Fewer people in the GOP are self-identifying as both socially and fiscally conservative, with almost a quarter of Republicans saying they are moderate or liberal on both fronts, according to poll data released recently by Gallup.
At just 42 percent, the number of “Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who describe themselves as both social and economic conservatives” has hit its lowest level since 2005, the polling group reports. The second-largest group of Republicans (24%) see themselves as moderate or liberal on both social and economic issues, while 20% of all Republicans are moderate or liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones.
Here’s what Gallup said the polling figures mean:
“The recent shift in how Republicans view themselves ideologically may have significant implications for the coming GOP presidential nomination fight, particularly in terms of how the candidates will try to position themselves to maximize their appeal. Republican candidates are dealing with a party base that is today significantly more ideologically differentiated than it has been over the past decade. A GOP candidate positioning himself or herself as conservative on both social and economic issues theoretically will appeal to less than half of the broad base of rank-and-file party members. This opens the way for GOP candidates who may want to position themselves as more moderate on some issues, given that more than half of the party identifiers are moderate or liberal on social or economic dimensions.”
Read entire analysis here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183491/republican-conservative-base-shrinks.aspx
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
I kind of have a hard time believing this. After the way the Republican party has positioned itself over the last couple decades, it seems like anyone who was moderate or liberal would have found it difficult to stay this long. I am one of those that abandoned the GOP after their extreme shift to the right (although I did it over 20 years ago).
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
X2
I've alluded to this several times in previous posts. The younger generation is much more accepting of diversity and especially open minded on social issues than the grandpa generation that has shaped the GOP over the years. The rigidity of thought process will slowly dissipate, and those in the GOP who only see through the opening where one could thread a needle will be replaced by generations of more impartial individuals.
Want to see this validated? In the next Presidential election there will be an inverse relationship between the GOP percentage of vote & age.
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
Ironically, these same youngsters will be expected to support a "we don't have a spending problem" party intent on growing an already bloated federal government? Then again, maybe they won't mind 43% of the federal budget going to pay debt interest and 55% tax rates. You never know.
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
Ironically, these same youngsters will be expected to support a "we don't have a spending problem" party intent on growing an already bloated federal government? Then again, maybe they won't mind 43% of the federal budget going to pay debt interest and 55% tax rates. You never know.
We sure do have a spending problem, especially when a Republican is in office. I remember way back when when Republicans used to be considered the fiscally conservative party. One of the reasons I switched parties.
[Edited on 6/4/2015 by 2112]
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
Ironically, these same youngsters will be expected to support a "we don't have a spending problem" party intent on growing an already bloated federal government? Then again, maybe they won't mind 43% of the federal budget going to pay debt interest and 55% tax rates. You never know.
We sure do have a spending problem, especially when a Republican is in office. I remember way back when when Republicans used to be considered the fiscally conservative party. One of the reasons I switched parties.
Percentage of growth in federal spending? Gee.
You think they'll care about what happened in 1983? What about percentage growth in the National Debt? When Obama leaves it will have doubled. Put him down for 100% growth in that category.
More than that, it's the Democrats who insist we DON'T have a spending problem and howl at the slightest mention of making the tiniest of cuts or doing anything about it. To them, "Republican cuts kill people." Remember?
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
Ironically, these same youngsters will be expected to support a "we don't have a spending problem" party intent on growing an already bloated federal government? Then again, maybe they won't mind 43% of the federal budget going to pay debt interest and 55% tax rates. You never know.
We sure do have a spending problem, especially when a Republican is in office. I remember way back when when Republicans used to be considered the fiscally conservative party. One of the reasons I switched parties.
Percentage of growth in federal spending? Gee.
You think they'll care about what happened in 1983? What about percentage growth in the National Debt? When Obama leaves it will have doubled. Put him down for 100% growth in that category.
More than that, it's the Democrats who insist we DON'T have a spending problem and howl at the slightest mention of making the tiniest of cuts or doing anything about it. To them, "Republican cuts kill people." Remember?
Obviously the majority of the increase in to National Debt is related to accumulation from previously authorized spending along with the lower revenues from the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Looking at the increase in new spending trends, do you really believe that if we still had Bush in office (or any of the other Republican president since the days of Nixon) we would have less debt than we do today? So all that increase in spending that they were responsible for would magically stop in the next term of their presidency? I don't believe that for one second, and you would be a fool to believe it to. And, might I add, that the Democrats also aren't usually afraid to increase revenues when needed to decrease a deficit, which will also keep the increase in the National Debt in check. We have two parties, the tax and spend party, and the spend and spend party. Which one is more fiscally responsible? Spin it however you want, but this is clearly a case of repeat something often enough people will start to believe it. I ignore the spin and pick the one with the actual track record behind it.
[Edited on 6/4/2015 by 2112]
Obama inherited an economy on the brink of collapse and two expensive wars but let's not let the facts stand in
the way of another Obama bashing.
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
Its interesting that in a crowd of mostly liberals, who voted for a President who lied* to them about his stance on gay marriage not so many years ago to help get elected, that there is now surprise about political conservatives "evolving" in their social outlook.
In the 2008 race, Obama claimed he believed marriage to be between a man and a woman. In 2012, timed with poling that showed the issue had crested positive opinion, he magically "evolved" to accept same sex marriage.
So are libs the only ones that can evolve in their social thinking?
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
Ironically, these same youngsters will be expected to support a "we don't have a spending problem" party intent on growing an already bloated federal government? Then again, maybe they won't mind 43% of the federal budget going to pay debt interest and 55% tax rates. You never know.
We sure do have a spending problem, especially when a Republican is in office. I remember way back when when Republicans used to be considered the fiscally conservative party. One of the reasons I switched parties.
Percentage of growth in federal spending? Gee.
You think they'll care about what happened in 1983? What about percentage growth in the National Debt? When Obama leaves it will have doubled. Put him down for 100% growth in that category.
More than that, it's the Democrats who insist we DON'T have a spending problem and howl at the slightest mention of making the tiniest of cuts or doing anything about it. To them, "Republican cuts kill people." Remember?
Obviously the majority of the increase in to National Debt is related to accumulation from previously authorized spending along with the lower revenues from the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Looking at the increase in new spending trends, do you really believe that if we still had Bush in office (or any of the other Republican president since the days of Nixon) we would have less debt than we do today? So all that increase in spending that they were responsible for would magically stop in the next term of their presidency? I don't believe that for one second, and you would be a fool to believe it to. And, might I add, that the Democrats also aren't usually afraid to increase revenues when needed to decrease a deficit, which will also keep the increase in the National Debt in check. We have two parties, the tax and spend party, and the spend and spend party. Which one is more fiscally responsible? Spin it however you want, but this is clearly a case of repeat something often enough people will start to believe it. I ignore the spin and pick the one with the actual track record behind it.
[Edited on 6/4/2015 by 2112]
Well, let's look at the track record behind it then. The two most expensive budget items by far are SS and Medicare. Republican programs? Uh, no.
Enough of what got us here, the above paragraph should be sufficient. Rather, what do the two parties seem willing to do about it? When you watch these "budget" standoffs it's pretty obvious.
The GOP hasn't exactly asked for the moon -- but propose a .001% cut in the growth of some government program and the Democrats pitch a temper tantrum, run to the cameras, and start the mean-spirited-extremists-who-want-people-to-die garbage all over again. For some reason the government should NEVER be expected to get by with even a penny less.
They laugh at ideas like the Penny Plan, even though individuals and businesses apply the exact same principals every day in the real world. However, they are willing to raise taxes, though, so that makes them God's gift to mankind.
And no, this doesn't mean the GOP is perfect of blameless. But this is where we are, and it is what it is. I thought Progressives were about the future and looking ahead. Where do we go from here and who seems willing to start trying? If you pay attention it's pretty obvious.
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
Ironically, these same youngsters will be expected to support a "we don't have a spending problem" party intent on growing an already bloated federal government? Then again, maybe they won't mind 43% of the federal budget going to pay debt interest and 55% tax rates. You never know.
We sure do have a spending problem, especially when a Republican is in office. I remember way back when when Republicans used to be considered the fiscally conservative party. One of the reasons I switched parties.
Percentage of growth in federal spending? Gee.
You think they'll care about what happened in 1983? What about percentage growth in the National Debt? When Obama leaves it will have doubled. Put him down for 100% growth in that category.
