(05-23-2016 01:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  "The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation."

The article was written by a US Senator.

Yes indeed.

A republican.

Here is his voting record

https://ballotpedia.org/James_Lankford

Perhaps I missed it but you've been so busy shooting the messenger that you have neglected to disagree with the fact Obama took 500M of Zika funding and handed it over to the UN for an unrelated effort.

If I did miss it please point me at the post where you show he did not do it..

500M of Zika funding? Can you quote that part of the article because I don't remember reading that part.

wow... the level to which you hold others to that you let slide with your 'favorites' is astounding.

let's start with this
The Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, and International Assistance Programs currently have about $80 billion in unobligated funds.

If that isn't true, it should be easy to disprove. Surely they can find 500mm out of that 80byn for an 'emergency' just as they did before. Surely you'd agree that Zika funding would fall under those categories, right? Especially since the Senator points out that Congress specifically authorized it last December.

If you don't, then we can talk about the fact that when the exact same thing happened last year for climate change, Pres Obama pulled 500mm out of these same sorts of accounts (bilateral economic assistance) to fund it. In fact, he suggested such a think under H1N1.

So why does he think that those funds have enough money in them to provide 500mm for green earth, but they don't have a dime in excess to cover things that they obviously SHOULD. Zika isn't just a local matter

Is it because he prioritizes 'green earth' over the health of pregnant women in the US?

That's certainly what your HUFFPO writer would obviously imply if he were a republican.


You guys just never let a 'disaster' go to waste. We build in all sorts of 'fluff' into budgets and then we insist on raising budgets again anyway. ZERO fiscal responsibility.

(05-23-2016 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:45 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  The article was written by a US Senator.

Yes indeed.

A republican.

Here is his voting record

https://ballotpedia.org/James_Lankford

Perhaps I missed it but you've been so busy shooting the messenger that you have neglected to disagree with the fact Obama took 500M of Zika funding and handed it over to the UN for an unrelated effort.

If I did miss it please point me at the post where you show he did not do it..

500M of Zika funding? Can you quote that part of the article because I don't remember reading that part.

Poorly worded on my part... 500 M that *could have went to Zika funding* Obama sent it elsewhere.

Perhaps it could have been used for Zika but when was it determined that the virus was infecting United States citizens.

There's a lot of money that could have been used for Zika funding. For example, all that money spent on the Iraq war. Or more particularly, one-half of one B-2 bomber.

(05-23-2016 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:58 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes indeed.

A republican.

Here is his voting record

https://ballotpedia.org/James_Lankford

Perhaps I missed it but you've been so busy shooting the messenger that you have neglected to disagree with the fact Obama took 500M of Zika funding and handed it over to the UN for an unrelated effort.

If I did miss it please point me at the post where you show he did not do it..

500M of Zika funding? Can you quote that part of the article because I don't remember reading that part.

Poorly worded on my part... 500 M that *could have went to Zika funding* Obama sent it elsewhere.

Perhaps it could have been used for Zika but when was it determined that the virus was infecting United States citizens.

I didn't see you ask that question when Obama requested $1.8B to fight Zika.

(05-23-2016 01:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There's a lot of money that could have been used for Zika funding. For example, all that money spent on the Iraq war. Or more particularly, one-half of one B-2 bomber.

Or we could start with realistic monies, like the leftover appropriated funds from the Ebola.

(05-23-2016 01:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There's a lot of money that could have been used for Zika funding. For example, all that money spent on the Iraq war. Or more particularly, one-half of one B-2 bomber.

Or we could start with realistic monies, like the leftover appropriated funds from the Ebola.

1/2 a B-2 bomber is unrealistic?

(05-23-2016 01:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There's a lot of money that could have been used for Zika funding. For example, all that money spent on the Iraq war. Or more particularly, one-half of one B-2 bomber.

Or we could start with realistic monies, like the leftover appropriated funds from the Ebola.

1/2 a B-2 bomber is unrealistic?

Of course, it's already been spent. If you want to talk about money that hasn't been spent, we could discuss the millions that will be spent on lawsuits as Obama completely ignores worldwide societal norms and ushers men into ladies restrooms and changing rooms.

(05-23-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There's a lot of money that could have been used for Zika funding. For example, all that money spent on the Iraq war. Or more particularly, one-half of one B-2 bomber.

Or we could start with realistic monies, like the leftover appropriated funds from the Ebola.

1/2 a B-2 bomber is unrealistic?

Of course, it's already been spent. If you want to talk about money that hasn't been spent, we could discuss the millions that will be spent on lawsuits as Obama completely ignores worldwide societal norms and ushers men into ladies restrooms and changing rooms.

The spending hasn't ended. It's going on now.

(05-23-2016 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There's a lot of money that could have been used for Zika funding. For example, all that money spent on the Iraq war. Or more particularly, one-half of one B-2 bomber.

Or we could start with realistic monies, like the leftover appropriated funds from the Ebola.

1/2 a B-2 bomber is unrealistic?

Of course, it's already been spent. If you want to talk about money that hasn't been spent, we could discuss the millions that will be spent on lawsuits as Obama completely ignores worldwide societal norms and ushers men into ladies restrooms and changing rooms.

The spending hasn't ended. It's going on now.

Yeah, that's maintenance and upkeep, not new production. What do you plan to do? Disassemble and sell half a bomber?

(05-23-2016 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Or we could start with realistic monies, like the leftover appropriated funds from the Ebola.

1/2 a B-2 bomber is unrealistic?

Of course, it's already been spent. If you want to talk about money that hasn't been spent, we could discuss the millions that will be spent on lawsuits as Obama completely ignores worldwide societal norms and ushers men into ladies restrooms and changing rooms.

The spending hasn't ended. It's going on now.

Yeah, that's maintenance and upkeep, not new production. What do you plan to do? Disassemble and sell half a bomber?

The B-2 was obviously just an example of relative cost. There is huge ongoing spending on the military. And since that happens EVERY YEAR rather than in yesteryear when the military was kept small except in times of war, that leaves us a lot less money to deal with issues like this.

(05-23-2016 02:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  1/2 a B-2 bomber is unrealistic?

Of course, it's already been spent. If you want to talk about money that hasn't been spent, we could discuss the millions that will be spent on lawsuits as Obama completely ignores worldwide societal norms and ushers men into ladies restrooms and changing rooms.

The spending hasn't ended. It's going on now.

Yeah, that's maintenance and upkeep, not new production. What do you plan to do? Disassemble and sell half a bomber?

The B-2 was obviously just an example of relative cost. There is huge ongoing spending on the military. And since that happens EVERY YEAR rather than in yesteryear when the military was kept small except in times of war, that leaves us a lot less money to deal with issues like this.

Fortunately we learned from our past mistakes.

(05-23-2016 02:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:38 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Of course, it's already been spent. If you want to talk about money that hasn't been spent, we could discuss the millions that will be spent on lawsuits as Obama completely ignores worldwide societal norms and ushers men into ladies restrooms and changing rooms.

The spending hasn't ended. It's going on now.

Yeah, that's maintenance and upkeep, not new production. What do you plan to do? Disassemble and sell half a bomber?

The B-2 was obviously just an example of relative cost. There is huge ongoing spending on the military. And since that happens EVERY YEAR rather than in yesteryear when the military was kept small except in times of war, that leaves us a lot less money to deal with issues like this.

Fortunately we learned from our past mistakes.

We saved a lot of money by not having a huge military in times of peace. So apparently we haven't learned anything.

(05-23-2016 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The spending hasn't ended. It's going on now.

Yeah, that's maintenance and upkeep, not new production. What do you plan to do? Disassemble and sell half a bomber?

The B-2 was obviously just an example of relative cost. There is huge ongoing spending on the military. And since that happens EVERY YEAR rather than in yesteryear when the military was kept small except in times of war, that leaves us a lot less money to deal with issues like this.

Fortunately we learned from our past mistakes.

We saved a lot of money by not having a huge military in times of peace. So apparently we haven't learned anything.

Sure we did. How did that work out at the beginning of World War 2? We lost a lot of people by having outdated equipment and spent an untold fortune bringing ourselves up to par and then surpassing our enemies at the time. Perceived weakness invites attack.

(05-23-2016 02:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yeah, that's maintenance and upkeep, not new production. What do you plan to do? Disassemble and sell half a bomber?

The B-2 was obviously just an example of relative cost. There is huge ongoing spending on the military. And since that happens EVERY YEAR rather than in yesteryear when the military was kept small except in times of war, that leaves us a lot less money to deal with issues like this.

Fortunately we learned from our past mistakes.

We saved a lot of money by not having a huge military in times of peace. So apparently we haven't learned anything.

Sure we did. How did that work out at the beginning of World War 2? We lost a lot of people by having outdated equipment and spent an untold fortune bringing ourselves up to par and then surpassing our enemies at the time. Perceived weakness invites attack.

And we are damned lucky that at the time we were among the leaders in world manufacturing, steel production, food production, and oil production.

In the 1940's you could retool a car factor to make fighter planes, that's not the case today.

We were also fortunate that the nation which attacked us, Japan, were already stretched thin in Asia. Had they been at unilateral war with us instead of China and the allies it would have been far harder to prevail in the pacific theater.

