Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: justshutupandtakeit
A 2% change on a $3 TRILLION budget is $60 BILLION. $60 BILLION more welfare and $60 BILLION less Defense is $120 BILLION.

That is not "stagnent" [sic}. Stagnant??? You think a swing of $120 BILLION is stagnant? We are having trouble now funding the military. The Office of the President is asking the Pentagon not to come up with new creative R&D, but the focus is "come up with BILLIONS in cuts--find programs to cut." If we are having trouble funding our defense now, another $120 BILLION swing is not going to help matters, now is it.

You do not read carefully. I already explained to you that money toward Defense is not necessarily money toward R&D and procurement. Too much of our "increase" (raw dollars, not inflation adjusted) is going toward admin, logistics, pay, bennies, troop rotation, etc.

You are in denial. You are denying facts. I bet you were a strong supporter of Harriet Miers when Bush chose her, correct? I bet you were. You are saying the Office of Management and Budget figures are wrong and you are right. I bet you said Ann Coulter was crazy or a traitor when she criticized the Miers pick. I bet you said Micheele Malking was crazy or a turncoat when she said the same. I bet you said Krauthammer, Noonan, Will and all the rest of the conservative commentators were wrong when they criticized Bush.

I know your type -- you will deny facts just to defend the "Letter R". Too bad. You would gain more for the conservative cause if you would be rational. What a waste of activist time on your part.

31 posted on 12/20/2005 2:01:08 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

A two percent change in ten years is stagnant. If your raise was two percent in ten yrs you would believe that to be stagnant. For all practical purposes it is the same as when Bush took office contrary to your deceptive claims.

Why are you surprised that during active WARTIME not as much is spent in R and D and more on activities which contribute directly and immediately to military actions? Who would think anything would be different in such a case?
More money is being spent on Defense today than was the case when Bush took office. Projections for the future are based upon certain assumptions which may or may not be verified.

While I do not know what Harriet Miers has to do with this issue I did support the President and had faith in his decision. I certainly did not join the Character Assassination Gang here which used every underhanded and low blow it could to destroy her. Such tactics I leave to the RATS. Ann Coulter looked like an ass but she is not particularly convincing in many cases anyway particularly with Justice Roberts and Miers. She had no real criticism just nasty remarks. Michele gets a little hysterical too but she was not nasty. Nor were any of the others.

I said nothing about OMB being wrong merely pointed out the inaccurate interpretation you put on the numbers. None of which justify your going off the deep end.

Those attacking the GOP today are merely doing the RATS' work for them hence I will not join them or you in spreading erroneous claims.


32 posted on 12/20/2005 2:31:14 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson