View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently November 27th, 2014, 1:18 pm



Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Coke V Pepsi 
Author Message
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.


Logical but not back up by facts, I grew up in the 80's, a time of peace between wars - might want to take a look at military spending under Regan (hint, it was a higher % of GDP back then than at any time since we started wars in Iraq/Afganistan and during this time of peace (80-88) our spending per capita nearly doubled from when he took office to when he left).

Even when we don't have wars - we still do. It might be called a War Against Terrorism, or the Bay of Pigs, or a Cold War, or Coke vs. Pepsi. There always seems to be an enemy, offical war or not!


Wait wait wait... Regan had a HUGE and, IMO, NECESSARY expansion of our military, and that was during the "Cold War" with Russia. Our military was ignored for DECADES under prior presidents and it was sort of needed. Politics in the 70s precluded economic growth, the oil embargo, etc. We were cash strapped in a bad way until things loosened up under Regan and he vastly improved a military that was begging for advancement. We were still cruising the seas in ships built for WWII when Regan expanded the military. I don't fault him for that one bit.

Bay of pigs was an invasion and wouldn't cost the amount of money that one day in Afganistan cost. The "War on Drugs" in the 80s was called a "war" much the same way we're calling it a "war" on terror, but it's hardly the same cost as invading a nation and spending $900 million a day.


September 13th, 2012, 4:21 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
there is no doubt the 2 candiates are different...what im having trouble seeing is the difference in the outcome between the 2.

One may be heads and the other may very well be tails...but they are the same coin and thats what i think most people fail to see.



That may be true RJ, but you have to give Romney a shot to try to reduce the size and scope of government and actually undo Obama Care. If the outcome is the same and the Bill lives, we're screwed, but Obama doesn't even WANT it undone. Most of us do... If it stays while Romney is in office, it stays, but the only shot of it going away are to get rid of Obama.



and we will forever be screwed untill we the people start making better options. the 2 party system is NEVER going to change untill it's forced to. there will always be a crysis that MUST be voted against, or a war that must be finished. it will always be the same, it has been for decades. when would you propose a stand and start saying ENOUGH? I have never been so adamant about voting 3rd party as I am this election. I am soooo sick of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I want another option! If for no other reason than to shake things up...

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


September 13th, 2012, 4:46 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.


Logical but not back up by facts, I grew up in the 80's, a time of peace between wars - might want to take a look at military spending under Regan (hint, it was a higher % of GDP back then than at any time since we started wars in Iraq/Afganistan and during this time of peace (80-88) our spending per capita nearly doubled from when he took office to when he left).

Even when we don't have wars - we still do. It might be called a War Against Terrorism, or the Bay of Pigs, or a Cold War, or Coke vs. Pepsi. There always seems to be an enemy, offical war or not!


Wait wait wait... Regan had a HUGE and, IMO, NECESSARY expansion of our military, and that was during the "Cold War" with Russia. Our military was ignored for DECADES under prior presidents and it was sort of needed. Politics in the 70s precluded economic growth, the oil embargo, etc. We were cash strapped in a bad way until things loosened up under Regan and he vastly improved a military that was begging for advancement. We were still cruising the seas in ships built for WWII when Regan expanded the military. I don't fault him for that one bit.

Bay of pigs was an invasion and wouldn't cost the amount of money that one day in Afganistan cost. The "War on Drugs" in the 80s was called a "war" much the same way we're calling it a "war" on terror, but it's hardly the same cost as invading a nation and spending $900 million a day.



COUGH COUGH star wars COUGH COUGH

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


September 13th, 2012, 4:47 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9521
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.


Later to be followed by...

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wait wait wait... Regan had a HUGE and, IMO, NECESSARY expansion of our military, and that was during the "Cold War" with Russia.


Exactly, I'm going to let you argue against yourself now WJB... :lol:

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 13th, 2012, 5:01 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
there is no doubt the 2 candiates are different...what im having trouble seeing is the difference in the outcome between the 2.

One may be heads and the other may very well be tails...but they are the same coin and thats what i think most people fail to see.



That may be true RJ, but you have to give Romney a shot to try to reduce the size and scope of government and actually undo Obama Care. If the outcome is the same and the Bill lives, we're screwed, but Obama doesn't even WANT it undone. Most of us do... If it stays while Romney is in office, it stays, but the only shot of it going away are to get rid of Obama.



and we will forever be screwed untill we the people start making better options. the 2 party system is NEVER going to change untill it's forced to. there will always be a crysis that MUST be voted against, or a war that must be finished. it will always be the same, it has been for decades. when would you propose a stand and start saying ENOUGH? I have never been so adamant about voting 3rd party as I am this election. I am soooo sick of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I want another option! If for no other reason than to shake things up...



RJ, this evolution isn't going to happen in November, so you're beating a dead horse, at least this go-round.

