"Mortgaging our children's future"...who said that?

[Guest]

On May 14 in New Mexico Obama said,

“The current deficit spending is “unsustainable,” ....“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Classic Sol Alinsky doublespeak. Who is driving deficit spending with bailouts, socialized medicine, more entitlements, redistribution of wealth and the biggest budget in the history of the world? Could it be......the Obama administration? You know, the guy that just said, "We're mortgaging our children's future."

Doesn't anyone notice or care about the colossally audacious hypocrisy?

Is this an example of the "good things going on in Washington?"

Is this an example of transparency and truth?

Does this set the stage for the biggest, most usurious tax assault on our society in American history? Will our children be giving more than 70% of what they earn to feed an insatiable, ever growing government cow? Will job producing corporations collapse under a tax burden they cannot be competitive under? How is reducing the quality of life for our children and grandchildren better than mortgaging their future?

It brings new meaning to, "God bless America, stand beside her and guide her..".

God bless all our veterans who answered their country's call. God bless those who are serving now. Bless their families and loved ones as proud Americans across the nation acknowledge their service.

I apologize if the closing religious overtone offends those who have acknowledged and articulated their preference for a more secular society, but, when I stopped at the Post Office this morning Old Glory was still waving and the mutts in Washington haven't trashed the Bill of Rights including the First Amendment completely....yet. Nah...I take it back, the apology was transparently insincere anyway.

Drive safely this Memorial Day weekend.

[Guest]

On May 14 in New Mexico Obama said,

“The current deficit spending is “unsustainable,” ....“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Classic Sol Alinsky doublespeak. Who is driving deficit spending with bailouts, socialized medicine, more entitlements, redistribution of wealth and the biggest budget in the history of the world? Could it be......the Obama administration? You know, the guy that just said, "We're mortgaging our children's future."

Doesn't anyone notice or care about the colossally audacious hypocrisy?

Is this an example of the "good things going on in Washington?"

Is this an example of transparency and truth?

Does this set the stage for the biggest, most usurious tax assault on our society in American history? Will are children be giving more than 70% of what they earn to feed an insatiable, ever growing government cow? Will job producing corporations collapse under a tax burden they cannot be competitive under? How is reducing the quality of life for our children and grandchildren better than mortgaging their future?

It brings new meaning to, "God bless America, stand beside her and guide her..".

God bless all our veterans who answered their country's call. God bless those who are serving now. Bless their families and loved ones as proud Americans across the nation acknowledge their service.

I apologize if the closing religious overtone offends those who have acknowledged and articulated their preference for a more secular society, but, when I stopped at the Post Office this morning Old Glory was still waving and the mutts in Washington haven't trashed the Bill of Rights including the First Amendment completely....yet. Nah...I take it back, the apology was transparently insincere anyway.

Drive safely this Memorial Day weekend.



Good post CABO. Only thing I can add is what I have been saying since the campaign...

Dont listen to what he says...watch what he is doing !

[Guest]

written speech (some think!!) making use of the feel good words to fit the audience....with no consistent connectivity to what was said previously.

Teleprompter fodder depth only!!!

BTK

[Guest]

If anything, the U.S. began ramping up it's borrowing years later than the rest of the world, particularly Europe. But the shortage of funds available to buy the debt securities issued to fund sovereign debt is reaching it's limits.

In the coming year, the collective total of deficit spending by nations in the world will total approximately $5.4 trillion dollars. Of that, the U.S. will have to borrow $3.2 trillion, about 60% of the total sovereign debt in the world. That's the bad news. The good news is that the risk-rating of debt issued by the U.S. government is still far superior to that of other nations. What that means is that those buyers with the liquidity to buy sovereign debt instruments will very likely be drawn to the purchase of U.S. debt. While it will pay a lower interest rate, it will also represent materially less risk than the debt of other nation-states.

What's scary about these numbers is that the amount of debt projected to be borrowed is about 3.75 times the combined gross national product of all the countries in the world--an all-time historical high by quite a margin.

[Guest]

Kahuna and anyone else with banking or global finance knowledge or opinions.

The bond rating of the United Kingdom has just been lowered. Many say the United States is next because of Washington's astronomical, irresponsible budget deficit and the increased national debt it will create.

Will the predicted lowering of the USA's bond rating effect foreign interest in the debt investment you refer to?

I respect your knowledge and expertise in banking and financial matters from your previous posts. I admit being an amateur with just enough knowledge about high finance to make me extremely dangerous.

[Guest]

I agree with most of what has been said. I am not so smooth. I just think the damn fool is trying to ruin this great country!!!:cus:

As long as so many people love him, what can we do?:shrug:

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

I agree with most of what has been said. I am not so smooth. I just think the damn fool is trying to ruin this great country!!!:cus:

As long as so many people love him, what can we do?:shrug:

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

This nation has survived in spite of several less-than-stellar presidents, many lunatic congresspersons, and a few narcissistic generals. The list may get longer, but the nation shall endure....

[Guest]

This nation has survived in spite of several less-than-stellar presidents, many lunatic congresspersons, and a few narcissistic generals. The list may get longer, but the nation shall endure....

Steve, I agree with you but I don't remember one with intent, just incompetent ones.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

On May 14 in New Mexico Obama said,

“The current deficit spending is “unsustainable,” ....“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Classic Sol Alinsky doublespeak. Who is driving deficit spending with bailouts, socialized medicine, more entitlements, redistribution of wealth and the biggest budget in the history of the world? Could it be......the Obama administration? You know, the guy that just said, "We're mortgaging our children's future."

Doesn't anyone notice or care about the colossally audacious hypocrisy?

Is this an example of the "good things going on in Washington?"

Is this an example of transparency and truth?

Does this set the stage for the biggest, most usurious tax assault on our society in American history? Will our children be giving more than 70% of what they earn to feed an insatiable, ever growing government cow? Will job producing corporations collapse under a tax burden they cannot be competitive under? How is reducing the quality of life for our children and grandchildren better than mortgaging their future?

It brings new meaning to, "God bless America, stand beside her and guide her..".

God bless all our veterans who answered their country's call. God bless those who are serving now. Bless their families and loved ones as proud Americans across the nation acknowledge their service.

I apologize if the closing religious overtone offends those who have acknowledged and articulated their preference for a more secular society, but, when I stopped at the Post Office this morning Old Glory was still waving and the mutts in Washington haven't trashed the Bill of Rights including the First Amendment completely....yet. Nah...I take it back, the apology was transparently insincere anyway.

Drive safely this Memorial Day weekend. In his behalf, please remember that this bailout started before he took office. Split the blame for that part, at least, instead of putting it all on him.

[Guest]

Just because it started before he got here doesn't mean he had to continue it to the most extreme measures. There were choices, he chose wrong... again.

[Guest]

Just because it started before he got here doesn't mean he had to continue it to the most extreme measures. There were choices, he chose wrong one... again. You can't always just "erase" what a previous administration has started. These programs are like a contract, and have to run their course, you can't just come in and "stop" things always. And, by your previous posts, by what I see, anything he does will be wrong to you, no matter what. You're no different than the people who always bashed and blamed Bush for everything, wether it was actually his fault or not.

[Guest]

These programs are like a contract, and have to run their course, you can't just come in and "stop" things always.

Wrong.

Everything we are seeing now is 100% Obama and the liberal controlled government, no one else.

I'm not happy at all with Bush and I despise what Obama and his radicals are doing to my country.

[Guest]

responsibility. When one takes the top job, POTUS or other(s) one owns it all on day one. Lack of performance or allowing a non beneficial plan to continue cannot be disowned.

The POTUS is responsible for the state of the nation...good/bad/otherwise....not just the parts he likes or his constituency likes.

This isn't T ball with parents growling, ya know!!

BTK

[Guest]

Viewing the current economic situation and The Big O's administration's plans, I fell both put out and at the same time somewhat liberated. I really feel sad that I am not entitled to carp about the current kerfuffle that throws all of today's debts on "our children." I don't have any kids, so I guess it's your kids, grandkids, and, if the gov't still allows them, great-grandkids who will pay off my debt. Thanx.


`

[Guest]

Steve, I agree with you but I don't remember one with intent, just incompetent ones.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Boy, you guys still can't figure out why the nation bounced the right wing out- and it wasn't just the Executive. And now, in your wisdom, you simply place "intent" instead of treason as Obama's sole reason for carrying out the very policies he very publicly promised to enact. (Of course, you won't give him credit for backstepping on the photos or briefings, even though he was listening to his generals, unlike a certain former president)

How does Bucco put it? oh yeah, "Right wing poop"

[Guest]

Boy, you guys still can't figure out why the nation bounced the right wing out- and it wasn't just the Executive. And now, in your wisdom, you simply place "intent" instead of treason as Obama's sole reason for carrying out the very policies he very publicly promised to enact. (Of course, you won't give him credit for backstepping on the photos or briefings, even though he was listening to his generals, unlike a certain former president)

How does Bucco put it? oh yeah, "Right wing poop"


This is the second time you "quoted" and alluded to comments that I HAVE NEVER MADE NOR ALLUDED TO.

I would respectfully ask you to stop attributing things to me that I have never said or even implied !

[Guest]

Just because it started before he got here doesn't mean he had to continue it to the most extreme measures. There were choices, he chose wrong... again.

And again and again and again.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Wrong.

Everything we are seeing now is 100% Obama and the liberal controlled government, no one else.

I'm not happy at all with Bush and I despise what Obama and his radicals are doing to my country.

2 observations:
1. The war is not 100% Obama..he inherited it, and he's stuck with it until he can figure out a way to get us out...and the trillion dollar deficit from the war, never taxed to pay for it, well...he inherited that, too...

2. Dk, this is not, despite what you want to believe, your country. you'll have to learn to share it...with others who are just as entitled to ownership as you. Even if they are black, hispanic, unemployed, on food stamps, gay, whatever...this land is your land, this land is my land, etc. etc. etc.

[Guest]

Dk, this is not, despite what you want to believe, your country. you'll have to learn to share it..

It is my county and I share plenty, I see just how much every 1st and 15th. Apparently it's not enough as they are coming for more.

The budget, every bailout, every new tax, every wasted dollar, every lost job, every lame socialist policy and trillions of NEW debt is all his and the Democrats 100%

Blaming Bush for everything doesn't work anymore. It's nothing but an old tired out liberal talking point.

[Guest]

if they can assign blame to somebody else. Does that make it more tolerable. Make doing more dumb things more acceptable? When Obama and others ran for POTUS they were not given a free pass on things they did not do.
They inherit them with the job......end of the inheritance dialogue.
The man owns it all day one. HIS job is to do something about all the things his loyal followers don't like about the prior administration and not just keep up the arms distance from those things that are not mine BS.

Or maybe he is finding out now that he has the responsibility there are some things the POTUS must do whether he or his constituents like them or not.

All the things hos followers don't like about the previous administration must be OK by him and his advisors....they aren't doing much about them.

And please don't waste key strokes with how much time it takes to get things done.
By his own profession just look at what we got done in the first 100 days...just not much has anything to do with the things the loyalists don't like about the prior admin.

Situation:....POLITICALLY NORMAL!!!

BTK

[Guest]

There is a difference between what a President "inherits" and what he is 100% responsible for.

My post was directed at DK's assertion that every bit of the budget is his doing. That is patently absurd.

The new stuff is, and it's a big deal, and I agree that it's very scary. But there is a lot of old pork in there too, that if you want to get anything done, you just have to accept. Unfortunately, that's the way our government works, has always worked, and as good a man as he might or might not be, he isn't going to change that in any significant way.

Just curious, when GW started his war, and told us it was going to cost 250 billion, were any of you hollering that our taxes should go up to pay for it?

Or were you just figuring that deficit spending is ok, as long as it's for bombs and bullets?

[Guest]

George Washington was fighting to secure our freedom from corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation from abroad.

Since FDR started this whole big government movement, we have once again been fighting corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation by OUR government.

Big difference...bad analogy.

[Guest]

George Washington was fighting to secure our freedom from corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation from abroad.

Since FDR started this whole big government movement, we have once again been fighting corrupt government oppression and unlawful taxation by OUR government.


Big difference...bad analogy.

Did I make an analogy?

Unlawful taxation?

Do you really think corrupt government started with FDR?

Is there an answer to my question in your post?

