advertisement

TODAY'S QUESTION: How do you feel about President Obama's 2012 budget proposal?

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 | 12:58 p.m. CST

On Monday, President Barack Obama released the 2012 fiscal year budget proposal. The budget is set at $3.7 trillion and focuses on reducing the budget deficit, which is projected at $1.6 trillion.

Here are some parts of the budget that have been talked about:

The 2012 proposal aims to reduce the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. One way the president plans to reduce the deficit is by raising taxes or eliminating tax breaks. This would largely impact businesses and the wealthy.

According to CNN Money, oil companies would have to pay more taxes on profits, which would lead to $46 billion in revenue. Companies that operate overseas would lose their tax breaks, too. This would raise $129 billion. 

There will also be deep cuts into government programs. The budget plans to cut $100 billion from Pell grants by limiting the number of grants students receive each year to one; the cut could lead to saving $60 billion over 10 years. 

How do you feel about Obama's budget proposal? Is there anything else that you believe is important to focus on? 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

frank christian February 17, 2011 | 3:31 p.m.

"The budget is set at $3.7 trillion and focuses on reducing the budget deficit, which is projected at $1.6 trillion."

Much better question and much harder to answer would be, "why do we have a record setting 1.6T$ deficit?

This budget must have been taken from the works of Lyndon Johnson, who, when written by a group of Congressmen to please restrain his requests for spending, agreed and recommended cuts in the Federal School Lunch Program.

We must have a balanced Budget, not "reductions in the deficit".

In my opinion, this President, took the job with the intent to "break the bank" and restructure it in the image he and his foresee and will continue on that path as long as we let him remain in office.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 17, 2011 | 5:27 p.m.

"One way the president plans to reduce the deficit is by raising taxes or eliminating tax breaks. This would largely impact businesses and the wealthy."

Not really. Businesses don't pay taxes; their customers and shareholders do. If the government increases a business' tax liability, the business will simply pass that additional cost onto its customers and shareholders. Considering that nearly half of U.S. households own stock, it's not just the wealthy who would be paying the extra taxes (e.g., in the form of reduced dividends).

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 17, 2011 | 7:22 p.m.

What a shame it is that most of us have only been posting here since Obama was elected. I would like to see who was complaining about the record national debt when Bush was creating it.

And by Jimmy's logic I guess we had better get rid of any taxes on businesses.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 17, 2011 | 7:55 p.m.

Paul, once again you miss the point. Shibboleths that simply raising taxes on the rich, businesses or both will allow everyone else to avoid paying more ignore how the real world works. I explained why raising business taxes results in consumers paying more. Here are two reasons why raising taxes on the rich won't work, either:

1) If you're smart enough to get rich, you're smart enough to know how to manage your income — including simply working less — so you escape the increase. Result: Those who advocate for more government spending have to pick up the tab for the things they assumed that the rich would pay for.

2) Taxes initially created to hit only the rich have a nasty habit of expanding over time to soak the middle class, too. Case in point: the AMT, which was created to target only a few hundred of the wealthiest, now hits tens of millions of middle-class Americans, too. Why doesn't Congress do something to avoid that creep, such as permanently indexing the AMT to inflation? Because they know that the middle class is where the real money lies, a fact reflected in the cost of extending the Bush-era tax breaks for the middle class.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 17, 2011 | 7:59 p.m.

"If you're smart enough to get rich, you're smart enough to know how to manage your income — including simply working less — so you escape the increase."

Anybody who actually had the slightest experience attaining wealth would know the fallacy of that argument.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 17, 2011 | 8:28 p.m.

How much do you make, Paul?

I made $210,000 in 2010, which was a slow year. If taxes increase, such as the Social Security rollback being allowed to sunset on schedule, not only will I work less, but I can afford to. Can you afford to work only two days a week?

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 17, 2011 | 8:50 p.m.

P.all air - "I would like to see who was complaining about the record national debt when Bush was creating it."

Still got nothing but *Bush*? I posted 4 or 5 times on the other venue, "where was Bush's spending, aside from No Child Left Behind(education), Medicare Drugs and the necessary wars". I got no answers, ever. Those two bills were fathered,(drug bill was written)promoted across the country,speeches,publications etc. by Sen EM Kennedy. Our "compassionate conservative", Bush reached out and as generally happens with liberals got his arm taken off. All R's know that is what cost them the majorities in Congress and most have apologized and vowed not to let it happen again. I'm willing to wait and see, as opposed to the alternative, give it back to the D's.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 17, 2011 | 9:13 p.m.

Obama's budget - Heard tonight, FOX business,his budget includes 25M$ to help States promote their own cap n' trade programs.

"Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Manitoba are full participants in the agreement, called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord. Indiana, Ohio and South Dakota are signing the agreement as observers. "

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release...

As stated above, this guy will never quit, until we stop him. Legally, of course. Have to state that to reduce possibility of reading/hearing it on Chris Matthews.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz February 17, 2011 | 10:02 p.m.

So Frank, are any of the Republican lawmakers in DC going to repeal Medicare Part D now that they are sorry for losing their majorities, or are they hoping we voters forget about that budget-buster?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm February 18, 2011 | 7:12 a.m.

"and the necessary wars"

There was nothing necessary about those wars. They were a waste of lives, money and resources. The only necessary action is to end them both and cut our losses.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 18, 2011 | 7:15 a.m.

Jimmy is right!
We need to tax poor people since: (a) they are not smart enough to be rich and (b) they can't afford to work less.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 8:17 a.m.

John S.- Why continue to put your feet in your mouth? R's have had the House 2 months. Last time they closed the criminal House Bank, House Post office, balanced their budget 4 yrs in a row and reduced our debt 490B$. When was last time a democrat even mentioned "wanting" to do those things without adding "but"...

The closest to your preferred party anywhere in our gov't are the Pauls and you won't even give them a minute.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 8:36 a.m.

Jack Hamm - "There was nothing necessary about those wars." Your liberal opinion, Jackie boy. Because of "those wars" the entity responsible, al-Qaeda, is on the run everywhere in the world, we have a friend with democratic gov't in Iraq. Freedom looks good to Egyptians now and the people all over ME are showing they want some too. The fourth goal of the "Bush Doctrine" is to "spread Democracy all over the world".

You and the liberals cannot accept this, of course, so we just have to work around you.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 8:44 a.m.

Wow! G Bush has joined the chorus of those who believe poor people should pay something toward their gov't, along with the greedy rich. Unbelievable!

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger February 18, 2011 | 8:46 a.m.

Frank writes, "The fourth goal of the "Bush Doctrine" is to "spread Democracy all over the world".

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 9:02 a.m.

H Ottinger - Yeah, Right! Still glad I never watched "West Wing".

"You and the liberals cannot accept this, of course, so we just have to work around you." If the shoe fits, wear it. (Sorry, can't write that in Latin.)

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger February 18, 2011 | 10:03 a.m.

Mr. Christian: If there's anything one may have learned from recent events, it's that democracy cannot be imposed on another country, not by the US, not by anybody. Thankfully, Obama and Co. stayed mostly out of the Egyptian revolution. Democracy, if it is to occur and flourish, must well up from the people, not from some foreign ideologue, US or otherwise.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 11:52 a.m.

Mr. Ottinger - Iraq democracy came with the necessity of removal of the despot that had, and certainly would have, harbored the terrorists We needed to dislodge,identify and destroy, for the safety of American people as well as the other innocents being murdered around the world.

"democracy cannot be imposed on another country, not by the US, not by anybody." The sight of the Iraqi men and women, happily, holding up their ink stained fingers, (indicating they had voted)apparently meant nothing to you. I believe it did, but, still maintain you can't/won't acknowledge them and their gov't, which came on faster than ours,because you so oppose, Bush, Republicans and anyone else that may hinder the progressive take over of our government.

"Obama and Co. stayed mostly out of the Egyptian revolution." That is certainly true, because they had no idea it was coming until it happened. CIA director L. Panetta has announced to the world that he is forming a "task force" to make certain we know about future revolutions in advance. A laffer!

And this is what I have learned from recent events.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz February 18, 2011 | 12:03 p.m.

Frank, perhaps you could explain how my pointing out that YOUR preferred political party is not doing much to reduce the size of government is sticking MY foot in MY mouth? Many of the Republican politicians, such as Boehner, have been in office for years. Why didn't they have bills already drafted to repeal Medicare Part D or other programs they claim to not like now? Their staffers could easily have had these at the ready. Yes, it will take longer than two months to repeal what Obama and Bush have perpetrated over the past ten years, but you have to start somewhere. Why does it fall to someone like Rand Paul, a freshman Senator, to show the GOP how to really cut government?

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 18, 2011 | 12:17 p.m.

"We need to tax poor people since: (a) they are not smart enough to be rich and (b) they can't afford to work less."

Yes, there is so little opportunity in this country that millions of people move here every year, some legally, others illegally. What are they thinking?!? It's hard to say because instead of whining, "Take from the rich people and give it to me," they're working hard, saving, getting ahead and choosing not to be a burden to society.

Nearly half of all taxpayers pay no federal income tax, and some of them actually get a check from the government simply for gracing us with their presence. As Chris noted ( www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/... ) payroll taxes aren't enough to fund all of the government programs; just 36%. That's why it's time for the "47 percenters" to start paying their fair share, especially when so many of them use a disproportionate amount of social services.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 12:43 p.m.

Frenk Christian says...

"Still got nothing but *Bush*? I posted 4 or 5 times on the other venue, "where was Bush's spending, aside from No Child Left Behind(education), Medicare Drugs and the necessary wars"

What necessary wars?

"Because of "those wars" the entity responsible, al-Qaeda, is on the run everywhere in the world."

And before those wars Al-Qaeda was on the run mainly in one country. And before that it was an instrument of our own intelligence community. And before that it didn't exist.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 1:10 p.m.

John S - Can you say "first things first"? Look at -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/.... This has to do with 70 spending cuts to the Budget that funds Gov't til end of this fiscal year. A good one is in funding for EPA. the agency that is creating problems here at home. Won't stop them but should slow down the illicit activities they always engage in with a D in the WH. How do you know they don't have Medicare,SS etc. bills ready to go? With Reid and Obama in charge of their branches none of those are going anywhere any way. R's have 2yrs to produce legislation in those areas.

Really, R's control one branch for two months, isn't your angst a little disingenuous?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm February 18, 2011 | 1:17 p.m.

@ Frank

"The sight of the Iraqi men and women, happily, holding up their ink stained fingers, (indicating they had voted)apparently meant nothing to you. I believe it did, but, still maintain you can't/won't acknowledge them and their gov't, which came on faster than ours,because you so oppose, Bush, Republicans and anyone else that may hinder the progressive take over of our government."

You are right. The people of Iraq must be ecstatic that we got rid of a tyrant for them. I'm sure they forget that we are the ones that supported his brutal regime until it no longer suited us just like you did.

I wonder why the people of Egypt were not so eager for our help in their fight for freedom against their tyrant. Maybe this is the reason why...

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/wp-content...

Of course this probably did not help either...

http://i.imgur.com/NwLWb.png

Frank, your neo-cons are the ones that have been keeping these people oppressed for decades. I know in your confused brain this might not compute because it goes against your mantra of “republican good, liberal bad.” Contrary to your beliefs though Frank, just because you disagree with something does not make it socialism, communism or a progressive takeover. People with you mental capabilities have been playing that card for a long time and each time you look dumber and crazier…

http://i.imgur.com/Ui5JC.jpg

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 1:23 p.m.

Jimmy Bearfield says...

"I made $210,000 in 2010, which was a slow year. If taxes increase, such as the Social Security rollback being allowed to sunset on schedule, not only will I work less, but I can afford to."

Please let me know when it is you decide to work less so you can save your valuable money from your government. I'm sure we all will be reeling in the loss of the valuable services you have provided us by "making" your commendable salary.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 1:29 p.m.

Jack Hamm says...

" http://i.imgur.com/Ui5JC.jpg "

But which one of them is Frank?

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 1:30 p.m.

PA - The "birth"of al-Qaeda is considered to be the day they killed 19 American soldiers in Mogadishu, Somalia and Bill Clinton pitched tents and pulled out, with no retaliation.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 18, 2011 | 1:38 p.m.

"I'm sure we all will be reeling in the loss of the valuable services you have provided us by 'making' your commendable salary."

Don't bite the hand that feeds. Twenty-five percent of California's revenue comes from 144,000 taxpayers. In New York, 66% of revenue comes from taxpayers making $200,000 or more. I don't what Missouri's figure is, but the point remains: If high earners choose to work less, those who advocate for more government spending will have to pick up the tab for the things they assumed that the rich would pay for.

And you didn't answer my question: How much do you make?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 1:38 p.m.

"When asked about the possibility of Al-Qaeda's connection to the 7 July 2005 London bombings in 2005, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said: "Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working ... but this has the hallmark of that approach ... Al-Qaeda clearly has the ability to provide training ... to provide expertise ... and I think that is what has occurred here."[24]

However, on August 13, 2005, The Independent newspaper, quoting police and MI5 investigations, reported that the 7 July bombers acted independently of an al-Qaeda terror mastermind someplace abroad.[25]

What exactly al-Qaeda is, or was, remains in dispute. Author and journalist Adam Curtis contends that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organization is primarily an American invention. Curtis contends the name "al-Qaeda" was first brought to the attention of the public in the 2001 trial of bin Laden and the four men accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa:

The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it.[26]

As a matter of law, the U.S. Department of Justice needed to show that bin Laden was the leader of a criminal organization in order to charge him in absentia under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO statutes. The name of the organization and details of its structure were provided in the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, who said he was a founding member of the organization and a former employee of bin Laden.[27] Questions about the reliability of al-Fadl's testimony have been raised by a number of sources because of his history of dishonesty, and because he was delivering it as part of a plea bargain agreement after being convicted of conspiring to attack U.S. military establishments.[17][28] Sam Schmidt, one of his defense lawyers, said:

There were selective portions of al-Fadl's testimony that I believe was false, to help support the picture that he helped the Americans join together. I think he lied in a number of specific testimony about a unified image of what this organization was. It made al-Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists. It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easier to prosecute any person associated with al-Qaeda for any acts or statements made by bin Laden.[26]"

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger February 18, 2011 | 1:42 p.m.

Frank writes, "The "birth"of al-Qaeda is considered to be the day they killed 19 American soldiers in Mogadishu...."

No, Frank, you're wrong. Look it up. Pakistan, then Afghanistan. Long time before Mogadishu.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 1:44 p.m.

"Many terrorism experts do not believe that the global jihadist movement is driven at every level by bin Laden and his followers. Although bin Laden still has huge ideological sway over some Muslim extremists, experts argue that al-Qaeda has fragmented over the years into a variety of disconnected regional movements that have little connection with each other. Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist and former CIA officer, said that Al-Qaeda would now just be a "loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". "There is no umbrella organisation. We like to create a mythical entity called [al-Qaeda] in our minds, but that is not the reality we are dealing with.""
"Information mostly acquired from Jamal al-Fadl provided American authorities with a rough picture of how the group was organized. While the veracity of the information provided by al-Fadl and the motivation for his cooperation are both disputed, American authorities base much of their current knowledge of al-Qaeda on his testimony."

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm February 18, 2011 | 1:49 p.m.

@ Frank

"PA - The "birth"of al-Qaeda is considered to be the day they killed 19 American soldiers in Mogadishu, Somalia and Bill Clinton pitched tents and pulled out, with no retaliation."

Are you still getting your info from Glenn Beck’s Wigi board?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 1:52 p.m.

"On March 11, 2005, Al-Quds Al-Arabi published extracts from Saif al-Adel's document "Al Quaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020".[34][35] Abdel Bari Atwan summarizes this strategy as comprising five stages:

1. Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.
2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the U.S. in a long war of attrition.
4. Convert Al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the U.S. until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the 7 July 2005 London bombings.
5. The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of too many engagements in too many places, similarly to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Arab regimes supported by the U.S. will collapse, and a Wahhabi Caliphate will be installed across the region."

And most of the rank and file people of the DUMB AS HELL persuasion have been arguing vigorously for us to facilitate our government in PLAYING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS.

Good work. You deserve the result.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 2:02 p.m.

And yes, I just pulled that up and read it now, but that IS the writing that I saw on the wall the first time I went out to protest against the collective stupidity of a large portion of this nation, of which I am largely ashamed.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 2:16 p.m.

Jack Hamm - First,it is clear you don't know what a neo-con is. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur... They are Libs, even Communists that realized they were wrong and became Conservative, starting about 30 years ago.

Our foreign policy, back to FDR, probably before has been to back what ever gov't that could provide "stability" while we extracted minerals, crops or whatever other wealth we wanted/needed from that country, whether that gov't was democratic or dictator controlled. This policy included FDR, Truman, Eisenhower,Nixon, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, and all the Democrat Congress' they brought along.

You refer to me as "dumber and crazier…", but I submit that if you believe those Iraqis with ink on their fingers were thinking about whom we supported in Saddam's war with Iran, you are too simple to be let loose. At any rate you really need some new sources of info.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 2:26 p.m.

Of course. Why would someone consider what the United States had done in the past? That would be like somebody being mad about September 11. I can't imagine it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 6:13 p.m.

Hank O - "Look it up. Pakistan, then Afghanistan. Long time before Mogadishu."

Sorry, don't know what this means. My reference was to the theory that "the battle of Mogadishu", Aug '93,was when the jihadists realized Americans could be killed with impunity. If such incidents in those countries precede that of 8/93, advise me.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 6:29 p.m.

A lot of interesting conversation here,tho, not one condemnation or question about my statement:"In my opinion, this President, took the job with the intent to "break the bank" and restructure it in the image he and his foresee". This is truly disturbing to me. A post declaring mine to be, "too ridiculous" for comment won't work. We, Americans, are in serious trouble.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 18, 2011 | 6:53 p.m.