More than that, it's the Democrats who insist we DON'T have a spending problem and howl at the slightest mention of making the tiniest of cuts or doing anything about it. To them, "Republican cuts kill people." Remember?
Obviously the majority of the increase in to National Debt is related to accumulation from previously authorized spending along with the lower revenues from the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Looking at the increase in new spending trends, do you really believe that if we still had Bush in office (or any of the other Republican president since the days of Nixon) we would have less debt than we do today? So all that increase in spending that they were responsible for would magically stop in the next term of their presidency? I don't believe that for one second, and you would be a fool to believe it to. And, might I add, that the Democrats also aren't usually afraid to increase revenues when needed to decrease a deficit, which will also keep the increase in the National Debt in check. We have two parties, the tax and spend party, and the spend and spend party. Which one is more fiscally responsible? Spin it however you want, but this is clearly a case of repeat something often enough people will start to believe it. I ignore the spin and pick the one with the actual track record behind it.
[Edited on 6/4/2015 by 2112]
Well, let's look at the track record behind it then. The two most expensive budget items by far are SS and Medicare. Republican programs? Uh, no.
Enough of what got us here, the above paragraph should be sufficient. Rather, what do the two parties seem willing to do about it? When you watch these "budget" standoffs it's pretty obvious.
The GOP hasn't exactly asked for the moon -- but propose a .001% cut in the growth of some government program and the Democrats pitch a temper tantrum, run to the cameras, and start the mean-spirited-extremists-who-want-people-to-die garbage all over again. For some reason the government should NEVER be expected to get by with even a penny less.
They laugh at ideas like the Penny Plan, even though individuals and businesses apply the exact same principals every day in the real world. However, they are willing to raise taxes, though, so that makes them God's gift to mankind.
And no, this doesn't mean the GOP is perfect of blameless. But this is where we are, and it is what it is. I thought Progressives were about the future and looking ahead. Where do we go from here and who seems willing to start trying? If you pay attention it's pretty obvious.
Yet spending growth seems to explode everytime we have a Republican in the Whitehouse compared to when we have a Democrat in the Whitehouse. That is a fact. Keep spinning, but Republicans like to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
But how much defense do we need? Do we need to spend several times the amount of every other country on earth combined? Is that level of spendng necessary? Seems to me that Canada and Australia are pretty safe places and their defense spending is just a tiny fraction of ours. There comes a time where the amount of money $pent on defense is more damaging to America then the benefit it provides.
I think this is party due to the old conservative farts slowly dying off more than anything and being replaced by youngsters who don't have the same biases.
Ironically, these same youngsters will be expected to support a "we don't have a spending problem" party intent on growing an already bloated federal government? Then again, maybe they won't mind 43% of the federal budget going to pay debt interest and 55% tax rates. You never know.
We sure do have a spending problem, especially when a Republican is in office. I remember way back when when Republicans used to be considered the fiscally conservative party. One of the reasons I switched parties.
Percentage of growth in federal spending? Gee.
You think they'll care about what happened in 1983? What about percentage growth in the National Debt? When Obama leaves it will have doubled. Put him down for 100% growth in that category.
More than that, it's the Democrats who insist we DON'T have a spending problem and howl at the slightest mention of making the tiniest of cuts or doing anything about it. To them, "Republican cuts kill people." Remember?
Obviously the majority of the increase in to National Debt is related to accumulation from previously authorized spending along with the lower revenues from the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Looking at the increase in new spending trends, do you really believe that if we still had Bush in office (or any of the other Republican president since the days of Nixon) we would have less debt than we do today? So all that increase in spending that they were responsible for would magically stop in the next term of their presidency? I don't believe that for one second, and you would be a fool to believe it to. And, might I add, that the Democrats also aren't usually afraid to increase revenues when needed to decrease a deficit, which will also keep the increase in the National Debt in check. We have two parties, the tax and spend party, and the spend and spend party. Which one is more fiscally responsible? Spin it however you want, but this is clearly a case of repeat something often enough people will start to believe it. I ignore the spin and pick the one with the actual track record behind it.
[Edited on 6/4/2015 by 2112]
Well, let's look at the track record behind it then. The two most expensive budget items by far are SS and Medicare. Republican programs? Uh, no.
