Poll: Is Rand Paul Presidential Timber?

[CID1990]

Military Manpower/Size =/= military spending

I agree that we have a severe spending problem and that the military is at the forefront along with social programs.

But saying that we have a military that's 13x larger than any other nation on the planet simply isn't true.

And when I say bigger I'm talking what it costs

There's a correlation between military spending in capitalist societies and military spending where the military industries are either run by oligarchs or are state owned.

China's slice of the pie would be larger than our own if adjusted for the free market. Now that said, our own market is not entirely free, because only so many companies can produce a 3rd generation fighter jet. But if you take it down to the simplest unit, the worker, we pay ten times as much for a very similar product.

If we were paying our aeronautical engineers 1/10 of what they make now, they would still be richer than their Chinese counterparts. China also owns the entire production chain, all the way down to the mining companies that take the bauxite out of the ground.

So as pretty as that pie chart is, it doesn't tell the real story behind the military spending of the world's military powers.

[DSUrocks07]

And when I say bigger I'm talking what it costs

There's a correlation between military spending in capitalist societies and military spending where the military industries are either run by oligarchs or are state owned.

China's slice of the pie would be larger than our own if adjusted for the free market. Now that said, our own market is not entirely free, because only so many companies can produce a 3rd generation fighter jet. But if you take it down to the simplest unit, the worker, we pay ten times as much for a very similar product.

If we were paying our aeronautical engineers 1/10 of what they make now, they would still be richer than their Chinese counterparts. China also owns the entire production chain, all the way down to the mining companies that take the bauxite out of the ground.

So as pretty as that pie chart is, it doesn't tell the real story behind the military spending of the world's military powers.

That sounds like the liberal utopia to me

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

[Chizzang]

As two employed by the military (CID and DSU)
I'll take your considerations like a grain of salt...

But thanks for playing

[kalm]

There's a correlation between military spending in capitalist societies and military spending where the military industries are either run by oligarchs or are state owned.

China's slice of the pie would be larger than our own if adjusted for the free market. Now that said, our own market is not entirely free, because only so many companies can produce a 3rd generation fighter jet. But if you take it down to the simplest unit, the worker, we pay ten times as much for a very similar product.

If we were paying our aeronautical engineers 1/10 of what they make now, they would still be richer than their Chinese counterparts. China also owns the entire production chain, all the way down to the mining companies that take the bauxite out of the ground.

So as pretty as that pie chart is, it doesn't tell the real story behind the military spending of the world's military powers.

That sounds like the liberal utopia to me

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

In a liberal utopia, they be taking flowers out of the ground...duh.

[Ibanez]

Insults only get you so far, chief. When was the first Tea Party-organized protest of Bush's fiscally irresponsible policies? Who was the first Tea Party-backed candidate? Prior to the 4/15/09 protests, when did the organized Tea Party hold rallies? K, thanks.

Did Bush pass a close to 900 billion porkulous so called stimuklus bill?
Did Bush bailout the auto companies and UAW, which unlike the banks, haven't paid back all of their $ and likely never will.
Did Bush pass Obamacare?
Did Bush insist on raising taxes?
Did Bush launch an assault on the 2nd Amendment?

If your wife spends $1,000 that you don't have, are you going to have the same level of reaction if she spends $10,000 that you don't have?

According to our Gov't, we've received back 89% of TARP funds.


http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not to get into a pissing match, but you talk about the Auto Companies, but the banks received the lion shares of the money. Chrysler owes about $1.3B. GM still owes a whopping $15B. Auto Companies got approx. $80B. There's is approx $16B left to be repaid.
If anything, we should wondering why Freddie and Fannie are so slow to pay off. But that's is somewhat understandable given the economy and graduating students being able to find employment.

[ASUMountaineer]

Insults only get you so far, chief. When was the first Tea Party-organized protest of Bush's fiscally irresponsible policies? Who was the first Tea Party-backed candidate? Prior to the 4/15/09 protests, when did the organized Tea Party hold rallies? K, thanks.

Did Bush pass a close to 900 billion porkulous so called stimuklus bill?
Did Bush bailout the auto companies and UAW, which unlike the banks, haven't paid back all of their $ and likely never will.
Did Bush pass Obamacare?
Did Bush insist on raising taxes?
Did Bush launch an assault on the 2nd Amendment?

If your wife spends $1,000 that you don't have, are you going to have the same level of reaction if she spends $10,000 that you don't have?

Ok, so exactly as I said, you're not against fiscal irresponsibility, you and TEA Partiers are only against an undefined level of fiscal irresponsibility.

Did Bush create a new vast bureaucracy with the DHS?
Did Bush pass an unfunded Rx Drug Benefit Plan?
Did Bush launch two wars without increasing our debt?

No one is arguing that Obama isn't a big-government spender. Our argument is that so was Bush, but when Bush was in office the TEA Partiers tolerated his massive spending. It is curious that every defense of Bush is a criticism of Obama. Keep in mind, the post you responded to said nothing of Obama.

Lastly, I'll take your refusal to answer my questions as a solid affirmation of my point.

[BDKJMU]

Did Bush pass a close to 900 billion porkulous so called stimuklus bill?
Did Bush bailout the auto companies and UAW, which unlike the banks, haven't paid back all of their $ and likely never will.
Did Bush pass Obamacare?
Did Bush insist on raising taxes?
Did Bush launch an assault on the 2nd Amendment?

If your wife spends $1,000 that you don't have, are you going to have the same level of reaction if she spends $10,000 that you don't have?

According to our Gov't, we've received back 89% of TARP funds.


http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not to get into a pissing match, but you talk about the Auto Companies, but the banks received the lion shares of the money. Chrysler owes about $1.3B. GM still owes a whopping $15B. Auto Companies got approx. $80B. There's is approx $16B left to be repaid.
If anything, we should wondering why Freddie and Fannie are so slow to pay off. But that's is somewhat understandable given the economy and graduating students being able to find employment.

Also Ally Financial, formerly GMAC, which was GM's financing arm, owe's 10.2 billion. Part of GM that was separated so it wouldn't look like GM was getting as much & owing as much as they did. It should show that auto still owes about 26B, but with their slick accounting it shows about 16B.
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Did Bush pass a close to 900 billion porkulous so called stimuklus bill?
Did Bush bailout the auto companies and UAW, which unlike the banks, haven't paid back all of their $ and likely never will.
Did Bush pass Obamacare?
Did Bush insist on raising taxes?
Did Bush launch an assault on the 2nd Amendment?

If your wife spends $1,000 that you don't have, are you going to have the same level of reaction if she spends $10,000 that you don't have?

Ok, so exactly as I said, you're not against fiscal irresponsibility, you and TEA Partiers are only against an undefined level of fiscal irresponsibility.

Did Bush create a new vast bureaucracy with the DHS?
Did Bush pass an unfunded Rx Drug Benefit Plan?
Did Bush launch two wars without increasing our debt?

No one is arguing that Obama isn't a big-government spender. Our argument is that so was Bush, but when Bush was in office the TEA Partiers tolerated his massive spending. It is curious that every defense of Bush is a criticism of Obama. Keep in mind, the post you responded to said nothing of Obama.

Lastly, I'll take your refusal to answer my questions as a solid affirmation of my point.

So if one of your politicians (be it local/state/fed) does stuff you really don't like, you can't protest that if you didn't protest to the same level the prior guy who was doing some of the same, but nearly as bad?

[Ibanez]

According to our Gov't, we've received back 89% of TARP funds.




http://www.propublica.org/ion/bailout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not to get into a pissing match, but you talk about the Auto Companies, but the banks received the lion shares of the money. Chrysler owes about $1.3B. GM still owes a whopping $15B. Auto Companies got approx. $80B. There's is approx $16B left to be repaid.
If anything, we should wondering why Freddie and Fannie are so slow to pay off. But that's is somewhat understandable given the economy and graduating students being able to find employment.

Also Ally Financial, formerly GMAC, which was GM's financing arm, owe's 10.2 billion. Part of GM that was separated so it wouldn't look like GM was getting as much & owing as much as they did. It should show that auto still owes about 26B, but with their slick accounting it shows about 16B.
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know what GMAC is/was. They were/are LENDER and not an AUTO MANUFACTURER. GMAC never built a car, only financed it. Two different things. There is no slick accounting. GMAC was, as you stated, a FINANCIAL institution. GMAC began in the early 1900's as a financial institution. The did more than auto loans. They provided mortgages and banking as well. You could call GMAC and get a 30 yr Fixed Rate mortgage. You couldn't do that with Ford or Dodge.

[Ibanez]

Ok, so exactly as I said, you're not against fiscal irresponsibility, you and TEA Partiers are only against an undefined level of fiscal irresponsibility.

Did Bush create a new vast bureaucracy with the DHS?
Did Bush pass an unfunded Rx Drug Benefit Plan?
Did Bush launch two wars without increasing our debt?

No one is arguing that Obama isn't a big-government spender. Our argument is that so was Bush, but when Bush was in office the TEA Partiers tolerated his massive spending. It is curious that every defense of Bush is a criticism of Obama. Keep in mind, the post you responded to said nothing of Obama.

Lastly, I'll take your refusal to answer my questions as a solid affirmation of my point.

So if one of your politicians (be it local/state/fed) does stuff you really don't like, you can't protest that if you didn't protest to the same level the prior guy who was doing some of the same, but nearly as bad?

That isn't what he said. Essentially, Tea Partiers were ok with massive spending as long as it was a Republican doing it. Tea Partiers never mention Bush. It's always Obama this or Obama that.

[BDKJMU]

So if one of your politicians (be it local/state/fed) does stuff you really don't like, you can't protest that if you didn't protest to the same level the prior guy who was doing some of the same, but nearly as bad?

That isn't what he said. Essentially, Tea Partiers were ok with massive spending as long as it was a Republican doing it. Tea Partiers never mention Bush. It's always Obama this or Obama that.

Essentially, that's not true. I'm not an official member of the Tea Party, but I know ones who are, and they were ranting and raving about spending, especially the bailouts at the end of 08'. I was the same way.

[AZGrizFan]

So if one of your politicians (be it local/state/fed) does stuff you really don't like, you can't protest that if you didn't protest to the same level the prior guy who was doing some of the same, but nearly as bad?

That isn't what he said. Essentially, Tea Partiers were ok with massive spending as long as it was a Republican doing it. Tea Partiers never mention Bush. It's always Obama this or Obama that.

One of the Tea Party's "nonnegotiable core beliefs" is that bailouts were illegal. Ergo, what Bush did was illegal (in their minds). And Obama is president now, is he not?

[Ibanez]

That isn't what he said. Essentially, Tea Partiers were ok with massive spending as long as it was a Republican doing it. Tea Partiers never mention Bush. It's always Obama this or Obama that.

Essentially, that's not true. I'm not an official member of the Tea Party, but I know ones who are, and they were ranting and raving about spending, especially the bailouts at the end of 08'. I was the same way.

I know people as well. Where was this movement in 2003, 2004, 2005 , 2005, 2007? Where were the public protest administrated by conservative minded individuals? They simply didn't and the fact that it wasn't until February 2009, not even a month after Obama was inaugurated, conservatives were protesting that they were Taxed Enough Already. The only people protesting during Bush's Reign of Error were anti-war people like CindySheehan (who, btw, hasn't been seen since Obama took office)

[Ibanez]

That isn't what he said. Essentially, Tea Partiers were ok with massive spending as long as it was a Republican doing it. Tea Partiers never mention Bush. It's always Obama this or Obama that.

One of the Tea Party's "nonnegotiable core beliefs" is that bailouts were illegal. Ergo, what Bush did was illegal (in their minds). And Obama is president now, is he not?

In their actions, that isn't true. Actions matter. Actions make a difference.

[Ibanez]

But while most Americans blame the Bush administration or Wall Street for the current state of the American economy, the greatest number of Tea Party supporters blame Congress.

They do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/po ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A poll taken in 2010.

[AZGrizFan]

But while most Americans blame the Bush administration or Wall Street for the current state of the American economy, the greatest number of Tea Party supporters blame Congress.

They do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/po ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A poll taken in 2010.

What's your point? That poll is 3 years old. Christ, GW's favorability rating has gone from 38% to 49% in that time frame.

[Ibanez]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/po ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A poll taken in 2010.

What's your point? That poll is 3 years old. Christ, GW's favorability rating has gone from 38% to 49% in that time frame.

The POINT is that a year after the first Tea Party Protest and the start of the movement, Bush was not seen as a spendthrift or evil. Bush had 8 years and the Tea PArty don't mention him. Obama was President for a few weeks and nationwide protests began calling him evil, HItler, a Socialist, etc... Obama was the target of their anger. Not Bush. Tea Partiers excuse Bush because he was Republican.

[89Hen]

In sheer size, there are about 5 or 6 countries that can bring more actual manpower to the front lines. We've been downsizing our military for years now.

Sounds like we've got a whole bunch of Military (Freeloaders) I mean contractors on this forum

very entertaining

There's a reason you're not in charge of our military or foreign policy. It's great to imagine a world where we don't need a military at all, or even one that doesn't have to carry the biggest stick, but there are too many idiots in the world that don't give a shit about their life or the lives of others.

[ASUMountaineer]

Ok, so exactly as I said, you're not against fiscal irresponsibility, you and TEA Partiers are only against an undefined level of fiscal irresponsibility.

Did Bush create a new vast bureaucracy with the DHS?
Did Bush pass an unfunded Rx Drug Benefit Plan?
Did Bush launch two wars without increasing our debt?

No one is arguing that Obama isn't a big-government spender. Our argument is that so was Bush, but when Bush was in office the TEA Partiers tolerated his massive spending. It is curious that every defense of Bush is a criticism of Obama. Keep in mind, the post you responded to said nothing of Obama.

Lastly, I'll take your refusal to answer my questions as a solid affirmation of my point.

So if one of your politicians (be it local/state/fed) does stuff you really don't like, you can't protest that if you didn't protest to the same level the prior guy who was doing some of the same, but nearly as bad?

C'mon man. You just keep posting stuff and refusing to answer my questions. I commend your deflection attempts, but please answer the questions.

You're newest deflection is a joke. You're the one that stated that the TEA Party protested Bush while he was in office. I asked you to back that up, and you've spent one response bashing Obama (typical and easy) and one post asking a ridiculous question that attempts to distort the actual point of my post.

So, you agree that some fiscal irresponsibility is acceptable up to an undefined level that is unacceptable. That clears up your views, and those of the TEA Party.

Now, your newest deflection. Unlike you, I'll answer posed questions. You can absolutely protest anyone/anything you want, but the point is to be consistent. If you're vehemently opposed to fiscal irresponsibility, you should be opposed to all fiscal irresponsibility. The fact that the TEA Party protests didn't begin until Bush was out of office challenges the credibility of being vehemently opposed to fiscal irresponsibility. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility began in 2003 and continued for the next 5 years. However, the TEA Party began protesting 3 months into Obama's first term. To any rational person, the argument that the TEA Party began while Bush was in office is laughable--just as it's laughable to see them argue that they're not Republicans.

[ASUMountaineer]

That isn't what he said. Essentially, Tea Partiers were ok with massive spending as long as it was a Republican doing it. Tea Partiers never mention Bush. It's always Obama this or Obama that.

Essentially, that's not true. I'm not an official member of the Tea Party, but I know ones who are, and they were ranting and raving about spending, especially the bailouts at the end of 08'. I was the same way.

Whoopty doo. I'm not a Republican or a member of the TEA Party and I was ranting and raving about spending then...and for many years prior. I'm still waiting to see when the first TEA Party organized protest of Bush was held...

[ASUMountaineer]

That isn't what he said. Essentially, Tea Partiers were ok with massive spending as long as it was a Republican doing it. Tea Partiers never mention Bush. It's always Obama this or Obama that.

One of the Tea Party's "nonnegotiable core beliefs" is that bailouts were illegal. Ergo, what Bush did was illegal (in their minds). And Obama is president now, is he not?

Right, so when did they protest Bush?

[ASUMountaineer]

Sounds like we've got a whole bunch of Military (Freeloaders) I mean contractors on this forum

very entertaining

There's a reason you're not in charge of our military or foreign policy. It's great to imagine a world where we don't need a military at all, or even one that doesn't have to carry the biggest stick, but there are too many idiots in the world that don't give a **** about their life or the lives of others.

I'm not all that opposed to carrying a big stick, but I do wonder what happened to "speak softly."

[Ibanez]

They come close when they mention the Tarp bailouts under Bush.

[89Hen]

There's a reason you're not in charge of our military or foreign policy. It's great to imagine a world where we don't need a military at all, or even one that doesn't have to carry the biggest stick, but there are too many idiots in the world that don't give a **** about their life or the lives of others.

I'm not all that opposed to carrying a big stick, but I do wonder what happened to "speak softly."

That disappeared in the 60's. It became shout as loud as you can and carry no stick.

[AZGrizFan]

What's your point? That poll is 3 years old. Christ, GW's favorability rating has gone from 38% to 49% in that time frame.

The POINT is that a year after the first Tea Party Protest and the start of the movement, Bush was not seen as a spendthrift or evil. Bush had 8 years and the Tea PArty don't mention him. Obama was President for a few weeks and nationwide protests began calling him evil, HItler, a Socialist, etc... Obama was the target of their anger. Not Bush. Tea Partiers excuse Bush because he was Republican.

Bush didn't do anything overtly socialist until the last 3 months of his presidency. And NOONE I know excuses Bush's mistakes.