(05-23-2016 02:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yeah, that's maintenance and upkeep, not new production. What do you plan to do? Disassemble and sell half a bomber?

The B-2 was obviously just an example of relative cost. There is huge ongoing spending on the military. And since that happens EVERY YEAR rather than in yesteryear when the military was kept small except in times of war, that leaves us a lot less money to deal with issues like this.

Fortunately we learned from our past mistakes.

We saved a lot of money by not having a huge military in times of peace. So apparently we haven't learned anything.

Sure we did. How did that work out at the beginning of World War 2? We lost a lot of people by having outdated equipment and spent an untold fortune bringing ourselves up to par and then surpassing our enemies at the time. Perceived weakness invites attack.

If we had a bigger navy, more of it would have been sunk at Pearl Harbor, and most of it would likely have been battleships, not the aircraft carriers it turned out we needed. We would have spent an untold fortune anyway - everyone did in that war. Difference is, we had more money to do it because we didn't spend money on stuff for the previous 20 years that would have been obsolete anyway. Even so, it took us less than 4 years to finish off the Japs despite the large distances, even while fighting in Europe and pushing the Germans back. And we were only there for a year.

(05-23-2016 02:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The B-2 was obviously just an example of relative cost. There is huge ongoing spending on the military. And since that happens EVERY YEAR rather than in yesteryear when the military was kept small except in times of war, that leaves us a lot less money to deal with issues like this.

Fortunately we learned from our past mistakes.

We saved a lot of money by not having a huge military in times of peace. So apparently we haven't learned anything.

Sure we did. How did that work out at the beginning of World War 2? We lost a lot of people by having outdated equipment and spent an untold fortune bringing ourselves up to par and then surpassing our enemies at the time. Perceived weakness invites attack.

If we had a bigger navy, more of it would have been sunk at Pearl Harbor, and most of it would likely have been battleships, not the aircraft carriers it turned out we needed. We would have spent an untold fortune anyway - everyone did in that war. Difference is, we had more money to do it because we didn't spend money on stuff for the previous 20 years that would have been obsolete anyway. Even so, it took us less than 4 years to finish off the Japs despite the large distances, even while fighting in Europe and pushing the Germans back. And we were only there for a year.

So if we would have had a bigger Navy it would have all been stationed at Pearl Harbor. You think maybe some might have went to Subic Bay to reinforce the Philippines? Maybe we could have had more aircraft carriers to where more patrolling would have been possible so that we didn't get surprised at Pearl.
If you check you will also find we didn't have the money. That's why the war bond drives were so critical. And we were in Europe a lot longer that one year unless you figure Italy, one of the bloodiest theatres of the war, isn't in Europe. You also fail to address the number of lives lost due to starting out the war with inferior equipment. Also as Bull pointed out, we aren't equipped now to convert over to war production as we were then.

(05-23-2016 01:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm just laughing at this...

First they 'shame' the forum... when THAT fails
they shame the writer...

Not once do they deny his claims (in either direction... either defending Obama's decisions or saying they didn't happen) or take issues with his position

but they put their faith, lock stock and barrel into a HUFFPO article written by a HUFFPO writer.

I don't put any faith in any of this crap. I'm just saying that believing what a politician says is like believing a used-car salesman. And believing a blog or something written by a so-called "think tank" is equally sensible.

but you believe something written by a left wing 'blogger'?? (the OP)

or do you simply believe nobody?

I think the senator makes some great points. I'd like to have a discussion about those. He may or may not be lying, but if he is, someone should be able to call him on it. Everything else is 'opinions' which are stupid to argue about.

(05-23-2016 01:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps it could have been used for Zika but when was it determined that the virus was infecting United States citizens.

a) as is noted, congress made that specific stipulation in December (that they could be used for it).
b) if the funds could have been used for H1N1 as President Obama suggested, they could be used for Zika. If they could be used for 'green' policies, they could be used for Zika.


all of this was made very clear if you read the actual article. The senator considered both domestic AND international sources for these funds.... and came up with tens of billions of presently unencumbered funds at the President's discretion.

(05-23-2016 02:54 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Fortunately we learned from our past mistakes.

We saved a lot of money by not having a huge military in times of peace. So apparently we haven't learned anything.

Sure we did. How did that work out at the beginning of World War 2? We lost a lot of people by having outdated equipment and spent an untold fortune bringing ourselves up to par and then surpassing our enemies at the time. Perceived weakness invites attack.