Enough of what got us here, the above paragraph should be sufficient. Rather, what do the two parties seem willing to do about it? When you watch these "budget" standoffs it's pretty obvious.
The GOP hasn't exactly asked for the moon -- but propose a .001% cut in the growth of some government program and the Democrats pitch a temper tantrum, run to the cameras, and start the mean-spirited-extremists-who-want-people-to-die garbage all over again. For some reason the government should NEVER be expected to get by with even a penny less.
They laugh at ideas like the Penny Plan, even though individuals and businesses apply the exact same principals every day in the real world. However, they are willing to raise taxes, though, so that makes them God's gift to mankind.
And no, this doesn't mean the GOP is perfect of blameless. But this is where we are, and it is what it is. I thought Progressives were about the future and looking ahead. Where do we go from here and who seems willing to start trying? If you pay attention it's pretty obvious.
Yet spending growth seems to explode everytime we have a Republican in the Whitehouse compared to when we have a Democrat in the Whitehouse. That is a fact. Keep spinning, but Republicans like to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
I'll stop spinning if you look ahead. Looking back won't change where we are now. It's going to take both parties to address our debt/spending problems, and it's hard to walk the walk when you're dealing with a Democrat party that doesn't even think we have a problem. Interest rates can't stay at zero forever, and that's going to be a rude wake up call.
I see NO inclination among the Democrats to make any tough choices on spending, just resistance and denial. When that changes, my rate of spin will change accordingly.
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
But how much defense do we need? Do we need to spend several times the amount of every other country on earth combined? Is that level of spendng necessary? Seems to me that Canada and Australia are pretty safe places and their defense spending is just a tiny fraction of ours. There comes a time where the amount of money $pent on defense is more damaging to America then the benefit it provides.
We need enough to project strength. I think it's been proven that American military strength makes the world is a safer place. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
I kind of have a hard time believing this. After the way the Republican party has positioned itself over the last couple decades, it seems like anyone who was moderate or liberal would have found it difficult to stay this long. I am one of those that abandoned the GOP after their extreme shift to the right (although I did it over 20 years ago).
It doesn't surprise me at all. Despite the insitence among Democrats that all Republicans are insane right wingers who want to take away birth control, there are many socially liberal or moderate Republicans who feel alienated by the extreme left tilt of the Democratic party and now self-identify with the GOP.
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
But how much defense do we need? Do we need to spend several times the amount of every other country on earth combined? Is that level of spendng necessary? Seems to me that Canada and Australia are pretty safe places and their defense spending is just a tiny fraction of ours. There comes a time where the amount of money $pent on defense is more damaging to America then the benefit it provides.
We need enough to project strength. I think it's been proven that American military strength makes the world is a safer place. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
The left will never ever admit this. Just like they won't admit that proactive police tactics lead to the resuction of violent crime.
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
But how much defense do we need? Do we need to spend several times the amount of every other country on earth combined? Is that level of spendng necessary? Seems to me that Canada and Australia are pretty safe places and their defense spending is just a tiny fraction of ours. There comes a time where the amount of money $pent on defense is more damaging to America then the benefit it provides.
We need enough to project strength. I think it's been proven that American military strength makes the world is a safer place. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
The left will never ever admit this. Just like they won't admit that proactive police tactics lead to the resuction of violent crime.
I'll admit that all day long. Will you and others admit there's bad cops in our system?
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
But how much defense do we need? Do we need to spend several times the amount of every other country on earth combined? Is that level of spendng necessary? Seems to me that Canada and Australia are pretty safe places and their defense spending is just a tiny fraction of ours. There comes a time where the amount of money $pent on defense is more damaging to America then the benefit it provides.
We need enough to project strength. I think it's been proven that American military strength makes the world is a safer place. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
The left will never ever admit this. Just like they won't admit that proactive police tactics lead to the resuction of violent crime.
No one is questioning that a strong U.S. military is required for our security. We are just questioning if we really need to spend more then the next top 10 nations combined and dwarf the military budgets of the two biggest U.S. boogiemen, China and Russia, when our infrastructure at home is crumbling, we can't provide simple affordable healthcare for our citizens , our children can't get affordable education and people are losing their homes.
If Russia and China are such dangerous adversaries do we really need to spend multiple times what they do on defense? Is our military so inefficient that they have to overspend to defend us?
