When will the Republicans get their 'facts' straight?
Question: Romney says that his plan to spend a minimum of 4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, not including war funding, on the military would help reverse a dangerous decline under the Clinton administration.
The TRUTH: The slowdown in military spending started during the Reagan administration. As a share of GDP, modern-era defense spending peaked at 6.2 percent in 1986, slowed to 5.6 percent in fiscal 1989, the last Reagan budget year, and drifted steadily down to bottom out at 3 percent in fiscal 2001.
And that is approximately where it is today.
Can Romney supporters explain this 'dangerous decline'?
Answers: Latest tallies have the Mess in the Middle East costing us nearly 2 TRILLION DOLLARS...2 trillion.
It's so obscene that we are borrowing money from China to fund this war.
Lets bring our boys home and start taking care of America before we continue to fail at taking care at the rest of the world.
Ron Paul 2008
I'll explain it. The accusation is utterly false and Romney probably knows it. But Republicans have been accusing the Democtats of weakening National Defense since Jimmy Carter (it was not true then-- he INCREASED Defense Spending) as a means of getting votes, so much so that the constant repetition has given it the sound of truth. For many people, the truth is whatever they want to believe.
romney can take his magical underpants and go somewhere else. but i will vote for ron paul. i think he has a lot of good things to say.
Military spending was high when we had the USSR to worry about. It could have easily invaded Europe and then we would have had to have another war. Once the USSR dissolved there was no need to have an army there to defend against an attack that would never come. It would have been a complete waste of money. Kind of like putting up military bases along the Canadian border to protect against an attack like during the French and Indian Wars. Its true you need to spend something to keep a military, and you should pay your soldiers well and equip them well, but there is no reason to waste money, its the lifeblood of the economy. Ironically, it was supporting a huge, oversized military that bankrupted the USSR and put them out of business. We don't want to follow that example.
Probably right around the same time hell freezes over.
Only when they figure out we are not stupid and are capable of checking the facts. But then Bushwacker lied and he is still in office.
republican thoughts:
I can lie and cause damange. The chances are pretty good that i'll get caught lying... in that case i'll apologize...
if i DON'T get caught that's great... because the damage is done...
if i DO get caught...it's still okay..because the damages has already been done.
no republican knows what the truth is or how to tell it if they did they would never get in office
The largest decline was during Clinton's admin. He called it the peace dividend.
Does Romney have supporters?
There are some charts on the power-point graph that are based on Congressional Budget Office Figures. Your statement is accurate up to 2001. However, today it is slightly over 4%. Most of the decline can be attributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, which decreased the amount needed for defense. Most of the liberal answers are dubitable nonsense from a group to lazy or ignorant to look up the facts before engaging keyboard.
Personally, I don't like any of the crooks running. Romney is the Republican equivalent of Hillary Clinton when it comes to flip-flopping.
lets bring all the troops back home then they can stretch those dollars even farther
Ron Paul 08
Let us look at your paper TRUTH in the real world. Defense spending peaked in 1986? Do you think maybe the Cold War had something to do with this? Slowed in 1989? Perhaps the end of the Cold War was the reason for reduced military spending. And you say it drifted steadily down under the Clinton Administration. Could this possibly be explained by Clinton's closing of military bases and reduction of military personnel?
Military spending fell 0.6% under Reagan because of the end of the Cold war. It fell 2.6% under Clinton because he hates the military.
When we look at your TRUTH under an historical prospective it turns out to be not the TRUTH but a distortion.
So sorry contestant number 3. As a parting gift please take my disdain for your pathetic attempt to discredit the Republican party.
The TRUTH: The slowdown in military spending started during the Reagan administration. As a share of GDP, modern-era defense spending peaked at 6.2 percent in 1986, slowed to 5.6 percent in fiscal 1989, the last Reagan budget year, and drifted steadily down to bottom out at 3 percent in fiscal 2001.
And that is approximately where it is today.
Can Romney supporters explain this 'dangerous decline'?
Answers: Latest tallies have the Mess in the Middle East costing us nearly 2 TRILLION DOLLARS...2 trillion.
It's so obscene that we are borrowing money from China to fund this war.
Lets bring our boys home and start taking care of America before we continue to fail at taking care at the rest of the world.
Ron Paul 2008
I'll explain it. The accusation is utterly false and Romney probably knows it. But Republicans have been accusing the Democtats of weakening National Defense since Jimmy Carter (it was not true then-- he INCREASED Defense Spending) as a means of getting votes, so much so that the constant repetition has given it the sound of truth. For many people, the truth is whatever they want to believe.
romney can take his magical underpants and go somewhere else. but i will vote for ron paul. i think he has a lot of good things to say.
Military spending was high when we had the USSR to worry about. It could have easily invaded Europe and then we would have had to have another war. Once the USSR dissolved there was no need to have an army there to defend against an attack that would never come. It would have been a complete waste of money. Kind of like putting up military bases along the Canadian border to protect against an attack like during the French and Indian Wars. Its true you need to spend something to keep a military, and you should pay your soldiers well and equip them well, but there is no reason to waste money, its the lifeblood of the economy. Ironically, it was supporting a huge, oversized military that bankrupted the USSR and put them out of business. We don't want to follow that example.
Probably right around the same time hell freezes over.
Only when they figure out we are not stupid and are capable of checking the facts. But then Bushwacker lied and he is still in office.
republican thoughts:
I can lie and cause damange. The chances are pretty good that i'll get caught lying... in that case i'll apologize...
if i DON'T get caught that's great... because the damage is done...
if i DO get caught...it's still okay..because the damages has already been done.
no republican knows what the truth is or how to tell it if they did they would never get in office
The largest decline was during Clinton's admin. He called it the peace dividend.
Does Romney have supporters?
There are some charts on the power-point graph that are based on Congressional Budget Office Figures. Your statement is accurate up to 2001. However, today it is slightly over 4%. Most of the decline can be attributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, which decreased the amount needed for defense. Most of the liberal answers are dubitable nonsense from a group to lazy or ignorant to look up the facts before engaging keyboard.
Personally, I don't like any of the crooks running. Romney is the Republican equivalent of Hillary Clinton when it comes to flip-flopping.
lets bring all the troops back home then they can stretch those dollars even farther
Ron Paul 08
Let us look at your paper TRUTH in the real world. Defense spending peaked in 1986? Do you think maybe the Cold War had something to do with this? Slowed in 1989? Perhaps the end of the Cold War was the reason for reduced military spending. And you say it drifted steadily down under the Clinton Administration. Could this possibly be explained by Clinton's closing of military bases and reduction of military personnel?
Military spending fell 0.6% under Reagan because of the end of the Cold war. It fell 2.6% under Clinton because he hates the military.
When we look at your TRUTH under an historical prospective it turns out to be not the TRUTH but a distortion.
So sorry contestant number 3. As a parting gift please take my disdain for your pathetic attempt to discredit the Republican party.
More questions & answers:
- Is the Nov 6th 2007 elections good news for Democrats?
- Is this how Democrats reduce the influence of special interest groups? A fund raising goal of $154 million?
- There's only two weeks to go for the Federal Election.?
- Who other than me thinks that it is outrageous that none of the presidential frontrunners support gay rights?
- Why are you independent/unaffiliated with a party? (voting)?
- Will people vote for Obama just because.....?
- Free voting in house of commons? Pros and Cons?
- Aren't you sick of the status quo of the past 5 Presidents?
- Looks like Judge Judy is for Rudy (Larry King), will this seal the deal?
- Who in thier right mind would vote for Mayor Bloomberg?
- Why is everyone making a mountain out of a mole hill on this Hillary knowing who to pick to ask?
- Sacked in less than 2 weeks? Workchoices Johnny.....?
I notice that all the GOP victories including the governorship in Miss and most of the rest of the statewide offices and victories in other states werent mentioned. VA was a close campaign- not a mass
You've correctly pointed out that the emperor has no clothes. I would like to point out that the Repugnicans have none either.
That is why I'm most likely going to vote for Dr. Ron Paul. H
That is why I'm most likely going to vote for Dr. Ron Paul. H
I have way more than two weeks to make up my mind and haven't made it up yet.
To be fair, that is why they are frontrunners. I personally agree that gay people should be allowed to marry and serve in the military and so on, but I am in the minority.
Approximately 85% o
Approximately 85% o
I want to vote for the person I feel best represents my views without having to have the stigma of a party affiliation attached..
yes dey will
dis years election 4 president is very controversial
one one side dere is a white woman runnin nd the other a black man
it will b interesting 2 c the results
dis years election 4 president is very controversial
one one side dere is a white woman runnin nd the other a black man
it will b interesting 2 c the results
Last Time I checked, this was America! (And just walk away. By the time they realize what you said, your gone.)
Yes! No true Patriot would ever make it! Ron Paul would be a start, but only that! A small step in a bigger process of taking back our government. Unless Ron had some support in one of the other branc
All due respects to Judge Judy, who is one smart cookie, I don't care for Rudy. But then they are both from New York, and I'm not. Neither did Oprah's nod to Obama impress me to vote for him. I am SIC
Nobody in their right mind would, but the anti-gun and pro-amnesty people would.
It not only shows a lack of integrity, in so far as she was trying to fool the American people, but it also shows a fear of not controlling the debate. It makes her appear as though she is avoiding th
oh god, hoping and praying, haha!
He won't be counted in the unemployment figures - they don't count discouraged workers . Hopefully, once he's got no power, all the back stabbers will come out o
He won't be counted in the unemployment figures - they don't count discouraged workers . Hopefully, once he's got no power, all the back stabbers will come out o
The Politics & Government informations are posted by the website users and for your use only, and without responsibility on endihm.com.