If we had a bigger navy, more of it would have been sunk at Pearl Harbor, and most of it would likely have been battleships, not the aircraft carriers it turned out we needed. We would have spent an untold fortune anyway - everyone did in that war. Difference is, we had more money to do it because we didn't spend money on stuff for the previous 20 years that would have been obsolete anyway. Even so, it took us less than 4 years to finish off the Japs despite the large distances, even while fighting in Europe and pushing the Germans back. And we were only there for a year.

So if we would have had a bigger Navy it would have all been stationed at Pearl Harbor. You think maybe some might have went to Subic Bay to reinforce the Philippines? Maybe we could have had more aircraft carriers to where more patrolling would have been possible so that we didn't get surprised at Pearl.
If you check you will also find we didn't have the money. That's why the war bond drives were so critical. And we were in Europe a lot longer that one year unless you figure Italy, one of the bloodiest theatres of the war, isn't in Europe. You also fail to address the number of lives lost due to starting out the war with inferior equipment. Also as Bull pointed out, we aren't equipped now to convert over to war production as we were then.

We would have had equipment built in the 20s and early 30s. It would have all been obsolete. If we didn't have the money, then how on Earth would we have been able to afford keeping up a military? How exactly can we afford it now? We can't. We simply borrow money for it.

The ocean is a big place. Would have been very expensive to try to patrol any percentage of the routes the Japs could have taken to any number of potential targets. You're going to build 15 carriers for an attack that might never happen?

Yea I misspoke, have to include the time in Italy as well. Still only a few years. Even the Germans lost a lot of lives due to inferior equipment also, like when they went up against T-34s. Up-to-date equipment changes a lot when there's a war going on. Something that was up to date in 1937 isn't up to date in 1942. If you try to chase that every year when there isn't even a war on you'll go broke.

Then there are all the years before WWI we would have been spending money on a big military.

It was the "dagger pointed at our throat" with our large military presence that provoked Japan. the idea that they attacked because they thought we were weak is a ludicrous assumption understood only by those with no historical knowledge. also there is this thing called the washington naval treaty that was designed to prevent a naval arms race by putting limits on the amount of ships a nation could have. so we simply couldn't just build up our navy.

(05-23-2016 03:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:54 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  We saved a lot of money by not having a huge military in times of peace. So apparently we haven't learned anything.

Sure we did. How did that work out at the beginning of World War 2? We lost a lot of people by having outdated equipment and spent an untold fortune bringing ourselves up to par and then surpassing our enemies at the time. Perceived weakness invites attack.

If we had a bigger navy, more of it would have been sunk at Pearl Harbor, and most of it would likely have been battleships, not the aircraft carriers it turned out we needed. We would have spent an untold fortune anyway - everyone did in that war. Difference is, we had more money to do it because we didn't spend money on stuff for the previous 20 years that would have been obsolete anyway. Even so, it took us less than 4 years to finish off the Japs despite the large distances, even while fighting in Europe and pushing the Germans back. And we were only there for a year.

So if we would have had a bigger Navy it would have all been stationed at Pearl Harbor. You think maybe some might have went to Subic Bay to reinforce the Philippines? Maybe we could have had more aircraft carriers to where more patrolling would have been possible so that we didn't get surprised at Pearl.
If you check you will also find we didn't have the money. That's why the war bond drives were so critical. And we were in Europe a lot longer that one year unless you figure Italy, one of the bloodiest theatres of the war, isn't in Europe. You also fail to address the number of lives lost due to starting out the war with inferior equipment. Also as Bull pointed out, we aren't equipped now to convert over to war production as we were then.

We would have had equipment built in the 20s and early 30s. It would have all been obsolete. If we didn't have the money, then how on Earth would we have been able to afford keeping up a military? How exactly can we afford it now? We can't. We simply borrow money for it.

The ocean is a big place. Would have been very expensive to try to patrol any percentage of the routes the Japs could have taken to any number of potential targets. You're going to build 15 carriers for an attack that might never happen?

Yea I misspoke, have to include the time in Italy as well. Still only a few years. Even the Germans lost a lot of lives due to inferior equipment also, like when they went up against T-34s. Up-to-date equipment changes a lot when there's a war going on. Something that was up to date in 1937 isn't up to date in 1942. If you try to chase that every year when there isn't even a war on you'll go broke.

Then there are all the years before WWI we would have been spending money on a big military.

You upgrade based on the capabilities of your potential adversary just as we did during the Cold War. We haven't had a major global conflict since World War 2 yet we are not using the same version of F15 as we did when if first came out. Had we allowed ourselves to get to the level we were immediately prior to World War 2 it is a good bet the Soviets would have taken advantage.
That's the need for military spending and why you keep your forces up to date and prepared for the conflicts they are likely to face.