Reply With Quote
Oh really? Why not stop the spending not laid out by cons ution instead? Besides, the war spending bills are not as high as reported. Congress keeps adding pork to them. Not all is for the war effort, but pet projects too.
The only way to have any administration not "spend us into the ground" is to leave Iraq. Anything else, spending-wise, is just a paper cut. Iraq is the arterial bleeding. You cannot profess to be a fiscal conservative AND be interested in staying in Iraq.
Oh really? Why not stop the spending not laid out by cons ution instead? Besides, the war spending bills are not as high as reported. Congress keeps adding pork to them. Not all is for the war effort, but pet projects too.
So according to your calculations, how much have we actually spent on Iraq?
I don't have a number. I just know it's not all of the bills passed for the supplemental military spending. I would guess it is about 90% of the supplemental spending give or take a bit. I think only one supplemental had congress trying to get about a third of it for other uses.
You can leave out the regular military budget as we would spend that amount with no war. What are normally training budgets for the units become part of the costs for movements. Most units move for exercises at least twice a year.
Yes, it is a costly war. I will not deny that. I will say it is something that we cannot morally simply stop, and leave, until the loose ends are tied up. Still, if you look at the cost of the war in terms of per capita or of a percentage of the budget, it still costs less than prior wars we have endured.
The people in the military want to finish. We should allow them to do so. To leave early would dishonor all who have died trying to stabilize Iraq. If you don't believe me, ask any career soldier.
What does "finish" mean?
For Iraq, I'm not sure what it would look like. It will at least have a measure of stability the government can control. How many troops we leave, I can only guess, but most soldiers will return. Some will stay.
It is difficult to complete a mission without an objective.
Well, I'm out of the loop. Very few people are in the inside to know the real endgame. There is an objective, but I think we all agree it isn't as perfect as the White House would like. You shouldn't expect a conclusive answer from anyone and expect it to be correct in the future. Plans change as needed.
I think an ideal end-game would be to have them change similar to Germany or Japan has. I think it will not be quite as good, but we can hope.
Why can't the American people know the endgame?
Davis Says Republicans Too Near `Radioactive' Bush
By Laura Litvan
May 16 (Bloomberg) --President George W. Bush is ``absolutely radioactive'' and Republicans will suffer widespread election losses in November unless they distance themselves from him, said Representative Tom Davis, a former leader of the party's House campaign committee.
``They've got to get some separation from the president,'' Davis, of Virginia, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to be aired today. Bush is the face of the party and congressional Republicans are ``seen as just in lockstep with him on everything,'' Davis said.
Republicans would lose 20 to 25 House seats if the election were held today, Davis said. If Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is seen by voters as ``Bush III'' he will lose by 20 percentage points, said Davis, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1998 to 2002.
``Republicans, I think, have time to turn it around to some extent,'' said Davis, 59, who isn't seeking re-election this year. ``But, if they don't, we're cruising for a bruising.''
Davis warned his colleagues about further losses after Democrats won House special elections to replace Republicans in Louisiana, Mississippi and in the Illinois seat formerly held by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
A Mistake
Davis said Republicans made a mistake in backing Bush's opposition to expanding a children's health insurance program, providing federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and changing Iraq War policy. They are now making a similar error by opposing a plan to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, he said.
``In every case, they've walked down an alley where they're 30 percent of the electorate,'' Davis said. ``And that makes you a permanent minority.''
Congressional Republicans must offer their own solutions on gas prices and other issues because there is ``nothing coming out of the White House'' on policy.
The House Republican leadership team, under Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, has been offering the ``same old, same old'' since the 2006 elections, he said. Animosity between Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole must be overcome to aid Republican candidates and secure their own party positions.
`Pull Together'
``Republicans have got to pull together and work as a team,'' he said.
If the leadership fails to help the party change course, ``they'll be thrown out by the caucus in December,'' he said.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said voters will likely see Republican attempts this year to separate themselves from Bush as ``pure political opportunism.''
``Eleventh-hour conversions can be very unsightly when people try and flip-flop at the last minute,'' he said in a telephone interview.
Davis also questioned Bush's comments this week that he won't negotiate with leaders of countries that sponsor terrorism -- an apparent slap at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's foreign-policy statements. That may have hurt Republicans because Bush was the messenger, Davis said.
`Turn Him Off'
``The difficulty for us right now is that President Bush is, although he's the president and the leader of the party, when you turn on the TV and see him, two-thirds of the people turn him off,'' Davis said. ``They're not going to believe him even when he's right so he's got to get surrogates.''
Davis added that Bush may have gone too far when he said that ``some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,'' in a speech in Israel. Bush said that one senator suggested before World War II that he might have been able to dissuade Adolf Hitler's aggression.
``When you throw in Hitler and some things, you know, it raises the stakes,'' Davis said. ``I don't know how this will play off.''
