Democrats versus Republicans

[SailKing1]

Originally Posted by Freesail99

John, how about this.

Clinton wants biggest boost in defense spending since Reagan
January 24, 2000
Web posted at: 10:18 p.m. EST (0318 GMT)

From Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed hike in defense spending by President Bill Clinton is not presidential politics but rather the first step in fulfilling last year's pledge to add $112 billion to the defense budget over six years, Pentagon officials tell CNN.

When Clinton unveils the federal budget next month, Pentagon sources tell CNN, he will propose spending $291 billion on defense, a hike of more than $18 billion and nearly double last year's increase.

The nearly 7 percent increase in defense spending next year that the Clinton administration will propose is the biggest increase in the Pentagon's budget since the Reagan-era military buildup of the 1980s.

Heres a little more on Clinton's reasoning for his defense bill.

CLINTON / CONGRESS / DEFENSE SPENDING

[PBzeer]

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how if raising taxes in a bad economy is not a good thing, why it's a good thing in a good economy.

I know Obama has said it's the neighborly thing to do, to help out those with less by those who have more (and what about that brother living in Kenya?), but I've yet to have anyone make any economic sense out of it.

[SailKing1]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how if raising taxes in a bad economy is not a good thing, why it's a good thing in a good economy.

I know Obama has said it's the neighborly thing to do, to help out those with less by those who have more (and what about that brother living in Kenya?), but I've yet to have anyone make any economic sense out of it.

Can't argue with the raising taxes part but isn't the "neighborly thing" what donations are for and giving to charity. I wonder how much money Obama dgave to charity last year

[SailorMitch]

Originally Posted by Sailormon6

That article talks about proposed military spending, not about dollars that were actually appropriated and spent.

How does that article square with the data in the following hyperlink? Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Oops! Defense spending declined.

You need to click on the hyperlink for outlays for an explanation of government budgeting and accounting terms. the dollar amounts in an appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed by the President are not the same thing as what eventually gets spent. that chart is based on outlays (when money is actually spent) and may be higher or lower than what was in the appropriations bill. Examples of differences are any carry-over funds some agencies are allowed to carry over from one FY to the next, or they could even have "no year" that is appropriated one year and is available until spent. Or end of fiscal year procurements where the money was obligated (meaning a contract was signed to buy some commodity as one example.) But the outlays will made based on the terms of the contract (e.g., when the commodity is delivered, which may be in a different fiscal year.) OMB also is famous for not giving agencies authority to spend all monies appropriated.

[phallo153]

Originally Posted by SailKing1

Can't argue with the raising taxes part but isn't the "neighborly thing" what donations are for and giving to charity. I wonder how much money Obama dgave to charity last year

$240,370.00, or 5.7% of their income.

[sailaway21]

Joe Biden will step down as candidate for vice president and Hillary Clinton will be nominated to replace him. Senator Biden will find some medical reason that makes him unwilling to serve. The entry of Clinton into the race will quiet what has threatened to become the Palin coronation. Democrats will claim this to be a non-political issue and a matter of great personal privacy to the Biden family.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to read newspaper reports that Biden has been lost at sea or is otherwise dead.

btw,
you read it here first!

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by phallo153

$240,370.00, or 5.7% of their income.

Wow! He's not only stiffing his brother in Kenya, he's stiffing his church as well!

[josrulz]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Joe Biden will step down as candidate for vice president and Hillary Clinton will be nominated to replace him. Senator Biden will find some medical reason that makes him unwilling to serve. The entry of Clinton into the race will quiet what has threatened to become the Palin coronation. Democrats will claim this to be a non-political issue and a matter of great personal privacy to the Biden family.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to read newspaper reports that Biden has been lost at sea or is otherwise dead.

btw,
you read it here first!

Ha ha! I have to tell you, sailaway, I was thinking the same thing earlier today when I was reading some Biden quotes regarding Clinton--it wasn't really what he said, but rather the wording. Anyway, I think in reality that's a huge long shot, but I suppose if Biden was "lost at sea", they'd have to go with Clinton, no? That would crack me up, if you were right.

[sailaway21]

Have I ever let you down? (g)

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by phallo153

$240,370.00, or 5.7% of their income.

Prior to now, when he was only rich by his tax definition, he was giving 1% to charity.