kick in until "later."

And there's the cost of Obama's "Stimulus Plan" listed under "Bush"

Given this level of argument and understanding all I can do is leave you with this...

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

These charts are hilarious.

"Savings" relative to exactly what? Letting people die in more terrorist attacks?

Yes. Let's increase defense spending as much as possible. So we can save lives and all....

Seriously? You REALLY believe that there would be tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans dead due to terrorist attacks if not for trillions spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Then there's the "Medicare drug benefit" -

Yeah, that was a pretty big expenditure that wasn't paid for. And continues to rise every year. Still without being paid for. What's so hilarious about that?

but wait, I don't see "ObamaCare" listed on the right side - oh, I forgot, that's doesn't kick in until "later."

Oh, I see. Is that way you keep the books? You not only want to charge Obama with all the spending he didn't authorize that accumulated under his watch, but for all that in the future that doesn't accumulate under his watch (or at least hasn't yet) or may not even at all? No wonder your math is so messed up.

And there's the cost of Obama's "Stimulus Plan" listed under "Bush"

No, it's not. Obama's stimulus plan is listed under Obama. Bush's stimulus plans are listed under Bush. Different plans. The Economic Stimulus Plan of 2008 was passed in February 2008, a full year before Obama took office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...us_Act_of_2008

Given this level of argument and understanding

Again, turn off the radio and stop believing nonsense like "Obamaphones." Once more people can do that, maybe we can actually get something meaningful done in this country regarding the deficit and debt.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by chemikool

Bored on Saturday...trolling HC...

So the guys in CA and NY (huge liberal places) are arguing with the TX guys (huge republican place) and they aren't seeing eye to eye? Say it isn't so!!!

--My question for the "democratic-leaning" people = At what point do we worry about the debt, and how the debt affects our future?
--My question for the "republican-leaning" people = At what point do we acknowledge that the US has one of, if not the LOWEST tax rates in the world?

And finally, my question for all === who THE EFF do I get to be mad at for the state of our great nation? My own mother doesn't have an answer. The boomer generation has screwed it up for everyone, and they aren't taking the blame for it. I didn't vote myself into this crap. I wasn't eligible to vote until 1990, but I'll have to clean up the mess, and deal with repercussions regardless of who caused it.

Who do I get to be mad at? Don't you DARE say Dem or Rep...
...

You shouldn't be worried about getting "mad." Its your generation or the next that will have to do something about it.

To do that you will need to learn as much as you can about what's actually going on in the US and world- which has nothing per se to do with DEM or REP.

When I was young I was taught to think for myself and to do my own research. That was to a large degree lost on your generation which instead was given information in terms of "sound bites."

Learn what you can on your own - learn to use Google the right way, study, read books, question authority, and don't be afraid to get out there and talk to others (whether they agree or disagree with you). Join forums and post, don't be afraid to take a beating, learn from the results...

No one else will do it.

There's a story I read to my kids about a Grandpa and a kid walking in the woods. They see an old wagon sunk in the muck up to its axles in the middle of a swamp.

The kid says "Grandpa, how'd that wagon get stuck like that?"

Grandpa, shaking his head, says "well, son, it took a lot of work..."

The boomers have to a large degree frittered away and/or ruined your future.

You need to figure out how to take it back.

Don't be afraid to throw them and their ideas over the side in the process.

Follow my blog link at the bottom of my post for some bread crumbs...

[jimiv]

I've enjoyed reading this. Good back and forth with alot of interesting information and facts and resources without the usual ad hominem attacks.

Bravo boys.

[Kramerguy]

guido pwning the competition tho

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

Yes. Let's increase defense spending as much as possible. So we can save lives and all....

Seriously? You REALLY believe that there would be tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans dead due to terrorist attacks if not for trillions spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Last I checked US presidents "... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So what would you have done? Nothing?

Or perhaps assign a dollar value to attacks? Okay guys, sorry, its too expensive to watch these dams (or power lines, or airplanes, or whatever), your on your own...

The government needs to supply health care (ObamaCare), Social Security and food stamps but not protection?

Protection is what the president is required to do for his people, he swears an oath. Not the other stuff.

What you say always sounds wonderful until you think it through to its logical conclusion.

Then not so much.

[Kramerguy]

toddkuen,
I'd say there's a strong difference between protection and aggression.. much of what I've seen in my adult life falls under the latter. The irony is that we do very little to protect the physical country, with exception to abstract notions abroad.

[modulusman]

Originally Posted by Kramerguy

toddkuen,
I'd say there's a strong difference between protection and aggression.. much of what I've seen in my adult life falls under the latter. The irony is that we do very little to protect the physical country, with exception to abstract notions abroad.

