I understand what you are saying. The problem is we can't afford to be everywhere and it isn't our responsiblity to police the world. Would you rather see weapon systems be scrapped and troop levels reduced or some troops come home to be based. We will have to cut some money to defense. Why should we spend more money to defend Europe than some European countries spend to defend themselves. There is no need to have almost half our troops forward deployed. There are some hot spots in the world but the cold war is over. Why do countries that we defend not pay for our services? South Korea is rich enough to either defend themselves or pay for the U. S. protection. Why should the American taxpayer pony up the money that the south Korean taxpayer should be paying?
Yeah. That's the ticket. Because Obama has been so fiscally responsible that there would be no debt if it weren't for those pesky Bush cuts. Get it through your thick skull that more revenue would only mean more damn money for Obama and the Democrats to spend. It's time to stop the spending and live within our means and not blame the lack of a pay raise for going bankrupt.
He's already on record as saying his lawyers looked into it and said it wasn't constitutional. But then again, I don't think he really gives a ***** about the constitution.
He's right red. The next election is going to be an asswhoopin. Might as well prepare for a cut in your gubmint services and prepare for a world where results count. :thumb:
Balanced budgets pay for annual spending and leave nothing to pay down the debt with, obviously. Ah, imaginary funds. I'll tell you what . . . I'm going to argue what I wish. Why don't you argue what you wish.