FOUR MORE YEARS

[glatt]

Dude, YOU have no tactical sense. How many oceans are there? How many ships do we have? How many ships per ocean?

I assure you, we don't have just one ship.

Don't make me find that chart that's been floating all over the web of our navy's size compared to the navies of all the countries of the rest of the world.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Let's stop the big spending, already - there are a number of fiscal calamities that await us, if we don't use common sense, and STOP the massive over-spending!

And how would we do that? Bringing down the deficit isn't a intuitive task. Right now we spend more on the three things that both parties refuse to cut (Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) than the revenue we bring in each year.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

Dude, YOU have no tactical sense. How many oceans are there? How many ships do we have? How many ships per ocean?

I assure you, we don't have just one ship.

Don't make me find that chart that's been floating all over the web of our navy's size compared to the navies of all the countries of the rest of the world.

Why don't you take a boat and travel on out to Adak Island? I assure you, by the time you return, you'll have an ENTIRELY new perspective of how large the oceans of the world, actually are.

Actually, storms are bad around Adak Island, so go to Hawaii instead. But do it by boat/ship, not by plane.

I assure you, ships don't travel by one's - they travel in a fleet or battle group, so they have air cover, anti-sub and anti missile cruisers, and subs and destroyers, as well.

Currently, for the first time ever, US Navy is providing escort service to 99% of the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf - after threats from Iran. That has left us with NO ships in the Mediterranean Sea, at all, at times.

Putting on your tactical hat for a moment, do you see where we could need a fleet around oh, maybe Libya, maybe Egypt, maybe near Israel, etc.? You know, places where our consulates have been attacked, or places where we have a threatened ally from Iranian naval ships WHICH ARE in the Mediterranean for the first time?

You can't always wait while our fleet makes the three days journey from the Persian Gulf, around Yemen, and up through the Suez Canal, to get them into position. By then, it's too late. The attack in Benghazi was over in 6 to 7 hours, for instance.

And, even if there was a timely fleet arrival to something longer lasting, then we still have a problem - who's escorting the oil tankers in the Persian Gulf? You can see the problem.

I'm not saying we need to increase the number of our ships, but I AM saying FOR SURE!, that we do not want to continue decreasing the number of ships in our Navy.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

And how would we do that? Bringing down the deficit isn't a intuitive task. Right now we spend more on the three things that both parties refuse to cut (Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) than the revenue we bring in each year.

You increase revenue by removing the "gov't will now pick winners and losers in the IRS game of taxes", loopholes.

Read this NYTimes article on how the GE corporation makes millions, and pays NOTHING, because of loopholes. Keep the pepto bismol handy, and breakable objects out of reach. Because you WILL be boiling mad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...omy/25tax.html

Then you get our economy moving, so income to the gov't, is naturally increased. Well, that's a hope out the window now, but anyway... If you cut the size of gov't, you can cut a huge amount of gov't expense. Obama has increased federal employee's by the thousands, since taking office. We have to carry every one of them on our backs, as we labor - naturally.

Third, we quit this whole "nation building" idea for awhile. We spent a decade in Iraq, and another decade in Afghanistan, and we just can't afford to do that again. If we're attacked by a country with their terrorists, we go to fight them, and then WE LEAVE - AND LET THEM REBUILD THEIR COUNTRY for 10 to 30 years. It's not ideal, but it's realistically, what we should be doing, if attacked at this time.

Ryan's budget was a great guideline for moving us into fiscal responsibility. Someone is going to have to look into the federal budget very carefully, and start removing the non-essentials.

I'll pick paying farmers NOT to grow crops, as one of my favorite non-essentials. There are thousands more, however. This is comical in a recession:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-30k-on-gaydar

Clinton had a pretty good grasp on what you needed to do to keep things running in the black. Wasn't always right, but compared to Bush or Obama, he was a real Conservative.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Let's stop the big spending, already - there are a number of fiscal calamities that await us, if we don't use common sense, and STOP the massive over-spending!

We once raised taxes and cut spending. Therefore jobs were created in massive numbers. Then, in 2000, wacko extremists took control. Massive spending. Welfare to the rich. Seven years later, we almost had 40% unemployment. We almost lost the entire economy.

Adak is an extremist. So he ignores lessons of history. We almost solved the budget deficit. Then wacko extremists spent money we did not have. Borrowed heavily from the Chinese and others. Even invents mythical enemies (Axis of Evil) and useless wars (Mission Accomplished) "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is a slogan only from wacko right wing extremists. Adak must forget all that to post his tirades and insults.

A decade is required to undo disasters created by wacko extremist right wing Republicans. One could simply read Facts from The Economist to learn what is obvious - including numbers. Only an extremist would advoctate more of what created this mess - in 2000 through 2008. Only an extremists would ignore numbers from The Economist.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

I don't blame Obama for the fiscal mess we were in when he was sworn in -- not at all.

What I do blame him for, is his fiscal actions and policies, since he became President.



I'm well aware of Bush's policies - he was a social conservative, but a fiscal big spender. More importantly, had he recognized the impending crisis earlier, he could have helped us avoid more of it.


