Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[vote for senate]

Jack Kingston

[Columbus Native]

Dam folks! we are kinda getting far away from the topix of who are you voting for Senate.

[A CONSTIPATED REPUBLICAN]

That will cause gridlock an shut Obammy down....you dont really want congress to do anythang do ya...they will screw it up royally....

[fan]

What happened here? Everybody quit talking.

[Columbus Native]

I will support anyone who makes the deficits number 1 priority. In the past 50 years only Nixon(republican) and Clinton (democrat) have managed to not only balance the budget but actually pay down some of the debt that has accumulated since World War 11. I warned folks 30 years ago that Reagans 300 billion dollar a year deficits were unacceptable and in 1980 I voted for him expecting him to get serious about the debt. Back then only 7% of he voting population according to the polls taken considered national debt a high priority. We have got to decrease spending on all levels including entitlements and the military as well as make those who can pay a little more. If this country goes belly-up it won't make any difference how many billion you have in the bank,it will be worthless. Now billionaires can either pay a little more now or blow their greedy little brains out later when the banks foreclose on all their assets. Poor folks will have to not expect any cost of living increases for a while and stop smoking 4 dollar a day packs of cigarettes or they to will find themselves without their 700 a month income cause the government went broke. Whatever happened to women practicing birth control? When I go out in public I see many,many young women with 3 or 4 kids and no man around. What do they want the rest of us to do? Pay them cause they can't keep their legs together. I can see the state or federal government helping them temporarily but why should the rest of us pay while their deadbeat fathers take off and then expect the rest of us to pay for their kids? No it takes a family FIRST and the Village secondly.

[Informed Opinion]

Columbus Native wrote:

I will support anyone who makes the deficits number 1 priority. In the past 50 years only Nixon(republican) and Clinton (democrat) have managed to not only balance the budget but actually pay down some of the debt that has accumulated since World War 11. I warned folks 30 years ago that Reagans 300 billion dollar a year deficits were unacceptable and in 1980 I voted for him expecting him to get serious about the debt. Back then only 7% of he voting population according to the polls taken considered national debt a high priority. We have got to decrease spending on all levels including entitlements and the military as well as make those who can pay a little more. If this country goes belly-up it won't make any difference how many billion you have in the bank,it will be worthless. Now billionaires can either pay a little more now or blow their greedy little brains out later when the banks foreclose on all their assets. Poor folks will have to not expect any cost of living increases for a while and stop smoking 4 dollar a day packs of cigarettes or they to will find themselves without their 700 a month income cause the government went broke. Whatever happened to women practicing birth control? When I go out in public I see many,many young women with 3 or 4 kids and no man around. What do they want the rest of us to do? Pay them cause they can't keep their legs together. I can see the state or federal government helping them temporarily but why should the rest of us pay while their deadbeat fathers take off and then expect the rest of us to pay for their kids? No it takes a family FIRST and the Village secondly.

Some very good points.

I had forgotten about Nixon and the 1969 budget.

I seem to remember that Nixon also implemented a 10% tax increase to at least try to pay for the Vietnam War. Of course it didn't.

We ought to have a 10% tax increase today to pay for the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, instead of making our kids pay for them.

[Informed Opinion]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>Some very good points.

I had forgotten about Nixon and the 1969 budget.

I seem to remember that Nixon also implemented a 10% tax increase to at least try to pay for the Vietnam War. Of course it didn't.

We ought to have a 10% tax increase today to pay for the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, instead of making our kids pay for them.

By Daniel Trotta

NEW YORK, March 14 (Reuters)- The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.

That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.

Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the next 40 years.

The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4 trillion during that period, the report said.

The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.

The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud.

Former President George W. Bush's administration cited its belief that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government held weapons of mass destruction to justify the decision to go to war. U.S. and allied forces later found that such stockpiles did not exist.

Steven Bucci, the military assistant to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:

"If we had had the foresight to see how long it would last and even if it would have cost half the lives, we would not have gone in," Bucci said.

Thanks a lot to those who supported the War.

Now do you mind paying for it ?

[Bored]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK, March 14 (Reuters)- The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.
Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the next 40 years.
The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4 trillion during that period, the report said.
The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.
The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud.
Former President George W. Bush's administration cited its belief that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government held weapons of mass destruction to justify the decision to go to war. U.S. and allied forces later found that such stockpiles did not exist.
Steven Bucci, the military assistant to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:
"If we had had the foresight to see how long it would last and even if it would have cost half the lives, we would not have gone in," Bucci said.
Thanks a lot to those who supported the War.
Now do you mind paying for it ?

Boring.

[Glorya]

Banshee-shee,

Thanks for sharing. We had no clue we could actually visit topix sites in larger cities. Wow! Such valuable info.

Banshee, blackbird, whatever name you choose for the day...I for one haven't missed you, will never miss you, and wish you could bond with the New Yorkers, I'm guessing they chewed you up & spit you out. Or else, why would you fly South for the summer and light here again?

Not a fan, never a fan... and since you asked, we feelin just fine. Just keep it rated PG-13, and we'll pretend you don't exist.

[raybob]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK, March 14 (Reuters)- The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.
The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.
The 2011 study said the combined cost of the wars was at least $3.7 trillion, based on actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments, such as the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans.
That estimate climbed to nearly $4 trillion in the update.
Excluded were indirect deaths caused by the mass exodus of doctors and a devastated infrastructure, for example, while the costs left out trillions of dollars in interest the United States could pay over the next 40 years.
The interest on expenses for the Iraq war could amount to about $4 trillion during that period, the report said.
The report also examined the burden on U.S. veterans and their families, showing a deep social cost as well as an increase in spending on veterans. The 2011 study found U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war totaled $33 billion. Two years later, that number had risen to $134.7 billion.
The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud.
Former President George W. Bush's administration cited its belief that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government held weapons of mass destruction to justify the decision to go to war. U.S. and allied forces later found that such stockpiles did not exist.
Steven Bucci, the military assistant to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:
"If we had had the foresight to see how long it would last and even if it would have cost half the lives, we would not have gone in," Bucci said.
Thanks a lot to those who supported the War.
Now do you mind paying for it ?

One thing about this Topix post is the obvious age and demographics of the posters. They would rather blame a very small percentage of the population for a very small part of the Federal and State budgets for all our problems. When in fact the Hog in the room is the defense budget. And that budget never included the costs of the so called wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just how many times do we need to wipe every other country in the world off the face of the earth? At some point enough arms should just be enough. At some point we should stop trying to force our ways on others. It’s not the poor woman with 3 or 4 children or the Mexican here illegally to cut your grass. It’s Defense that has morphed into nothing more than a profit machine for some and a vote getter for others, and its killing this country. It’s a President who looked straight at the camera with his "uniform" on and stated we have "WON"! Many years later and many attempts at nation building it is obvious we never will. We haven't WON since WW2.

[Redneck]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

For those who want to rant and rave about defense spending please note that the constitution, above, requires the government to provide for defence but only requires it to promote the general welfare.

There are lots of things in defense budgets that have nothing to do with protecting the country. There is a huge amount of money spent on erecting instant ghettos and populating it with brood sows and sperm donors.

[raybob]

Redneck wrote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
For those who want to rant and rave about defense spending please note that the constitution, above, requires the government to provide for defence but only requires it to promote the general welfare.
There are lots of things in defense budgets that have nothing to do with protecting the country. There is a huge amount of money spent on erecting instant ghettos and populating it with brood sows and sperm donors.

How much defense do you need??
We now spend approx. 739 billion on defense, while the next 10 biggest defense spenders in the world spend approx 488 billion combined!!! That all of them put together spend 251 billion less than the U.S.To me that’s enough, more than enough. To you there is no such thing as enough since you have no common sense. The military is always getting arms they don’t really want or need because somebody in Congress thinks it will help him get elected and put some money in supporter’s pockets.
When it comes to brood sows and sperm donors who live in ghettos you have no interest in their welfare, you can’t. You just make fun of them and doing so seems in your mind to make you a big man. And God still loves you, I doubt God has any respect for you since his Son had just the opposite philosophy, even our forefathers thought it was important. What small amount of money that goes to "promote the general welfare" goes to help a hell of a lot of people who are not the pieces of trash you see in your feeble mind.
I really don’t understand how people like you sleep at night,a whole lot of beer would be my guess.

[Informed Opinion]

Redneck wrote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

For those who want to rant and rave about defense spending please note that the constitution, above, requires the government to provide for defence but only requires it to promote the general welfare.

There are lots of things in defense budgets that have nothing to do with protecting the country. There is a huge amount of money spent on erecting instant ghettos and populating it with brood sows and sperm donors.

Does anyone seriously believe that spending over a Trillion Dollars a year to illegally invade, occupy, and bomb other sovereign nations that pose no danger to America makes us safer ?

Does anyone really believe that kidnapping, assassinating, and torturing anyone Obama says "is a threat" , including Americans, has made us safer ?

Or has it merely created more and more foreigners with legitimate and reasonable reasons to hate America and our "exceptional" belief we are entitled to kill anyone, anywhere, and bomb anywhere, anytime, it suits our fancy ?

If a drone operated by Cubans occasionally blew up a family sitting down to dinner in Blairsville, because their neighbor made $20,000 for alleging they were a danger to Cuba, wouldn't everyone in Blairsville hate Cubans more than ever ?

Isn't it just true that:

- Iran is stronger than ever;
- After spending Trillions of Dollars invading, bombing and bribing in Iraq, Iran's greatest enemy is now Iran's greatest ally;
- After invading, bombing and bribing every drug warlord in Pakistan, the Pakistani government has now sought U.N. protection from our drone strikes which the rest of the world considers war crimes;
- after spending Hundreds of Billions of Dollars invading, bombing and bribing drug war lords in Afghanistan, the Afghan army that we paid to train and equip is now killing our troops.
- eleven aircraft carrier task forces we built and maintain protect us from no threat of invasion;
- The hundreds of bases we bribe other countries to allow us to maintain in other countries sovereign lands, subsidizes the very countries who use the money they save on defense to educate, house, and provide medical care for their citizens;
- The 3 Billion Dollars we spend each year building new nuclear submarines is 3 Billion every other country on the Earth doesn't spend;

And there is not a single country on the face of the Earth that poses any threat at all to our "national defense".

[General Robert E Lee]

Paul Broun in 2014.

[Bigdave1]

raybob wrote:

<quoted text>
How much defense do you need??
We now spend approx. 739 billion on defense, while the next 10 biggest defense spenders in the world spend approx 488 billion combined!!! That all of them put together spend 251 billion less than the U.S.To me that’s enough, more than enough. To you there is no such thing as enough since you have no common sense. The military is always getting arms they don’t really want or need because somebody in Congress thinks it will help him get elected and put some money in supporter’s pockets.
When it comes to brood sows and sperm donors who live in ghettos you have no interest in their welfare, you can’t. You just make fun of them and doing so seems in your mind to make you a big man. And God still loves you, I doubt God has any respect for you since his Son had just the opposite philosophy, even our forefathers thought it was important. What small amount of money that goes to "promote the general welfare" goes to help a hell of a lot of people who are not the pieces of trash you see in your feeble mind.
I really don’t understand how people like you sleep at night,a whole lot of beer would be my guess.

I don't know how well you have thought your whole premise through. You must remember that the United States is the worlds only super power. Why do we need to be a super power you may ask? Because the U.S. has more enemies than any other nation in the world. Think about how many countries would love to rule us and believe me they would start pumping the oil and gas out of this country like you wouldn't believe.
Also the U.S. has a very expensive shield. That shield covers the protection and defense of all the Free World and allies. Other countries do not have to spend as much on national defense as the good old U.S.A. protects them. What are the real numbers that the Russians, N. Koreans, and Chinese spend? I doubt that anyone actually knows for sure. Materials, labor, and pay of the Chinese military is much cheaper in China than here. I am sure that China's military is not feed, housed, or cared for anywhere near the level of our troops. That is a huge cost saver. China's research and military development is also much less costly since they are stealing our military secrets.
It is expensive and has many burdens being the worlds only super power. Like it or not that is how it is. I have a web site listed below that tries to give how much every country spends on national defense.
As for the rest of your statement Redneck can answer for himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/...

[Bigdave1]

This is just an example of what I was talking about in my previous comments. Remember it only takes one missile with a nuclear warhead to do unspeakable damage.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17...

[Informed Opinion]

Bigdave1 wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know how well you have thought your whole premise through. You must remember that the United States is the worlds only super power. Why do we need to be a super power you may ask? Because the U.S. has more enemies than any other nation in the world. Think about how many countries would love to rule us and believe me they would start pumping the oil and gas out of this country like you wouldn't believe.
Also the U.S. has a very expensive shield. That shield covers the protection and defense of all the Free World and allies. Other countries do not have to spend as much on national defense as the good old U.S.A. protects them. What are the real numbers that the Russians, N. Koreans, and Chinese spend? I doubt that anyone actually knows for sure. Materials, labor, and pay of the Chinese military is much cheaper in China than here. I am sure that China's military is not feed, housed, or cared for anywhere near the level of our troops. That is a huge cost saver. China's research and military development is also much less costly since they are stealing our military secrets.
It is expensive and has many burdens being the worlds only super power. Like it or not that is how it is. I have a web site listed below that tries to give how much every country spends on national defense.
As for the rest of your statement Redneck can answer for himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/...

Pleas identify a single country that has the desire and realistic ability to attack our "Homeland" ?

Who says we have to be imperialistic war makers who waste our blood and treasure "protecting" the rest of the world, and invading, bombing, and bribing the countries that don't want our "protection".

The Koreans, Indonesians, Japanese, Chinese, Philippines, Australians, Saudi Arabians, Israelis, Germans, Egyptians, French, Italians, and all the rest of the world,
think we are idiots for bankrupting ourselves to protect their countries for them,
or wasting our money invading, occupying and bombing them,
so they can use their money competing for our jobs, and providing health care, education, and housing for their citizens.

As a Canadian friend told me once, "our country spends its money on education and health care - and we let you spend your money protecting us - which of us is smarter ?"

[Informed Opinion]

Bigdave1 wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know how well you have thought your whole premise through. You must remember that the United States is the worlds only super power. Why do we need to be a super power you may ask? Because the U.S. has more enemies than any other nation in the world. Think about how many countries would love to rule us and believe me they would start pumping the oil and gas out of this country like you wouldn't believe.
Also the U.S. has a very expensive shield. That shield covers the protection and defense of all the Free World and allies. Other countries do not have to spend as much on national defense as the good old U.S.A. protects them. What are the real numbers that the Russians, N. Koreans, and Chinese spend? I doubt that anyone actually knows for sure. Materials, labor, and pay of the Chinese military is much cheaper in China than here. I am sure that China's military is not feed, housed, or cared for anywhere near the level of our troops. That is a huge cost saver. China's research and military development is also much less costly since they are stealing our military secrets.
It is expensive and has many burdens being the worlds only super power. Like it or not that is how it is. I have a web site listed below that tries to give how much every country spends on national defense.
As for the rest of your statement Redneck can answer for himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/...

But you make some good points in my opinion.

But:
we would be just as safe from invasion by Iran's navy if we only had 5 nuclear task forces;
Just as safe from North Korea's Air Force without new 400 Million Dollar fighter jets;
Just as safe from the Chinese navy with only 10 nuclear powdered submarines with nuclear missiles that can destroy their country twice by threatening not to repay out Trillion Dollar debt to China if they tried to invade us.

Nobody says we don't need a War Department - we just don't need to destroy America to protect America.

[Bigdave1]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Pleas identify a single country that has the desire and realistic ability to attack our "Homeland" ?
Who says we have to be imperialistic war makers who waste our blood and treasure "protecting" the rest of the world, and invading, bombing, and bribing the countries that don't want our "protection".
The Koreans, Indonesians, Japanese, Chinese, Philippines, Australians, Saudi Arabians, Israelis, Germans, Egyptians, French, Italians, and all the rest of the world,
think we are idiots for bankrupting ourselves to protect their countries for them,
or wasting our money invading, occupying and bombing them,
so they can use their money competing for our jobs, and providing health care, education, and housing for their citizens.
As a Canadian friend told me once, "our country spends its money on education and health care - and we let you spend your money protecting us - which of us is smarter ?"

To answer your question who has the desire to attack our country? Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, and any number of other countries that hate our guts.
To answer your second question who has the ability? For sure Russia and China. N. Korea is very near or we wouldn't be putting up a missile defense systems in Alaska. Iran could be nearer than you think as Iran and N. Korea share missile technology.
It would take only one nuclear bomb exploded 150 miles into our upper atmosphere to cause a huge electromagnetic pulse to destroy our country. Just Google EMP and you will be terrified. If you aren't then something is wrong with you.
As far as the U.S. defending all the countries that it does, is wrong. These countries should try to take care of the defense cost of there own countries. Why the U.S. at the very least doesn't charge them for defense protection is beyond me. Why should we pay for their defenses?
One other aspect that I failed to mention. Just follow the money trail to defense contractors. There is a lot of money to be made off that. But there are a lot of jobs that go along with that. Maybe as many as a million or more workers might be laid off and be jobless if they were stopped. How much of the defense industry keeps our countries economy moving? I am betting a lot. It is a double edged sword.

[Possum]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

Paul Broun in 2014.

And Rand Paul or Chuck Baldwin President 2016!!!