Please stop referencing third parties and giving me hearsay.

If the defense spending is to be reduced to 2.6% trillion of GDP – that means Obama plans to heavily cut the military capabilities of the US armed forces.

————-

When you quote numbers, I fact check them against the published figures.

I gave you the figures on defense spending. 4% of 15 trillion is $600 billion – which is in line with current defense spending – for 2011 the total military budget was $683 billion.

Which proves my original point that Romney plans on leaving defense spending at present levels – not increase the defense spending.

—————-

I don’t care to read third party statements – refute my facts directly with numbers of your own.

Check out the CBPP.org site. Romney’s budget proposals would entail spending significantly MORE for defense, increasing spending to $7.8 TRILLION over ten years.

Worse, CBPP calculates severe cuts to offset Romney’s spending priorities. Programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cut by $1.5 trillion through 2022. Also, cuts to compensation payments for disabled veterans. Pensions for low-income veterans. SSI benefits for poor aged and disabled individuals. Repealing health reform by itself would leave uninsured 30 million people who would have gained coverage under health reform, according to the CBO.

A bleak landscape just so our nation can have increased military spending and continued tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Also from that report, regarding the projections, which the right often refers to as “promises”::
“It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.”

There’s also a footnote: “Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.”

—————————————————————————————–

MARC, That is a “fib” you yourself have posted today. Congratulations! I see you have been listening the Fox News a lot. To be clear, Obama did not cut benefits from Medicare. What the president did was identify and cut the wasting, bloated payment to providers——payments for unnecessary services that did not improve the health of beneficiaries. Those savings were then “plowed back” to strengthen Medicare and close the “doughnut hole” drug prescription cost for beneficiaries. What Romney promises to do is give back that money to the pharmaceutical companies.

POSTED BY: PERPLEXED | OCTOBER 1, 2012, 10:48 AM 10:48 AM_______________PERPLEX, don’t pick a fight with GREEN. Just wait till the debates. Then, we will hear from the horse’s mouth. But, I woud not bet on Romney to give specifics about his fairy tale economic policies.

PERPLEXED, There is an on ABC Website that the Carter/ Reagan presidential election was influenced by the hostage situation in Iran. Check it out.

If President Obama is re-elected the deficit will go to 25 to 30 trillion dollars. If Mitt is elected the deficit will go to 25 to 30 trillion dollars. You can’t get around it if we want out of this recession. We can do it now or wait for a depression.

The difference is, President Obama knows we need to invest in this economy and not take money out of it to line the vaults of the big corporations who will invest that money in derivatives and banking stock. Mitt doesn’t.

POSTED BY: LARRY | OCTOBER 1, 2012, 10:03 AM 10:03 AM______________Hey, LARRY, do you think Fox News was doing the same thing, doing a “hit-piece” and lambasting President Obama? Interesting that Fox did its poll and showed Obama leading Romney.

————

I provided you with the report that was put out by the office of the President elect – aka Mr. Obama – by his top economic advisers.

You have the name of the report and even the page on which they made those predictions and who authored and co-authored that report.

Politifact is disputing that Obama made a “promise” and instead calling it a “projection”.

This is just splitting hairs on semantics.

They said this is what we expect to achieve – they didn’t achieve it – their results weren’t even in the same ball park – and now they are looking to skirt accountability.