The appeasement comments may be an effective slap at Democrats, he said. ``But just listening to the talk shows and the call-ins and everything else at this point, there's a lot of hostility out there,'' Davis said.
Even with the difficulties facing Republicans, McCain might prevail because he has the support of independent voters who abandoned the other Republican presidential candidates, Davis said.
``He is positioned to do that because the things that are carrying him forward right now are the things that a lot of Republicans have not liked him for over the years,'' Davis said. ``But that independence puts him in good stead in this environment.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at [email protected]
Last Updated: May 16, 2008 17:22 EDT
==============
McFlopPanderKeating and Repugs are/will be royally ed in November. Couldn't happen to a more repugnant, corrupt bunch of assholes.
They will stoop, slime, slander, swift boat their opponents viciously to try to save the scrotums from being ripped.
The wc's, yonis, clannys, aggies here will stand proud up their necks in Repug campaign sewer.
davis can suck it.
- Mars
you mean like the soldiers that you claimed died from karma?
no, like this guy:
- Mars
i didn't open it. need help speaking?
Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.
What a stupid, useless, -the-rest-of-the-world,-I-can-do-whatever-I-want-because-I'm-a-super-power kind of war . . .
Non-declared wars and police actions are in the Cons ution? I don't think so.
Common law items are not spelled out in the cons ution. The ability for the Commander in Chief to wage war and sign marques is part of the office. These are given abilities of the period. It isn't needed to be spelled out in the cons ution. These items are only in the cons ution under the legislative powers as authorizing them to do so also. Notice it does not exclusively give congress the right. It only gives them authorization.
Bzzzt. Wrong answer.
Costs included in the regular military budget that are attributable to Iraq, but aren't included in the supplementary bills:
1) Health care costs of wounded.
2) Increased recruiting costs.
3) Equipment replacement costs.
4) Disability pay for wounded soldiers discharged.
5) Funerals
6) Counciling and other services for family members of deployed troops.
7) God knows what else I am forgetting.
There have been some interesting economic studies on the total costs, and the above are just the cash costs and don't include opportunity costs, like the inability of the military to attract and retain as many high-skilled workers, or the lost future earnings potential of the soldiers who are killed, physically wounded, psychologically wounded, and the resulting effects on the families of those service members.
Sure.
Let's get rid of the Air Force. Because the cons ution only talks about an army and a navy. All those planes and are too expensive.
We should also tax the importation of slav-, er, "other People", and always remember that we should only count them as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes:
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.It is only common sense to literally interpret a do ent meant to govern an 18th century country of a few million farmers(give or take a few 3/5ths people), and apply that to a post-industrial 21st century of 300 million.adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
Because nothing at all has changed in the last 300 years. Right?
Not that the cons ution isn't a brilliant and worthwhile do ent. It is all that and a bag of chips. I would give my life to protect it.
BUT
We have to apply some modi of common sense to fit the intent of the framers and consider what has happened since it was written.
Should we relegate the powers of the FAA to the States? 50 different aviation standards, 50 different maintenance requirements for every fleet of every airline?
50 different standards for approving food additives and drugs? Or should we just scrap that altogether?
50 different sets of banking laws? 50 different sets of securities laws?
Our economy depends on a certain uniformity of laws to simply function. Devolve the functions and expense of the Federal government to the states, and you introduce a LOT of inefficiencies.
Random, I'll agree other factions are not spelled out. I should have stated that differently. Still, other offices we have are easily authorized under commerce, or other clauses that authorize congress to make laws as needed. Social spending however is not addressed by any clauses, by any reasonable inference. "The general welfare" for example does not apply. That means something other than today usage of welfare.
As for the two year military spending....
Duh...
Still, congress appropriates the money every year or two. It isn't a fixed expenditure like the non-discretionary spending items of social spending are. Think about it. Is that right?
Man, you are going off the deep end. The Air Force started as a branch of the Army like the Marines started as a branch of the Navy. There are still several technicalities that link them. In the Army, my MOS placed me on Air Force bases too!Let's get rid of the Air Force. Because the cons ution only talks about an army and a navy. All those planes and are too expensive.
Did you conveniently forget (cherry pick facts) or are you really ignorant of the cons utional changes?It is only common sense to literally interpret a do ent meant to govern an 18th century country of a few million farmers(give or take a few 3/5ths people), and apply that to a post-industrial 21st century of 300 million.
I see a pattern in your posts I hadn't noticed before. I think you are very intelligent and DECEITFUL!
I hope I'm wrong, because there are subject matters we do agree upon. But I am losing respect in you.
absolutely.
Just think how easy it would be for a healthy, sensible Republican Party to exist if we rounded up every evangelical, pro-life, anti-gay rights, evil on the face of the country, put them in a rocket and blasted them into the sun.
If they didn't have to pander to the whims of bull voters like those just for the sake of winning and staying in power, this country would be well on its way to making some positive changes both at home and abroad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions