President Obama Re-Elected - Page 726

On October 10 2012 09:41 rogzardo wrote:


The federal budget allocates 4% to education, and 22% to defense. Check my link earlier. States and local governments pay the lion's share of education, though the overall amount of education spending is decreasing.

Unfortunately, one of Romney's campaign promises is to increase military spending to 4% of GDP. This is where Obama gets his figure of $2 trillion over the next five years.

http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/national-defense/

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/04/960551/romney-debate-military-spending/

On October 10 2012 09:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Well military spending is projected to fall to 4%. I'd have to assume Romney's 4% doesn't include the wars otherwise the criticism doesn't make sense.

Current projections:

On October 10 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:
I'm pretty sure military expenditures account for well over 4% of GDP at the moment, but it all depends on what you are categorizing as 'military spending.'

On October 10 2012 10:03 rogzardo wrote:



http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/14/news/economy/defense-obama-romney/index.html

Barring legislative changes, the Pentagon's base budget is on track to fall to 12% of the federal budget by 2022, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. It would also fall to 2.4% of the size of the overall economy from 3.4% today.

It is roughly the same now as it was under the Bush years, 3.4%. The .6% increase promised by Romney is where the $2 Trillion over 5 years number comes from.

If you look at the federal budget, it is 22%.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_budget_2010_2.html

On October 10 2012 07:21 paralleluniverse wrote:

Who is playing down the polls?

It's the other way around. Republicans here were calling the previous polls bullshit, and now that they've swung their way, it's suddenly all accurate.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491&currentpage=709#14164

The hypocrisy isn't coming from our side, it's coming from yours.

Near midnight, the assassins, later identified as hired guns for the Mexican cartel La Linea, broke into a one-story house and opened fire on a gathering of nearly 60 teenagers. Outside, lookouts gunned down a screaming neighbor and several students who had managed to escape. Fourteen young men and women were killed, and 12 more were wounded before the hit men finally fled.

On October 10 2012 11:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:
he wants to "increase" defense spending to 4% because in many ways, our military is not as modernized, strong, funded, or reactive, as it could be. we are entering a dangerous age, with almost a dozen nuclear powers. this number will probably grow to a full dozen and past that within the next few decades. and nuclear weapons are only one part of the equation. global terrorism, factionalism, radicalism, neo-fascism, and fanaticism are on the rise all around the world and rubbing shoulders with each other. specters of the past in the ex-KGB Putin, and our own invasion of Afghanistan, lead to a certain... hesitation about declaring this the time to cut all military expenditures and downsize our defensive capabilities.

Israel and the rest of the Middle East are almost certainly headed toward armed conflict of some sort. whether it remains relatively localized or not is a matter for discussion, but then again, how likely is it that a large-scale, armed conflict involving Israel remains localized? China is acting up, but i think they know enough to step softly for now. of course, that doesn't mean that they aren't going to be an issue soon, especially if tensions with other Asian/Pacific powers keep getting higher. North Korea is as belligerent as ever, but they're surrounded by enemies, so we can hope they keep quiet for the time being. of course, any massive cuts in defense would have to first take into account that whole situation.

a little closer to home, we have Cuba. now, i've always seen Cuba as kind of a funny little country, and not really all that much of a threat or even all what i would call a "real" problem. with the collapse of the USSR, the relevance of a communist Cuba dropped significantly. but we still have the whole Mexican drug cartel problem to deal with. and by deal with, i don't mean run guns to them, get border patrol agents killed, and then lie about it. i'd say Watergate II, except no one died when Nixon lied. idk if ya'll been watching any Univision lately, but i think this is important to note:



http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/univision-report-connects-operation-fast-and-furious-scandal-to-murders-of-mexican-teenagers/

and that wasn't the only massacre. 18 young men were killed at a rehab center, with guns connected to the Fast and Furious program. now, you could ask what this has to do with defense spending, and i'd normally agree, it's a huge black mark on Obama's record, but not necessarily connected to defense. except that these massacres are occurring just south of our borders, and they are often times using guns and assassins FROM our own country. this is a clear sign that we need strong defensive capabilities, both overseas and at home.

basically, i think it's funny that defense makes up 22% of the budget. everyone is stunned by that number and immediately looks around at the world, and then says: "oh man, we should really cut that down!" but they don't look at the other 78% and say "oh we should cut that down!" no. they say: "oh shit, we better raise taxes!"

oh, on a side note, why is it so difficult for some of you to believe that Romney isn't a scheming Satan figure who likes to eat babies and strangle bunnies?

On October 10 2012 11:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:
he wants to "increase" defense spending to 4% because in many ways, our military is not as modernized, strong, funded, or reactive, as it could be. we are entering a dangerous age, with almost a dozen nuclear powers. this number will probably grow to a full dozen and past that within the next few decades. and nuclear weapons are only one part of the equation. global terrorism, factionalism, radicalism, neo-fascism, and fanaticism are on the rise all around the world and rubbing shoulders with each other. specters of the past in the ex-KGB Putin, and our own invasion of Afghanistan, lead to a certain... hesitation about declaring this the time to cut all military expenditures and downsize our defensive capabilities.

Israel and the rest of the Middle East are almost certainly headed toward armed conflict of some sort. whether it remains relatively localized or not is a matter for discussion, but then again, how likely is it that a large-scale, armed conflict involving Israel remains localized? China is acting up, but i think they know enough to step softly for now. of course, that doesn't mean that they aren't going to be an issue soon, especially if tensions with other Asian/Pacific powers keep getting higher. North Korea is as belligerent as ever, but they're surrounded by enemies, so we can hope they keep quiet for the time being. of course, any massive cuts in defense would have to first take into account that whole situation.

a little closer to home, we have Cuba. now, i've always seen Cuba as kind of a funny little country, and not really all that much of a threat or even all what i would call a "real" problem. with the collapse of the USSR, the relevance of a communist Cuba dropped significantly. but we still have the whole Mexican drug cartel problem to deal with. and by deal with, i don't mean run guns to them, get border patrol agents killed, and then lie about it. i'd say Watergate II, except no one died when Nixon lied. idk if ya'll been watching any Univision lately, but i think this is important to note:



http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/univision-report-connects-operation-fast-and-furious-scandal-to-murders-of-mexican-teenagers/

and that wasn't the only massacre. 18 young men were killed at a rehab center, with guns connected to the Fast and Furious program. now, you could ask what this has to do with defense spending, and i'd normally agree, it's a huge black mark on Obama's record, but not necessarily connected to defense. except that these massacres are occurring just south of our borders, and they are often times using guns and assassins FROM our own country. this is a clear sign that we need strong defensive capabilities, both overseas and at home.

basically, i think it's funny that defense makes up 22% of the budget. everyone is stunned by that number and immediately looks around at the world, and then says: "oh man, we should really cut that down!" but they don't look at the other 78% and say "oh we should cut that down!" no. they say: "oh shit, we better raise taxes!"

oh, on a side note, why is it so difficult for some of you to believe that Romney isn't a scheming Satan figure who likes to eat babies and strangle bunnies?

On October 10 2012 12:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Neither of these candidates is willing to step up to the plate and advocate the real changes that everyone with a brain knows needs to take place because they are too busy pandering to the stupid vote, which makes me lost faith in democracy itself.

On October 10 2012 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:


Yup

Democracy is a dying political form

We need to start thinking about alternatives so that we don't end up with a bad one (which will happen if we don't plan ahead and start doing the philosophy NOW)

the governance of the future will not be democratic in the way that ours is now, but it will need to incorporate a democratic/plebiscite element

Information technology is the key

How do you use information technology as a feedback mechanism for government?

this is the question we should be asking

If you think we are in the "information age" you do not understand. We are now entering the birth pangs of the real information age. What will it look like? It's up to us. The police state is one kind of information age. I'd rather not have that (pace dvorak, who knows I'm secretly Pol Pot's bastard son by Jiang Qing and want to put the brain worms into all y'alls cortexicals)