If you want to look to one area where judicious spending cuts would be low hanging fruit the military is ripe for the picking. Hard to believe this could not be easily done without putting our country at risk.
[Edited on 6/5/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
But how much defense do we need? Do we need to spend several times the amount of every other country on earth combined? Is that level of spendng necessary? Seems to me that Canada and Australia are pretty safe places and their defense spending is just a tiny fraction of ours. There comes a time where the amount of money $pent on defense is more damaging to America then the benefit it provides.
We need enough to project strength. I think it's been proven that American military strength makes the world is a safer place. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
The left will never ever admit this. Just like they won't admit that proactive police tactics lead to the resuction of violent crime.
Really? Both of these things are clearly addressed in the platform of the Democratic Party, which you just said has an "extreme left tilt". So how is it that the extreme left as you call it can put it in writing as part of their party platform, but then never admit it? Isn't putting it in writing for the world to see more or less admitting it?
Conservatives complain about the deficit and yet the GOP is calling for increasing the spending for an already bloated defense budget....go figure.
We need defense. Do we need a Department of Education (for example?) We survived 200 years without one. And try to cut that budget by .0003% and watch the Democrats blow a gasket. Go figure.
But how much defense do we need? Do we need to spend several times the amount of every other country on earth combined? Is that level of spendng necessary? Seems to me that Canada and Australia are pretty safe places and their defense spending is just a tiny fraction of ours. There comes a time where the amount of money $pent on defense is more damaging to America then the benefit it provides.
We need enough to project strength. I think it's been proven that American military strength makes the world is a safer place. Sad, but that's the world we live in.
The left will never ever admit this. Just like they won't admit that proactive police tactics lead to the resuction of violent crime.
No one is questioning that a strong U.S. military is required for our security. We are just questioning if we really need to spend more then the next top 10 nations combined and dwarf the military budgets of the two biggest U.S. boogiemen, China and Russia, when our infrastructure at home is crumbling, we can't provide simple affordable healthcare for our citizens , our children can't get affordable education and people are losing their homes.
If Russia and China are such dangerous adversaries do we really need to spend multiple times what they do on defense? Is our military so inefficient that they have to overspend to defend us?
If you want to look to one area where judicious spending cuts would be low hanging fruit the military is ripe for the picking. Hard to believe this could not be easily done without putting our country at risk.
[Edited on 6/5/2015 by Bill_Graham]
I appreciate what you're saying, but I'd rather concentrate on what we (and the world) might need rather than use other nations as a measuring stick. For example, no other nation through history has demonstrated the same willingness to step up in a humanitarian and liberating way that we have to countries in distress. No other country has ever demonstrated that same willingness.
Like it or not, that's our role in the world and one we should not shy away from. With the advent of greatly increased world trade and a world economy our interests lie all over the globe so that role is now a necessity. It is indeed a global village and the nations of the world are interconnected now more than ever.
The World desperately needs a strong US Military.
So alloak, as a spend and spend, and spend Republican you are happy to provide our military to save the rest of the world. Thanks for feeling so free to spend my tax dollars.
I do not agree that the current use of our military is needed or judicious. We havn't even "won" a war in my lifetime.
Oh wait... there was the great military campaign waged by Ronnie Reagan against the mighty armies of Grenada. Yippie.
I guarantee that if cutting military spending in favor of more domestic/infrastructure spending were put to a vote, the domestic/infrasturcture funding would win.
That is part of the reason the Republican Conservative Base is shrinking. Military spending is not currently making the United States a stronger country. A giant, morbidly obese military does not translate to a better America. Throughout history bloated militarys have been the undoing of empire. I suspect it will eventually be the same for America.
So alloak, as a spend and spend, and spend Republican you are happy to provide our military to save the rest of the world. Thanks for feeling so free to spend my tax dollars.
I do not agree that the current use of our military is needed or judicious. We havn't even "won" a war in my lifetime.
Oh wait... there was the great military campaign waged by Ronnie Reagan against the mighty armies of Grenada. Yippie.
I guarantee that if cutting military spending in favor of more domestic/infrastructure spending were put to a vote, the domestic/infrasturcture funding would win.
That is part of the reason the Republican Conservative Base is shrinking. Military spending is not currently making the United States a stronger country. A giant, morbidly obese military does not translate to a better America. Throughout history bloated militarys have been the undoing of empire. I suspect it will eventually be the same for America.
I for one am sick of hearing the Republicans talk about debt and deficit spending, yet are anxious to feed the military machine. If you want a bloating military, they need to be willing to pay for it. Take a look at the new spending chart. Pretty easy to see where most of that money went, but somehow the Democrats get the tag of the spending party. Fiscal responsibility is the responsibility of both parties, yet the GOP fails to look in the mirror to see who the biggest spender is.
You guys are both jumping to conclusions. Nowhere on this board have I ever said that military spending should not be cut. In fact, I've said the opposite. Everything should be on the table.
Reason being I believe that military spending can be cut without cutting military strength. I'm in favor of military spending cuts as long as they are smart cuts. Cut too deeply, or in the wrong areas, or both, and we could wind up spending more later.
That being said, we debate this all night and only be avoiding the real problem - Entitlements.
Wrong. Military spending and the cost of empire are much larger problems.
Do you consider education an entitlement? Better infrastructure an entitlement? What about the tax breaks enjoyed by Apple and Exxon? Or the billions given to the pharmaceutical companies? The tax dollars used to build stadiums? Or what about the use of our military to protect oil fields in other countries?
Alloak you are just wrong. This country is decaying. The middle class is dying. Private money will not save this country. They sent all the jobs to India and the Phillipines.
The only way your grandchildren will have a bright future is if the United States shifts focus from policing the world and paving the way for multi national corporations to profit by employing people in other countries - is to shift the focus here. Provide free higher education. Help people understand that they cannot afford a house full of uneducated children. We have to focus on a leaner, smarter country, less devoted to helping the rest of the world.
Our military is not a winning machine.
You guys are both jumping to conclusions. Nowhere on this board have I ever said that military spending should not be cut. In fact, I've said the opposite. Everything should be on the table.
Reason being I believe that military spending can be cut without cutting military strength. I'm in favor of military spending cuts as long as they are smart cuts. Cut too deeply, or in the wrong areas, or both, and we could wind up spending more later.
That being said, we debate this all night and only be avoiding the real problem - Entitlements.
You have constantly said cuts should be in other areas like education. You have never agreed with defense cuts.
Here is a link about how education is about 4% of the Federal budget.
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/education-federal-budget
Here is a chart showing defense spending.
The percentage of defense spending
Yeah, it's the entitlements.
You guys are both jumping to conclusions. Nowhere on this board have I ever said that military spending should not be cut. In fact, I've said the opposite. Everything should be on the table.
Reason being I believe that military spending can be cut without cutting military strength. I'm in favor of military spending cuts as long as they are smart cuts. Cut too deeply, or in the wrong areas, or both, and we could wind up spending more later.
That being said, we debate this all night and only be avoiding the real problem - Entitlements.
You have constantly said cuts should be in other areas like education. You have never agreed with defense cuts.
FALSE. We've had this debate, or some variance of it, dozens of times here and I've proposed cuts in military spending here many times. I'm OK with smart cuts.
[Edited on 6/6/2015 by alloak41]
You guys are both jumping to conclusions. Nowhere on this board have I ever said that military spending should not be cut. In fact, I've said the opposite. Everything should be on the table.
Reason being I believe that military spending can be cut without cutting military strength. I'm in favor of military spending cuts as long as they are smart cuts. Cut too deeply, or in the wrong areas, or both, and we could wind up spending more later.
That being said, we debate this all night and only be avoiding the real problem - Entitlements.
You have constantly said cuts should be in other areas like education. You have never agreed with defense cuts.
FALSE. We've had this debate, or some variance of it, dozens of times here and I've proposed cuts in military spending here many times. I'm OK with smart cuts.
[Edited on 6/6/2015 by alloak41]
Wrong. In this thread when defense cuts were suggested, you started in on education. Considering how little of the budget is spent on education, if you eliminated every dime spent on it, it would be a drop in the bucket.
Explain what "smart cuts" in military spending would be. I will wait for your dance around non-answer.
Yeah, it's the entitlements.
CORRECT. I'm assuming you know what entitlements are. That would be the Red and Green areas, roughly half the total budget (2011 chart)