"That's why it's time for the "47 percenters" to start paying their fair share, especially when so many of them use a disproportionate amount of social services."
You're right! Poor people are so lucky. While some us are burdened with thoughts of retirement and vacations, the poor are hogging all the jobs! I remember the last President saying how "uniquely American" it is to work at three jobs to keep sheltered, fed and clothed. He knew how to really work for a living - the hard-scrabble life of being the son of a congressman and grandson of a banker. That's no Life of Riley.
It's time the wealthy stand up and stop getting "pushed around" from the huge number of poor people. There's too many of them to ignore. Poor people use too many social services and are bankrupting this country. They're the lucky ones, and all they do is whine.
I think I'll bring the cheese.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 18, 2011 | 7:44 p.m.

Gregg, BDS is soooo five years ago.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger February 18, 2011 | 7:45 p.m.

@Frank who writes, ". My reference was to the theory that "the battle of Mogadishu", Aug '93,was when the jihadists realized Americans could be killed with impunity. If such incidents in those countries precede that of 8/93, advise me."

Do your own homework, Frank. Try Wikipedia for starters.

And don't conflate "jihadists" with al-qaeda. Not all of the former are members of the latter.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 18, 2011 | 8:03 p.m.

I desperately want to agree with you, but I don't know what that means.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 18, 2011 | 8:09 p.m.

What do I think about the President's budget? I think he left just enough in it for the House Republicans to do just enough cutting, and the Senate Dems to do just enough salvage work, to somehow make the whole deal work. Kinda sorta. There will be a brief government shutdown, but blame will stick on both sides. The political debate will get more intense. More affairs will surface. Money will continue to be spent.

Welcome to Soap Opera Reality Government.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2011 | 8:23 p.m.

Never mind Hank. I thought for a moment you were willing to converse. Bad choice. Your posts match most from the left. I give specifics and receive generalities, always the same.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 18, 2011 | 8:36 p.m.

Complete with Soap Opera Addicts.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 18, 2011 | 8:52 p.m.

Frank Christian says...

"Our foreign policy, back to FDR, probably before has been to back what ever gov't that could provide "stability" while we extracted minerals, crops or whatever other wealth we wanted/needed from that country, whether that gov't was democratic or dictator controlled."

I think a cockroach might have better foreign policy than that. Do you suppose that others might not see us for what we are? Do you still believe that our goal in Iraq is to "spread democracy?" It sounds much like you enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger February 18, 2011 | 9:45 p.m.

@Frank who writes, " I give specifics and receive generalities, always the same."

No, Frank, I give facts, ones which you don't believe or acknowledge. Al-quaeda did not begin in Mogadishu, period. That was my only point. It has nothing to do with left or right.

And I will reiterate, don't conflate "jihadists" with al-qaeda. Not all of the former are members of the latter.

You know something different than that? If so, enlighten me.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm February 19, 2011 | 8:03 a.m.

All budget cut proposals I have seen ignore the one thing we should be cutting first and by the most; defense spending.

" Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield February 19, 2011 | 9:32 a.m.

"All budget cut proposals I have seen ignore the one thing we should be cutting first and by the most; defense spending."

www.newsweek.com/2011/01/08/the-risky-ru...

www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/06/11/commissio...

www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0106...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/201...

You're welcome.

Holler if you need some more examples.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 19, 2011 | 10:23 a.m.

H. Ottinger - AlQaeda existed before Mogadishu. CIA and FBI were monitoring Ben Laden. You found it convenient to change my word "birth" to yours, begin, in order to avoid the assertion that B. Clinton's inaction after the killings emboldened BL and al-Qaeda in their mission of killing Americans, as did WTC (he never visited the bomb scene), Kobar Towers, and USS Cole.

Thanks for all your help. I respect your neutrality.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 19, 2011 | 11:20 a.m.

Jack Hamm - Ike said in his Farewell - Military Industrial Complex speech, "our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action.". Does this fit with your vision of a perfect military defense system for our country?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire February 19, 2011 | 8:02 p.m.

Our arms are not ready for any action because they are tied up halfway around the world due to the major collective stupidity of the Lunacrats and their ilk who post on sites like this one.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm February 19, 2011 | 9:42 p.m.

@ Frank

I think you missed the point of his farewell address.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 19, 2011 | 10:03 p.m.

Jack Hamm - Ike lead us in the most "necessary" war, we have ever and probably Will ever know. I think you and all of yours are missing his point. Intentionally? One wonders.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements