Just to set the record straight

by **cavalierlwt** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:20 pm

I don't mind the wiretaps if they submit an application to a judge. If they are in a hurry, do the wiretap, then submit a application to a judge after the fact, that's fine too. As long as there is a judicial review, that's all I ask. Without this check, it does leave open the possibility for abuse. I don't think Bush is listening in when I order pizza from Dominoe's, but the next guy might. What Clinton did was wrong, I honestly hadn't heard of it. There's no reason why they can't submit this stuff to judicial review, Clinton, Carter, Bush or whoever.

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:32 pm

I think when George III wanted to tax you so he could pay for troops to protect your estates you should have trusted him too...

by **cavalierlwt** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:37 pm

It was actually quite a low tax rate, lower than merchants were paying back in England.

by **CodeRed68** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:52 pm

Originally posted by SavageParrot
I think when George III wanted to tax you so he could pay for troops to protect your estates you should have trusted him too...

Was't it during George III's rule that the colonist's rebeled against the British in 1776? Because of his taxation?
Those were great times. Not because we went to war with the British (no offense, parrot) but because even the slightest tax increase infuriated the colonists. Tax at that time was 6 pennies a year. Even adjusted for inflation, that is very light on taxes.
Now we take it up the arse and begrudgingly pay our taxes like good little boys and girls. Here is a great quote from this article, which is also very good. http://www.sobran.com/articles/taxationages.shtml

“Why don’t you ever criticize big business the way you always criticize big government?” I answered, “I’m not forced to do business with General Motors. If I do so voluntarily, I get a car for my money. But I am forced to do business with the government. Every year I’m forced to pay it roughly the price of a new car. And I’ve never seen that car. Someone else gets it.”
---Joseph Sobran

by **cavalierlwt** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:27 pm

Well, here's one thing that is killing us:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

Military expenditure in billions of dollars
United States 399.1
Russia 65.2
China 56
United Kingdom 49
Japan 45.1
France 40
Germany 29.7
Saudi Arabia 19.3
India 19.1
Italy 17.5
South Korea 16.4

BTW, our figure does *not* include the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2006 is $441.6 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget and funding for nuclear weapons activity of the Department of Energy Budget. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars ($49.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), or Homeland Security funding ($41.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), for example.)

For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world’s.
The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.

It's not that I'm a 'peacenik', I just hate seeing my money fly out the door. The cold war is over. It may seem like our army is too small right now, but there are soooo many US soldiers in bases all over the world.

Iraq and the Gulf - Currently 211,028 troops
Germany - Currently 75,603 troops
South Korea - Currently 33,400 troops
Japan - Currently 40,045 troops
Afghanistan - Currently 17,900 troops
Italy - Currently 13,354 troops
UK - Currently 11,801 troops
Qatar - Currently 3,432
Bosnia-Hercegovina - Currently 2,931 troops
Iceland - Currently 1,754 troops

by **Evan** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
Well, here's one thing that is killing us:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

Military expenditure in billions of dollars
United States 399.1
Russia 65.2
China 56
United Kingdom 49
Japan 45.1
France 40
Germany 29.7
Saudi Arabia 19.3
India 19.1
Italy 17.5
South Korea 16.4

BTW, our figure does *not* include the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. military budget request for Fiscal Year 2006 is $441.6 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget and funding for nuclear weapons activity of the Department of Energy Budget. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars ($49.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), or Homeland Security funding ($41.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2006), for example.)

For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000.

The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world’s.
The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.

It's not that I'm a 'peacenik', I just hate seeing my money fly out the door. The cold war is over. It may seem like our army is too small right now, but there are soooo many US soldiers in bases all over the world.

Iraq and the Gulf - Currently 211,028 troops
Germany - Currently 75,603 troops
South Korea - Currently 33,400 troops
Japan - Currently 40,045 troops
Afghanistan - Currently 17,900 troops
Italy - Currently 13,354 troops
UK - Currently 11,801 troops
Qatar - Currently 3,432
Bosnia-Hercegovina - Currently 2,931 troops
Iceland - Currently 1,754 troops

Iceland? Who the fuck would want to attack Iceland? :roll:

by **cavalierlwt** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:59 pm

70K in Germany. Ouch.
33K protecting S.Korea....an economic competitor. Does anyone give a shit if N.Korea takes over S.Korea? We fought that war back in the days of the Cold War and the Domino theory. No need to spend time or money on this crap.
40K in Japan. Again, are we protecting an economic competitor? From who, China? The country we gave 'Most Favored Nation' trading status to.

by **CodeRed68** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:09 pm

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
33K protecting S.Korea....an economic competitor. Does anyone give a shit if N.Korea takes over S.Korea?
40K in Japan. Again, are we protecting an economic competitor? From who, China?

On both accounts.. from N Korea I guess. S Korea becuase the US has declared to protect democracy and Japan because S Korea could be a stepping stone to Japan for the N Koreans? Plus, we are huge allies with Japan. And where would we be without all those Japanese cars and all the cool, technological gadgets we use?

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:41 pm

Originally posted by CodeRed68
Was't it during George III's rule that the colonist's rebeled against the British in 1776? Because of his taxation?
Those were great times.

Well duh that was the point I was making

. If you had trusted him then you would never have had a USA at all. Dumb trust in your leaders is the surest way possible to get fucked over by them...

by **JimmyTango** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:47 pm

Someone say Korea and economic competitor?

Start watching Hyundai, they are very close to becoming a big force in the auto industry. Check out the Azera, their first strike at Toyota/Honda, and the new Sonata that has shed some of it's 'I'm really cheap' styling. You would not know that the Azera was a Hyundia if not for the badges on the car. KIA is about 8 years behind them.

Too bad Ford and GM are too ignorant and stuck up to figure out their problem is the POS cars they produce, like that POS Gran dAm I own with 60K miles that comes featured with a shot transmition, on it's third altinator, electrical problems, dead AC unit and an engine that has sounded like a John Deere for the last 50K miles.

Man I miss my old Volvo. Sure, it looked like the box the Audi shipped in(it was a 1988 model), but it was a damn reliable car.

Made in the USA doesn't sell them anymore, quality and value does.

by **ANTONIUS** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:00 pm

spying bla bla bla war bla bla bla hyundai

by **cavalierlwt** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:01 pm

Any conversations starting with spying and war will always wind up being about Hyundai !!

by Conscious* » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:09 pm

People complain too much, even if Bush tapped a phone call where your son asked you to pick him up from soccer practice...really who cares. He's not gonna broadcast on national tv that your a soccer dad and ruin your rep. Let the government do what they need to do.

by **SavageParrot** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:15 pm

That's exactly the point dude how do you know they are doing what they need to do unless there is legal oversight to their activities. Otherwise they could just be tapping any damn phone call they please for whatever purpose be that political, economic or just personal to themselves. That's the whole point of checks and balances that they limit what's done to only what needs to be done.

So ok they need to be listening to terrorists what difference does it make to the completion of that aim if they have to provide reasonable grounds for suspicion to a judge before they go ahead and invade someones life.

by **ferret963** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:30 pm

You don't think they haven’t been spying on us all along? This topic really isn't anything new. You better watch out what you say on the forum parrot, you might get red flagged. You never know who might be an agent.

Just to set the record straight

Who is online