It isn't a rhetorical question, it's an honest question. During the pre-war buildup, and the initial stages of the war, I honestly do not remember anyone, including the fiscal ultra-conservative Rush L his-own-self saying,"this war is good, but we have to tax our people to pay for it, otherwise it's deficit spending, and as fiscal ultra-conservatives we must stand up against deficit spending, because we will be 'mortgaging our children's futures'."

Did I miss it, or did it just not happen?

[Guest]

You keep harping on the same thing over and over. The war, the war, the war.

BTW, Bush didn't start this war, the terrorists did. Also don't forget that Congress overwhelmingly voted for and supported it including the Democrats, so only calling our the name of Bush is yet another whitewash.

The war on terror didn't put us in this financial mess. The Democrats did starting with Fannie and Freddie and their lies telling the American people there was absolutely nothing wrong.

Bush, McCain and many others knew we were heading for problems and the Democrats (who controlled congress) blocked every attempt to fix it.

Our problem isn't paying the off the war, our problem is paying off the trillions of NEW spending from Obama including his massive government growth, his pet social programs, the continuing bailout of auto companies that are going bankrupt anyway and other billions and billions of other dollars that are going down the toilet.

Our taxes aren't going up to pay for Bush, our taxes are going up to pay for Obama.

[Guest]

Ooops....I thought you were referring to George Washington and the revolutionary war when you referenced GW. My bad.......

[Guest]

Ooops....I thought you were referring to George Washington and the revolutionary war when you referenced GW. My bad.......

Now that is funny! And I am really smiling in a good-natured way as I say that.


But back to my question.

[Guest]

You keep harping on the same thing over and over. The war, the war, the war.

BTW, Bush didn't start this war, the terrorists did. Also don't forget that Congress overwhelmingly voted for and supported it including the Democrats, so only calling our the name of Bush is yet another whitewash.

The war on terror didn't put us in this financial mess. The Democrats did starting with Fannie and Freddie and their lies telling the American people there was absolutely nothing wrong.

Bush, McCain and many others knew we were heading for problems and the Democrats (who controlled congress) blocked every attempt to fix it.

Our problem isn't paying the off the war, our problem is paying off the trillions of NEW spending from Obama including his massive government growth, his pet social programs, the continuing bailout of auto companies that are going bankrupt anyway and other billions and billions of other dollars that are going down the toilet.

Our taxes aren't going up to pay for Bush, our taxes are going up to pay for Obama.


This is a slightly different harp. Putting aside whether or not I agree with the war, my question that goes unanswered is :

was there any noise from the fiscal ultra-conservative right wing about paying for it as we go, by raising taxes or whatever other method there might be, rather than deficit spending and thereby "mortgaging our children's future" in order to pay for it?

it's an honest fair question, and there has to be an answer. Do you have one?

[Guest]

This is a slightly different harp. Putting aside whether or not I agree with the war, my question that goes unanswered is :

was there any noise from the fiscal ultra-conservative right wing about paying for it as we go, by raising taxes or whatever other method there might be, rather than deficit spending and thereby "mortgaging our children's future" in order to pay for it?

it's an honest fair question, and there has to be an answer. Do you have one?


I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here !

I would doubt if there was much noise from anyone when the Iraq war began. The original cost of, I think, 87B was surely discussed but I think at the time national security took precedence.

Now, over time there was much discussion on the amount of money but most of the debate would end up in the justification for the war.

Now, no matter what the discussion was, we now have a deficit that is light years beyond what it was then and that was done..

1. By nobody in congress even reading the stimulus bill

2. Amid statements by the President that despite this spending he could balance the budget

3. Plans to spend even more money EVEN THOUGH he admits we are out of money.

Then when you add someone like Barney Frank pushing legislation so that any group under indictment could get some of this money (AND that applies ONLY to ACORN) and what I consider a smoke screen...this talking about Iraq as if that money was even in the same league as what is happening in Washdc.

I am trying to understand what your talking about Iraq has to do with what is happening now and if it is ONLY to throw darts at conservative talk show hosts or something...point well taken, but those guys dont make laws or actually spend the money so stop listening to them !

[Guest]

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here !

I would doubt if there was much noise from anyone when the Iraq war began. The original cost of, I think, 87B was surely discussed but I think at the time national security took precedence.

