PDA

View Full Version : Economics Democratic Presidents Are Better for the Economy


Direckshun
06-29-2012, 12:54 PM
Because I don't think we've been arguing enough recently. LMAO

Results are based on a study examining economic performance of every President since Truman

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html

Democratic Presidents Are Better for the Economy
By Richard J. Carroll
Jun 25, 2012 5:30 PM CT

The prevailing political wisdom says that a U.S. president should win re-election if gasoline prices are stable, the stock market is climbing and monthly jobless numbers are declining.

There is some logic to this: Such indicators affect our pocketbooks and our psyches, whether or not the president has much control over them. Yet short-term economic fluctuations are not what make the nation strong or a president great.

A president is a success economically if he can help steer the country onto a longer-term path of broadly shared economic growth, and if his policies lay a foundation for sustainable prosperity for the future. Although it isnít easy for voters to determine if a president is contributing to long-term economic success, they can do better than base their decisions on gas prices.

After three years in office, President Barack Obama has enough of a record to judge against the economic performances of other recent presidents. The rankings can help you cast a more informed vote in November -- one that doesnít view Obama in isolation or depend on which candidateís super-PAC spent the most on advertising.

In ďThe President as Economist: Scoring Economic Performance From Harry Truman to Barack Obama,Ē I compare the 12 presidents since World War II using 17 economic indicators, including growth in gross domestic product, rate of unemployment, inflation, population below the poverty line, increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, savings and investment rates, exports and trade balances, federal budget growth, and debt and federal taxes as a share of GDP.

Smaller Government

The analysis accepts Republican economic philosophy that says the U.S. would be better off with a lower rate of federal budget growth and a smaller federal budget relative to GDP. So presidents were penalized if the federal budget grew faster than the economy during their terms. Likewise, higher tax revenue as a share of GDP also counts against a presidentís record. It is a framework that rewards smaller government.

The book examines each indicator for each administration, and boils down the many aspects of a presidentís economic performance to a single score. The scores are derived using basic statistical methods, including averaging each presidentís indicators, then determining standard deviations from the mean. These methods produce a common unit of comparison for indicators that are expressed in different units, such as growth rates and shares of GDP. The results may surprise you (table).

As you can see, Presidents Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson rank first through third. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush make up the bottom three. President Ronald Reagan is No. 8, just one slot above President Obama.

Itís important to note that the analysis uses a one-year lag on the indicators to reflect that a presidentís first year in office is usually dominated by the federal budgets and policies adopted under the previous administration. No reasonable economist would blame the 10.5 percent inflation rate and other weak economic conditions of 1981 on Reagan. Clearly, Carter was mainly responsible, presidentially speaking. Similarly, the slow economic growth of 2001 had nothing to do with George W. Bushís policies, and Obama cannot credibly be blamed for the economic fallout of 2009.

Informed Vote

Trumanís first-place finish owes mainly to the vast improvement in fiscal indicators. He was the only president, for example, who averaged a budget surplus (2.4 percent of the federal budget). He reduced the national debt as a share of GDP by 46.1 percentage points (from 117.5 percent in 1945 to 71.4 percent in 1953), and tax revenue as a share of GDP at 16.6 percent was second lowest (only Obamaís 15.3 percent is lower). Trumanís indicators in the general economy include the second- lowest average unemployment rate, 4.0 percent; the second- highest annual productivity growth rate, 3.2 percent; and the best average trade balance, a surplus of 1.6 percent of GDP.

In the middle of the rankings, we find Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon at six and seven. It might surprise some that Nixon is right behind Clinton because the 1970s produced such checkered economic results and Clinton is highly regarded for his management of the economy.

Nixon, however, had the highest average savings rate; the second-lowest percentage of the population below the poverty line; and the second-highest increase in exports. Nixon also had some big negatives, including the second-highest average inflation rate of 6.6 percent and the highest increase in unemployment of 4.9 percentage points.

Clintonís term produced the second-largest reduction of population below the poverty line. He came in fourth for GDP growth of 3.6 percent; and he scored third for annual stock- market growth. Clintonís negatives include the worst deterioration in the balance of trade at 2.6 percentage points of GDP -- a surprise considering that he won congressional approval for the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In the end, Clinton comes out ahead of Nixon, but not by much. Had Nixon not resigned and instead finished his second term, his record would have benefited from the 1976-1977 recovery years, putting him ahead of Clinton.

At the bottom of the standings, the George W. Bush administration had many strong negatives and few positives. Bush 43 had the lowest GDP growth rate at 1.4 percent; the worst average trade balance; the highest increase in population below the poverty line; and the biggest increase in the national debt.

Counting as positives on Bush 43ís record were his low average inflation rate of 1.8 percent (third place), second-best export level at 10.8 percent of GDP, and the highest drop in tax revenue as a share of GDP, 4.4 percentage points (from 19.5 to 15.1 percent).

Party Comparisons

The rankings can also be used for performance comparisons of the two political parties. Conveniently, there are six Republicans and six Democrats, so if we take the average for Democratic and Republican presidents we can make a head-to-head party comparison. The Democratic presidents scored substantially higher than the Republican presidents, with a score of 26.95. Republican presidents scored -26.95.

Other statistical tests, including the so-called min-max method, which moderates the influence of extreme indicator values, produce similar results. These are consistent considering that the top three performers are Democrats and two out of the lowest three are Republicans. Five out of six Democrats reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP, while four out of six Republicans raised it. The story is similar on budget deficits, with five of the top six performances recorded by Democrats and four of the bottom five recorded by Republicans.

With respect to GDP growth, three of the top four performers were Democrats and four of the bottom five were Republicans. In reducing the poverty rate, the top three were Democrats and two of the bottom three were Republicans. The Democrats also had a better record on employment.

Republicans had better records on reducing inflation, achieving four of the top five performances, while Democrats had four of the bottom five showings. Republicans also did well in lowering tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, claiming the top five spots.

So what does this tell us about Obama? When all of the indicators are combined, he ranks ninth out of 12, one position below Reagan but above Bush 41, Carter and Bush 43. Obama is also well below the midpoint that falls between Clinton and Nixon. For Republicans who view Reagan as an economic miracle- maker and Obama as, well, something less than that, it might come as a shock that Obama falls next in line in economic performance.