Let's not forget our mistakes, let's learn from them. Bush was a big spender, and it was a mistake. Obama is a bigger spender, and it's a mistake.

Let's stop the big spending, already - there are a number of fiscal calamities that await us, if we don't use common sense, and STOP the massive over-spending!

First of all, you don't have to yell at me. I'm right in front of my computer screen and I can hear you just fine.

You can't have it both ways. You can't post that everything is Obama's fault and then flip flop when soneone calls you out on your rhetoric. Your reasoning could stand some improvement, as well.

"Overspending! Massive overspending!" You admit that Bush started it and then continue to mindlessly bash Obama and blame the entire deficit on Obama's spending problem without addressing the fact that Obama also has an income problem since the wealthy seem to think that they'd have to go live in a park and be homeless if they had to pay taxes at the rate they did before W. rescued them from their tax induced lives of poverty.

Get honest. You'd buy the navy a thousand aircraft carriers it didn't need before you'd hand a hungry child a dollar to buy a loaf of bread. In fact, you'd probably tell the that kid he needed to give the dollar to the Navy to help build carrier number one thousand one.

The issue that needs to be addressed here is why it is now to the nation's benefit for one ever more elite group is to continue to shirk all reponsibility while enriching themselves at the expense of the rest? Like the CEO of a large financial corporation who gave free rein to the morgage party gang that worked in his department. The Corporation would have gone tits up, but thank god for Uncle Sugar. And thank god for the tireless ants who make an honest if simple living and actually contribute to the greater good rather than stealing from it. Because Uncle Sugar grabs some cash from the ants and goes bail for the Corporation.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Corporation, fresh from the bail bonds office, orders the sleaze bag CEO into the office. But, far from firing him or better yet - filing charges against him - the Corporation gives him a $121 MILLION$$$$$$ annual bonus for carrying his job out at "a difficult time." Should someone mention to our hero that maybe he should pay the same amount of taxes that he paid back in 1999 and the mouth of hell opens up and a million tea party members boil out to take a stand on his behalf.

So greed is no longer a sin. These days it has become a patriotic duty to accept offerings from the masses because this will create more jobs that you can then outsource to Katmandu. Oh, and don't forget the "illegal alien" who gets hired on as the third gardener on your million acre estate. So, let's all whistle the "Star Spangled Banner," as we walk into our offshore bank.

[jimhelm]

nicked from fred's myface feed:

[DanaC]

lol

That's brilliant.

@ Sam well put. I especially liked this bit:

Should someone mention to our hero that maybe he should pay the same amount of taxes that he paid back in 1999 and the mouth of hell opens up and a million tea party members boil out to take a stand on his behalf.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by SamIam

First of all, you don't have to yell at me. I'm right in front of my computer screen and I can hear you just fine.

You can't have it both ways. You can't post that everything is Obama's fault and then flip flop when soneone calls you out on your rhetoric. Your reasoning could stand some improvement, as well.

"Overspending! Massive overspending!" You admit that Bush started it

He started THIS overspending spree, certainly. I've said this repeatedly. Bush was a social conservative, and a fiscal liberal who overspent big time.

and then continue to mindlessly bash Obama and blame the entire deficit on Obama's spending problem

NO! Obama put in 780+ Billion into a stimulus package. What do we have to show for this?

It isn't just the amount of money Obama has spent, it's where the money was spent. At least with Bush, the money went into good purposes - Prescription drug law, HUGE donation to fighting AIDS in Africa, fighting Saddam and Al Qaeda. You know what the money went for.

Try that with Obama's spending, and see what comes to mind? Nothing.

without addressing the fact that Obama also has an income problem since the wealthy seem to think that they'd have to go live in a park and be homeless if they had to pay taxes at the rate they did before W. rescued them from their tax induced lives of poverty.

Get honest. You'd buy the navy a thousand aircraft carriers it didn't need before you'd hand a hungry child a dollar to buy a loaf of bread. In fact, you'd probably tell the that kid he needed to give the dollar to the Navy to help build carrier number one thousand one.

You're drinking again or just being totally silly? Stop this nonsense.

The issue that needs to be addressed here is why it is now to the nation's benefit for one ever more elite group is to continue to shirk all reponsibility while enriching themselves at the expense of the rest? Like the CEO of a large financial corporation who gave free rein to the morgage party gang that worked in his department. The Corporation would have gone tits up, but thank god for Uncle Sugar. And thank god for the tireless ants who make an honest if simple living and actually contribute to the greater good rather than stealing from it. Because Uncle Sugar grabs some cash from the ants and goes bail for the Corporation.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Corporation, fresh from the bail bonds office, orders the sleaze bag CEO into the office. But, far from firing him or better yet - filing charges against him - the Corporation gives him a $121 MILLION$$$$$$ annual bonus for carrying his job out at "a difficult time." Should someone mention to our hero that maybe he should pay the same amount of taxes that he paid back in 1999 and the mouth of hell opens up and a million tea party members boil out to take a stand on his behalf.

Lots of finance guys got away scot free, we know that. That is how justice is done in America, and doesn't have much to do with either political party. Obama does control the entire Justice Dept at the Federal level, however.

So greed is no longer a sin. These days it has become a patriotic duty to accept offerings from the masses because this will create more jobs that you can then outsource to Katmandu. Oh, and don't forget the "illegal alien" who gets hired on as the third gardener on your million acre estate. So, let's all whistle the "Star Spangled Banner," as we walk into our offshore bank.

Oh yeah! I can see you've swallowed the "let's hate the rich" kool aid that the Democrats were selling.

Let's remember that if they take off for Singapore (or wherever), we will all be substantially poorer here. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office, as reported by The Washington Times, the wealthy pay 70% of all our federal income tax monies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-share-taxes/

Might want to think twice before you throw em overboard.

[Adak]

What will the next four years be like?

Not so great, maybe:

Obama’s supporters claim the worst is over, and the best is yet to come.

Such clichés patronise not merely the American public who, by re-electing him, have chosen the soft option rather than a confrontation with economic reality. They also patronise a substantial part of the developed world that, even if it no longer looks to America for political leadership, relies for its standard of living on the US being economically strong.

On the evidence of the past four years, notably Mr Obama’s record of serial economic incompetence, the next four are going to be exceptionally trying – and, sadly, not just for Americans.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz2Bfq6SM00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Aliantha]

Maybe if it appears both sides of the floor are guilty of overspending, it might be pertinent to re-assess how much it costs to run a country...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

NO! Obama put in 780+ Billion into a stimulus package. What do we have to show for this?

One by one. The money is being paid back with interest. What do we have to show for it? Profits. And we averted a 40% unemployment. Why do you routinely ignore facts? Limbaugh did not mention those profits?

Where is the spending? Drug prices in America (and charged to government perscription plans) are 40% higher in America. Thanks to corporate welfare laws passed by George Jr that add another $1trillion of debt in ten years. Did they forget to tell your that? Mission Accomplished: we have only just started to pay for that $3trillion fiasco. Did they forget to tell you that?

Meanwhile, where is that 40% unemployment rate that was clearly defined in that meeting in 2007. The meeting that George Jr said, "I have lost control of this meeting" and then walked out. What happened to the 40% unemployment rate that left so many Senators and Representatives leaving that meeting with 'ghost faces'? Oh. They forgot to tell you about that.

Why do you routinely forget to the lessons from history. Limbaugh is not an honest source.

At least you stopped insulting people - somewhat.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by jimhelm

nicked from fred's myface feed:
Attachment 41609

[Adak]

[quote=tw;838196]One by one. The money is being paid back with interest. What do we have to show for it? Profits. And we averted a 40% unemployment. Why do you routinely ignore facts? Limbaugh did not mention those profits?

That's what they lead you to believe, but unfortunately, the Feds own a lot of stock, also. To just break even, the price per share of GM stock would have to approximately double.

The previous pay back they gave us so quickly, was actually another loan - so they were able to make Obama look good, by paying us back -- *with interest*, with our own money.

Fact is, the Volt is a colossal failure, since it isn't a hybrid, and has such a limited range. Now it's range is up to 38 whole miles -- whoopee! That's with brand new batteries, of course.

Where is the spending? Drug prices in America (and charged to government perscription plans) are 40% higher in America. Thanks to corporate welfare laws passed by George Jr that add another $1trillion of debt in ten years. Did they forget to tell your that? Mission Accomplished: we have only just started to pay for that $3trillion fiasco. Did they forget to tell you that?

All conservatives are aware that Bush Jr. was a big spender - and not a fiscal conservative.

Meanwhile, where is that 40% unemployment rate that was clearly defined in that meeting in 2007. The meeting that George Jr said, "I have lost control of this meeting" and then walked out. What happened to the 40% unemployment rate that left so many Senators and Representatives leaving that meeting with 'ghost faces'? Oh. They forgot to tell you about that.

No, I heard about it. But there were lots of meetings, and lots of ashen faces when the depth of the sub prime mortgage debacle became clear.

Why do you routinely forget to the lessons from history. Limbaugh is not an honest source.

Why do you assume I listen to Limbaugh? I don't. His personal attacks against liberals is not something I'll tolerate.

At least you stopped insulting people - somewhat.

There's nothing gained by insulting people. Oh, I'll do it if the others are posting insults at me or my friends, but it's your idea's, not you, that are the heart of the matter, and should be insulted, kicked down into the basement, thrown into the boiler, and chopped up like sushi!

Nothing personal.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Maybe if it appears both sides of the floor are guilty of overspending, it might be pertinent to re-assess how much it costs to run a country...

That depends on whether you are satisfied that your gov't is spending your money wisely.

We don't have to accept the military spending $100 per hammer they buy. We don't have to accept paying farmers NOT to grow crops.

Our gov't is wasting money hand over fist, and knows how to stop most of it - but they just won't do it. Because they're democrats, and they absolutely positively will shit bricks before they cut any spending from the federal gov't.