Exactly, we go bomb the {censored} out of the rest of the world because we can not because we are under attack.

[nchangin]

 

Originally Posted by modulusman

Exactly, we go bomb the {censored} out of the rest of the world because we can not because we are under attack.

 

What about the U.S. retaliation to 9.11? Do you not consider that an attack?

[toddkuen]

Again, no one answers the question: What would you have done given you've SWORN to protect and uphold the Constitution?

Many people thought the US entering WWII was "aggression" as well.

Fewer (2,400) Americans died at Pearl Harbor than the 3,000 who died on 9/11.

[modulusman]

 

Originally Posted by nchangin

What about the U.S. retaliation to 9.11? Do you not consider that an attack?

 

I don't know we could ask Saddam Hussain. Since Iraq had nothing to do with it but we went to war with them.

[toddkuen]

Of course, at the time the CIA thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (Washington Post) and that they would be used on us.

[kmart]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Of course, at the time the CIA thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (Washington Post) and that they would be used on us.

Yes, and so the logic was...
"Hey! SOMEONE (who is definitely NOT Saddam/Iraq) was responsible for flying two planes into the WTC, so let's go attack Saddam/Iraq in response as an excuse to eliminate those WMDs that we kinda-sorta think are there, even though we know it ultimately wasn't him/them, and aren't quite sure about those weapons, either."

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Last I checked US presidents "... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So what would you have done? Nothing?

No one is questioning the Constitutional obligations of the President. What IS in question is what is the most appropriate and effective response to any attack. His oath is to protect the people. That isn't a free-pass to do whatever to whoever at whatever cost all in the name of "protection".

So regarding the response to 9/11 I have two points:

1) Yes, 9/11 was a horrible tragedy. But is the proper response to a few lost buildings and a few thousand lives really to launch a WWII-scale attack against two soveriegn nations just to hunt down a few rogue terrorists scattered around the world at the cost of billions of dollars each week that is still ongoing over a decade later? We're firing at mosquitos with bazookas.

Part of bin Laden's STATED AGENDA was to try and lure us into such an attack and to defeat us by allowing us to spend ourselves into oblivion. His goal may still very well be realized when all is said and done. Yes, we probably should have gone into Afghanistan to "smoke him out" after the Taliban refused to give him up but the hell are we even DOING there now? Does ANYBODY actually know? And Iraq? Yes, great plan to invade a country that didn't harbor Al Qeada and served as a counter-balance to Iran in the name of hunting down terrorists. Brilliant!

2) I don't care WHAT plan we agree is best, it needs to be paid for. The idea that we'd launch 2 wars AND cut taxes at the same time was no only absurd, but unprecedented. But you wanna talk about "free stuff"? How about offering the people of the US "free" protection? What a deal! We'll launch two massive wars and your kids won't be drafted to fight it, you won't be taxed to pay for it, you won't be asked to buy war bonds or have your gas rationed or even be asked to do a tire drive! All YOU have to do is, at most, put a Yellow Ribbon sticker in the window of your gas-guzzling SUV and maybe go on the internet and brag about how much more patriotic you are and how much more you Support The Troops than the next guy! A win/win plan for everyone! (Except the evil terrorists, of course.) Go America!!

And then when the country ends up with massive debt 10 years later, you can just forget all about the spending that actually got us there and instead blame the unwashed masses who voted themselves all sorts of Free Stuff! No! It's not those new wars that cost a couple of billion a week that have run up the debt! It's that damned Food Stamps program that's been in place for 40 years....

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

No one is questioning the Constitutional obligations of the President. What IS in question is what is the most appropriate and effective response to any attack. His oath is to protect the people. That isn't a free-pass to do whatever to whoever at whatever cost all in the name of "protection".
...

Of course there are far, far less expensive responses. Look at Israel for example, no shortage of inexpensive and deadly replies in kind.

Except we don't have the balls here in the US to get it done for dirt any more - bin Laden knew this as well as the fact that no one here wants torture, no one wants "assassinations" and wet work, we have to get the hostages back, everyone wants to feel good that they did "the right thing..."

(The movie "Unthinkable" does a good job of addressing this - well worth watching - as is the scientific data on what people will or won't do in the name of "saving" loved ones. Just think "oath of office" while you watch it...)

If bin Ladin could inject five million poor into the country it would have had the same effect - devastating economic problems leading to our destruction.

Originally Posted by guido61

...Part of bin Laden's STATED AGENDA was to try and lure us into such an attack and to defeat us by allowing us to spend ourselves into oblivion. ...

So here we have A) Obama following bin Laden's STATED AGENDA by engaging in ruinous borrowing and B) you supporting him as long as its "in the name of the poor."

We get destroyed whether Bush had a war or Obama spends what's left on the charge card for opiates for the masses.

So Obama is spending trillions - its just okay to do it for the "poor."

(BTW: Islam has no "debt" like we do - its a sin to borrow money and pay/collect interest.)

My original numbers stand: Obama is spending at least a trillion a year more than his predecessors and has, according to you, at the same time also played right into bin Laden's hands in terms of destroying America...

[Kramerguy]

 

 

 

 

 

If bin Ladin could inject five million poor into the country it would have had the same effect - devastating economic problems leading to our destruction.

 

 

 

 

..>As evidenced by between 7-14 Million poor people arriving on Ellis island between 1910 and 1914 alone.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Of course there are far, far less expensive responses. Look at Israel for example, no shortage of inexpensive and deadly replies in kind.

Except we don't have the balls here in the US to get it done for dirt any more - bin Laden knew this as well as the fact that no one here wants torture, no one wants "assassinations" and wet work, we have to get the hostages back, everyone wants to feel good that they did "the right thing..."

I don't think that's necessarily true at all. A very good argument can be made that we've accomplished far more in the 'war on terror' with CIA activity, Special Ops and drone attacks than we've done with traditional warfare and most people support all that. Even IF it sometimes involves doing things they'd rather not publically acknowledge or want to know about.

So here we have A) Obama following bin Laden's STATED AGENDA by engaging in ruinous borrowing and B) you supporting him as long as its "in the name of the poor."

Except you have to look at the numbers and follow the money. The budget was obstensibly balanced in 2000. Now we're running up deficits of $1 trillion a year. What's changed since then? What's been the new spending? Why is there less revenue? It hasnt been spending on 'the poor' that has blown up the budget.

And further, it isn't the proponents of these sorts of programs who advocate them without paying for them. The left is fine looking for sources of funding for the programs they advocate. It's the RIGHT who wants to spend more on the things THEY like without paying for them. Again---fine. You want a massive defense department? You think it's necessary? That's a fair position to take. But what ISN'T fair is to say you want all that stuff but aren't willing to pay for it.

The math doesn't work. The right talks vaguely about cutting spending but never has any concrete plans on how to do it. I remain convinced that Mitt Romney would have walked away with the election if he would have come forth with a REAL deficit reduction plan. If he would have campaigned using Perot-style charts and graphs showing where the spending cuts would be made and how that would bring the budget into balance, many people would have been all for that.

But he couldn't do it. Because it isn't possible. All the right has is empty rhetoric about "out of control spending" but they don't have the numbers and plans to back it up. And after several years of listening to their nonsense, the American people are seeing through it.

Nothing can be for free. If you want all that ridiculous defense spending, then come up to the plate and pay for it. We've been running these wars on the credit card for over a decade now. It's time for the supporters of those wars to pay their bills now, doncha think?

Oh, but now. NOW that the bill is due---THIS is when they decide it's time to not pay the credit card. "Oh, we don't have to money to pay for it, and even though we can borrow the money from other sources to pay it, we're not gonna do that. Sorry!"

Yeah, the party of "fiscal responsibility" there, all right...

[toddkuen]

 

Originally Posted by Kramerguy

..>As evidenced by between 7-14 Million poor people arriving on Ellis island between 1910 and 1914 alone.

 

Except when you arrived here and lived off family instead of the government, no welfare, no food stamps, no medical, no section 8 housing, nothing.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Many people thought the US entering WWII was "aggression" as well.

Few did. That was an outlier position. There's always those at the extremes.

Fewer (2,400) Americans died at Pearl Harbor than the 3,000 who died on 9/11.

It isn't about dollars spent vs. lives taken. It's about properly assessing the threats and responding accordingly. Prior to Pearl Harbor the Empire of Japan had invaded Manchuria and was advancing into Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in pursuit of natural resources needed to fulfill their expansionist goals. They had allied themselves with Hitler who was doing similar things in Europe. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a shot-across-the-bow warning us to get out of their way in Southeast Asia and that our own soveriegnty might possibly be threatened in the future. And it involved using over 300 planes and six aircraft carriers.

The attack on 9/11 was conducted by some loosely-aligned terrorists with box cutters determined to attack people with whom they are ideologically opposed and feel threaten them by whatever means they can cobble together. They aren't a nation we can invade or a military we can repel. They are criminals we need to protect ourselves against and hunt down when and where we can. The biggest threat they present against us their ability to get their hands on dangerous weapons and employ them. They aren't going to invade the US; they aren't going to topple our nation militarily. They've probably been able to get their hands on some pretty dangerous stuff since the destabilization of Iraq and other places though.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

...