Though Obamaís performance doesnít sound very impressive when compared with all the presidents, it is respectable when compared with his immediate predecessor, Bush 43. Lined up against his contemporaries after 1977, Obama ranks third out of six.

Voters can decide whether to re-elect Obama according to gas prices, the monthly jobs reports and fluctuations in the stock market. Or they could take the long view and look closely at where the U.S. economy stood when he took office and where it is today, as Part 2 of this series will explore.

(Richard J. Carroll is an economist at the World Bank. This article, the first of three, is based on his new book, ďThe President as Economist: Scoring Economic Performance From Harry Truman to Barack Obama,Ē published in June by Praeger. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Ugly Duck
06-29-2012, 01:00 PM
Teapublicans wring their hands & moan about Obama & the Dems "Big Government policies" & long for another Reagan. Maybe they don't read too good... here's a pichur to help them out:

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg

FD
06-29-2012, 01:03 PM
This kind of analysis is meaningless. The sample size is tiny, looking at the economy's performance over arbitrary 4 year time periods doesn't tell you anything, and president's have much less influence over the economy than people think, and much less than other larger factors.

Bewbies
06-29-2012, 01:57 PM
Teapublicans wring their hands & moan about Obama & the Dems "Big Government policies" & long for another Reagan. Maybe they don't read too good... here's a pichur to help them out:

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg

Does the president rule like a king or does he work with congress? You are such a ****ing dumbass. LMAO

vailpass
06-29-2012, 02:17 PM
That's what she said.

mikey23545
06-29-2012, 02:52 PM
Well, the last three and a half years have certainly proved it to be so.

HonestChieffan
06-29-2012, 03:06 PM
Unicorns shit honey drops under a dem pres.

KC_Lee
06-29-2012, 03:17 PM
Spending does not equal government expansion all alone. Policies and signed laws that over regulate, mandate, and give the federal government more power increases government expansion.

Because Regan spent a metric ton of money strengthening our military does not equal the government expanding outside of a technical term. Likewise, because Clinton cut back on military spending does not equal the government expansion being cut and / or reduced.

cosmo20002
06-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Democratic Presidents Are Better for the Economy


In other news, water is wet.

petegz28
06-29-2012, 03:53 PM
Teapublicans wring their hands & moan about Obama & the Dems "Big Government policies" & long for another Reagan. Maybe they don't read too good... here's a pichur to help them out:

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg

What's funny about that is those were mostly democraticaly controlled congresses.

KC Dan
06-29-2012, 03:58 PM
What's funny about that is those were mostly democraticaly controlled congresses.And, the Congress controls the purse strings via the Constitution

petegz28
06-29-2012, 04:30 PM
And, the Congress controls the purse strings via the Constitution

Clinton had the first Repub controlled House in how many years?

KC Dan
06-29-2012, 04:31 PM
Clinton had the first Repub controlled House in how many years?wasn't it 40 years?

durtyrute
06-29-2012, 04:35 PM
After so many years of the same bullshit, why is it so hard to see that the Reb/Dem split is just another way to separate the people in this country. None of them do jack shit, yet people keep voting for them, over and over. It's insanity!!!

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 07:45 PM
What's funny about that is those were mostly democraticaly controlled congresses.

Heh! Heh! I've seen that chart on the facebooks of some people, and I said the same thing. Plus the last bars are incorrect. Obama voted for the bailouts under Bush as a senator.

jjjayb
06-29-2012, 10:18 PM
wasn't it 40 years?

Was that the Republican congress that was accused of "SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT!" ?

CoMoChief
06-29-2012, 10:25 PM
This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever read on CP.

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 08:40 AM
This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever read on CP.

As a longtime contributor of dumb shit, you at least have to be a little jealous~

KC native
06-30-2012, 08:17 PM
I've been saying that when you run the numbers this is what happens.

Unlike many of the blind partisans here, I can say it doesn't mean shit. Very rarely does a president have a real effect on the economy.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 08:21 PM
I've been saying that when you run the numbers this is what happens.

Unlike many of the blind partisans here, I can say it doesn't mean shit. Very rarely does a president have a real effect on the economy.

Agreed, Congress does though and you know this.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 08:22 PM
I've been saying that when you run the numbers this is what happens.

Unlike many of the blind partisans here, I can say it doesn't mean shit. Very rarely does a president have a real effect on the economy.So the latest meltdown wasn't really Bush's fault?

KC native
06-30-2012, 08:27 PM
So the latest meltdown wasn't really Bush's fault?

Are you that fucking stupid? Please point out where I have ever said the 08 crisis was the any one person's fault. Bush played a good part in it, but he is far from the only one that has fault for the situation.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 08:32 PM
Are you that ****ing stupid? Please point out where I have ever said the 08 crisis was the any one person's fault. Bush played a good part in it, but he is far from the only one that has fault for the situation.I never claimed you did. But thanks for pointing out to all of us what a dickhead you really are.

KC native
06-30-2012, 08:36 PM
I never claimed you did. But thanks for pointing out to all of us what a dickhead you really are.

You should whine about it some more.

BigMeatballDave
06-30-2012, 08:49 PM
Really?

While Bush was in office, I had the same job the entire time.

With a democrapper in office, I lost that one and another one 3 months ago.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 08:50 PM
You should whine about it some more.I'm sure in real life you really aren't a dickhead. Maybe that big keyboard in front of you makes you puff out your chest so much.

Seriously, if you would quit starting most of your direct reply posts without the derogatory comments you might be taken seriously. Until then not so much.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 09:34 PM
Really?

While Bush was in office, I had the same job the entire time.

With a democrapper in office, I lost that one and another one 3 months ago.

Have to agree there. I was secure during Bush and have lost 2 jobs under Obama. Coninkydink!

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 09:52 PM
Have to agree there. I was secure during Bush and have lost 2 jobs under Obama. Coninkydink!

