1) Using FreedomWorks as a SOURCE is an epic fail.
2) It's standard Washington economics. They never actually CUT spending, they cut the percentage of the increase. Actually cutting baseline spending alienates potential voters.
EDIT: Spelling.
Obama Disguises Military Budget Increase as a Cut
Matt
2012/01/28 16:05:02
|
|
|||||
|
2 votes
|
|
7% | ||
|
21 votes
|
|
72% | ||
|
6 votes
|
|
21% | ||
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 02:54 PM
By: Dick Armey
From the FreedomWorks website.
A top news story of the day is that President Barack Obama is supposedly
cutting almost half a trillion dollars from the defense budget. But
this is simply not true.
President Obama is not cutting a single dime out of the military budget.
He is actually substantially increasing military spending over the next
several years. Washington has once again cleverly disguised a spending
increase as a “cut.”
This is how it all works: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has a
baseline that predicts what will happen over the next decade given
current projections of taxation and spending. It shows that military
spending will dramatically increase over the next 10 years.
President Obama’s $480 billion in military spending “cuts” are only from
the bloated CBO baseline. This means that he is merely reducing
projected military spending, as opposed to cutting current spending.
Military spending will continue to rise under President Obama’s plan,
just at a slightly slower rate. Why has this sparked so much
controversy? Self-identified neoconservative Bill Kristol said that the
so-called cuts “would decimate our military.”
<strong>More at the link provided</strong>
Read More: http://www.newsmax.com/DickArmey/Obama-Military-Bu...
imagine a fully functional economy where employment is maxed at, say 97% and most of the 3% that aren't working are the ones between jobs, but are on their way to another job. call it 1% hard core unemployed.
also presume that insurance is offered at all jobs.
not impossible. especially, if you force insurance companies to drop the 'preexisting condition' kickout?
would we need Obamacare and all its economy co option? would we need overall gov't interference?
would we have to turn the US into Finland?
step 1) fix the GD economy. quit spending other people's money.
step 2.) work with people and companies to offer inexpensive company and personal insurance.
step 3.) get on with life.
sensible regulation? absolutely! John Corzine in 2002 floated a bill to prevent Fannie and Freddie from buying CDO and CDS products that were permitted per Gramm Leach Blilley. it got nowhere. in 2004 and 2005, John Sununu and then Sununu and John McCain tried again ,but were blocked by Chris Dodd. in 2007, it all blew up.
Dodd served as the nexus for that detonation?
and now we have Dodd Frank with a 'consumer protection' arm that answers to no one? if i'm not mistaken 'consumer protection' had nothing to do with the ...
imagine a fully functional economy where employment is maxed at, say 97% and most of the 3% that aren't working are the ones between jobs, but are on their way to another job. call it 1% hard core unemployed.
also presume that insurance is offered at all jobs.
not impossible. especially, if you force insurance companies to drop the 'preexisting condition' kickout?
would we need Obamacare and all its economy co option? would we need overall gov't interference?
would we have to turn the US into Finland?
step 1) fix the GD economy. quit spending other people's money.
step 2.) work with people and companies to offer inexpensive company and personal insurance.
step 3.) get on with life.
sensible regulation? absolutely! John Corzine in 2002 floated a bill to prevent Fannie and Freddie from buying CDO and CDS products that were permitted per Gramm Leach Blilley. it got nowhere. in 2004 and 2005, John Sununu and then Sununu and John McCain tried again ,but were blocked by Chris Dodd. in 2007, it all blew up.
Dodd served as the nexus for that detonation?
and now we have Dodd Frank with a 'consumer protection' arm that answers to no one? if i'm not mistaken 'consumer protection' had nothing to do with the detonation on Wall Street. and those CDO and CDS products STILL EXIST.
its not RWNJs that are the problem here...
as much as you, mentally and emotionally need it to be.
Is that a new Right Wing Nut Job buzzword?
. . . As in . . . " We Patriotic Republicans, the only TRUE Americans in America, will always respect and honor the Anal-cranalitius of the Reagan legacy . . . "
The PAACA has been profitable to insurance companies, medicare supplemental private companies and the pharmaceutical industry. It has been a boon for who has ALWAYS profited from healthcare. These same people got a substantial raise from Obama.
http://turiano.wordpress.com/...
Actual figures show that our premiums and costs for health care has increased 1.2% each per year over what it would have increased had the law never been passed.
the people that paid their own insurance are required to pay for 32M of the 40M free riders. we all still get to pay for the last 8M remaining free in our general welfare budget...
its a GD disaster.
Sadly, some people are just too stupid and too stubborn to recognize the failure and the idiocy of Reaganism.
other than that, its just dandy.
. . . Legitimate sources please . . . Not Right Wing Nut Job websites or "Think Tanks."
Medicaid and other health care costs make up a significant portion of this year's budget, but that was true even before the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act was ever passed into law.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb...
(Click on "Explore the Budget" toward the lower right-hand corner)
Obamacare increases healthcare costs for ALL States yet benefits some States. It has increased costs across the board and most benefits still have not gone into effect. This is supposed to be the 'profitable' point of the law. What happened?
Government intervening into business matters to help one group while not helping their competitors. Certain banks, investment firms and automakers.
The executive orders he has chosen to pass effect States rights and some of these were SUPPOSED to go through Congress NOT via executive order.
edit to add.... You, a moderate??
Did you just try to say something?
. . . .
EXCUSE ME.
DOES ANYBODY HERE SPEAK RIGHT WING NUT JOB.
I NEED AN INTERPRETER.
I'm not surprised you would need an interpreter... Those were facts and you LWNJ obamabots couldn't recognize a fact if it is staring you in the face!
He's underhanded and sneaky. His czars are answerable to only him. You need to take a closer look at the constitution, I believe you don't know what you are talking about.
Can any of you Right Wing Nut Jobs think of any particular example . . . or are you just repeating something you heard some other DumbA$$ Right Winger say?
You herd animals are mindless . . . just milling around in circles with your noses up the A$$ of the idiot Right Winger in front of you.
But I am seldom inclined to nod and smile when some piece of Right Wing Scum tries to blow smoke up my A$$.
If you've got a problem with that, then move on.
. . .Oh . . . And you have a nice day too.
I don't have the problem, you do.
I see you are down to insults and cussing. A true sign of a person with no argumentative stance.
You said...
"How is Obama stepping all over Constitution?
Can any of you Right Wing Nut Jobs think of any particular example" or
"How is Obama ignoring states rights? Do you have any specific examples,"
My examples...
"Immigration and voter ID fraud. Suits against States when they see a need to change their laws to solve a problem that effects them more than other States in the Union.
Obamacare increases healthcare costs for ALL States yet benefits some States. It has increased costs across the board and most benefits still have not gone into effect. This is supposed to be the 'profitable' point of the law. What happened?
Government intervening into business matters to help one group while not helping their competitors. Certain banks, investment firms and automakers.
The executive orders he has chosen to pass effect States rights and some of these were SUPPOSED to go through Congress NOT via executive order."
It wasn't that hard of a conversation to keep up with. Maybe had you not just hit with the typical leftist hate filled rhetoric and stayed focused on the conversation at hand, you would not be asking what examples nor calling for an interpreter.
How about some examples of lawsuits against states?
The Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act is very good for this nation. It should have happened sooner.
What do you have against Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection anyway?
It is govenment's job to intervene in business, but only when necessary of course. Give an example of an intervention you don't like.
GW should have intevened to quell that crazy real estate investment frenzy that crashed and almost sank this naiton's economy.
Presidents have signed executive orders for decades. GW signed a bunch of them.
Which of Obama's executive orders bothers you? . . . and why?
Be specific please.
Examples . . . Links . . legimitate sources.
Got any?
"How about some examples of lawsuits against states?"
Arizona, South Carolina, Texas
"What do you have against Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection anyway?" It unnecessarily caused premiums and rates to increase above the normal rate of increase in 2010 and 2011. It will add $1.2T of new debt AFTER 2014 every year. It puts the smaller insurance companies at a disadvantage to larger ones who have already amassed their working capital due to the 80% max clause. This alone will stifle any new chance of competition and cost reduction. I have many other complaints as well but your list of questions is long.
"It is govenment's job to intervene in business, but only when necessary of course. Give an example of an intervention you don't like." Lehmann Bros was allowed to fail but Goldman Sachs and Bear-Stearns was not. Too many of the companies who were bailed out are now part of Obamas administration. Favoritism over one company from another where they are in the same predicament.
Some States given a lot more Stimulus funds yet repayment is done by the citizens whether their State received funds or not. The bias on which States received the most amount of money was so obvious.
"GW should have intevened to ...
"How about some examples of lawsuits against states?"
Arizona, South Carolina, Texas
"What do you have against Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection anyway?" It unnecessarily caused premiums and rates to increase above the normal rate of increase in 2010 and 2011. It will add $1.2T of new debt AFTER 2014 every year. It puts the smaller insurance companies at a disadvantage to larger ones who have already amassed their working capital due to the 80% max clause. This alone will stifle any new chance of competition and cost reduction. I have many other complaints as well but your list of questions is long.
"It is govenment's job to intervene in business, but only when necessary of course. Give an example of an intervention you don't like." Lehmann Bros was allowed to fail but Goldman Sachs and Bear-Stearns was not. Too many of the companies who were bailed out are now part of Obamas administration. Favoritism over one company from another where they are in the same predicament.
Some States given a lot more Stimulus funds yet repayment is done by the citizens whether their State received funds or not. The bias on which States received the most amount of money was so obvious.
"GW should have intevened to quell that crazy real estate investment frenzy that crashed and almost sank this naiton's economy." He and many Republicans tried but they were blocked by the powers of the Banking and Finance committees namely Barney franks, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and Artur Davis. Do you need me to post the videos from the hearings where the Republicans were calling on an investigation of FnF and the mortgage industry back in '02?
"Presidents have signed executive orders for decades. GW signed a bunch of them." True but you must judge the purpose and the intent of the order.
Which of Obama's executive orders bothers you? . . . and why?
13489 Presidential Records - Self evident because it gives too much power to the AG on whose records can be revealed and whose can not!!
13490 Ethics Commitments A good idea that he did not follow through with with his own Party during the health care debate namely Ben Nelson and Landreau
13497 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts - Huge favor to unions and the detriment of production. If a contractor is not happy with the labor on a project and when it ends any new contracts regarding that job must use the original workers. There is NO need for a President to get into these sorts of negotiations.
13502 USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - Once again the President has no business telling other Federal agencies that they MUST use union labor for all future contracts.
13503 Executive Order: Establishment of the White House Office of Urban Affairs. This should be approved by Congress for this type of spending and approval. Plus it steps on the States toes.
13505 REMOVING BARRIERS TO RESPONSIBLE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN STEM CELLS
This is a hot topic that MUST be debated in Congress. Would you approve of a President declaring an executive order outlawing abortion? This is an obvious step beyond the Presidents bounds.
13508 CHESAPEAKE BAY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION- This is a State issue where the Feds have over stepped their bounds and aloted monies that was never budgeted.
13586 - Emergency Board to Investigate Disputes Between Certain Railroads- Once again Obama should not be stepping in and handing unions more favors. There was no threat to commerce over this. His buddy Warren Buffet owns BNSF rail and was a benefactor to this order.
I could go on but I think you get my drift. And NO I did not approve of all of Bushes EOs either but his were not handouts to his friends as bad as Obamas are.
And Obama does not support voter ID fraud. You gave no evidence to suggest otherwise.
As to the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, significant long term benefits justify a small short-term investment.
And how about some sources to back up your BS?
Legitimate sources please . . . . RWNJ websties and "Think Tanks" are not legitimate sources.
I've done my homework, now it is evident it is time for you to do your own.
Look up the lawsuits I am talking about. Surely you are aware that the Feds are suing Arizona and Alabama over their hardened stance on illegal immigration and threatening Texas over their right to redistrict.
Right wing news sources are not reliable?? Just because you disagree with the philosophy of fiscal responsibility you think they are all lying to you.... LOL. I guess I see your point when I try to watch the lie machine at MSNBC, NBC and listen to the jokes at NPR!!
The real power was held by the states who were expected to be responsible as well.
And yes, the Constituton limited the power of the Federal government, AND it limited the power of State governments.
The Constitution certainly didn't give unlimited power to the states.
And the Constituion is "the Supreme Law of the Land."
The real power lies with the Constitution.
No state can overide the powers given to the Federal Government by the United States Constitution.
. . . the power to provide for the general welfare for instance.
"The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . "
- Article I, Section 8
the powers not enumerated in the constitution to the federal gov't, were reserved to the states.
if its not in the constitution, its not a federal power.
nowhere is unlimited power discussed, whether to the feds or states.
"The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . "
- Article I, Section 8
The Constitution is the law of the land.
If you don't like it . . . tough titty.
Of course the limitiations of power are discussed in the Constitution.
Ever heard of the supremacy clause?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, the United States Government can use the powers given to it by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and the States don't have a damned thing to say about it.
Got it yet?
that means the any State law that conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution overrides it. NOT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
The US Government takes SUPREMACY over the individual states in concerns involving those powers specifically granted to the United States government by the Constitution.
Your comprehension skills are lacking.
No wonder you are a Right Winger.
It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
Good Job !
If you get any smarter . . . You're going to be eligible to be a Moderate . . . Or maybe even a Liberal !
You had it for a second . . .
. . . and then you lost it.
Sorry man . . . It doesn't look like you'll ever be smart enough to qualify as a Moderate or a Liberal after all.
It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
Now see what it saaays Looook. It says IN EXCERCISING THE CONSTITUTION. NOW RUB CARFULY AND LOOK. IT SAYS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT E X C E R C I S I N G THE CONSTITUTION. ONLY IF THE STATE LAWS CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. ARE YOU RUBBINGTHOSE BRAIN CELLS? KEEP TRYING YOU MAY ONE DAY BE A REAL AMERICAN.
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, MUST PREVAIL over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
In other words, the United States Government can use the powers given to it by the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and the States don't have a damned thing to say about it.
I'm glad you're finally catching on.
But please try a little harder this time not to forget what you've learned.
If an existing State Law contradicts a new Federal Law arising from an enumerated power, then that state law is rendered invalid and unconsitutional.
. . . because as we know . . . The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, MUST PREVAIL over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
There may be some hope for you yet. Maybe one day you will be a REAL American.
i've never had a 'tough titty.' i don't know where you're hanging out.
it's nice that you can quote the constitution, but what you're saying is exactly why people are squawking over Obamacare. nowhere in the constitution does it have any 'enumerated power' that prescribes everyone should have insurance.
if Congress wanted to pass an amendment to do so, that'd be one thing. in Obamacare's case, this is Congress ramming it down the states' throat.
got THAT yet?