Now, over time there was much discussion on the amount of money but most of the debate would end up in the justification for the war.

Now, no matter what the discussion was, we now have a deficit that is light years beyond what it was then and that was done..

1. By nobody in congress even reading the stimulus bill

2. Amid statements by the President that despite this spending he could balance the budget

3. Plans to spend even more money EVEN THOUGH he admits we are out of money.

Then when you add someone like Barney Frank pushing legislation so that any group under indictment could get some of this money (AND that applies ONLY to ACORN) and what I consider a smoke screen...this talking about Iraq as if that money was even in the same league as what is happening in Washdc.

I am trying to understand what your talking about Iraq has to do with what is happening now and if it is ONLY to throw darts at conservative talk show hosts or something...point well taken, but those guys dont make laws or actually spend the money so stop listening to them !

You don't know what point I'm trying to make because I haven't made the point yet. I've just asked a question, which nobody is willing to answer. I don't remember 87Billion being discussed. I could be wrong but I seem to remember more along the lines of 250Billion being discussed, and laughed at as an unrealistically optimistic figure, and I do remember GW Bush saying something like "whatever it takes" which means, unlike the stimulus package it was essentially a blank check, which has yet to be filled out.

So again, the question, should somebody like to answer a simple yes or no question, with no attempt to justify,

"at that time, when we were preparing for, and undertaking this war, at whatever the projected costs were, at any time, did those who purport to be 'fiscal conservatives' ever publicly make the argument that we should pay as we go rather than pay for the war with deficit spending, in order to keep us from 'mortgaging our children's futures'?"

[Guest]

You don't know what point I'm trying to make because I haven't made the point yet. I've just asked a question, which nobody is willing to answer. I don't remember 87Billion being discussed. I could be wrong but I seem to remember more along the lines of 250Billion being discussed, and laughed at as an unrealistically optimistic figure, and I do remember GW Bush saying something like "whatever it takes" which means, unlike the stimulus package it was essentially a blank check, which has yet to be filled out.

So again, the question, should somebody like to answer a simple yes or no question, with no attempt to justify,

"at that time, when we were preparing for, and undertaking this war, at whatever the projected costs were, at any time, did those who purport to be 'fiscal conservatives' ever publicly make the argument that we should pay as we go rather than pay for the war with deficit spending, in order to keep us from 'mortgaging our children's futures'?"


My answer would be NO. Not only the fiscal conservatives but I do not recall the Democrats, etc saying much although I know there was some debate.

Having said that, whatever the point is that you will make, to me anyway is irrelevent as that situation was considered a matter of national defense.

NOW...we have passed an enormous stimulus bill that was not even read by the congress (actually on the vote for Iraq, they KNEW what they were voting on) AND...in addition by the Presidents own admission about 40% of that "stimulus bill" was what is commonly referred to as pork and social programs from the years prior that was not passable because of the make up of the congress.

So, make your point...am very interested in what it might be !

[Guest]

ah...my point.

if one believes that a war is necessary, or even the best possible option, AND one purports to give a rat's behind about "mortgaging our children's future", then it behooves them to find a way to pay for the war as we go.

I fault both sides of the aisle for this. However, as the Obama budget gains momentum, now the GOP, and many who supported the war without supporting paying for it, are playing the "how are we going to pay for this" and "we're mortgaging our children's future" cards.

And herein lies the point under the point, and that is that those who play that card now, rather than when we were preparing for the war, demonstrate that in their minds, it's ok to deficit spend for bombs and bullets, but not for education and health care.

And thus, they lose all credibility with anyone sitting anywhere to the left of their perch on the far, far right. So a lot of moderates who would have voted Republican had the previous administration shown some of it's purported concern for the fiscal viability of future generations said "Screw it! If the Republicans are just going to **** away (pardon my French) the future for a war we don't agree with, then we might as well elect Obama, who may very well do the same thing, but at least it won't be for the purpose of killing people."

[Guest]

You keep harping on the same thing over and over. The war, the war, the war.

BTW, Bush didn't start this war, the terrorists did. Also don't forget that Congress overwhelmingly voted for and supported it including the Democrats, so only calling our the name of Bush is yet another whitewash.

The war on terror didn't put us in this financial mess. The Democrats did starting with Fannie and Freddie and their lies telling the American people there was absolutely nothing wrong.

Bush, McCain and many others knew we were heading for problems and the Democrats (who controlled congress) blocked every attempt to fix it.

Our problem isn't paying the off the war, our problem is paying off the trillions of NEW spending from Obama including his massive government growth, his pet social programs, the continuing bailout of auto companies that are going bankrupt anyway and other billions and billions of other dollars that are going down the toilet.

Our taxes aren't going up to pay for Bush, our taxes are going up to pay for Obama.And here's a scary fact... the total federal income tax revenues for FY 2008 were UNDER 300 billion.... about 140 billion less than 2007. (600 thousand unemployed not paying taxes). Our govt is making less, spending more (a LOT more). Yesterday I heard that GM would get 40 billion more AFTER bankruptcy and the gov't would own 70%. So, if we collected 300 billion in taxes last year looks like 1/5 of it will go to GM alone. Folks, in 10 years a loaf of bread will cost 20 dollars.

[Guest]

ah...my point.

if one believes that a war is necessary, or even the best possible option, AND one purports to give a rat's behind about "mortgaging our children's future", then it behooves them to find a way to pay for the war as we go.

I fault both sides of the aisle for this. However, as the Obama budget gains momentum, now the GOP, and many who supported the war without supporting paying for it, are playing the "how are we going to pay for this" and "we're mortgaging our children's future" cards.

And herein lies the point under the point, and that is that those who play that card now, rather than when we were preparing for the war, demonstrate that in their minds, it's ok to deficit spend for bombs and bullets, but not for education and health care.

And thus, they lose all credibility with anyone sitting anywhere to the left of their perch on the far, far right. So a lot of moderates who would have voted Republican had the previous administration shown some of it's purported concern for the fiscal viability of future generations said "Screw it! If the Republicans are just going to **** away (pardon my French) the future for a war we don't agree with, then we might as well elect Obama, who may very well do the same thing, but at least it won't be for the purpose of killing people."

It is not simply the GOP...the budget is so heart stopping, there are Democrats flinching ! This is historic in its size...it dwarfs any other expenses we have had in the history of the country !

[Guest]

I have just read through this whole thread and I cannot figure out why someone is comparing the money we spend to defend ourselves with the money that is being spent on foolishness. This new administration has a socialist agenda. Period.

Keedy

[Guest]

I have just read through this whole thread and I cannot figure out why someone is comparing the money we spend to defend ourselves with the money that is being spent on foolishness. This new administration has a socialist agenda. Period.

Keedy

THANK you Keedy.....as I said earlier...there is ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER
!

I think LAKER14 just got tired of the complainingg about all the money being spent and he/she is still hung up on the Iraq situation and thus the comments. And I wonder if LAKER14 has read where all that doggone money is going and what not spent....aimed at going !

[Guest]

I have just read through this whole thread and I cannot figure out why someone is comparing the money we spend to defend ourselves with the money that is being spent on foolishness. This new administration has a socialist agenda. Period.

Amen to that.

[Guest]

You keep harping on the same thing over and over. The war, the war, the war.

BTW, Bush didn't start this war, the terrorists did. Also don't forget that Congress overwhelmingly voted for and supported it including the Democrats, so only calling our the name of Bush is yet another whitewash.

The war on terror didn't put us in this financial mess. The Democrats did starting with Fannie and Freddie and their lies telling the American people there was absolutely nothing wrong.

Bush, McCain and many others knew we were heading for problems and the Democrats (who controlled congress) blocked every attempt to fix it.

Our problem isn't paying the off the war, our problem is paying off the trillions of NEW spending from Obama including his massive government growth, his pet social programs, the continuing bailout of auto companies that are going bankrupt anyway and other billions and billions of other dollars that are going down the toilet.

Our taxes aren't going up to pay for Bush, our taxes are going up to pay for Obama.

Well said :agree:

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

I have just read through this whole thread and I cannot figure out why someone is comparing the money we spend to defend ourselves with the money that is being spent on foolishness. This new administration has a socialist agenda. Period.

Keedy

Amen, ditto

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Your question reminds me of the old pearl, "Do you still beat your wife?" Yes or no.