Stop and think for a minute please.
We have no context. What if he was saying that adjusted to 200 dollars, we couldn't account for that much during the Viet Nam war?
He could have said when he became the Secretary of Defense, he couldn't find that much in 2000 dollars that were lost from the prior administration.
Point is, context is very important.
WH... Stinger...
I found an interesting number.
$2.3 trillion is the total of the Defense spending under the Clinton administrations 8 years of budgets.
Could this have been a misstatement?
No way the defense spending could have that much unaccounted for. That's in essence 30 years worth of inflation adjusted loss at the nominal 25%.
How about legalization of marijuana, or at least, decriminalization? I think that's the one topic most of the board agrees with. That could help generate new businesses, it could be taxed to help pay for services AND it would help reduce the amount of people in jail and police needed to fight the Drug War. As a side benefit, it would also increased personal liberty.
It's ok, they weren't all going to stay on our side no matter what we did. Sympathy is a short lived emotion.
As you, or someone else recently pointed out, most of us agree with legaizing it and taxing it.
I'm a YES vote.
You're picking at a nit here. Do you really deny there's a problem with waste in defense spending? Is there something that makes defense bureaucracies uniquely immune to waste, inefficiency and fraud?
What we did and how we did it made a difference. Invading Iraq was much to our detriment on a lot of levels.
LOL....
You think? Think again.
$2.3 trillion is the entire 8 years of Clinton's defense budget.
I am being realistic in pointing out something is wrong with that number.
You can find similar waste in anything run by the government.
That's actually pretty damn funny, maybe Ol' Rummy was making a joke that the Clinton defense budget was totally worthless and those years and the evidence just kinda disappeared into a black hole (and I'm not talking about Monica Lewinsky's mouth, though to be honest Clinton left a trail there too). This issue continues to confound me.
Okay, let me know when a Dimm-o-crap reaches across the aisle to support a
Republican effort.
It's happened on a few pieces of legislation already. Or do you think that every bill passed in the past year or two has been completely partisan?Okay, let me know when a Dimm-o-crap reaches across the aisle to support a
Republican effort.
There's very little coming out of the GOP policy shop these days, Ray.
Wine, you are not reading enough. Go to the Republican website. By the way I
am not a Republican. But they do have some ideas.
Grrrr.......you gotta be kiddin.........want to give me a clue.
I'm not talking about talking points posted on some RNC website, Ray. I'm talking about real plans to get done in Congress. The GOP has been just pitiful since 2006 and now seems content to ride the coattails of Obama's unpopularity.
Define what you mean by "reaching across the aisle". I mean, it's obvious that a majority of legislation has both parties signed to it. What would you define as a "Republican" bill, first off? One proposed by a majority of Republicans? Authored? Sponsored?
If you're talking about reaching over the aisle, I assume you mean on a piece of legislation that Dems don't like that Republicans do. A good deal of Republican bills get some token support from the Dems. If you're talking about both sides working together closely to hammer out a contentious issue, I agree that there's not a whole lot of that going around. (The only ones they can seemingly agree on is war funding.)
Paul Ryan has real plans whether you agree with them or not. Not getting much support from the GOP though. The GOP seems confident that simply being anti Obama will be enough to gain power.
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/
Worked great for the Dems in 2006 and 2008. What goes around eventually comes around.
What difference would having not invaded Iraq made in terms of our most pressing foreign relations? Invading Iraq was clearly a mistake but I don't see the issues of Iran, N. Korea, middle east peace being any different had we not invaded Iraq. I don't think China or Russia would be putting our self interest ahead of their own had we not invaded.
Iraq hurt the credibility and prestige of the US, and now we've got our s caught in a crack. It's still hurting us.
Wh: the world is normaly anti-america. Just like they were anti-brittian when they were the global power. it comes with the territory. In regards to the Iraq war, we have learned so much militarily and strategically that will benefit america and keep us safer for the future.
FTR I don't think OIF was a mistake.
1. Cuts in defense spending programs.
I vote yes. I also vote to leave Iraq and Afghanistan to their own stupidities.
2. Changes in en lement programs that will involve some form of means-testing.
I vote yes along with a modification with SS thresholds and rates to make them viable in the long term.
3. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts for earners making more than $500,000 per year in income.
I vote yes, but would prefer a lower threshold along with cleaning up the AMT.
4. Legalize and tax marijuana.
I vote yes.
Got any specifics of how we will be safer in the future?
What premise for OIF was true?
Are any of you feeling the love yet from reaching out to each other?
Well, since I started it, I think I should answer.Are any of you feeling the love yet from reaching out to each other?
Actually, I think that there is a fair amount of agreement on some basic areas, i.e., some defense cuts, some en lements modifications and some tax changes...plus, the additional matter of legalizing marijuana seems pretty universally accepted herein.
There is animosity. This is a political forum, after all.
But still, I believe (perhaps hope is a better description) that, save for a few who just refuse reason, there is some agreement.
Actually, WH's observation that Republicans are merely planning on riding the distatste for Democratic policies into office in much the same manner that Democrats rode the wave of distaste over Republican policies in 2006 and 2008 is probably the most accurate and distressing of all of the things said herein. That is my wort fear...that nothing will get done by anyone.
To be fair, Democrats didn't just ride Republican dissatisfaction. They did campaign on certain values and ideas. It's just that they went back against those ideas, or were too afraid to enact them, once they got into office.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote