Raytheon a waste of tax payer's money: Romney wants to give the bloodsucker co. even more of your $

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

Under Obama's Government, no one seems to. The last United States Federal Budget to be passed as such, happened in 2009 and it was Bush's budget as a carryover. Pelosi did the Deem and Pass trick..and then it's been stop-gap measures and omnibus spending bills...but no budget. Again, this is a required item right in the Constitution.

Now, the President doesn't set the budget. He simply sends a recommended one, so we know what he has in mind himself. Those we do have, and it's what I base my numbers on because they carry current known numbers and accurate past ones....with best guess (by those spending it) of future.

What the President CAN do....and HAS done in past administrations but this one refuses to do is to hold special sessions to force Congress to do their legal duty and pass a budget. That is within the power of the President and again, as someone who has taken American History should know, has happened repeatedly in the past. It's effective too. Congress doesn't appreciate being forced into session over their Holidays...as history shows as well.

So, Obama may not write it, but it's happened with his consent because he's had the power all along to put a forced stop to it any time he chose. Of course, he's getting downright used to running without a formal budget..I'm sure it's easier that way. The numbers show it for how the deficit skyrocketed from even Bush levels...and those were BAD.

*** By the way, using Wikipedia as a source? Gets a F on assignments at the college I'm attending. I look at it equally. It's unverified and uncontrolled. I'm shocked you'd use that in reply to a cold budget number post.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by hououinkyouma
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

FOX News is a mainstream channel too. But I bet I don`t believe them, right?

It's all relative. Fox News is mainstream if you are a far right fanatic living in Utah for instance. However you have to take in account that far right thinkers are a minority school of thought in this country.

The last several elections show Conservative votes to represent near 50% of the voters participating in the election. Recall the 2000 election? It came down to a matter of mere thousands....out of millions across the entire nation. That's as close to a dead even split....NOT any minority on either side...as this nation has been in anyone's living memory.

I need some sleep tho..and your running a partisan attack thread. I threw my actual facts about the U.S. Budget in. Hopefully that helps bring some clarity to a muddy issue.

You see I read these sorts of articles> www.rawstory.com...

Note

For decades, polls have shown that a plurality of Americans — around 40 percent — consider themselves conservative, while only around 20 percent self-identify as liberals. Raw Story (s.tt...)

Quite the dichotomy.

What you have to realize what you are looking at is the voting population. A lot are older. Alive when segregation was still practiced. I'm pretty sure some would like to see a return of those "Happy Days."

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

Quite the dichotomy.

What you have to realize what you are looking at is the voting population. A lot are older. Alive when segregation was still practiced. I'm pretty sure some would like to see a return of those "Happy Days."

The voting population is what elects the leaders here. Yes, that is what I am looking at. If you look at a county-by-county map of the United States for voting trends at the local level, I'm being exceptionally generous by saying it's a 50/50 split and looking one up will show what I mean. I'll leave it there though because there is enough nasty gotcha games without adding that to it. The numbers speak for themselves and if your counter to the numbers are your anecdotal stories and POLLS.....I'll very confidently rest on the numbers.

Speaking of...... Just who would you see wanting a return to the days of segregation? That's a downright hateful statement unless you have some context I'm totally missing....perhaps you do?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Under Obama's Government, no one seems to. The last United States Federal Budget to be passed as such, happened in 2009 and it was Bush's budget as a carryover. Pelosi did the Deem and Pass trick..and then it's been stop-gap measures and omnibus spending bills...but no budget. Again, this is a required item right in the Constitution.

Now, the President doesn't set the budget. He simply sends a recommended one, so we know what he has in mind himself. Those we do have, and it's what I base my numbers on because they carry current known numbers and accurate past ones....with best guess (by those spending it) of future.

What the President CAN do....and HAS done in past administrations but this one refuses to do is to hold special sessions to force Congress to do their legal duty and pass a budget. That is within the power of the President and again, as someone who has taken American History should know, has happened repeatedly in the past. It's effective too. Congress doesn't appreciate being forced into session over their Holidays...as history shows as well.

So, Obama may not write it, but it's happened with his consent because he's had the power all along to put a forced stop to it any time he chose. Of course, he's getting downright used to running without a formal budget..I'm sure it's easier that way. The numbers show it for how the deficit skyrocketed from even Bush levels...and those were BAD.

*** By the way, using Wikipedia as a source? Gets a F on assignments at the college I'm attending. I look at it equally. It's unverified and uncontrolled. I'm shocked you'd use that in reply to a cold budget number post.

edit on 4-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

It gets an A on ATS. This ain't college. The difference in venues being the same as between a message board post and a term paper. Layman comprehensive rules the day here Btw en.wikipedia.org... so how does that "forced stop to it any time he chooses" work?


You know Lets say I'm a congressman and I'm forced to stay in session, "What would keep me from going home anyway?" I do realize the Congressional Leadership could bully me into staying, but really I could leave if I pleased. If I was a budget hawk I just might to that and claim I'm walking out and going home in the name of being a proponent of drastic cuts. You see it's happened before en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Quite the dichotomy.

What you have to realize what you are looking at is the voting population. A lot are older. Alive when segregation was still practiced. I'm pretty sure some would like to see a return of those "Happy Days."

The voting population is what elects the leaders here. Yes, that is what I am looking at. If you look at a county-by-county map of the United States for voting trends at the local level, I'm being exceptionally generous by saying it's a 50/50 split and looking one up will show what I mean. I'll leave it there though because there is enough nasty gotcha games without adding that to it. The numbers speak for themselves and if your counter to the numbers are your anecdotal stories and POLLS.....I'll very confidently rest on the numbers.

Speaking of...... Just who would you see wanting a return to the days of segregation? That's a downright hateful statement unless you have some context I'm totally missing....perhaps you do?

I have a question. What is there more of Republicans or Democrats? We can consider independents as moderates. There is not enough third party folk around to be a factor so we'll leave them out too.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

Okay, first of all... I'll put this another way, I'm not wasting more time debating wikipedia level information. We're on entirely different levels of data here. You're going by a source that is written by whoever logs on and it can be modified and corrected without control or review for accuracy. I won't even try and debate that. It can 'become' anything you want it to become.

I'm dealing with the actual numbers produced by agencies of the U.S. Government on their own spending in the past, present and future as anticipated. If those are unacceptable to you...then what is acceptable? If that IS wikipedia, then I really have nowhere left to go.

For the record, *I* have had people give me crap about using Wikipedia on ATS when it's trivial background stuff that is the same anywhere. Like Bio dates from a Congressman or Secretary's dates of service. So, feel free to use any source you like. Some garner more respect than others...and they all say something about the degree of effort each of us puts into gathering the information we present in these discussions. I'll check back in a few hours when I get some badly needed sleep.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Okay, first of all... I'll put this another way, I'm not wasting more time debating wikipedia level information. We're on entirely different levels of data here. You're going by a source that is written by whoever logs on and it can be modified and corrected without control or review for accuracy. I won't even try and debate that. It can 'become' anything you want it to become.

I'm dealing with the actual numbers produced by agencies of the U.S. Government on their own spending in the past, present and future as anticipated. If those are unacceptable to you...then what is acceptable? If that IS wikipedia, then I really have nowhere left to go.

For the record, *I* have had people give me crap about using Wikipedia on ATS when it's trivial background stuff that is the same anywhere. Like Bio dates from a Congressman or Secretary's dates of service. So, feel free to use any source you like. Some garner more respect than others...and they all say something about the degree of effort each of us puts into gathering the information we present in these discussions. I'll check back in a few hours when I get some badly needed sleep.

Hey kid don't get too pretentious on me here. Okay?

Wikipedia is fine as long as the information is accurate and the info can be easily reconciled. Now when it comes to News Corp intern types writing far right wing opinion hit pieces on a decent American journalist such as demonstrated with Ezra Klein Wikipedia can be a real sewer of nonsense.

I use Wikipedia because communicating comprehensively is what I strive for in any venue. Now that means keeping the sources and vocab inline with the venue. This venue is inline with Wikipedia I think. This is not the Harvard Law Review online for instance.

You like these source www.cbo.gov... I understand.

Thing is this> en.wikipedia.org... vs this> www.law.cornell.edu... I'm picking the first. Btw the second is referenced in the first even though I don't know what the bleep the Greek gobbledygook says or means.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

No not only not good enough, not good at all !!

We need real details on cuts and eliminations.

Do you know any and how that would affect the country ?

This is not a grade school game you are talking about.

Read the Joint Chiefs report on what they are asking for. They don't want what Mitt wants to give them.

read where ?

try posting some quotes with justifiable comments.

otherwise you are just blowing wind.

What does Mitt want to give them ?

What do they want ?

facts & figures are a good start.

btw, are you familiar with all this ------

The Manual to Debating a Liberal

Good Old Liberal Debate Tactics

Rules for Radicals

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

Well... You have the vocabulary down well. I can use a lot of formal wording and make it sound real officious too. In fact, I can talk snooty and snobby with the best of them if that is my intent. You play it well when you do it.

All that though, to actually defend using Wikipedia as a source for a factual debate about something like the federal budget. (sigh) This is what discussion has come to. Not just using a bad source for laziness, which I do myself occasionally, but actually defending it. That is a step beyond what I thought I'd find when I came back.

I appreciate the fact you know the names of other sources and even have their links handy. If you'd used one of those solid and reputable sources to back your positions as you call mine wrong, I'd be happy to continue debating too. Given the names you found to show as sources, I'd have really enjoyed a debate based on data. Unfortunately, even coming back, I find that actually using what you're listing isn't your point,....Just showing us that you can actually locate and list them seems to be.

With that...You take care of yourself and wow...that's a couple hours of my life this morning I wasted. Not the first...but it's sure getting old when any degree of work put into a debate so often gets nothing but....good god..Wikipedia..thrown back at me as an authoritative source to prove more than the laziness of the person using it. .

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

I heard he wanted to give 86 zillion dollars to them and arm the tips of missles with live babies!

It must be true, cause I heard it.

So....it must NOT be true because you don't believe it?

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

No not only not good enough, not good at all !!

We need real details on cuts and eliminations.

Do you know any and how that would affect the country ?

This is not a grade school game you are talking about.

You are saying Romney is offering you these details?

He is no more forthcoming with details.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

No not only not good enough, not good at all !!

We need real details on cuts and eliminations.

Do you know any and how that would affect the country ?

This is not a grade school game you are talking about.

Read the Joint Chiefs report on what they are asking for. They don't want what Mitt wants to give them.

read where ?

try posting some quotes with justifiable comments.

otherwise you are just blowing wind.

What does Mitt want to give them ?

What do they want ?

facts & figures are a good start.

btw, are you familiar with all this ------

The Manual to Debating a Liberal

Good Old Liberal Debate Tactics

Rules for Radicals

Romney’s plan would boost the Pentagon’s budget more or less $300 billion above the previous post-WW2 highs, namely the Korea and Vietnam wars and the Reagan Cold War peak, and it would more than double the average amount of DOD spending during the Cold War: $440 billion compared to $900 billion. Assessed against the low points after the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the Reagan era, Romney’s nadir is about $250 billion higher....

Romney would massively outspend Cold War budgets that addressed hundreds of hostile Warsaw Pact divisions in Europe, a Soviet navy that at one point numerically outnumbered ours, and a dogmatically communist Peoples’ Republic of China. Today, we face al Qaeda and its ilk who spend in a year less than we spend in one day; the big bogey man of the future, China, is our second largest trading partner. fabiusmaximus.com...

911 was a windfall for defense contractor Raytheon. The new world order will look exactly as Raytheon builds it.

In this scathing account Raytheon is basically an architect for 9/11.
It may not be true in the altogether but piece by piece the facts are terribly incriminating none the less.

Nobody could give more of my tax dollars away than Bush Started and Obama keeps doing......

Originally posted by hououinkyouma
reply to post by r2d246

 

Well, we can always live in Monaco, no taxes there.

ya good point... never know

OBAMA WINS! so...

This thread has become irrelevant.

GOP has died tonight.


Tax the rich to the max until there are rich no more


Save this nation, end the rich.