Wrong about what? The biggest chunk of our spending, or my opinion that it's an epic fucking waste of money having so many needless military outposts spread out across the entire world? And let's not forget the costs of our wars...

Care to prove otherwise? Is the military really something so sacred to you that you think we can't stand to shave off a few dozen billion in yearly spending?

Repubs are so fucking contradictory with spending... one hand they want to talk a big talk about cutting costs, but when it comes down to specifics, you can't figure out what you want to cut. All you know is that the Dem's aren't cutting anything, and you sure as fuck won't allow the military budget to be cut.

Oh wait, healthcare... you want to cut healthcare. And education. So we can live in a world full of retards controlled by religion. :) That sounds like a great idea.

It's not the biggest chunk, halfwhit.
But please, prattle on

Hahaha.
It's amazing you can feed yourself.
The budget hasn't been cut

Might want to do a little research before you speak about the government policies you support. This is a simple fact, and one that is fairly commonly known. And clearly one that you have chosen to ignore, or disregard.

This data was compiled with a simple Google query of "where does the government spend the most money". These are the first page results.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...s/expenses.cfm

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...-s-Money_1.gif

So again, care to cite where the error in this data is taking place? Should be pretty easy.

I didn't say the budget had been cut... you have a serious reading issue.

I said, cuts are cuts or cuts have been made. And that is a fact, cutS have been made to MANY parts of the budget.

Any other stupid shit would like to say in this post?

Demand payment? :helpme You mean sell the bonds on the open market right? You do know what that means, right?

And you last sentence does not follow from your previous statement(s).

Here's a breakdown from 2006 to 2010

http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

Military cuts would be the fastest way. And if you notice in the charts, 2010 < 2009.

I got Wig to come out and play! What's up Buddy!

That frankly, made no sense.

Here is where we should start. 500 billion cut.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/01/...spending-cuts/

Anyone talking about cutting a few 100 billion over YEARS is just blowing hot air.

Lets start with $663.7 billion (+12.7%) ? Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

The unemployed are unemployed because the US imports goods it used to make. The bosses find it cheaper to make it in the third world.

Welfare goes to people who spend it on food, rent, heating and essentials. Imagine the chaos if they can't afford that. And all that money goes back into their local community. They buy very little manufactured outside the US compared with those not on welfare.

Look at my graphs and tell me the President who cut the budget in the last 30 years.

The only way out of this mess is to employ the unemployed making goods to export. How do you think China has become the second largest economy in the world?

Yes by filling your shops with goods you used to make.

:) Hey Ant. Just passing through.

How is that hard to understand?

Have you never reduced the cost of one department in your company before, even though the costs of business are still going up? That's still a reduction, it is without question a cut.... even though your 'other costs' increased - it doesn't mean you authorized 'more' to be spent either.

Come on people.... this isn't highschool math or anything.

Agreed. But let's hear what our government spending authority 12Clicks has to say on the subject. I'm on the edge of my seat... sort of how I anticipate listening to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. I have to prepare myself with a vomit bag... :winkwink:

Silly kid, I'm never wrong. Ever.
Now run along and get a chart of the total budget, not a chart showing discretionary spending.

Idiot

If it's any consolation, I understood what you said. :winkwink:

You're wrong. And I love how there's never any factual rebuttal, never any facts from you at all, just simplistic name calling. That's all you're capable of when it comes to arguing a point.

Go find the chart you're looking for... I already looked at the top ten results for government spending and every single fucking one of them confirmed what I already said in my first post.

All you can do is say "you're wrong, idiot". Did you attend the SleazyDouche School of Forum Trolling?

I think you nailed it on the head earlier, either we raise taxes, cut abroad, or at home. There are inherent risks of lessening our presence in the oil rich middle east. At this point, there is zero hope unless we get this under control. I'm not a fan of 2012 will see an upsurge bullshit propaganda being spewed.

Dear idiot, when your credit card bill is $10k one month so you stop buying beer and instead buy wine and next months bill is $11k, you didn't cut spending.
An idiot like yourself would say you cut beer spending but that's all you can expect an idiot to say

* Mandatory spending: $2.009 trillion (-20.1%)
o $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
o $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
o $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
o $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
o $164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
o $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
o $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
o $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts





Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)


# $663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
# $78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
# $72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
# $52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
# $51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
# $47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
# $46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
# $42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
# $26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
# $26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
# $23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
# $18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
# $13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
# $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
# $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
# $12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
# $10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
# $9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
# $7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
# $5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
# $5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
# $1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
# $0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
# $0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration

Thanks for proving me right, bareback

Ok children, I'm off to enjoy valentine's day dinner. Keep thinking you're right and that down is up

Hahaha, leave it to 12clicks to take something like the entire U.S. economy, our deficit, fed spending, and the budget and wrap up into a credit card example, a very stupid one at that. :1orglaugh

Show up anytime, it helps tell us how correct we are.

Personally, I think Obama is generally doing the right thing. And, he’s doing exactly what Bush started doing once the crisis hit.

IOW, it is not complete idiocy to spend AND cut taxes (fiscal policy), AND inject liquidity into the system (monetary policy). There is a real threat that putting on the brakes – raising taxes, cutting spending, tightening money -- will send the economy into a deflationary tailspin where the best case is we end up with a Japan style deflation and the worse case that we witness a global deflation / depression (when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold).

I know there are a few people who advocate both slashing spending and having the FED stop what they are doing (ie; quantitative easing), and there is certainly global pressure to reign in the spending, protect the dollar, etc.

In the first case I think that these advocates don’t believe the threat I described is real (or more likely don't understand it), and in the second case these people have conflicting goals.

It will be interesting to see what happens in 2011 and 2012 as pressure is building within the US to reverse these policies. Right now, these people reside outside mainstream economic thought, although they make a lot of noise.

Either way, it’s going to be a difficult road ahead of us.

Where did Obama get even close to cutting 7.2 trillion? I just want the budget to reflect the budget deficit and balance out, so, end the war, pull them out tomorrow
Cut foreign aid.
Cut overseas military bases
Put the troops on the Mexico border
End the bureaucracy thats got a strangle hold on small business, you know, things like that!

Obama agrees that small business needs help, he's just not going to do what needs to be done.
Obama agrees we need to cut the budget, but he wants to cut 7% from the budget deficit, not the overall deficit.

Damn it would be nice to have an actually leader in the white house

A leader isn't someone that does something they know without question will never happen thus stopping all progress. If he takes a little from parts of this budget, makes more cuts like he has over the last two years, and hopefully even more aggressive over the next two, and we end the war which has a pull out date.... he will slowly take out bits of it until it's back under control.

Unless you want Obama to be a dictator, this is the process that has to be taken. Understand, that even if you were President, you could not cut everything you want, it wouldn't be approved and you end up exactly where you started.

What cuts, the deficit has increased and now he wants to make a new high speed rail, where is that a cut?
He doesn't have to be a dictator to lead, just a leader, he gives good speeches, thats about it, loads of promises, no substance.

I like your style! :thumbsup

links pulled

Welfare was meant to help people, not support and raise entire families. It's pretty simple - if you hand someone an opportunity to make "$X" for the rest of their life, most people will take it. And they take welfare, Section 8 housing, and other benefits, and they live off of it. They never have to work a day; They might not live well but they don't have to work - Ever.

I have a friend of mine in a similar position. Former US Army, has water on the brain, is considered 100% disabled by the US Army and the state of California. Between the two he makes $4k a month - plenty for a single forty year old man to live off of. When his medical condition affects him, it completely disables him - He can't walk - and this goes on for months at a time. But his medical condition hasn't affected him in the past ten years. Let me re-phrase that - HIS MEDICAL CONDITION HASN'T AFFECTED HIM IN TEN YEARS YET HE COLLECTS $4K A MONTH IN BENEFITS. Why should he get a job when he makes $50k a year being "disabled"?

Do I want to see kids suffer? No, of course not. But why are my tax dollars going to raise entire families of welfare babies? If parents can't care for their children, they get cared for by the state.

But why stop here? My father died in Vietnam in 1969 when I was nine months old. My mother got the usual benefits from the military. But she also got payments from Social Security for having a deceased spouse, and I too, as a child, got benefits until I was eighteen. My mother re-married, and we were rather wealthy growing up with my step father. Between my mother and I we collected $2k a month. That's $25k a year in benefits you paid for with your tax dollars. Social Security for a deceased spouse is a wonderful idea, but should be dropped after a certain threshold - Once a family is making hundreds of thousands a year, these benefits should stop.

He would have to be a dictator to force the change you expect of him.....

