Posted by creilmann on 10/6/2010 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/5/2010 11:33:00 PM (view original):
The military accounts for about 19% of the budget. This is the problem?

We can cut the Defense by half, or the rest of the budget by 12%, you make the call!

False.  Defense spending is 23% and the most funded budget category.  Discretionary spending, that pesky area of the budget that you claim the Dems run wild with, is about half of military spending.  

So where should spending cuts begin?????

I was using the 2010 budget. 19%.

23%, 19%. The point is we have spent 50 years trying to fix every problem and raising taxes and spending.

How about we commit to go back to 2007 spending levels, and agree to not raise spending or taxes for 3 years. Then we go with inflation for the next 10 years.

Boom, problem solved.

We need to get away from the idea that every problem needs to be addressed by a new program, a new Czar, a new Department...

1 We take care of our poor. Our Sick and our elderly.

2 The solution to education isnt tossing still more money at it. We need to make a fundemental shift in how we educate. In no other field is failure rewarded.

3 What war did we start? I will not even aruge that we didnt start Iraq, is that all you have?

Posted by rcrusso on 10/6/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):
swamp....I would prefer to discuss this with someone of reasonable intelligence......not a moron like you

You want to discuss it with a person who agrees with everything you say. Talk into a mirror or stand up and defend your positions!

What is it exactly we are not doing for the elderly right now? I realize we disagree over health care and we could talk about that forever, but isnt putting the elderly in there just a toss away to balance the sentence?

And what wars did we start? Toss out Iraq, I could argue it but I will give you that one.

Revolutionary, 1812, Mexican-American, Civil, Spainish-American, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, 1st Gulf, Afghanistan. What did we start?

I would disagree about Vietnam.  We certainly could have walked away sooner, but we did not "start" that one.

Ah but you said "started" - we were already involved by then.

Should we have been?  Most probably not, but the Gulf of Tonkin certainly did not "start" the "conflict".

No argument there - it certainly led to the massive escalation on all fronts.  But it certainly did not "start" the war - as we had been involved for at least 10 years already.  I especially like the election fixing and then ignoring part of that history from the late 1950s.

We are looking at the War with a lot of hindsight. At the time we did consider Vietnam strategic to the region. There was a lot of supplies coming in from Communist countries. This was not a good situation for us.

We clearly did not start Vietnam, and the escalations were based on strategic interests, not Military Industrial Complex profits.