Paul Ryan is a Succesful and important Politician

[deprave]

Nothing wrong with me bro, check for yourself.
Looks like you have some comprehension issues.

Looks like you do...My point was if there is ZERO entitlement spending and defense stays the same then we still go broke. Something republicans conveniently avoid.

 

[beenthere]

may I ask what the fuck is wrong with you?

and that graph is so twisted...

Are all the graphs twisted?

 

[deprave]

Are all the graphs twisted?

yes, every graph ever made has a bias, especially when it comes to politics.

 

[beenthere]

Looks like you do...My point was if there is ZERO entitlement spending and defense stays the same then we still go broke. Something republicans conveniently avoid.

Sorry bro that statement is ridiculous. Defense spending per GDP is not the big issue you are making it out to be.

 

[beenthere]

yes, every graph ever made has a bias, especially when it comes to politics.

Are you getting classified information we don't know about then? LOL

 

[olylifter420]

He didnt do that, someone helped him along the way

Just think, all this done while you were smoking a joint and lucky to get out of high school

Paul Davis Ryan (born January 29, 1970) is an American politician and since 1999, the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district. On August 11, 2012, Mitt Romney announced Ryan as his running mate,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] making Ryan the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President of the United States in the 2012 election.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]
Born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan earned a B.A. degree from Miami University in Ohio. Following his studies, he worked as an aide to United States Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin, as legislative director for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and as a speechwriter for former U.S. Representative and 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp of New York. In 1998, Ryan won election to the United States House of Representatives, succeeding Republican Mark Neumann. He is now in his seventh term.
As chair of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has focused on fiscal policy and has proposed reforming Social Security, changing Medicare for those now under 55 to a voucher program, and turning Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamp Program) into block grants to the states.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Ryan introduced these plans in The Path to Prosperity, in April 2011 and in an updated version The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal in March 2012.[SUP][7][/SUP]

 

[deprave]

Sorry bro that statement is ridiculous. Defense spending per GDP is not the big issue you are making it out to be.

[h=2]SIPRI Yearbook 2012 - World's top 15 military spenders[/h] Main article: List of countries by military expenditures
Currently, the world's five largest military spenders (the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France) are recognized to be world powers with each being a veto-wielding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. This was established after the end of WW2.

The world's top 5 military spenders in 2011. Figures sourced from the SIPRI Yearbook 2012.

Rank	Country	Spending ($ Bn.)[SUP][2][/SUP]	% of GDP	World Share (%)	Spending ($ Bn. PPP)[SUP][3][/SUP]
—	World Total	1,735	2.5	100	1562.3
1	United States	711.0	4.7	41	711
2	China[SUP]y[/SUP]	143.0	2.0	8.2	228
3	Russia[SUP]y[/SUP]	71.9	3.9	4.1	93.7
4	United Kingdom	62.7	2.6	3.6	57.5
5	France	62.5	2.3	3.6	50.1
6	Japan	59.3	1.0	3.4	44.7
7	Saudi Arabia[SUP]z[/SUP]	48.2	8.7	2.8	58.8
8	India	46.8	2.5	2.7	112
9	Germany[SUP]y[/SUP]	46.7	1.3	2.7	40.4
10	Brazil	35.4	1.5	2.0	33.8
11	Italy[SUP]y[/SUP]	34.5	1.6	2.0	28.5
12	South Korea	30.8	2.7	1.8	42.1
13	Australia	26.7	1.8	1.5	16.6
14	Canada[SUP]y[/SUP]	24.7	1.4	1.4	19.9
15	Turkey[SUP]y[/SUP]	17.9	2.3	1.0	25.2

 

[olylifter420]

The war on an emotion will never stop

 

[deprave]

And yea its a big fucking deal you can cut everything else and without cutting defense we still go broke, not fiscally conservative at all.

 

[althor]

Sorry bro that statement is ridiculous. Defense spending per GDP is not the big issue you are making it out to be.

I wont say its ridiculous. Every penny counts. We should have a "standing" army to defend our nation. Not to be the police force of the world. A defensive army would still cost, but not quite as much as a global police force.

Its things like... paying to re-label food donations because the destination country refuses to accept donations that have American labels.
100k in the TARP package to go to "African Genital Cleaning Program".

Yes its only a few million to re-label food we are already paying a few million to donate, but it adds up. Yes its only 100k, but it adds up.
When you look at every single piece of American government spending there are millions and hundreds of thousands being tossed around like its monopoly money it makes a HUGE difference in the bigger picture. Billions being haphazardly thrown away.

I have to live fiscally responsible. I have to budget my money and spend it on priorities, without excess waste. Why should they be able to take MY MONEY, that I WORKED for, and spend it in a way I would never spend it myself?

