Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: They Died in Vain (Deal With It)
Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Fri 08/12/11 08:57 AM Edited by Chazster on Fri 08/12/11 08:58 AM
When you compare it to the deficit I am saying. What about the only 11 trillion dollars? Compared to the entire budget that is not such a large bill. I am not saying its insignificant but its not enough that if we didn't have it we wouldn't be in debt. That is my argument. Take away the war and we would still be 11 trillion in debt. My point also of just 300 billion being way less than what we would pay to cover everyone for universal healthcare as Canada pays nearly 200 billion a year to cover 1/10th of our population. So, we might as well keep paying it then? The bigger point is that no matter what's more expensive, its still ADDING to the debt and there's much better things to spend it on ... even universal healthcare for 1 year is better for THIS country. Things that are helpful to citizens (like everyone argued for the case of tax cuts) aren't a waste of money. But hey, if you're still a big fan of the war effort, I guess that's better than sending EVERY kid in the U.S. to college for the next ten years, instead eh? We don't want people making educated decisions so this never happens again, do we? That is not what I said at all. My point was the war is not the "reason" we are in debt. But if you prefer to make nonsense claims about what I believe when you have no idea that is your choice. I guess if the government would have paid for you education you would have learned not to assume.

donthatoneguy Joined Wed 03/31/10 Posts: 311	Fri 08/12/11 11:57 AM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Fri 08/12/11 12:37 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. That is the truth and not some crazy spin job.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Fri 08/12/11 01:10 PM Edited by Chazster on Fri 08/12/11 01:12 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask?

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 08/13/11 01:56 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? 100% of the problem is that we spend more than we take in. A simple painless solution is to increase the tax on the wealthy, nothing major just return it to the same tax rate as in the 80's and stop the wars. Sure we can trim a little here or there as well but lets not throw grandma over board so the rich can pay less and less taxes.

donthatoneguy Joined Wed 03/31/10 Posts: 311	Sat 08/13/11 07:47 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? Hey, I'm with you, totally. I'd be down with focusing on 100% of the problem if the rest of the country were willing to do the same. Instead, the only thing we've seen from Republicans is a constant desire to cut every bit of aid to regular people (even things like education), snipe away at small chunks of spending that ultimately doesn't matter in comparison to the Big 3 and totally refuse any suggestions of fairly taxing the rich or cutting war funding and defense spending. Its completely ridiculous.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sun 08/14/11 09:04 AM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? Hey, I'm with you, totally. I'd be down with focusing on 100% of the problem if the rest of the country were willing to do the same. Instead, the only thing we've seen from Republicans is a constant desire to cut every bit of aid to regular people (even things like education), snipe away at small chunks of spending that ultimately doesn't matter in comparison to the Big 3 and totally refuse any suggestions of fairly taxing the rich or cutting war funding and defense spending. Its completely ridiculous. Great points

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 08/14/11 10:09 AM
I think the republican party has been infiltrated by greedy big business and slimy drug dealing criminals.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sun 08/14/11 07:51 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? 100% of the problem is that we spend more than we take in. A simple painless solution is to increase the tax on the wealthy, nothing major just return it to the same tax rate as in the 80's and stop the wars. Sure we can trim a little here or there as well but lets not throw grandma over board so the rich can pay less and less taxes. How would that help if the highest tax brackets use loopholes to not pay taxes. That isn't a solution.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Mon 08/15/11 11:12 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Mon 08/15/11 11:14 AM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? 100% of the problem is that we spend more than we take in. A simple painless solution is to increase the tax on the wealthy, nothing major just return it to the same tax rate as in the 80's and stop the wars. Sure we can trim a little here or there as well but lets not throw grandma over board so the rich can pay less and less taxes. How would that help if the highest tax brackets use loopholes to not pay taxes. That isn't a solution. Good point, it is time to reform the Tax system. I am for 0 deductions, fewer would be good, but 0 would be better IMHO. Get government out of subsidizing via the tax system. Allow free enterprise to be free, this does not mean no regulation, it means stop the hand outs via the tax system. Anyone familiar with this website? http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Mon 08/15/11 11:35 AM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? 100% of the problem is that we spend more than we take in. A simple painless solution is to increase the tax on the wealthy, nothing major just return it to the same tax rate as in the 80's and stop the wars. Sure we can trim a little here or there as well but lets not throw grandma over board so the rich can pay less and less taxes. How would that help if the highest tax brackets use loopholes to not pay taxes. That isn't a solution. Good point, it is time to reform the Tax system. I am for 0 deductions, fewer would be good, but 0 would be better IMHO. Get government out of subsidizing via the tax system. Allow free enterprise to be free, this does not mean no regulation, it means stop the hand outs via the tax system. Anyone familiar with this website? http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ Thats what I have been trying to tell these people that yell "Raise taxes on the rich" That wont help. All that does is hurt the people like small business owners who barely make it into the top bracket and don't make enough money to hire people to find them all those loop holes. Get rid of the loopholes and you might not even need to raise taxes at all.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Mon 08/15/11 01:07 PM Edited by Bestinshow on Mon 08/15/11 01:09 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? 100% of the problem is that we spend more than we take in. A simple painless solution is to increase the tax on the wealthy, nothing major just return it to the same tax rate as in the 80's and stop the wars. Sure we can trim a little here or there as well but lets not throw grandma over board so the rich can pay less and less taxes. How would that help if the highest tax brackets use loopholes to not pay taxes. That isn't a solution. Good point, it is time to reform the Tax system. I am for 0 deductions, fewer would be good, but 0 would be better IMHO. Get government out of subsidizing via the tax system. Allow free enterprise to be free, this does not mean no regulation, it means stop the hand outs via the tax system. Anyone familiar with this website? http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ Thats what I have been trying to tell these people that yell "Raise taxes on the rich" That wont help. All that does is hurt the people like small business owners who barely make it into the top bracket and don't make enough money to hire people to find them all those loop holes. Get rid of the loopholes and you might not even need to raise taxes at all. Maybe so but didyou know that Mitt Romney was a partner in Bain Capital a company that specialises in off shore tax havens? I would think that if he should be elected he would do the opposit of close loopholes. Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Bain & Company partners Mitt Romney, T. Coleman Andrews III, and Eric Kriss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Mon 08/15/11 01:21 PM
Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem Need we show you the chart yet again? The one that shows the portion of the debt that was caused by the wars and the Bush tax cuts? Then the portion that was caused by the Bush-caused Recession? Or are we just ignoring those things? Are we just saying that these are lies and figments of our imagination?

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Mon 08/15/11 01:22 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? 100% of the problem is that we spend more than we take in. A simple painless solution is to increase the tax on the wealthy, nothing major just return it to the same tax rate as in the 80's and stop the wars. Sure we can trim a little here or there as well but lets not throw grandma over board so the rich can pay less and less taxes. How would that help if the highest tax brackets use loopholes to not pay taxes. That isn't a solution. Good point, it is time to reform the Tax system. I am for 0 deductions, fewer would be good, but 0 would be better IMHO. Get government out of subsidizing via the tax system. Allow free enterprise to be free, this does not mean no regulation, it means stop the hand outs via the tax system. Anyone familiar with this website? http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ Thats what I have been trying to tell these people that yell "Raise taxes on the rich" That wont help. All that does is hurt the people like small business owners who barely make it into the top bracket and don't make enough money to hire people to find them all those loop holes. Get rid of the loopholes and you might not even need to raise taxes at all. Maybe so but didyou know that Mitt Romney was a partner in Bain Capital a company that specialises in off shore tax havens? I would think that if he should be elected he would do the opposit of close loopholes. Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Bain & Company partners Mitt Romney, T. Coleman Andrews III, and Eric Kriss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital Key word being "WAS" and congress would have to want to change it too. I also don't see Obama trying to change it or any president ever so you have to do better than that to not get me to vote for the guy. If its him or Obama I know where my vote is going.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Mon 08/15/11 03:48 PM Edited by Bestinshow on Mon 08/15/11 03:50 PM
Because its a bogus claim. The $1T we're in debt because of the war efforts over the past decade (nevermind the other $10T) is not the reason we're in debt $1T for the wars? The wars have perpetuated the debt, there is no doubt about that. Just because it did not START the total debt doesn't mean its not a debt. You know its a debt, because up until 2009, it was NEVER WRITTEN INTO THE BUDGET. Saying it is the reason we are in debt is claiming that without it we wouldn't be in debt. It is a small portion relative to the total debt. Trying to blame the war for the debt is a bad idea because it focuses on 1 thing that even if we completely fixed wouldn't fix our debt problem. We need to focus on all of the issues if we want to solve the problem. I am not saying it isn't part of the problem. If you want to be realistic I will claim it is about 20% of the problem. I say lets not focus on 20% of the problem lets focus on 100% of the problem. Is that too much to ask? 100% of the problem is that we spend more than we take in. A simple painless solution is to increase the tax on the wealthy, nothing major just return it to the same tax rate as in the 80's and stop the wars. Sure we can trim a little here or there as well but lets not throw grandma over board so the rich can pay less and less taxes. How would that help if the highest tax brackets use loopholes to not pay taxes. That isn't a solution. Good point, it is time to reform the Tax system. I am for 0 deductions, fewer would be good, but 0 would be better IMHO. Get government out of subsidizing via the tax system. Allow free enterprise to be free, this does not mean no regulation, it means stop the hand outs via the tax system. Anyone familiar with this website? http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ Thats what I have been trying to tell these people that yell "Raise taxes on the rich" That wont help. All that does is hurt the people like small business owners who barely make it into the top bracket and don't make enough money to hire people to find them all those loop holes. Get rid of the loopholes and you might not even need to raise taxes at all. Maybe so but didyou know that Mitt Romney was a partner in Bain Capital a company that specialises in off shore tax havens? I would think that if he should be elected he would do the opposit of close loopholes. Bain Capital was founded in 1984 by Bain & Company partners Mitt Romney, T. Coleman Andrews III, and Eric Kriss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital Key word being "WAS" and congress would have to want to change it too. I also don't see Obama trying to change it or any president ever so you have to do better than that to not get me to vote for the guy. If its him or Obama I know where my vote is going. It just suckes that we have to try to choose what we think is the lesser of two evils. My values say that if I have to choose it has to be Obama even though I feel he is the best republican president we ever had......... I shutter to think what this country would be like if Mcain and bat **it crazy pallin had won. I'll take a wild shot at it though. I am thinking Greek and English type riots......

Previous 1 2 3 Next

Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Post Reply

Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Boost Your Matches & Safety Share Location!

Unable To Connect

Boost Your Matches & Safety
Share Location!