Name that President

[stevenash]

Big Girl is going to tell you that this isn't true ( because she said so)

[new tobie]

The debt didn't triple during Reagan's presidency, the deficit did.

 

Reagan may have raised taxes eight times, but the cumulative hike in those taxes still never came anywhere near the tax rates at the beginning of his presidency. The net cut that was a result of his presidency was still substantial.

 

The day Bush left office, the national debt stood at approximately $10.63 Trillion. Today, it stands at approximately $17.55 Trillion. $6.92 Trillion of the total national debt, or 39.4% of the total debt accumulated in the entire history of the United States, has been borrowed during the five and a half year tenure of Obama. By comparison, Bush added $4.9 Trillion in his eight years, or 27.9% of the total debt.

 

Since we were talking numbers....

When Bill Clinton left office on Jan 20,2001 the debt was 5.278 trillion. When George W left office Jan 20, 2009 10.627 trillion with two wars in progress.

[PN-G bamatex]

When Bill Clinton left office on Jan 20,2001 the debt was 5.278 trillion. When George W left office Jan 20, 2009 10.627 trillion with two wars in progress.

You know, I really get tired of this whole "two wars" thing. By what standard are we fighting two wars? Is it the fact that we invaded two separate countries?

In World War II, we liberated what, 20 or 30 separate countries? While fighting three relative superpowers and committing millions of troops - not a mere few hundred thousand - to the fight? Did you know we lost more men in those four short years than we've ever had on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan together at any point in thirteen years?

So was World War II really "two wars"? In fact, shouldn't it really be three, since we were fighting Japan, Germany and Italy all at once? Or maybe a couple dozen based on how many different countries we fought in? Should the same standard apply to World War I, since we were technically fighting three different countries there, too? How about to the Spanish-American War? We fought the Spaniards in Cuba, Guam and the Philippines. That's three separate countries. Was that really three wars?

Cut the "two wars" crap. It doesn't support your argument and it's at best a poor attempt to vastly overstate the amount of men, material and money we've committed to the front.

That having been said, do you know how much the Global War on Terrorism (meaning Iraq, Afghanistan and every other counterterrorism operation we've carried out everywhere - that's right, one single war) is estimated to have cost? The most liberal estimates out there put it between $4 Trillion and $5 Trillion. That's less than $400 Billion a year, and well below the amount of debt added since President Bush took office.

What's the source of this discrepancy in the numbers? Reality, that's what. And the reality of the situation is that we spend more than 50 cents out of every federal dollar on some sort of social program. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, stipends, this education program, that after-school program or whatever, the bottom line is we've spent fifty years putting together unfunded liabilities that we simply can't afford anymore.

[thetragichippy]

You know, I really get tired of this whole "two wars" thing. By what standard are we fighting two wars? Is it the fact that we invaded two separate countries?

In World War II, we liberated what, 20 or 30 separate countries? While fighting three relative superpowers and committing millions of troops - not a mere few hundred thousand - to the fight? Did you know we lost more men in those four short years than we've ever had on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan together at any point in thirteen years?

So was World War II really "two wars"? In fact, shouldn't it really be three, since we were fighting Japan, Germany and Italy all at once? Or maybe a couple dozen based on how many different countries we fought in? Should the same standard apply to World War I, since we were fighting technically fighting three different countries there, too? How about to the Spanish-American War? We fought the Spaniards in Cuba, Guam and the Philippines. That's three separate countries. Was that really three wars?

Cut the "two wars" crap. It doesn't support your argument and it's at best a poor attempt to vastly overstate the amount of men, material and money we've committed to the front.

That having been said, do you know how much the Global War on Terrorism (meaning Iraq, Afghanistan and every other counterterrorism operation we've carried out everywhere - that's right, one single war) is estimated to have cost? The most liberal estimates out there put it between $4 Trillion and $5 Trillion. That's less than $400 Billion a year, and well below the amount of debt added since President Bush took office.

What's the source of this discrepancy in the numbers? Reality, that's what. And the reality of the situation is that we spend more than 50 cents out of every federal dollar on some sort of social program. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, stipends, this education program, that after-school program or whatever, the bottom line is we've spent fifty years putting together unfounded liabilities that we simply can't afford anymore.

 

When are you going on Jeopardy?? :)

[LumRaiderFan]

You know, I really get tired of this whole "two wars" thing. By what standard are we fighting two wars? Is it the fact that we invaded two separate countries?

In World War II, we liberated what, 20 or 30 separate countries? While fighting three relative superpowers and committing millions of troops - not a mere few hundred thousand - to the fight? Did you know we lost more men in those four short years than we've ever had on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan together at any point in thirteen years?

So was World War II really "two wars"? In fact, shouldn't it really be three, since we were fighting Japan, Germany and Italy all at once? Or maybe a couple dozen based on how many different countries we fought in? Should the same standard apply to World War I, since we were fighting technically fighting three different countries there, too? How about to the Spanish-American War? We fought the Spaniards in Cuba, Guam and the Philippines. That's three separate countries. Was that really three wars?

Cut the "two wars" crap. It doesn't support your argument and it's at best a poor attempt to vastly overstate the amount of men, material and money we've committed to the front.

That having been said, do you know how much the Global War on Terrorism (meaning Iraq, Afghanistan and every other counterterrorism operation we've carried out everywhere - that's right, one single war) is estimated to have cost? The most liberal estimates out there put it between $4 Trillion and $5 Trillion. That's less than $400 Billion a year, and well below the amount of debt added since President Bush took office.

What's the source of this discrepancy in the numbers? Reality, that's what. And the reality of the situation is that we spend more than 50 cents out of every federal dollar on some sort of social program. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, stipends, this education program, that after-school program or whatever, the bottom line is we've spent fifty years putting together unfounded liabilities that we simply can't afford anymore.

 

 Excellent post...and the funding for these "two wars" is one of very few enumerated powers of the fed gov, unlike the many entitlement programs.

[Big girl]

We invaded one country because they had weapons of mass destruction (not) and we invaded Afghanistan to fight an inatimate object. (Terror). What a good use of money. Invading Afghanistan did not do anything to stop the taliban or al-Qaeda, but the President got Bin laden. We didnt need troops for that, just special forces.

[Big girl]

Oh, by the way, President Bush called it a "WAR on terror"

[thetragichippy]

We invaded one country because they had weapons of mass destruction (not) and we invaded Afghanistan to fight an inatimate object. (Terror). What a good use of money. Invading Afghanistan did not do anything to stop the taliban or al-Qaeda, but the President got Bin laden. We didnt need troops for that, just special forces.

 

What an insult to the men, women and families of 911.

[Englebert]

I was thinking the same thing Hippy.

[thetragichippy]

I was thinking the same thing Hippy.

 

Would argue with her about it, but it's a waste of keyboard energy. She has been called out on her comments that simply are not true, and continues to make up talking points. I hope to God I never have her as a nurse. If she makes up topics here, no telling how she would treat you in a hospital.

[CraigS]

Would argue with her about it, but it's a waste of keyboard energy. She has been called out on her comments that simply are not true, and continues to make up talking points. I hope to God I never have her as a nurse. If she makes up topics here, no telling how she would treat you in a hospital.

Apparently even aTm had a quota to meet in "giving" degrees...must be that fairness stuff....

[Big girl]

What an insult to the men, women and families of 911.

the truth hurts. The "war on terror" has not been successful.

[Big girl]

Would argue with her about it, but it's a waste of keyboard energy. She has been called out on her comments that simply are not true, and continues to make up talking points. I hope to God I never have her as a nurse. If she makes up topics here, no telling how she would treat you in a hospital.

you guys make up stuff. :)

[Big girl]

Apparently even aTm had a quota to meet in "giving" degrees...must be that fairness stuff....

I graduated with honors :)

[PN-G bamatex]

We invaded one country because they had weapons of mass destruction (not) and we invaded Afghanistan to fight an inatimate object. (Terror). What a good use of money. Invading Afghanistan did not do anything to stop the taliban or al-Qaeda, but the President got Bin laden. We didnt need troops for that, just special forces.

 

First of all, learn how to spell "inanimate" correctly.

 

Terrorism isn't an inanimate object. Hippy already pointed it out, but I'll say it again: you tell that to anyone who lost a family member to terrorism. Nederland lost a longtime resident to an act of terrorism in Africa last year - why don't you go tell his family it's an "inatimate object"? Let's see the reaction you get.

 

Terrorism is pattern of behavior predicated on a philosophy that the masses are best subjugated and conformed to a particular ideology through the use of fear and intimidation. It's the vehicle through which cowards, idiots, psychopaths and radical ideologues force their views upon the world. And it's contrary to everything we as a nation believe - contrary to the very principles of liberty, of freedom, and of the individual pursuit of happiness according to his own beliefs this country was founded on.

 

Now before you run off trying to reinforce some assinine point that this country has never fought a behavior, let's understand something: the history of military conflict in this country is very much a history of fighting different systems of beliefs and even to some extent, the predecessors to terrorism. The very incarnation of this country came through a war fought against oppression - political, economic, military and religious oppression carried out by a despotic monarchy halfway across the world. And after we beat it the first time, we fought it again a quarter of a century later and beat it again.

 

What's the next major war that sticks out in the minds of most Americans? A war against, in very many ways, a different kind of oppression carried out because of economic necessity, tradition and populist democracy run amok that applied our system of values in new and unforeseen ways.

 

And then we had the world wars. Are you really going to tell me those weren't wars against a different way of thinking? Those were wars against European and Asian imperialism, Nazism and ultimately, genocide. They were followed by a different kind of war against perhaps the most radical form of economic and political oppression to come out of the early twentieth century: communism.

 

What do all of those have in common? There different branches of the same tyrannical tree, and terrorism sprouts from it as well. You may think that wars prior to this one were wars against nations, but they weren't. They were wars against morally inferior ideologies that we typically didn't even start. This one is no different.

 

 

Oh, by the way, President Bush called it a "WAR on terror"

 

Yes. He did. And that's singular. Thank you for proving my point about how many wars we're fighting.

[thetragichippy]

^^^That^^^

 

It may take her a while to respond.......several big words in there she may have to google :)

[Big girl]

What did we accomplish in Afghanistan to stop terrorist attacks? I feel bad for the kid in Nederland. He died for a worthless cause. Smh

[PN-G bamatex]

I feel bad for the kid in Nederland. He died for a worthless cause.

 

You know, I was hesitant to respond to one of your posts at all. Statements like that are why.

 

Sorry folks, I don't have enough respect for the opposition to carry this debate any further.

[thetragichippy]

You know, I was hesitant to respond to one of your posts at all. Statements like that are why.

 

Sorry folks, I don't have enough respect for the opposition to carry this debate any further.

 

100% agree with you. She is VERY lucky we live in a land of free speech!

[stevenash]

 

you guys make up stuff. :)

Pot calling kettle

[Big girl]

I guess I am unpatriotic... I am sad that the kid was forced to go out there for nothing. His death is senseless and I feel for his parents.

[stevenash]

How do you feel about the parents of the thousands of kids in Chicago who have been slain for no good reason?

[Big girl]

The number of terrorist attacks each year has more than quadrupled in the decade since 9/11, according to a study launched today.

The Global Terrorist Index showed that in 2002 there were 982 separate attacks. By 2011 that had risen to 4,564.

Researchers suggest the U.S. military interventions pursued as part of the West's anti-al Qaeda 'war on terror' may have made terrorism worse.

[stevenash]

I believe one of the moderators told us all recently that you were supposed to post the link rather than doing a partial copy and paste.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242803/Has-War-Terror-failed-Number-terrorist-attacks-QUADRUPLE-decade-9-11.html

[CraigS]

I graduated with honors :)

So they "gave" grades also you're telling...smh