 

[olylifter420]

You can thank the founding fathers for implementing a tax

I wont say its ridiculous. Every penny counts. We should have a "standing" army to defend our nation. Not to be the police force of the world. A defensive army would still cost, but not quite as much as a global police force.

Its things like... paying to re-label food donations because the destination country refuses to accept donations that have American labels.
100k in the TARP package to go to "African Genital Cleaning Program".

Yes its only a few million to re-label food we are already paying a few million to donate, but it adds up. Yes its only 100k, but it adds up.
When you look at every single piece of American government spending there are millions and hundreds of thousands being tossed around like its monopoly money it makes a HUGE difference in the bigger picture. Billions being haphazardly thrown away.

I have to live fiscally responsible. I have to budget my money and spend it on priorities, without excess waste. Why should they be able to take MY MONEY, that I WORKED for, and spend it in a way I would never spend it myself?

 

[beenthere]

And yea its a big fucking deal you can cut everything else and without cutting defense we still go broke, not fiscally conservative at all.

Dude, you flat out do not know what you are talking about.
Go look at the history of defense spending vs GDP from the 1950s to present day, were we broke under Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton? No!

Now do the same research on entitlement spending and you'll see.

 

[beenthere]

I wont say its ridiculous. Every penny counts. We should have a "standing" army to defend our nation. Not to be the police force of the world. A defensive army would still cost, but not quite as much as a global police force.

I have to live fiscally responsible. I have to budget my money and spend it on priorities, without excess waste. Why should they be able to take MY MONEY, that I WORKED for, and spend it in a way I would never spend it myself?

Well, in my opinion, to claim we would go broke if entitlements were cut to zero and defense spending continued, is totally ridiculous.

But I do agree with you on building and retaining the worlds strongest military for defense only.
We definitely need to stop being the worlds pro bono police.

 

[althor]

You can thank the founding fathers for implementing a tax

Are we talking about the same thing at all? Is that even a seriously, thought-out reply to my quote?

At no point did I say I was against taxes or we should NOT be taxed. Not one time.
Government is necessary, taxes are necessary.

 

[canndo]

I sure hope they do win, I sure as hell don't want to triple mine to pay for your healthcare bro!

\


Beenthere, you don't know what you are saying. You really hope they win?

 

[canndo]

No matter who we elect, government is going to spend my money one way or another.
If they continue to force me to pay taxes, I'd rather it go to national defense than supporting a bunch of lazy freeloaders.

You would rather be complicit in killing people than support "a bunch of lazy freeloaders".

 

[canndo]

Well, in my opinion, to claim we would go broke if entitlements were cut to zero and defense spending continued, is totally ridiculous.

But I do agree with you on building and retaining the worlds strongest military for defense only.
We definitely need to stop being the worlds pro bono police.

When we had a global empire, and we were the principle benificiary of granular peace, I was all for our being "pro bono police" but times are different and others profit heavily now from our presence across the world. However, i don't believe that there is any such thing as a strong defense without having a powerful capability for offense.

 

[canndo]

Are all the graphs twisted?

Why do so many on the right represent Social Security and Medicare as an unfunded entitlement? What am I missing? What exactly were those entries on my paychecks? I didn't see one that said "defense"

 

[bedspirit]

Are all the graphs twisted?

This graph is fucked. The deception is that social security is included. Social Security is taxed differently and should be separate from the rest. It's not drawing dollars from the same place as the rest. When they talk about raising and lowering taxes, social security remains unaffected. The practice of putting trust funded programs together with federal funded programs serves only one purpose: to disguise how much you're spending on the military. If you remove Social security, the graph looks like this (the red part is military):


all military expenditures add up to 1.449 trillion. We're bringing in about 1.7 trillion in taxes (without SS). After we pay for the military we have about 250 billion left. Unfortunately, it cost about 305 billion to pay all the government employees, So if you want to know if we could balance the budget by cutting all entitlements, the answer is no, not until you fire some motherfuckers.

 

[canndo]

This graph is fucked. The deception is that social security is included. Social Security is taxed differently and should be separate from the rest. It's not drawing dollars from the same place as the rest. When they talk about raising and lowering taxes, social security remains unaffected. The practice of putting trust funded programs together with federal funded programs serves only one purpose: to disguise how much you're spending on the military. If you remove Social security, the graph looks like this (the red part is military):

View attachment 2298236
all military expenditures add up to 1.449 trillion. We're bringing in about 1.7 trillion in taxes (without SS). After we pay for the military we have about 250 billion left. Unfortunately, it cost about 305 billion to pay all the government employees, so if you're looking to balance the budget, I guess you better start firing motherfuckers.

Hang on there, I don't see interest in your chart.