Not I. My ex lost his job as did most where he worked, the entire industry was destroyed slowly, due to 9/11 or shall I say American FP in the MidEast. My part time teaching job led to a layoff due to an enrollment drop in 2006/07 since I was the newbie there. This is why I said here that a recession was coming or starting but it was disagreed with. It never recovered under Obama so they did more courses online. I did find a part-time job January 2009 because my main and regular client went out of business during 2008, and I need some regular check. Found a job in 2009 but they wanted me to work full-time eventually, and I didn't want to because I like having other independent work and I was homeschooling. They weren't paying me enough to put my kid back in another private school. So I quit. I heard later they were not paying their help though, so I don't know how long it would have lasted. Since, I took time off to homeschool I haven't bothered to build-up lost clients but I am starting to do that now.

The Bush economy was the bubble phase of the Fed's handiwork. The bust was in 2008 and continued under Obama and never recovered.

chiefqueen
06-30-2012, 10:38 PM
Two words:

Jimmy Carter

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 11:04 PM
Really?

While Bush was in office, I had the same job the entire time.

With a democrapper in office, I lost that one and another one 3 months ago.

Shit really hit the fan in the last couple years of W. Not suprisingly, not everyone lost their jobs on the exact same day and some of the effects of the W years happened to carry over even though he was no longer in office.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 11:05 PM
Two words:

Jimmy Carter

Three words:

Better than W.

petegz28
06-30-2012, 11:31 PM
Three words:

Better than W.

That would be funny if you weren't serious.

Sannyasi
06-30-2012, 11:33 PM
Really?

While Bush was in office, I had the same job the entire time.

With a democrapper in office, I lost that one and another one 3 months ago.

Who can argue with that kind of spot on analysis?

In other news, it was 100 degrees today, irrefutably proving global warming.

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 11:37 PM
Who can argue with that kind of spot on analysis?

In other news, it was 100 degrees today, irrefutably proving global warming.

Wait... does that mean democrat presidents cause global warming?

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 12:02 AM
That would be funny if you weren't serious.

Carter and everyone else was better. Not really close.

petegz28
07-01-2012, 12:03 AM
Carter and everyone else was better. Not really close.

LMAO, I don't remember cars lined up at the gas stations under Bush.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 12:06 AM
Three words:

Better than W.

Two words (three "sets").... not really. Carter sucked. REALLY bad.

Seriously, dude. Wake up. Ideology blinds. Get-over it. Partisanship sucks. Really bad.

Carter and everyone else was better. Not really close.

And, NO..."ex-Presidents" and their legacy should "count;" but they DON'T. Carter is a good Ex-President, though he's trying to screw that up too...back-down, while you still have some credibility. Some.

|Zach|
07-01-2012, 12:07 AM
Have to agree there. I was secure during Bush and have lost 2 jobs under Obama. Coninkydink!

People that work at Sprint are dumbasses. It was just a matter of time.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 12:07 AM
Two words.... not really. Carter sucked. REALLY bad.

Seriously, dude. Wake up. Ideology blinds. Get-over it. Partisanship sucks. Really bad.

W started a war that lasted 10 years to invade Iraq over WMDs that were not there. That alone makes him the worst, but in fact there is just so much more.

petegz28
07-01-2012, 12:10 AM
People that work at Sprint are dumbasses. It was just a matter of time.

I'm sorry, what job were you offering me back then?

|Zach|
07-01-2012, 12:12 AM
I'm sorry, what job were you offering me back then?

You are forgiven.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 12:14 AM
W started a war that lasted 10 years to invade Iraq over WMDs that were not there. That alone makes him the worst, but in fact there is just so much more.

Arab "Spring" and ANY semblence of Democracy in the M.E. over the next 4-5 decades will justify ANY, and I mean ANY...indignation by partisan ideologues. Write that down. Now. Otherwise, you'll support asshole-cowards like Dennis Kucinich for President in coming elections....yeah, I said it: ASSHOLE-COWARDS. SNAP!!!

jjjayb
07-01-2012, 12:19 AM
Three words:

Better than W.

Two words:

You're insane.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 12:28 AM
Two words:

You're insane.

Actually, that's THREE words (includes a contraction)...dumbass. Heh.

BillSelfsTrophycase
07-01-2012, 12:37 AM
Three words:

Better than W.


That's like two turds in a shithouse arguing over which has the least corn

BWillie
07-01-2012, 01:11 AM
Teapublicans wring their hands & moan about Obama & the Dems "Big Government policies" & long for another Reagan. Maybe they don't read too good... here's a pichur to help them out:

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2012/05/MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg

I find it odd that Republicans say they don't want big government, but they are fine with paying out the ass for tons and tons of military personnel. The military is, by far, the biggest and easiest thing to spend less money on.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 07:02 AM
In other news, water is not wet.

Again, you miss reality. Fixed your incorrect assumption.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 07:04 AM
I've been saying that when you run the numbers this is what happens.

Unlike many of the blind partisans here, I can say it doesn't mean shit. Very rarely does a president have a real effect on the economy.

That may be true, but it sure looks like Obama has had an effect. Unemployment seems to have gone beserk under Der Fuerer

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 07:08 AM
Shit really hit the fan in the last couple years of W. Not suprisingly, not everyone lost their jobs on the exact same day and some of the effects of the W years happened to carry over even though he was no longer in office.

Again you smack of bull shit. You obviously have no sense of reality. I lost a job BECAUSE of Bush. Took me almost a year to find another position. At the time unemployment insurance was capped at 26 weeks. I had to make do with what I could.

Obama has taken more out of the jobs they had before that Bush caused, all you have to do is check the unemployment (official or unofficial) records, they both reflect the same thing.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 07:09 AM
Three words:

Better than W.

You were probably not even out of diapers with Carter. You have no basis for comparison.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 07:14 AM
I find it odd that Republicans say they don't want big government, but they are fine with paying out the ass for tons and tons of military personnel. The military is, by far, the biggest and easiest thing to spend less money on.

Reduce military, reduce military spending and do you know what you get?

Taken over by Uganda.

patteeu
07-01-2012, 11:21 AM
W started a war that lasted 10 years to invade Iraq over WMDs that were not there. That alone makes him the worst, but in fact there is just so much more.

The reasons for going to war with Iraq, including the concern over Saddam's lust for WMD and his links to terrorism, were vindicated by post war captured document reviews and interviews despite the lack of active WMD programs.

BWillie
07-01-2012, 12:04 PM
Reduce military, reduce military spending and do you know what you get?

Taken over by Uganda.

That is nonsense, it's just fearful propaganda that the republican base spews out to justify overspending.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 12:10 PM
That is nonsense, it's just fearful propaganda that the republican base spews out to justify overspending.

You don't get the point. But based on your response I doubt that any explanation would do anything but keep you whining about those guys that put their ass on the line every day for your freedom.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 03:15 PM
LMAO, I don't remember cars lined up at the gas stations under Bush.

That's how you judge such things? I don't remember Carter (who I am really only sticking up for here because we're comparing him to W) starting a 10-year war by invading a country due to weapons that didn't exist.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 03:22 PM
That's how you judge such things? I don't remember Carter (who I am really only sticking up for here because we're comparing him to W) starting a 10-year war by invading a country due to weapons that didn't exist.

You don't have too much of a grasp on history, but that's OK. You probably was in diapers when Bush started the war in Iraq based on intelligence that was felt to be accurate.

There is no comparison to Carter and Bush, Carter failed to be re-elected after 4 years. Bush was re-elected and continued on to provide enough fodder in hyperbole to keep you spinning for the rest of your life. I would say you will be cussing GWB when you are in your 80's because you have something stuck up your ass - you head.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 06:43 PM
Reduce military, reduce military spending and do you know what you get?

Taken over by Uganda.

Right....

You do realize that according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2011, the US spent 43% of the worlds total military expenditures.


I think there is some wiggle room here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/military-spending-united-states_b_1118851.html

ClevelandBronco
07-01-2012, 06:46 PM
We haven't had many to judge from. This one sucks. Carter was slightly less of a fucking disaster. The economy does pretty well under democrat presidents named Clinton who have Republican Congresses. I'll give you that.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 09:48 PM
Right....

You do realize that according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2011, the US spent 43% of the worlds total military expenditures.


I think there is some wiggle room here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/military-spending-united-states_b_1118851.html

So, if your best buddy Obama did what he said he'd do there wouldn't be any talk of reducing spending. He was going to get us out of Iraq in 16 months, he didn't. He was going to get us out of Afghanistan, he hasn't and has committed the U.S. to being there another 10 years? How about Camp Xray at GTMO? It's still there and going strong, but in the best interest of the country he is keeping it open so he doesn't have to pay for defense lawyers for the terrorists if they are tried in teh U.S. PLUS he would have to give them the same rights as an American citizen.

SO, for your willgle room have obomanation do what he said he would do (other than changing the U.S. from one of the strongest best nations in the world to just another third world nation.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 09:50 PM
That's how you judge such things? I don't remember Carter (who I am really only sticking up for here because we're comparing him to W) starting a 10-year war by invading a country due to weapons that didn't exist.

Is that the 10 year war that obomanation said he would end in 16 months after taking office? SO, Bush is only on the tab for part of the 10 years.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:17 PM
So, if your best buddy Obama did what he said he'd do there wouldn't be any talk of reducing spending. He was going to get us out of Iraq in 16 months, he didn't. He was going to get us out of Afghanistan, he hasn't and has committed the U.S. to being there another 10 years? How about Camp Xray at GTMO? It's still there and going strong, but in the best interest of the country he is keeping it open so he doesn't have to pay for defense lawyers for the terrorists if they are tried in teh U.S. PLUS he would have to give them the same rights as an American citizen.

SO, for your willgle room have obomanation do what he said he would do (other than changing the U.S. from one of the strongest best nations in the world to just another third world nation.

Nice deflection hot dog head. I'll deal with one thing at a time, and this time I'm dealing with your statement that if we cut military spending we'll be over run by Uganda. Sounds a bit like you talked out your ass and someone hit you with facts and then you went on the attack. Have a good day, use google search before you talk , and please relax.

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 10:18 PM
Is that the 10 year war that obomanation said he would end in 16 months after taking office? SO, Bush is only on the tab for part of the 10 years.

We are out of Iraq. Obama, didn't even fly a jet to an airline carrier with a banner saying mission accomplished to do it.

cosmo20002
07-01-2012, 10:25 PM
Is that the 10 year war that obomanation said he would end in 16 months after taking office?

He never said that and in fact we have already been over this very point. I'm not going to give you a link, again, since you apparently ignored it the first time and you dismiss actual facts as left-wing bias.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 10:30 PM
Nice deflection hot dog head. I'll deal with one thing at a time, and this time I'm dealing with your statement that if we cut military spending we'll be over run by Uganda. Sounds a bit like you talked out your ass and someone hit you with facts and then you went on the attack. Have a good day, use google search before you talk , and please relax.Are you really that dense? Yes, I'd say you are. We are currently at a low number, manpower wise, in the military. Obama said he wanted to fight smaller but fight smart, the smart he's talking about isn't decreasing the numbers but using the money spent on better weapons systems. Leaner, maybe but not at the cost of security. As for the Uganda comment, are you so slow that you can't see that it means any third world nation that wants to start some shit would be more of a threat than we might be able to handle if all of you lamebrains got your wish to cut the numbers.

Next time I'll use the sarcasm font but it won't matter as you still wouldn't get it.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 10:32 PM
We are out of Iraq. Obama, didn't even fly a jet to an airline carrier with a banner saying mission accomplished to do it.

Again you fucked up, obama promised something that he did not deliver, that was the point. No, obama didn't fly a banner, but then neither did Bush, the banner was put up by someone else and the mission they were talking about was accomplished, but I don't really want to rain on your parade.

Dolt.

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 10:33 PM
He never said that and in fact we have already been over this very point. I'm not going to give you a link, again, since you apparently ignored it the first time and you dismiss actual facts as left-wing bias.

Sure you did, it was from National Lampoon if I remember correctly. Seems to be where you get all of your information.

But in reality your post just says "I got nothing".

J Diddy
07-01-2012, 11:03 PM
Again you ****ed up, obama promised something that he did not deliver, that was the point. No, obama didn't fly a banner, but then neither did Bush, the banner was put up by someone else and the mission they were talking about was accomplished, but I don't really want to rain on your parade.

Dolt.

Hey bro,

you're all entertaining and such, but you keep trying really hard to move from the topic of this discussion. Which was your assertation that if we cut military spending we'd get over run by uganda. Once you admit you are wrong there, we can move past that and I can educate you in these other things.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 06:47 AM
So, if your best buddy Obama did what he said he'd do there wouldn't be any talk of reducing spending. He was going to get us out of Iraq in 16 months, he didn't. He was going to get us out of Afghanistan, he hasn't and has committed the U.S. to being there another 10 years? How about Camp Xray at GTMO? It's still there and going strong, but in the best interest of the country he is keeping it open so he doesn't have to pay for defense lawyers for the terrorists if they are tried in teh U.S. PLUS he would have to give them the same rights as an American citizen.

SO, for your willgle room have obomanation do what he said he would do (other than changing the U.S. from one of the strongest best nations in the world to just another third world nation.

FYI, Camp X-Ray closed long before Obama ran for President.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 06:52 AM
Right....

You do realize that according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2011, the US spent 43% of the worlds total military expenditures.


I think there is some wiggle room here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/military-spending-united-states_b_1118851.html

Without any sense of the threats we face and the missions our armed services are asked to execute, that statistic is meaningless and certainly doesn't support your wiggle room conclusion.

BTW, do you remember when people on your side of most political issues were complaining about how we were sending soldiers into battle in Iraq without "adequate equipment" (e.g. Unarmored HumVees)? And that was in a war we breezed through without much trouble at all. Imagine how much more American blood would be spilled in a war where we don't have the level of superiority that we currently enjoy just because people like you want to use our defense budget as a rainy day piggy bank.

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 07:10 AM
Hey bro,

you're all entertaining and such, but you keep trying really hard to move from the topic of this discussion. Which was your assertation that if we cut military spending we'd get over run by uganda. Once you admit you are wrong there, we can move past that and I can educate you in these other things.

Not your bro, whouldn't be on a bet.

As for the comment, you missed the point. I'm not surprised that you did but you totally missed it. I'm not wrong, cutting the military is not the answer, that's the whole base of the point.

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 07:11 AM
FYI, Camp X-Ray closed long before Obama ran for President.

OK, what's the current name for the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? That's the place and it's still there and still housing many that are classified as terrorists.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 07:14 AM
OK, what's the current name for the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? That's the place and it's still there and still housing many that are classified as terrorists.

Just say "Gitmo" and you'll be safe. No need to be more specific. I'm not sure what the detention facilities are called now, but camp X-ray was a temporary facility that was phased out within a year or two as more permanent facilities came online.

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 07:32 AM
Just say "Gitmo" and you'll be safe. No need to be more specific. I'm not sure what the detention facilities are called now, but camp X-ray was a temporary facility that was phased out within a year or two as more permanent facilities came online.

Camp Delta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_(Guantanamo_Bay)

patteeu
07-02-2012, 07:35 AM
Camp Delta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_(Guantanamo_Bay)

OK, thx.

Gary
07-02-2012, 08:24 AM
Without any sense of the threats we face and the missions our armed services are asked to execute, that statistic is meaningless and certainly doesn't support your wiggle room conclusion.

BTW, do you remember when people on your side of most political issues were complaining about how we were sending soldiers into battle in Iraq without "adequate equipment" (e.g. Unarmored HumVees)? And that was in a war we breezed through without much trouble at all. Imagine how much more American blood would be spilled in a war where we don't have the level of superiority that we currently enjoy just because people like you want to use our defense budget as a rainy day piggy bank.

My rant about "adequate equipment": How in the blue hell could our military not adequately equip our soldiers when we spend 43% of what the world spends on military expenditures and China & Russia collectively only spend 10%? There is no justification any military brass could give me that would make it ok for even one of our combat soldiers marching into Iraq without body armor, batteries for night vision, adequate armor in humvees to protect against ieds, etc. I saw a video a while back where a cameraman was following some troops while they went to buy batteries for their govt issued night vision with their own money because they weren't provided any. As far as I'm concerned, heads should have rolled when our boys were sent into firefights without the necessary equipment. Someone didn't do their job.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 09:02 AM
My rant about "adequate equipment": How in the blue hell could our military not adequately equip our soldiers when we spend 43% of what the world spends on military expenditures and China & Russia collectively only spend 10%? There is no justification any military brass could give me that would make it ok for even one of our combat soldiers marching into Iraq without body armor, batteries for night vision, adequate armor in humvees to protect against ieds, etc. I saw a video a while back where a cameraman was following some troops while they went to buy batteries for their govt issued night vision with their own money because they weren't provided any. As far as I'm concerned, heads should have rolled when our boys were sent into firefights without the necessary equipment. Someone didn't do their job.

That's because you have a cartoonish understanding of our military like so many others. HumVees were never supposed to be armored. That's why our troops were sent to Iraq in unarmored HumVees. It was only after experience with the IED problem that we realized that a vehicle designed primarily for transportation behind our lines was poorly suited for this different kind of war (without lines).

Even at 43% of global military spending (assuming that number is right), trade-offs must be made. To fully equip all of our troops with the best possible equipment to meet every possible contingency would cost a heck of a lot more than that and I don't suppose that you are arguing for massive defense spending increases, are you?

Gary
07-02-2012, 09:36 AM
That's because you have a cartoonish understanding of our military like so many others. HumVees were never supposed to be armored. That's why our troops were sent to Iraq in unarmored HumVees. It was only after experience with the IED problem that we realized that a vehicle designed primarily for transportation behind our lines was poorly suited for this different kind of war (without lines).

Even at 43% of global military spending (assuming that number is right), trade-offs must be made. To fully equip all of our troops with the best possible equipment to meet every possible contingency would cost a heck of a lot more than that and I don't suppose that you are arguing for massive defense spending increases, are you?

Our intelligence is a bit better than suddenly experiencing the IED problem. How about the battery issue and the body armor issue?

Gary
07-02-2012, 09:40 AM
That's because you have a cartoonish understanding of our military like so many others. HumVees were never supposed to be armored. That's why our troops were sent to Iraq in unarmored HumVees. It was only after experience with the IED problem that we realized that a vehicle designed primarily for transportation behind our lines was poorly suited for this different kind of war (without lines).

Even at 43% of global military spending (assuming that number is right), trade-offs must be made. To fully equip all of our troops with the best possible equipment to meet every possible contingency would cost a heck of a lot more than that and I don't suppose that you are arguing for massive defense spending increases, are you?

Our intelligence is a bit better than suddenly experiencing the IED problem (the term comes from the British Army when the IRA used them in the 1970s). How about the battery issue and the body armor issue(no cartoon there)?

patteeu
07-02-2012, 10:02 AM
Our intelligence is a bit better than suddenly experiencing the IED problem. How about the battery issue and the body armor issue?

Like I said, if you want a gold-plated military, you're going to have to be willing to pay more for it. As it was (unarmored HumVees, limited batteries and body armor, etc.), we still rolled through Iraq's military like a hot knife through butter... twice... with astonishingly low casualty rates. The proof that we were adequately prepared and equipped is in that pudding.

Gary
07-02-2012, 06:32 PM
Like I said, if you want a gold-plated military, you're going to have to be willing to pay more for it. As it was (unarmored HumVees, limited batteries and body armor, etc.), we still rolled through Iraq's military like a hot knife through butter... twice... with astonishingly low casualty rates. The proof that we were adequately prepared and equipped is in that pudding.

At $700 billion vs. China spending $119 billion, I'd say our military should be solid gold.

patteeu
07-02-2012, 06:42 PM
At $700 billion vs. China spending $119 billion, I'd say our military should be solid gold.

People say lots of things.

Iz Zat Chew
07-02-2012, 07:42 PM
At $700 billion vs. China spending $119 billion, I'd say our military should be solid gold.

That just shows how out of touch you are with the military.

Ugly Duck
07-03-2012, 03:10 AM
Does the president rule like a king or does he work with congress? You are such a ****ing dumbass. LMAO

Dude.... I got that from YOU. You're the guy who said a president "deserves huge praise" if an economic factor improves during his watch (see quote below).

Jackson's the only President to leave office with a debt free nation. The praise he deserves for that is huge.

If you believe your own writing, you'd praise Obama cuz he reduced government spending by a factor of 5 over Reagan.... spending growth under Obama is WAY slower than it was under any president in recent history. That is one heckuva economic improvement. I don't get it... are you saying that you were a ****ing dumbass for praising presidents when an economic factor improves, or just calling me a ****ing dumbass for adopting your philosophy on the subject?

Gary
07-03-2012, 05:59 AM
People say lots of things.

That's a two way street.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 07:57 AM
That's a two way street.

Sure it is, except I backed mine up with two amazingly successful wars.

Gary
07-05-2012, 09:38 AM
Sure it is, except I backed mine up with two amazingly successful wars.

Honestly not trying to poke you in your side with this question (I really would like to know), but do you really consider the war to be amazingly successful?

patteeu
07-05-2012, 09:46 AM
Honestly not trying to poke you in your side with this question (I really would like to know), but do you really consider the entire war and occupation of Iraq to be amazingly successful?

The military aspects, which is what we're talking about here, were all amazingly successful. We didn't lose battles. Our casualty rates were very low by historical standards. To the extent that it took us longer to reduce the insurgency to manageable levels than we would have liked, it wasn't because we under-equipped our soldiers.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously hold the views that we spend too much on our military and that we don't equip our military adequately.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 10:55 AM
Sure it is, except I backed mine up with two amazingly successful wars.

Ho boy.

I just dipped into this thread. Took no time at all to find pat going full retard.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 10:56 AM
I don't understand how you can simultaneously hold the views that we spend too much on our military and that we don't equip our military adequately.

Why can't you understand that?

They're not mutually exclusive statements.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 10:57 AM
I love pat declaring our war in Afghanistan to be amazingly successful, militarily.

That's like saying my SUV was amazingly successful in flattening that bicycle some kid left in the street.

THE US MILITARY ROUTED THE TALIBAN IN OPEN WARFARE. SIMPLY AMAZING.

Donger
07-05-2012, 11:00 AM
I love pat declaring our war in Afghanistan to be amazingly successful, militarily.

That's like saying my SUV was amazingly successful in flattening that bicycle some kid left in the street.

THE US MILITARY ROUTED THE TALIBAN IN OPEN WARFARE. SIMPLY AMAZING.

You do realize that the Soviet Union never achieved the same result, right? We HAVE been amazingly successful in Afghanistan militarily.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 11:03 AM
You do realize that the Soviet Union never achieved the same result, right? We HAVE been amazingly successful in Afghanistan militarily.

I'd put the 2002 US military up against the 1980s Soviet Union military any day of the ****ing week.

Meanwhile, behold the Taliban's massive technological gains in warfare since the 80s!

Donger
07-05-2012, 11:05 AM
I'd put the 2002 US military up against the 1980s Soviet Union military any day of the ****ing week.

Meanwhile, behold the Taliban's massive technological gains in warfare since the 80s!

I'm sorry, but what does either of those have to do with our military operations in Afghanistan NOT being massively successful?

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 11:06 AM
:spock:

You do realize that the Soviet Union never achieved the same result, right? We HAVE been amazingly successful in Afghanistan militarily.

ROFLLMAOROFLLMAO:LOL:


:doh!:

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 11:07 AM
I'm sorry, but what does either of those have to do with our military operations in Afghanistan NOT being massively successful?

Is the Dream Team massively successful when it beats Uganda in a pickup game by 60 points?

patteeu
07-05-2012, 11:08 AM
Why can't you understand that?

They're not mutually exclusive statements.

Feel free to explain it to me. Please use small words that I can easily digest.

Donger
07-05-2012, 11:08 AM
Is the Dream Team massively successful when it beats Uganda in a pickup game by 60 points?

Yes.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Is the Dream Team massively successful when it beats Uganda in a pickup game by 60 points?

Yes. Are you saying that that wouldn't be a success?

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 11:31 AM
Yes.

I'm harder to impress.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 11:31 AM
Yes. Are you saying that that wouldn't be a success?

I'm saying, it wouldn't amaze me.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 11:32 AM
Feel free to explain it to me. Please use small words that I can easily digest.

You can overspend on the military, while either (a.) not spending enough of it on armament for our troops, or (b.) not dispensing enough of the armament you do have.

Donger
07-05-2012, 11:35 AM
I'm harder to impress.

Well, you should be. Our forces did in a few months what the Soviet Union failed to do in eight years. The weaponry we employed wasn't vastly different than the Soviets. We just fought more intelligently and didn't treat the indigenous forces like crap.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 11:36 AM
I'm saying, it wouldn't amaze me.

I wouldn't call your hindsight very amazing either. However, if we compare the results of our invasion with many of the predictions, "amazing" is an appropriate adjective.

Amnorix
07-05-2012, 12:02 PM
Are you really that dense? Yes, I'd say you are. We are currently at a low number, manpower wise, in the military. Obama said he wanted to fight smaller but fight smart, the smart he's talking about isn't decreasing the numbers but using the money spent on better weapons systems. Leaner, maybe but not at the cost of security. As for the Uganda comment, are you so slow that you can't see that it means any third world nation that wants to start some shit would be more of a threat than we might be able to handle if all of you lamebrains got your wish to cut the numbers.

Next time I'll use the sarcasm font but it won't matter as you still wouldn't get it.


Do Russia, China, Germany and England, all of whom have a military budget that is LESS than 25% of ours cower in fear when Ugana or Lichtenstein make threats?

The US military is so grossly and overwhelmingly powerful in every conceivable way and yet fuqtards like you act like cutting a penny would CLEARLY put the US in imminent danger of being overrun by Nicaragua or somesuch absurd bullshit.

It's no less maddening than people screaming that Social Security can't be touched -- well, it's gonna get touched because it's fucking broken. It's not IF, it's WHEN.

Iz Zat Chew
07-05-2012, 12:50 PM
Do Russia, China, Germany and England, all of whom have a military budget that is LESS than 25% of ours cower in fear when Ugana or Lichtenstein make threats?

The US military is so grossly and overwhelmingly powerful in every conceivable way and yet fuqtards like you act like cutting a penny would CLEARLY put the US in imminent danger of being overrun by Nicaragua or somesuch absurd bullshit.

It's no less maddening than people screaming that Social Security can't be touched -- well, it's gonna get touched because it's ****ing broken. It's not IF, it's WHEN.

Again, you took the point of weakining our military wrong, but it's not all your fault. It's not Uganda we fear but the lesser armed and lesser feared countries that would like to take the U.S. down.

Our military may be grossly and overwhelmingly powerful in your eyes but your political position puts that comment in to much of a gray area. I doubt that fuqtards like you have any real concept of what the military has outside of the shining examples you see in the main stream media.

As for Social Security, who's been screaming in this thread about Social Security? Are you just trying to deflect from the general topic or add another argument? Social Security was established as an untouchable fund. I don't know how long you've been working in your lifetime and how much you might have added into the fund but if it had of been left alone there wouldn't be a problem. As it stands the liberal side of the political world placed that money in the general fund. In my eyes that debt the government has must be paid, not be cause someone is entitled to it but many Americans and their employers paid for it. If you want to cut some out of it you might start with illegals and those that didn't pay a dime into the fund ever and that is drawing a "full" social security check.

Of course, I'm sure you have a different view of the Social Security debaucle as you obviously don't feel that baby boomers should benefit because there are so many of them. I don't remember any one crying for them when the government took their money out of a protected fund and put it into the general fund. Remember, a large portion of the funds that was taken was from Baby Boomers.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 01:20 PM
Well, you should be. Our forces did in a few months what the Soviet Union failed to do in eight years.

Again, I'll take a surgical US military with 21st century technology over a clunky, oversized military doing its best Alexander the Great impersonation in 1980-whatever.

I'm pretty sure the American military would win 1,000 times out of 1,000. That's how dominant we are, militarily.

That fact in and of itself is amazing. The fact that we pummeled the Taliban with it, isn't.

Iz Zat Chew
07-05-2012, 01:39 PM
Again, I'll take a surgical US military with 21st century technology over a clunky, oversized military doing its best Alexander the Great impersonation in 1980-whatever.

I'm pretty sure the American military would win 1,000 times out of 1,000. That's how dominant we are, militarily.

That fact in and of itself is amazing. The fact that we pummeled the Taliban with it, isn't.

Do you honestly think that on a world wide basis the U.S. would win 1000 times out of 1000? I have my doubts, espeically if it was considered a world war, in which case the U.S. might be a lesser military than you think.

Donger
07-05-2012, 01:45 PM
Again, I'll take a surgical US military with 21st century technology over a clunky, oversized military doing its best Alexander the Great impersonation in 1980-whatever.

I'm pretty sure the American military would win 1,000 times out of 1,000. That's how dominant we are, militarily.

That fact in and of itself is amazing. The fact that we pummeled the Taliban with it, isn't.

I wasn't surprised that we were victorious in Afghanistan, but I was amazed that we won it so quickly.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 01:48 PM
I wasn't surprised that we were victorious in Afghanistan, but I was amazed that we won it so quickly.

I am harder to impress.

Donger
07-05-2012, 01:51 PM
I am harder to impress.

So it would seem. You aren't very well-versed in military history, weaponry or strategy, correct?

Iz Zat Chew
07-05-2012, 01:54 PM
Again, I'll take a surgical US military with 21st century technology over a clunky, oversized military doing its best Alexander the Great impersonation in 1980-whatever.

I'm pretty sure the American military would win 1,000 times out of 1,000. That's how dominant we are, militarily.

That fact in and of itself is amazing. The fact that we pummeled the Taliban with it, isn't.

Do you honestly think that on a world wide basis the U.S. would win 1000 times out of 1000? I have my doubts, espeically if it was considered a world war, in which case the U.S. might be a lesser military than you think.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 02:18 PM
I wasn't surprised that we were victorious in Afghanistan, but I was amazed that we won it so quickly.

Exactly. And with so few troops working in unprecedented ways leveraging native warriors whose main means of transportation was the horse.

We had naysayers insisting that an invasion of Afghanistan would require hundreds of thousands of troops and thousands of body bags. Same with Iraq. Both invasions were shockingly (one notch up from "amazingly" :) ) successful.

Direckshun
07-05-2012, 05:48 PM
So it would seem. You aren't very well-versed in military history, weaponry or strategy, correct?

There's nothing special or noteworthy about my intelligence levels when it comes to anything, really. I'm average at best.

I am not a military expert, or an expert on anything. I am just your typical stupid person.

Gary
07-06-2012, 06:05 AM
Well, you should be. Our forces did in a few months what the Soviet Union failed to do in eight years. The weaponry we employed wasn't vastly different than the Soviets. We just fought more intelligently and didn't treat the indigenous forces like crap.

We had a pretty big hand in helping the Mujahideen in their efforts. Before the U.S. started arming and training them, they were getting slaughtered.

Gary
07-06-2012, 06:17 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Md1e3UvUM9Q/S_1xvi6Mw5I/AAAAAAAAAvU/1DmDYkOjlb0/s1600/AMVETS+F35+Letter+2010.jpg

Gary
07-06-2012, 06:47 AM
August 2011 report to Congress titled "Transforming Wartime Contracting. Controlling costs, reducing risks":

http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/docs/CWC_FinalReport-lowres.pdf

patteeu
07-06-2012, 07:07 AM
Point?

Gary
07-06-2012, 07:14 AM
http://tommytoy.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f3a4072c970b015432a2a341970c-popup

http://tommytoy.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f3a4072c970b014e88c2f3ca970d-popup

Gary
07-06-2012, 07:20 AM
Point?

You don't see any waste, abuse, or misallocation of funds going on? Read the report to Congress on wasteful/abusive/ineffective spending on contractors.

patteeu
07-06-2012, 07:50 AM
You don't see any waste, abuse, or misallocation of funds going on? Read the report to Congress on wasteful/abusive/ineffective spending on contractors.

There is waste and ineffective spending in all big government programs. There are also changing requirements that make old programs obsolete and new programs necessary. We should constantly be reviewing our defense budget (and all of our government spending) to minimize the waste and to insure that we're spending toward the right requirements. That's quite a bit different than cutting the defense budget to help reduce the deficit or just because it's larger than the next several largest defense budgets combined.

Gary
07-07-2012, 06:17 AM
There is waste and ineffective spending in all big government programs. There are also changing requirements that make old programs obsolete and new programs necessary. We should constantly be reviewing our defense budget (and all of our government spending) to minimize the waste and to insure that we're spending toward the right requirements. That's quite a bit different than cutting the defense budget to help reduce the deficit or just because it's larger than the next several largest defense budgets combined.

Obsolete programs are not the only problem within our defense spending. Ineffective/wasteful/abusive programs are within the budget as well and need to meet the axe.

patteeu
07-07-2012, 06:53 AM
Obsolete programs are not the only problem within our defense spending. Ineffective/wasteful/abusive programs are within the budget as well and need to meet the axe.

There is waste and ineffective spending in all big government programs. There are also changing requirements that make old programs obsolete and new programs necessary. We should constantly be reviewing our defense budget (and all of our government spending) to minimize the waste and to insure that we're spending toward the right requirements. That's quite a bit different than cutting the defense budget to help reduce the deficit or just because it's larger than the next several largest defense budgets combined.

Nonetheless, that's a sidetrack from the original discussion about whether or not our defense budget should be cut simply because it's bigger than the next biggest globally ranked defense budgets by a considerable margin.

WhiteWhale
07-08-2012, 10:01 AM
Reduce military, reduce military spending and do you know what you get?

Taken over by Uganda.

Yup.

The only way to prevent Uganda from taking us over is spending 10 times what China (the 2nd biggest military spender) spends.

We must control the whole world or an unindustrialized nation will swim over the atlantic in canoes and take us over.

That's totally plausible.

Gary
07-12-2012, 05:58 AM
Nonetheless, that's a sidetrack from the original discussion about whether or not our defense budget should be cut simply because it's bigger than the next biggest globally ranked defense budgets by a considerable margin.

So are you in favor of our federal government cutting spending at all, or is it enough to just know "There is waste and ineffective spending in all big government programs"?

patteeu
07-12-2012, 07:19 AM
So are you in favor of our federal government cutting spending at all, or is it enough to just know "There is waste and ineffective spending in all big government programs"?

We should constantly be reviewing our defense budget (and all of our government spending) to minimize the waste and to insure that we're spending toward the right requirements.

But let's be clear, we will never completely eliminate waste and to the extent that we can identify it and eliminate it, it won't represent much of a reduction in spending.

Gary
07-12-2012, 08:46 AM
But let's be clear, we will never completely eliminate waste and to the extent that we can identify it and eliminate it, it won't represent much of a reduction in spending.

From the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"At least $31 billion, and possibly as much as $60 billion, has been lost to
contract waste and fraud in Americaís contingency operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Much more will turn into waste as attention to continuing
operations wanes, as U.S. support for projects and programs in Iraq and Afghanistan
declines, and as those efforts are revealed as unsustainable."

That is just one example. It's out there. It just needs to be exposed and axed.

patteeu
07-12-2012, 12:47 PM
From the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"At least $31 billion, and possibly as much as $60 billion, has been lost to
contract waste and fraud in Americaís contingency operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Much more will turn into waste as attention to continuing
operations wanes, as U.S. support for projects and programs in Iraq and Afghanistan
declines, and as those efforts are revealed as unsustainable."

That is just one example. It's out there. It just needs to be exposed and axed.

You can't find ever eliminate it all. There are always trade-offs. There is more waste with wartime spending because timeliness becomes far more critical than cost efficiency.

That doesn't mean we should stop trying to eliminate it, it's just a reality that our efforts will inevitably fall short of perfection.

Direckshun
11-03-2012, 11:48 AM
http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2012/11/02/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/stocks-top960.jpg

HonestChieffan
11-03-2012, 12:12 PM
Obama and Carter are all you need to know about Dems and the economy. Obamas unemployment is about the same as Carters interest rates. Yippee for the good times

patteeu
11-03-2012, 02:52 PM
http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2012/11/02/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/stocks-top960.jpg

Another 4 years of Obama should be enough for Republicans to take the lead.

Bewbies
11-03-2012, 09:26 PM
Another 4 years of Obama should be enough for Republicans to take the lead.

That could be the case, but we'll never know.