And this link....
-
-
And this....which is properly footnoted by Wiki...in sourcing. A 1.3 trillion dollar all encompassing defense expenditure.
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
Brooks...you've been pwned.
Comment -
I like it when they call it defense budget when no one is really threatening us and 90% of the military is deployed away from homeland. But I guess if they call it aggression budget it would have a hard time getting enough votes in congress.Comment -
And more from the same link.....
The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined and is over nine times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority)[25][26][27].Comment -
Fiddler give him some time. Rush is away for the weekend.Comment -
DongFeng 21D (CSS-5 Mod-4)
The U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed the existence of the DF-21D land-based ASBM system, which is the world’s first and only of its kind. By combining manoeuvrable re-entry vehicles (MaRVs) with a terminal guidance system, the DF-21C is capable of targeting a slow-moving aircraft carrier battle group from a land-based mobile launcher. The maximum range of the missile was said to be 3,000km, possibly achieved by carrying a smaller payload.Comment -
And this....which is properly footnoted by Wiki...in sourcing. A 1.3 trillion dollar all encompassing defense expenditure.
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
Brooks...you've been pwned.
Comment -
It was the exact same blueprint as John F Kennedy unveiled and at the time Reagan was a democrat too.
Tax cuts are not a Democratic or Republican idea, they are American. They indeed have been the cornerstones of BOTH parties platforms at different times. Heavy taxes stifle the economy. The above example resulted from the tax/spend congress being controlled by liberal democrats for 25 years until the Reagan revolution swept them out.Comment -
Ironically, tax/spending actually helped keep the budget balanced or near balanced throughout the mid-20th century until we started all these sweeping major tax cuts. Which is why the GOP platform on economics makes little sense, Reagan couldn't keep the budget balanced but we are supposed to expect a continuation of his policies to do so? In case we need a reminder....
Comment -
Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Spending more than is taken in causes deficits. The Clinton administration was the only administration in decades that kept spending below revenues during a part of his administration. Of course his tax increases reduced revenues for several years.
There have been 4 major tax cuts since 1900. The Coolidge/Mellon cuts of the 1920s, the Kennedy cuts of the 1960s, the Reagan cuts of the 1980s and the Bush cuts of the 2000s. In every case revenues increased as a result of more economic activity and less tax avoidance behavior among the upper 10% of tax payers. The deficits were caused by spending increases which outstripped (greatly) the revenue increases. Bush gave us tax cuts and at the same time doubled spending.
What is needed is a consitutional amendment that spending cannot exceed revenues. We have one in Mississippi. Every year the DemoCong controlled state legislature passes a high deficit budget, ignoring our constitution, and every year our Republican governor calls the DemoCong controlled state legislature back into special session to pass a constitutional budget, and every year the DemoCong whine and complain and moan that they will have to fire school teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc., and every year the governor's budget tax force finds enough fraud, waste, and inefficiency in the DemoCong passed budget to create his own balanced budget which he then submits and under our constitution the DemoCong are forced to accept.
At the national level neither party has any credibility in terms of being able to control spending so that we have a budget with a surplus. When Clinton did it he had a Republican controlled Congress. But, when the Republicans controlled both the WH and the Congress they gave up the fiscal conservatism and doubled spending in 8 years.
I'm guessing that neither of our political parties can resist the temptation to buy votes and influence with spending programs. There does not seem to be any adherence to principle other than "gain more power, win the next election...".Comment -
fiddler you really are a ******* idiot. Im not surprised you can fool some people here but not me.
THE DEFENSE BUDGET is 660bil, period. All the other related expenditures that you added in to try and prove your point are irrelevant to the statement made.
and again, do some research on china if you really believe they only spend 77B a year on defense you dumb jagone. I sincerely hope you dont live in america because I can already tell idiots like you are going to vote for "change" again.Last edited by brooks85; 08-16-10, 09:46 AM.Comment -
Oh yes Obama was a great choice for President SBR John
Comment -
Comment -
Lyon, to be fair to SBR John, he started this thread back in May 2009 so perhaps he did NOT know what a horrible president Barack Obama would become.
SBR John, do you still feel Obama is a good president or have you changed your mind over the past 15 months?
Brooks, kudos to you for putting Fiddler in his place. He acts like he knows everything and is always making up things to reinforce his flawed political beliefs.Comment -
You have 6 more years to bash Obama. Until then keep getting stomach ulcers from your jealousy. Obama is laughing all the way to the bank with his money and you guys keep working 24/7 bashing him.Comment -
Comment -
Dwight:
Obama has the (D) following his name and thats all that really matters to 99% of the people who voted for him.
Obama could be caught on video attending a NAACP sponsored lynching of a white man and people like Pavy would still stampede to the voting booth to re-elect him.
Considering what is happening to the demographics of the United States of America, we are FINISHED as a productive nation unless laws are passed regarding voting requirements. As long as some welfare addict living in the ghetto has the exact same voting power as a Bill Gates, productive members of society are going to get overwhelmed by non-productive members. This is already happening and the problem is getting worse every year.
Since so many amendments were added to the constitution giving more and more people the right to vote (totally disregarding the intention of our founding forefathers), there is certainly precedent to undo the damage that was done to the integrity of the voting process.
In my opinion, the above is the ONLY LONG-TERM SOLUTION and the only way to solve our country's problems.Comment -
Andy,
I too can't understand it and like I have stated many times before, I wanted him to be a good choice for president despite all the warning signs. Have an approval rating of 99% and the whole country united.
I would gladly admit I was wrong about the man. Sadly my suspicions with were correct. I am honest with myself to admit that. I am confused as to why so many are still in denial. Is it ego? Are they just afraid to admit they were wrong?
It was clear to me and many others, after only a few weeks in power, Obama is clueless and a liar. If it walks like a duck .......
People like those characteristics? When I ask people what they think Obama has done well so far, I usually hear crickets or some goofy comments that don't contain a shred of truth.Last edited by DwightShrute; 08-16-10, 07:27 PM.Comment -
I think the requirements to vote should be:
1. American citizen born in the United States to two American citizens also born in the United States.
2. Currently have a full time job which requires that the person pays income taxes. Or, be retired and paid income taxes at least 50% of the years between their 18th birthday and retirement date.
3. Currently owns productive land, a home, or a business which employs more than 2 people full time.
4. Has not been on wellfare, food stamps, or lived in public housing in the past five years.Comment -
pavy,
ABSOLUTELYDo you realize that the governor of California and the GOP senator of Arizona are not eligible to vote according to your requirements?
I would not have allowed them to run for office either.Comment -
So basically every American couple who decide to have their children born at another country regardless of the circumstances should not be allowed to vote according to your plan.
And all the orphans who are adopted by American parents should not vote.Comment -
requirement 1 is a little stiff. But, i love 2, 3 and 4.Comment -
How about farmers who have been on government subsidies for 5 years or more and have declared bankruptcy? Should they be allowed to vote?Comment -
pavy,
The couple would be able to vote, but not the foreign children.So basically every American couple who decide to have their children born at another country regardless of the circumstances should not be allowed to vote according to your plan.
And all the orphans who are adopted by American parents should not vote.
Orphans who are born in America can vote if adopted by American parents who were both born in America, but if the orphans are foreigners then they can't vote.Comment -
pavy,
Its a pretty simple formula. To vote you have to be gainfully employed and paying income taxes. You can't be on welfare within the last five years. Subsidies are a form of welfare.How about farmers who have been on government subsidies for 5 years or more and have declared bankruptcy? Should they be allowed to vote?Comment -
are felons allowed to vote?
that should be number 5Comment -
Are people without a GED allowed to vote? I mean if you can't read how are you going to figure out what are you doing at the voting computer machine?Comment -
Bring back Nixon!!!Comment
