loudest,

Here is the site I got the numbers from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...4/pdf/hist.pdf

I agree those numbers are percentages but my point is they are bigger percentages of the overall budget regardless the actual budget number and it is more money then one year to the next, maybe not a lot of money, but nonetheless more money.

There are actually money numbers on that site as well but its just a HUGE amount of information. I believe the forth main link to the left of that pdf file is where the money numbers are. For some reason my computer at work will not pull up pdf files from the net.

Anyway, there is a ton of information and you would have to agree it is the most bipartisan site someone could give a link to, its government numbers and not from a left or right leaning website.

I don’t like quoting numbers from either a left or right leaning site because anyone can play with numbers and make them look like they want to, to a certain point.

Anyway, it is interesting to look through the data because it goes many years back.

 

Thanks...

I don’t know if I would completely agree that Bush didn’t have a plan after we won. I don’t think anyone could have a “definite” plan because as has been said many times over by the experts in the military and military planning, the plans will always change.

I believe, and this of course is my opinion but after listening to many experts on TV, reading articles etc, is we, America really thought that once we took out Saddam’s military and government that the people would be happy and just come running to help us out.

I think what many underestimated was the fact that these people had lived in fear for so long and had seen us screw them once before (when they had an uprising after the 91 conflict and thought we were going to help them) remember us leaving and remember many of their families being slaughtered for the uprising.

Therefore I think this time they were very timid and were not going to do anything until their country was “completely” in their hands, until anyone associated with putting Saddam back in power was “completely” wiped out.

I have to say I can’t blame them for sitting on the sidelines.

I believe all along the exit strategy was defined as winning in Iraq. That, in my opinion and from I understand, would be accomplished when Iraq was first, able to hold “real” free elections, and second, given the time to build up their security forces so that once we were to leave they would have a good shot at actually defending themselves from those who would try to take the country back to Saddam’s time.

That is why we have been trying to get military and police officers trained as well as try to create some stability in their new government so people we actually feel they are actually voting freely and not putting some puppet government in that America has chosen. Only time will tell if that pans out. I believe it is possible ONLY with the support of the vast majority of Americans as well as the other citizens from those countries currently helping us with Iraq.

 

I agree with you that plans do have to change being a military man myself you get to know that all to well. Yes many of the "experts" did agree that alot of the Iraq tribes that had been mistreated would rise up and help. Us giving them the shaft in the first war pretty much sealed the fact that they would wait and watch before doing it again.

I agree with what you have stated that the military does need to be there until Iraqi troops/police/administration is in place. However, when there is a "free" election do you really think they are going to vote in a "Democratic/Republican" (I use those terms not as political agendas mind you." minded individuals? I really dont think they will, popularity right now is residing with the *****e Muslim Clerics. My point being that once we have cleaned up the mess those "free" people will vote in one of thier "Conservative" Muslim Clerics, totally against what America will want to work with.

It will not matter who is in office when that election takes place Bush or Kerry. They will be left to deal with a Theocracy once more that is very intolerant towards Westernization/Americanization and very much Anti-Israel based.

As you have stated those people over there have lived in fear for an awful long time. What do people do when living in constant fear? They turn to religion to succor thier minds and needs. Thier religion and faith is one in the same they do not understand the separation of church and state thier church is thier state. It is thier state of mind it is thier everyday life.

I agree with you we had to do something we cannot sit back and act like terrorism or thier supports will go away but we must be ready to face the fact that when we do topple regimes over there we may not get what we really wanted in the end of the day.

 

i geuse it will all be decieded at the polls, then we will see what the people of america want, i am not even going to read this thread any more, it is a wast of time i really wonder were some of you people get your info, all i know is what i have been threw and what i have seen with my own eyes, i hope you are all happy with the results of the election, i will be

 

[PHP]Veterans Affairs (in millions of dollars)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
35,487 37,401 37,771 36,920 39,280 41,773 43,168

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
est est
47,087 45,050 50,884 56,946 61,889 [/PHP]

Seems we were both right and wrong.
Cinton didn't cut and neither did Bush.

 

You can’t look at just numbers. You have to look at what percentage of the budget went towards those programs, that is where the truth is. The truth is Clinton cut the military, Veterans Affairs and education because he gave less of the “total” budget then did President Bush.

I understand what your trying to say with just numbers because they appear to grow but that is only because the actual budget itself grew, the percentage of the budget for the above mentioned programs did not grow and was less of the overall budget with Clinton then it is with Bush.

 

Thats just a statistical thing, what is always important is the bottom line, the payday, the checks that clear.

"There are lies, damn lies, then there are statistics."
Attributed to both Mark Twain and Disreali.

There is truth is that quote. Statistics can be interpreted to 'prove' a position although the interpretation does not accurately reflect the facts.

ie: Danger! Second hand smoke deaths are up 300%!
Now heres how numbers tell the same tale, 3 people per 10,000 died from second hand smoke (supposedly, but thats another thread) up from 1 per 10,000.
That puts the statement in a logical perspective.
So yes it is up 300%, but given its perspective its not the imminent danger that the anti smoking contingent would lead one to believe.

 

Percentages are actually a good yard stick. If you were to adjust for inflation then it would start getting sticky.

Statistics can be skewed to represent things in favor no matter what is the real bottom line. Percentages don't lie.

Like your home budget. You buy a house and live there for 12 years with a fixed rate interest. As time goes on you get raises (hopefully) your income goes up but you pay less on percentage basis. However inflation rears it's ugly head on things like car prices and gas. On a percentage basis it probably has outgrown your salary increases so you pay more.

 

First off, we've got to learn to edit quotes. Just pick out the pertinant information and cut the rest. I see there is a bunch more pages since I last read this but it's mostly quotes. It would be much easier to read and perhaps we might have a better idea of what your trying to say.

Liberals put everything in place so a bunch of people don't have to do a damn thing for themselves! Thoes "poor, unfortunate people". Hey, I'm a compationate guy that does believe that our tax dollars are needed to help some people. That "some people" I believe, is a much smaller persentage than the liberals claim it is. I don't know about where you live but all I have to do is go down the street to see people abusing the system. You think it's ok to let the government decide what we need to make our lives better? Who are "we"? To be honest, I don't need the government to help me make a better life for myself. I have worked hard to get somewhere. Other people have more than me. I would like more and realize that if I continue to work hard I might someday have more of the things I want. I believe that this is the way it should be for everyone, with the exception of the small percentage of "some people".

It's my understanding that the conservative ideal is a country that's government takes care of our security, defence and infrastructure and people who take care of them selves and their famillies. The government doesn't create jobs (unless it's on the backs of the taxpayers) we, the people do. The government doesn't run the economy, we do. The government didn't take money from anyone, we were given tax cuts so that we can make the economy better. I think that liberals are just too used to getting something for nothing so that working for things (like education, which is supposed to start at home) seems unfair.

You liberals can b!tch and complain about Bush but I know that if Kerry is elected it's people like me and the many, many hard working people I know, people who have had to struggle to get on top, who lose. It's really we, the people who are the back bone of this country. If Kerry is elected it's sends a message (like it did when Clinton was in office) that if you work hard to better yourself your wasting your time because there are people out there living off your hard work. The government feels that they are unfortunate and that your hard work should pay their way. I don't want this! If I screw up there is always a consequince. If an "unfortunate one" screws up they are helped with my tax dollar.

The way I see it, the war on terror isn't country specific. I think it was a good move going into Iraq. Kerry would have waited untill Iraq was a threat? Don't people remember the years that Sadam defied the UN? Did you think that Iraq had WMD back then? You probably did, like most of us did. Why else would the weapons inspectors have such a hard time for so long? I just don't get how people can say that the war in Iraq is wrong. Do people that think that way believe that it was ok for terrorist to fly planes into our buildings? See how I said that? "Terrorists". The war on terror is against terrorists, not just against Alqueda. Not just in Afganistan. There was terrorists in Iraq and there deffinitley is now! This war is against them, and they happend to be in Iraq.

Sorry, I always try to make my posts shorter than '01's. I have so much to say but this is getting too long. To sum it up, some of you hate Bush, and are oblivious to how crooked Kerry is. If you elect Kerry he will have an even bigger ego and we, the back bone of this country, will have to work that much harder to support the many people who choose not to.

 

Ho hum...

 

wittom,

You hit the nail on the head and to summarize it:

Liberals = Stealing money from those that succeed in life, the working class and those who provide jobs, and giving it to those who wish to sit on their *** and watch Oprah all day eating Subways sandwiches…

Conservatives = Letting those who succeed in life, the working class and those who provide jobs, keep more of THEIR money and wanting to force those who are lazy to either learn a skill so they can take care and feed themselves or let them starve. Don’t matter to me as long as they don’t TAKE MY money and eat Subway sandwiches all day…

Conservatives are much more compassionate to people then liberals could ever dream of being. I do agree there are “some” who need assistance, those with medical issues (NOT alcoholics or druggies), those who have “real” mental problems and some of the elderly.

Percentage wise, there are a large majority of people sucking up and stealing my money who DO NOT need it. I have no problem spending a few bucks out of my pocket to teach them how to pull weeds, clean bubblegum off the sidewalks and streets, sweep the streets with a push broom, pick up dog crap, things like that and would pay them a hefty $4 a hour to do it. If it’s not enough to feed them, oh well, so sad, they need to learn something else and move on. It’s called tough love and it is being compassionate because sometimes you just have to tell someone they are on their own and once they realize that mommy and daddy (us taxpayers) are no longer going to baby sit them they will move on and learn the skills necessary to survive. If they are really serious about leaning those skills then no problem by me I’ll send some of MY money to help BUT they have to earn it, they have to REALLY work for it…

Now liberals are very uncompassionate to most people, well to everyone really. They love to have as many people on a dog leech and doing tricks for rewards because that is how most liberals think of people, they think they are as stupid as a dog and have absolutely no clue how to care for themselves.

Liberal – ”Give a man a fish, feed him for a day…”

Conservative – ”Teach a man to fish, feeds him for a lifetime…”

Basically it is really quite simple:

When you give something away for nothing, to those undeserving, (most on welfare) you have come to the conclusion the moron your giving it to is just that, an absolute and complete moron who has absolutely no chance in hell of every succeeding and feeding themselves…

Now, I must ask, does that “really” sound compassionate?

I think not my friends, what say you?


Well, so much for summarizing it…

 

Pearls to the swines...

 

I think I saw this on another post on this site:

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he'll sit in a boat all day drinking beer while fishing.

 

Ahh, I knew it wouldn't last...

Spork, you are deluded.
The folks you talk about are a very small percentage of the whole.

Will you be paying for your daughters higher education?
or,
Follow your compassion definition, make her work a job, pay you rent and put away 30k or so for school all at the same time trying to finish high school.
I mean you would be compassionate to her by your definition.

Its a ludicrius concept of compassion, and you would never act on that definition.

Forget about the welfare cheats, how about corporate welfare cheats?
How about corporate bookeeping shenagins that avoid paying taxes altogether? Enron was caught, they aren't the only ones, its still going on.
How about billions unaccounted for in this present money grab for Iraq?
Aren't you the least bit angry that the same tax dollars that you are defending is being craftily stolen from us by the multinationals?
Aren't you angry that hospitals have a rebate policy for insurance companies and HMO's of up to 80%, while billing the fed 200% for people without health care?
Those are a few of the abuses to be angry about because they make up a large amount of the scamming of the budgetaty monies. Not a few welfare moms, and scofflaws.
Get real and point your outrage in the right direction, towards the corporate siphoning of tax dollars.
8.8 Billion missing from Iraq (a snippet):
Thats a money grab, if I ever saw one.
I am Pissed about this kind of theivery, its not petty either.

 

Let's get rid of all the cheats that are robbing us blind...corporate, welfare, all of them.

Without government waste, we'd all be paying lower taxers.

WAnt to know how much waste goes on?
Check this site out:
http://www.cagw.org

Citizans Against Government Waste

Soemthing I think you can all agree on...