The attack on 9/11 was conducted by some loosely-aligned terrorists with box cutters determined to attack people with whom they are ideologically opposed and feel threaten them by whatever means they can cobble together. They aren't a nation we can invade or a military we can repel. They are criminals we need to protect ourselves against and hunt down when and where we can. The biggest threat they present against us their ability to get their hands on dangerous weapons and employ them. They aren't going to invade the US; they aren't going to topple our nation militarily. They've probably been able to get their hands on some pretty dangerous stuff since the destabilization of Iraq and other places though.

Box cutters? No. passenger aircraft selected for full fuel loads.

They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point. Why bother with our military when we can shut down travel in the US for days on end?

This is also an interesting rational to explain why Obama has not spent trillions more of our dollars.

The reality from the GAO is that Obama is spending trillions more.

As far as I can tell most of your arguments come from examiner.com. Which basically offers clever partisan excuses about why a table full of GAO numbers that confirms massive overspending can be spun as "wrong" or "someone else's fault".

Even when for two of the last four years Obama and the Democrats had a majority in both houses.

How is it STILL Bushes fault?

When does Obama man-up and take responsibility?

I always thought leadership and responsibility were about not making excuses for what is blatantly obvious.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point.

Yes, that is the point. So responding to the threat with a traditional military response was hamfisted, overblown, and threatens to bankrupt the economy. Which was their plan.

Why did they attack the World Trade Center anyway? Because it's the center and symbol of American and western ECONOMIC might. Their plan is to try and take us down ECONOMICALLY. Not to defeat us by killing us all off three-thousand at a swipe.

The reality from the GAO is that Obama is spending trillions more.

So the GOP House has nothing to do with it? How is it that it is OBAMA spending more when all spending bills originate in the House?

How is it STILL Bushes fault?

~sigh~ It's not about it being "Bush's fault". It's about understanding how the federal budget works.

I don't know how to make this any more simple for you. So I'll repeat it one last time: The majority of "Obama's out of control spending" is the result of policies, programs and fiscal accounting tactics that have been in place for decades. The only thing Obama could do to control any of that would be to propose budgets to Congress that decreased spending and increased revenues to close the shortfall. And he HAS proposed budgets that reduced the deficit. But the GOP didn't like his way of doing it so they proposed their own. Which didn't do it to any greater degree and which the Dems didn't like, so here we are with the deficits being carried forward year after year.

Is some of that trillion-a-year shortfall "Bush's fault"? Well, a lot of was inacted when he was president and signed off on it so yeah, to the degree a lot of it is. Some of it is Obama's as well. Some of it you can trace back much further.

But the bottom line is this---the right is blaming Obama for things that A) they hold just as much, if not more, responsibility for and B) have no plan to fix either.

Here's another way to look at it: the budget was obstensibly balanced in 2000. Since then, revenues have increased 12%. Meanwhile the defense budget has increased about 300%. So what's the plan for those who like the defense budget at that level to pay for all that? Obama didn't increase that spending. He's asked for defense cuts the GOP turned down. He's asked for revenue increases they turned down as well. So the deficit continues. "Continuing resolutions" and all that. Or do you expect him to veto those and have there be no funding for the defense whatsoever?

So what's THEIR plan to pay for it? Seems to me they have nothing except to keep borrowing and blame Obama for the "out of control spending".

[Potts]

 

Originally Posted by toddkuen

They don't have to invade to kill thousands - that's kind of the point. Why bother with our military when we can shut down travel in the US for days on end?

 

I think you just made Guido's point.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Even when for two of the last four years Obama and the Democrats had a majority in both houses.

For Pete's Sake...THIS tired cannard again??

In case you've forgotten, we were in the depths of a huge recession from 2009 to 2010. What did you want Obama and the Dems to do during that period? Make massive cuts to spending? Massive increases to taxes? You think either of those would have helped the recession? Even Bush and the Pubs know you do the OPPOSITE of those things during a recession.

I suspect you aren't a Keynesian and that's fine. But that HAS been the basis of our economic policy for the last several decades. Problem is that while Keynesian economics dictates deficit spending during bad times and paying it back during good times, our government---especially when the GOP has been in control--has taken on the policy of deficit spending during BOTH bad times and good times. The dumbest thing I EVER heard was when Bush first took office and listening to him defend his tax cut plan because we "need to return to surplus back to the people". We had trillions of debt even then. Which surplus was he talking about returning, anyway?

[toddkuen]

Here:



The dip in 2009 is due to Bush's TARP and various activities that prevented the housing market collapse and subsequent financial failures, e.g., Lehman Brothers, etc.

But all of those programs stopped after that point and Obama continued on.

No giant Social Security nonsense, no new wars, nothing that hadn't been going on before. The wars had been going on for years previously.

So no, you are simply wrong.

Bush spent a lot in his last year, Obama simply kept up the spending.