Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

They really ARE trying to have Obama be our permanent Dictator!

page: 12
76
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
We are $16 trillion in the hole! Do you honestly think we can afford to cut taxes even more, regardless if we shrink the military industrial complex and welfare spending?


We are $16 trillion in the hole! Do you honestly think we can afford to continue to spend the way we do? See, the question is the same, but the answer from the politicians (typically Democrats if we use labels) is that we have a "revenue" problem and not a "spending" problem. It is hogwash both ways to kingdom come.


It is BOTH a spending and revenue problem!

If you think we should continue paying it back then revenue needs to be increased and expenditures greatly decreased, otherwise we should just nationalise the federal reserve and cancel out all debt via that institution.


The US cannot "cancel debt" via the Fed. The Fed needs to be abolished, PERIOD!

We are in debt TO the Fed.




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


As I recall from grade school, didn't Roosevelt go beyond 2 terms because of the war? They made some kind of exception I believe.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Actual defense spending is probably closer to 1 trillion dollars.


In fact, with projected cuts added in, the national security budget in fiscal 2013 will be nearly $1 trillion — a staggering enough sum that it’s worth taking a walk through the maze of the national security budget to see just where that money’s lodged.

If you’ve heard a number for how much the U.S. spends on the military, it’s probably in the neighborhood of $530 billion. That’s the Pentagon’s base budget for fiscal 2013, and represents a 2.5% cut from 2012. But that $530 billion is merely the beginning of what the U.S. spends on national security. Let’s dig a little deeper.


billmoyers.com



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Actual defense spending is probably closer to 1 trillion dollars.


True so when we looked at the combined activities of defense (or from your article National Security activities) and then the combined activities of Federal programs that are often labeled as "entitlements" or welfare, there isn't much of a contrast in spending as the poster who I replied to implies. That was their premise, that our defense budget is light years beyond any of our other spending; which it isn't.

As I mentioned before, all of Government need to take a deep breath and tighten the belt because if you cannot operate a government on $2.0T+ (valid functions of government and I know this is the general ideological divide) then something is wrong with the spending.

Smart, targeted cuts to each and every department. Do we really need 4 agencies overlapping each other in their scope? Question like that would be fantastic from our "leaders" but it doesn't happen. Instead they all cry we need more money.....



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrisbobson
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


As I recall from grade school, didn't Roosevelt go beyond 2 terms because of the war? They made some kind of exception I believe.


Nope and your teacher did a piss poor job if that is what you were taught. There was no exception made. Prior to the 22nd Amendment, it was, as pointed out, merely custom to only run for two terms as president. While the war may have been a factor in Roosevelt's decision to run again, it wasn't the reason.

I have stated here before, there is no problem, if separation of powers is respected and the balance between States and the Federal government is stable, of a person holding more than two terms as president. Sadly, none of the above is remotely valid.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




there isn't much of a contrast in spending as the poster who I replied to implies.


True indeed but if, to use Obama's phraseology, the cutting tools are an ax and a scalpel, I think it would be in the best interest of the nation to use the ax on defense and the scalpel on entitlement. I've been wanting to do a thread on this very issue so I'm not going to clarify much here.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




there isn't much of a contrast in spending as the poster who I replied to implies.


True indeed but if, to use Obama's phraseology, the cutting tools are an ax and a scalpel, I think it would be in the best interest of the nation to use the ax on defense and the scalpel on entitlement. I've been wanting to do a thread on this very issue so I'm not going to clarify much here.


I look forward to it to discuss how you can use one and not the other or why.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Could someone help me out here. Republicans had full control for 6 years under George W Bush.

Exactly how much spending did they cut? Had it ever happened in our history, that we had fought a war (let alone 2) and had tax cuts at the same time?

I sure don't recall during those 6 years, the republicans clamoring to cut spending when they could have. The complaining about the deficit and debt only came to light shortly after the 2008 election, and if my memory serves me, it started before Obama even took office.

The two Santa Clause theory isn't theory.

I'm all for a hefty war tax, then we'll see how many of the warmongers/fear-mongers want us to keep sticking our noses in other countries business.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Sadly, none of the above is remotely valid
and, what's even worse is that none of those administrations (prior 22nd Amendment) had NAFTA, the Patriot Act, NDAA or Obamacare already in operation.

heck, for that matter, we didn't even have a Foreign Relations Committee yet, either.
{in case anyone doesn't realize why that matters, read this ... www.hiddenmysteries.org... ... which is dated 1979}



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
In my experience some freshman congress person does this type of thing from time to time in order to score some points with the administration and with their party. It is always soundly rejected and will this time as well I think.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnsrings
Could someone help me out here. Republicans had full control for 6 years under George W Bush.