If "the people" really want to do something create a 3rd party caucus much like the privately funded Democratic and Republican, get some national recognition, and MAKE people listen. Be prominent on TV and otherwise and offer a real, advertised 3rd choice. Throwing away a vote on a guy that hasn't even really campaigned us utterly stupid. He has no chance of winning.

If a third party wants to be relevant they're going to need to expand their infrastructure and get relevant by doing something other than bitching. FFS... a "networking" site got more relevant in a couple years than any third party has in the last century.


September 13th, 2012, 5:06 pm
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.


Later to be followed by...

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wait wait wait... Regan had a HUGE and, IMO, NECESSARY expansion of our military, and that was during the "Cold War" with Russia.


Exactly, I'm going to let you argue against yourself now WJB... :lol:


Pablo infrastructure spending isn't the same as war spending. You can't see that? You can't see the difference in spending done to maintain and upgrade your military vs the cost of an invasion?

What Regan spent in a few short years was compiled of massive amounts of money that SHOULD have been spent yearly for the prior forty years.


September 13th, 2012, 5:08 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9521
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.


Later to be followed by...

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wait wait wait... Regan had a HUGE and, IMO, NECESSARY expansion of our military, and that was during the "Cold War" with Russia.


Exactly, I'm going to let you argue against yourself now WJB... :lol:


Pablo infrastructure spending isn't the same as war spending. You can't see that? You can't see the difference in spending done to maintain and upgrade your military vs the cost of an invasion?

What Regan spent in a few short years was compiled of massive amounts of money that SHOULD have been spent yearly for the prior forty years.


Spending is spending my man, you just happen to support it stronger one way (Coke) versus another (Pepsi).

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 13th, 2012, 5:14 pm
Profile WWW
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
there is no doubt the 2 candiates are different...what im having trouble seeing is the difference in the outcome between the 2.

One may be heads and the other may very well be tails...but they are the same coin and thats what i think most people fail to see.



That may be true RJ, but you have to give Romney a shot to try to reduce the size and scope of government and actually undo Obama Care. If the outcome is the same and the Bill lives, we're screwed, but Obama doesn't even WANT it undone. Most of us do... If it stays while Romney is in office, it stays, but the only shot of it going away are to get rid of Obama.



and we will forever be screwed untill we the people start making better options. the 2 party system is NEVER going to change untill it's forced to. there will always be a crysis that MUST be voted against, or a war that must be finished. it will always be the same, it has been for decades. when would you propose a stand and start saying ENOUGH? I have never been so adamant about voting 3rd party as I am this election. I am soooo sick of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I want another option! If for no other reason than to shake things up...



RJ, this evolution isn't going to happen in November, so you're beating a dead horse, at least this go-round.

If "the people" really want to do something create a 3rd party caucus much like the privately funded Democratic and Republican, get some national recognition, and MAKE people listen. Be prominent on TV and otherwise and offer a real, advertised 3rd choice. Throwing away a vote on a guy that hasn't even really campaigned us utterly stupid. He has no chance of winning.

If a third party wants to be relevant they're going to need to expand their infrastructure and get relevant by doing something other than bitching. FFS... a "networking" site got more relevant in a couple years than any third party has in the last century.

Immediate need, you are correct....but if the 3rd party gets 5% of the national vote they get the same national funding as the 2 big (LAZY) dogsin the next election. thats a win IMO...

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


September 13th, 2012, 5:20 pm
Profile
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.


Later to be followed by...

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wait wait wait... Regan had a HUGE and, IMO, NECESSARY expansion of our military, and that was during the "Cold War" with Russia.


Exactly, I'm going to let you argue against yourself now WJB... :lol:


Pablo infrastructure spending isn't the same as war spending. You can't see that? You can't see the difference in spending done to maintain and upgrade your military vs the cost of an invasion?

What Regan spent in a few short years was compiled of massive amounts of money that SHOULD have been spent yearly for the prior forty years.


Spending is spending my man, you just happen to support it stronger one way (Coke) versus another (Pepsi).



You are blind. Spending is NOT spending... What you're saying is that spending money to build infrastructure is the same as spending money on an entitlement program that is going to expand for ever.

You are saying that spending money to replace a falling apart car is the same as loaning money to your indigent Uncle that can't pay his bills.


September 13th, 2012, 5:25 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9521
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's not true. There are huge times of peace between wars. Do we still occupy areas? Sure, does it cost one 10th of what it did when the war was going on, hell no.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
See above... WWI, 20 years later WWII, 10 years later Korean War, 20 years later Vietnam, 20 years later Dessert Storm, 10 years later Afghanistan.


Later to be followed by...

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wait wait wait... Regan had a HUGE and, IMO, NECESSARY expansion of our military, and that was during the "Cold War" with Russia.


Exactly, I'm going to let you argue against yourself now WJB... :lol:


Pablo infrastructure spending isn't the same as war spending. You can't see that? You can't see the difference in spending done to maintain and upgrade your military vs the cost of an invasion?

What Regan spent in a few short years was compiled of massive amounts of money that SHOULD have been spent yearly for the prior forty years.


Spending is spending my man, you just happen to support it stronger one way (Coke) versus another (Pepsi).



You are blind. Spending is NOT spending... What you're saying is that spending money to build infrastructure is the same as spending money on an entitlement program that is going to expand for ever.

You are saying that spending money to replace a falling apart car is the same as loaning money to your indigent Uncle that can't pay his bills.


Each side thinks their idea of spending is right, this is a major part of the problem. The reality is, spending above what you are bringing in is a problem - I don't care what you are spending the money on. The only exception is when you have surpluses and defecits that in the end was so the net debt is zero.

I'm OK with you spending the money on infrastructue - IF you have the money for it.

So WJB are you saying you are OK with spending on "infrastructure" even if it is putting the country in spiraling debt?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 13th, 2012, 5:32 pm
Profile WWW
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
You are saying that spending money to replace a falling apart car is the same as loaning money to your indigent Uncle that can't pay his bills.



they are different....but you have to account for the problem at hand. that broken down car wont be replaced by a practicle car. it will be replaced by a suped up hummer whos rims cost 10k a piece....THATS our federal government. I get where you are commnig from. the issue is you still trust the GOP to spend wisely.....I think its safe to say that we dont.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


September 13th, 2012, 5:33 pm
Profile
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
Pablo wrote:
Each side thinks their idea of spending is right, this is a major part of the problem. The reality is, spending above what you are bringing in is a problem - I don't care what you are spending the money on. The only exception is when you have surpluses and defecits that in the end was so the net debt is zero.

I'm OK with you spending the money on infrastructue - IF you have the money for it.

So WJB are you saying you are OK with spending on "infrastructure" even if it is putting the country in spiraling debt?


What I'm saying is, you HAVE to spend on infrastructure, period. You HAVE to maintain your roads, bridges, military, etc. or the country would literally fall apart, period.

But it's not infrastructure spending that's killing the country, it's entitlement spending. Infrastructure spending isn't 1/3 of what entitlement spending is.


September 13th, 2012, 5:40 pm
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
regularjoe12 wrote:
You are saying that spending money to replace a falling apart car is the same as loaning money to your indigent Uncle that can't pay his bills.



they are different....but you have to account for the problem at hand. that broken down car wont be replaced by a practicle car. it will be replaced by a suped up hummer whos rims cost 10k a piece....THATS our federal government. I get where you are commnig from. the issue is you still trust the GOP to spend wisely.....I think its safe to say that we dont.


That's sort of true, and there are ways to do it smart, and ways to not, but if the new "hummer" is nuclear powered and won't need fuel for 20 years, it may be a good investment.

I get what you're saying, and no, I don't trust the GOP to spend wisely. I think there is a lot in our military spending that is ridiculous. There are cases of $5,000 hammers, and $10,000 coffee pots cause the military asked that they be built to "crash proof" specs. Really? Who gives a crap if the coffee pot doesn't make it?

I think all of that stuff needs to be monitored for efficiently, but the fact of the matter remains that entitlements are what is killing us.


September 13th, 2012, 5:42 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3873
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
to be fair I truely believe that the 10k dollar toilet seats are the way the government hides black ops spending, but yeah you get my point..

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


September 13th, 2012, 5:48 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2753
Post Re: Coke V Pepsi
Pablo you're 100% right. Maybe one day people will realize we live under a one-party, dual head system and wake up. I have hope.

This country has been at war for 60 years and there's no end in sight. We're fighting a "war on terror" -- a war that can't possibly be won because there is no definitive enemy. Just because we weren't fighting a major war, doesn't mean we haven't always been at war. We were in Vietnam in the mid 50s. We were in Nicaragua, Afghanistan in the 1980s, on and on. We have bases in the majority of the countries on earth.

There was no reason for Reagan to waste all that money in the 1980s. The commies were operating under a flawed economic model that was doomed to collapse. We built (wasted money on) enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over. Isn't once enough?

Once the Soviet Union collapsed, military spending should've been cut by 80%. Clinton cut it to some extent, but not enough. Then our pal GWB went on a cowboy adventure and blew $4 trillion dollars pursuing Bin Laden.

Anyway, I agree with WJB in that entitlements are a larger problem than the military. But, wasteful military spending is just as bad. Of course, GWB actually made the entitlement problem worse by expanding medicare, and he blew his chance to reform social security.

Both parties are in the business of growing the government, pure and simple. This is a pretty good white paper on it: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicat ... tRhine.pdf


September 13th, 2012, 7:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.