Military Spending. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-24-2002, 01:00 PM   #16
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 07:20 AM
It's never been said that a missile defense system would have stopped the 9/11 attacks from happening... That is something that has been in Bush's agenda since before he was president.. This Military spending should be no surprise to anyone.. It was known we were going to pursue this, and it was known that it would cost a lot.. That's all.

I've enclosed a portion of the article that I posted above again to specifically address Money that is going to fighting this 'New Kind Of War' that Bush Has referred to.
_________________
For the budget year beginning on Oct. 1, Bush also is expected to substantially increase the amount allotted for homeland security, currently at $13 billion. He said Wednesday that he wants to put forth a "sustained strategy" that calls for hiring 30,000 airport security workers and 300 extra FBI agents, buying new equipment to improve mail safety, expanding bioterrorism research and upgrading public health labs nationwide.

"We'll ensure that state and local firemen and police and rescue workers are prepared for terrorism. And we will do more to secure our borders," Bush said. "In order to make sure we're safe in the long run, we must find the terrorists wherever they think they can hide and, as I like to say, get 'em."
_________________________


It's sad to see that Bush is now being criticized for being compassionate and working to get the country back in order.. which the liberals have ripped him.. or republicans in general for not being... Giving 100 Billion to New York.. That is something any president would have done, It's shameful to think that this is now something liberals can use to 'Label our President' as spending all our money away. That inclusion in a post above was sad as a patriotic and caring American to see...

The same goes for the Money given to the Airline industry... There would have been something wrong if there was no money allocated to the airlines.. It follows the same policy given to Farmers (I'm assuming you know the policy with the farming industry).. You do like corn don't you? Hahaha.. what a horrible joke

I'll post an article right under this Illustrating what is happening in the Economy issue at the moment..

But I will quickly address the issue that people are ranting over how Bush is Destroying the SUrplus.. Actually, There's a projected Surplus in an independent report that comes out every year, of some wheres on the odds of 1.6 trillion in the future, down from the initial 3.8 trillion.. BUT IT's STILL A SURPLUS. (I don't have the article on hand, but I'm sure the majority of ya'll already have read this).

______ Here's a little snippet of it just in case_____ "From 2002 through 2011, the CBO projected that the surplus would be $1.6 trillion..."

Greenspan just reported that he forsees the country coming out of the recession soon. News enough that Bush's plan is working.. But again, just wait and see.. the economy will come back.




[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-24-2002).]
__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-24-2002, 01:11 PM   #17
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Here's an article to Digest on the Economy Issue.. I'm sure in time there'll be an appropriate thread for the economy issues.. BUt for now.. THis'll work.

L. Unplugged


______________________
EIB:

Tom Daschle has blinked, ever so slightly, on the stimulus package. He's written President Bush a letter proposing to stop obstructing plans for economic growth. He's promised to stop trying to drag out the recession. He's promised to stop trying to pass out unemployment checks, so people are kept stuck at home. He's promised to start helping Americans get jobs, which is what they really want.
Of course, Daschle didn't say these things in this way, but that's what he has to mean when he says he wants a non-partisan stimulus bill. This is not a sincere effort. In fact, the more he speaks, the more Daschle proves he's not really up to leading a party, or a country, or running a 7-Eleven, much less running the Senate or for the presidency.

The Daschle letter's four provisions don't consist of an economic stimulus bill for Americans and the economy. They consist of an economic stimulus bill for the Democratic Party. We replayed our famous "Don't Shop, Don't Spend" PSA to demonstrate how much the Democrats want the American people to sit on their hands, and not get us out of this economic slump.

These four points prove what we so brilliantly illustrated in that PSA. Here are the points: First, extension of the 26-week unemployment benefit by another 13 weeks. Remember, you'll never roll that back. It will have to be that long forever. This is great for Democrats, because it keeps more people from looking for work.
Second, payroll tax rebates. Now, cutting the payroll tax will do nothing to reduce income tax rates, which are the key to an economic stimulus. That's where the real money is, after all. We know the small percentage of Americans that are paying the lion's share of taxes. This graph illustrates that brilliantly. And, by the way, if you cut payroll taxes like Social Security taxes, doesn't that "cut" the amount of money going into the so-called Social Security trust fund?

Third, allowing businesses to accelerate tax deductions for equipment and money to help states. Fourth, money to help states pay off budget deficits. Notice that the whole Daschle idea here is heavy on more government spending. It's heavy on taking money, by force, from the taxpayers of America and spreading it around. It's heavy on asking us to work more hours, days and weeks as slaves for the government. That's how you have to look at these things.

This is why Daschle wants to delay your tax refund, which is what the Bush tax cut was. The surplus represented over taxation. It represented the government taking more money from us than it needed to run - and Bush sent a tiny portion of that overpayment back. The American people understand that, and so do the people in South Dakota. He's had to buy radio and TV commercials to defend himself from issue ads by the Club of Growth. All this tells you why Daschle is blinking, and trying to look like he's coming to the table - even though he's really not.

There's a Picture also in teh article, but I dont' know how to post it.. But it is picturing the portion that specific brackets of Income .. the portion of income taxes they pay.

47.5% is payed by 200 K +
23.6% is payed by 100-200 K
11.8% is payed by 75-100 K
11.1% is payed by 50-75 K
7.6 % is payed by 20-50 K

__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-24-2002, 06:40 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:20 AM
You know, I wouldn't honestly even be slagging Dubya on his increased military spending had it not been for his $1.8 trillion tax cut he made prior to it. Say "hello" to increased military spending. Say "goodbye" to such things as Social Security solvency. Not only was it irresponsible to project that we'd maintain the same Clinton-era prosperity for another decade, but I don't know of any business that would reduce its income before paying off most of its debts. If you maxed out your credit cards, would you try and pay them off or buy a $1 million car on credit? But, as usual, that's government for you.

Lemonite, hold off on the histrionics. The point of itemizing the hundreds of billions he has spent since Sept. 11th was to point out the irresponsibility of his tax cut, which gave little room for emergencies or a change in the economy. You talk of "overtaxation," but we have to make up for the "overspending" of past presidents. 13% of our national budget is dedicated to paying off the debt, and that barely made a dent. Handing out $1.8 trillion isn't going to fix that. Once our debt is paid off, then we should be talking about tax cuts.

BTW, I don't know where you got your "surplus" figures, but even the Bush Administration is projecting a $100 billion deficit for 2002 and an $80 billion deficit for 2003.

STING, I realize the necessity for military improvement, but I only wish we would put the same emphasis on domestic improvements. Where is Bush rallying for a $48 billion increase to see that everyone has health insurance? No, to hell with that. We've got "terrorists" to chase world-wide...whomever that may be.

And, on the debt, Reagan went into office with a $200 billion debt and left with a several trillion debt. Adjusted for inflation? But we've been told for 20 years that there hasn't been much inflation...so what is it?

I would accept this $48 billion increase only if I knew it would be temporary. But I doubt it. Why I bitch is that this cycle of drastic tax cuts and drastic spending increases is irresponsible. Contrary to what people believe, I am very much in favor of fiscal conservatism. It is only too bad that no president has actually done it.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-24-2002, 08:20 PM   #19
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:

BTW, I don't know where you got your "surplus" figures, but even the Bush Administration is projecting a $100 billion deficit for 2002 and an $80 billion deficit for 2003.


Maybe you got lost in my post.. The surplus that I was talking about was projected by an independent organization that yearly does 10 year projections...

It projects that by 2011 there would be the 1.6 trillion surplus that I referenced.. though that surplus would not start to become manifested until the latter half of the decade... Hence the deficits in the first two or three years or so...

But The whole reason the surplus is down as far as it is, is due to the Terrorist Recession.. It's not cuz of the tax cut.. there's only been something like 50 billion that has been dropped for the tax cut.. I'll look for an article on this... But the reason the economy is not as good as it should be at the moment is because of the attacks.. Not the tax cuts.

L. Unplugged




[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-29-2002).]
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 02:45 AM   #20
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 633
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Melon,
The September attacks cost $500,000. And yes, a defense shield would have done dick to stop those planes. However, let me paint a scenario for you. China, as we speak, is working its ass off to point missles at the US. Iran and Iraq also can't wait to be able to point nukes at us. That's what the shield is for. Now, no matter how much you hate America's politics, it would be bad for the whole world if one of those rougue countries was able to fire a nuke at us. It's possible that it could even mean the end of civilization.

And please, don't tell that the 9/11 attacks happened because of the way the US handles its foreign policy. I don't completely agree with everything our government does. However, it seems like some people are making the killers out to be the victims here, not the innocent people laying under 220 stories of rubble right now.
__________________
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 03:24 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Melon,
a few things here. Your critical of defense spending of 48 Billion dollars to buy what you consider "high tech toys" that are not needed? Well let me ask you this. How did the USA manage to defeat the Taliban in such a small amount of time without a large deployment of USA troops on the ground in Afghanistan? It was those "high tech toys" that you say we don't need that did the job and are the primary reason the Taliban are out of power with so little loss of life on both sides! Missile Defense is only a fraction of the increase in Defense spending.
You may slag Reagan off, but its thanks to him that we have most of the weapon systems that were used in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Many of these systems while very high tech are aging and there is new technology that is sitting on the shelf and not being used! Are men and women serving are country deserve the best technology available to them in the year 2002! The Marines need a new Attack Helicopter. They are still using the the Cobra Attack Helicopter although it has been much improved since Vietnam with a whole set of new electronics, computers and weapon systems. With the technology available now, a helicopter that is better than the Cobra from the 60s(improved) and the Apache from the 80s can now be built! My best friend who is a Captain in the Marines deserves that as well as a pay increase as well! Most Civilians simply do not understand how hard he works and the stress he endures!
Its time that the military gets the money it needs for replacements of weapons used and new and improved ones that have been developed in order to continue to win conflicts anywhere in the world in shortest amount of time with the smallest number of losses. Its time that the men and women of this country's Military get paid the money they deserve for the job they do!
Oh, and its not Reagans debt, when adjusted for inflation, the debt was already very large before Reagan even entered office.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2002, 11:27 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Oh what is the point of arguing this? It is pretty damn obvious that everyone has their mind made up one way or another. And now it seems I am being painted as your everyday "liberal," which, if any of you have read enough of my posts, it isn't true.

Do people remember "Star Wars" (SDI) in the 1980s? We spent hundreds of billions on it to later be declared "unfeasible." Basically, the technology didn't hold up to what we wanted. The possibility is still that this scenario will happen again, and, after hundreds of billions spent on it, we'll be right back to where we are now: with nothing.

Fate is an interesting bitch. A couple generations ago, people were told that the Soviets were always looking to destroy us; that they were just looking for a flimsy excuse to plunge us into a nuclear war. Apparently, the Soviets were saying the same about us to their own people; that the Americans were just looking for a flimsy excuse to plunge into a nuclear war. And, in reality, after 50 years of all that scare and hysteria, both sides were scared shitless of each other. The propaganda, though, sure helped the government's agenda.

But to hell with what I think or argue. We're getting our bloody missile shield whether we like it or not. Whether we like it or not, we have dawned into a second Cold War, this time not against communists, but, perhaps more dangerously, that indefinite entity we call "terrorism." Yes, today, it is Al-Qaeda. A few years later, it will be someone else, and it will never end. If the enemies don't exist today, Bush will certainly create them. If the Chinese don't have missiles pointed at us currently, a missile shield will definitely encourage them to. Let's hope the shit works in the end. To hell with idealism...I live in the real world. And the real world is hell bent on division and destruction, so who am I to bust everyone's parade?

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com