Exactly how much spending did they cut? Had it ever happened in our history, that we had fought a war (let alone 2) and had tax cuts at the same time?

I sure don't recall during those 6 years, the republicans clamoring to cut spending when they could have. The complaining about the deficit and debt only came to light shortly after the 2008 election, and if my memory serves me, it started before Obama even took office.

The two Santa Clause theory isn't theory.

I'm all for a hefty war tax, then we'll see how many of the warmongers/fear-mongers want us to keep sticking our noses in other countries business.


Well that is the sad part, most Republicans don't actually want to balance the budget, they just say they do to stay relevant with the Republican voter base.

I'll bet there aren't more than 50 Republicans in the house that actually want to balance the budget and scale back the debt level/ceiling and definitely much less Democrats that want to do the same.

If congress has an 85% disapproval rating, why the heck would people vote in incumbents? It just boggles my mind.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrisbobson
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


As I recall from grade school, didn't Roosevelt go beyond 2 terms because of the war? They made some kind of exception I believe.


No, and No.

There were no term limits when he was President, and there was a relatively strong "unwritten rule" of 2 terms - but Roosevelt was a great politician - including getting a 3rd nomination -

Election of 1940

In 1944 the war was in full swing - but he election was still pretty much "standard" - the only real change was that so many men were overseas in the services. Even with whatever advantages you think he may have had as a sitting President in war time he managed to get "only" 53.4% of the popular vote - 1.3% less than he had received in 1940- with Dewey getting just shy of 46%

1944 Election



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by exitusstatuquo
In my experience some freshman congress person does this type of thing from time to time in order to score some points with the administration and with their party. It is always soundly rejected and will this time as well I think.
except that Serrano isn't a freshman and this isn't his first attempt.
he's also a Bloomberg boy, so what does that tell ya ?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

In 2010, spending on defense was $649 billion. Do you want to take a stab at social security? Or medicare and medicaid? How about social welfare programs such as unemployment benefits and disability?

Social Security: $707B
Medicare: $724B
Unemployment and other benefits: $535B




How about you explain that and then talk about the black budget which probably makes the overall DOD budget much higher than that $649 billion spending in 2010. "The numbers are routinely cooked and are pie in the sky figures". (watch the video)

And all the wars we have been fighting in the middle east which has nothing to do with alqueda and is used to grow the military-industrial complex and big business in general by destroying infrastructure so we can rebuild it again at a profit.

I also dispute the social welfare programs spending and say money that should be going there has been diverted routinely to fight the BS "war on terror". We might as well call it the war on freedom, the war on your guns and the war to make america poor dependant on china.




Except I just showed you above that this is false. So want to own up to your false information you are spreading?!


hypocrisy!
edit on 8-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)


I am not spreading any false information. Most countries have no problem balancing their budgets and all you have to do is look at western europe and canada. You can call them socialist, capitalist, communist whatever the # you want.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Most countries have no problem balancing their budgets and all you have to do is look at western europe and canada.

wait just a minute ... does this western europe you speak of include places like Spain, Portugal and Greece ?? and Canada ??
the first 'balanced budget' they put forth in nearly three decades (30yrs) ...
... was still a 'plan for the future' ... still yet, nothing current.

need proof ?
www.nytimes.com...

But many Canadians feel the cost of balancing the budget has been too high. Unemployment continues at 8.9 percent, about twice the United States average. School spending has declined, hospitals have been closed and nursing staffs have been reduced because of budget cuts.
and that was then ... so, how are they doing these days ??


www.reuters.com...
OTTAWA/NEW YORK, Nov 16 (Reuters) - The Canadian government on Friday reiterated its intention to balance its budget by 2015, three days after projecting there would be deficits until 2016-17
ya gotta love the double-speak



www.canadafreepress.com...
“Mr. Flaherty has kicked the can down the road for the second year in a row,” said CTF Federal Director Gregory Thomas. “He’s becoming an expert at ‘kick the can.’

yeah, it's not lookin' so good there, is it ??
i'm thinking Canada nor the others are the best examples to validate your point



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
ATTENTION!

Please stick to the topic at hand -




They really ARE trying to have Obama be our permanent Dictator!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
well, well, what do ya know ???
while one Senator is presenting this nonsense legislation ... it seems the Supreme Court has scheduled conference regarding arguments of Obama's eligibility


thanks to Saucerwrench on pg 4 of this thread ... you can read it for yourself ... here

hmmmmm, this is an interesting turn of events and i do hope the 2 Obama appointees recuse themselves under 'conflict of interest' but i suppose we'll see.





new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join