Obama has actually kept a damn good number of his promises and has broken very few. Plenty of sites that track his promises. When we compare his numbers to previous Presidents, Obama is straight up kicking ass. I can't agree with on the no substance part when he has kept his word so much and he's done so much, it has lit the right up - clearly he has some substance - just not the filling your looking for.

The Interstate Highway Project went rather well, was funded by the people, corps, bonds, and very little from our tax dollars, and it created a shit ton of jobs that have lasted through the decades. I can't think of many things that could benefit our Country more than going with high speed rail, in every aspect of the economy, jobs and even the deficit.

You have a lot of built up hate for Obama... he isn't any different than the last like 8 Presidents..

I love how the only way someone can boost up Obama is to compare him to fails of the past, I don't give a shit about how we got here, I want someone with some fucking intelligence to fix the problem

OK, here's how he can fix the economy
first this needs to be changed
The GOP under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush abandoned the protectionist ideology, and came out against quotas and in favor of the GATT/WTO policy of minimal economic barriers to global trade. Free trade with Canada came about as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1987, which led in 1994 to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was based on President George H. W. Bush's plan to enlarge the scope of the market for American firms to include Canada and Mexico. US President Bill Clinton, with strong Republican support, pushed NAFTA through Congress over the vehement objection of labor unions. Likewise in 2000 he worked with Republicans to give China entry into WTO and "most favored nation" trading status (i.e., low tariffs). NAFTA and WTO advocates promoted an optimistic vision of the future, with prosperity to be based on intellectuals skills and managerial know-how more than on routine hand labor. They promised that free trade meant lower prices for consumers. Opposition to liberalized trade came increasingly from labor unions, who argued that this system also meant lower wages and fewer jobs for American workers who could not compete against wages of less than a dollar an hour. The shrinking size and diminished political clout of these unions repeatedly left them on the losing side.

I've been pissed about this for years


Then there is the money we spend on foreign countries, I say put that all to a vote!

This is getting into the two party system and I have lost my stomach for it. I saw the interview with Obama and Oreilly, I saw no disrespect, I saw hard questions, that's what I wanted to hear, please tell me one question that he shouldn't have asked?

The great divide as you call it is smoke and mirrors, the GOP I believe has put up what they promised in the repeal effort, it put everyone on notice on the way they voted, now they move on. They are in power of the funding, that's where the real fight will be and they will push to defund it over budget concerns. There will be a big fight over the budget, and Obama will make concesions and tell everyone that when he goes for re-election. I don't give a rats ass what party he is, I don't like him, he has no leadership skills. Reagan worked with Democrats and GOP to get things done, hasn't been a leader in that office since.

It's sort of funny. The top .01% of wage earners controlled the debate so they could get their tax cuts before the country could work on anything else. Quite cleverly, they got poor and middle class people to fight on their behalf. Now they are pushing the debate about the deficit so that the government slashes every program it has instead of asking the wealthy for more tax revenue again in two years.

If you are falling for this stuff, you have no idea how the new political/media clusterfuck actually works. But by all means, keep fighting for people that are looking to fuck over everyone they can.

Here is how it should break down for you.

1)If you make over $250K and don't care about the country, then keep calling for program cuts and tax cuts. This is TOTALLY FINE, but be honest about it and admit that you just want the tax cuts and could care less about the implications. Nothing wrong with the choice, but be honest about it.

2) If you make over $250K and you actually care about the country, you understand that taxes have to go up.

3) You make less than $250K so you should DEMAND that the two groups above start paying more taxes.

You need to pick one of those three groups to be in. They are all perfectly fine choices, but you have to choose one.

OK, just so you know ,you being a little slow in economics and MATH, the population of the US is about 308 million, so .01% of that number is about 30800 people, you credit 30k for the bad economy on the taxes paid of 30k those people?

11 million people in the US are illegal Aliens, they pay no taxes, they live on welfare with anchor babies and cost the country billions of dollars annually, maybe those numbers are easier? and that number is low I think!

Reagan raised taxes in fact the highest tax increases in peacetime and ran up a huge deficit which we had none before.

Again, what question, he was told before the debate what he couldn't ask

But he worked with them, no matter the manner in which he did it, he did do it, Obama chooses to ignore the opposing side. I don't play left or right, people think because I hate Barry I'm a right winger, no, I just hate a bad leader. I liked Cinton, didnt care for either Bush and was pissed at Carter for being a moron because he served on a US submarine in the Navy.
A good government works with balance, we have not had any of that in over a decade.