Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message Social
security was included.

No. The Social Security Administration was included. Much of the
money for Social Security (as well as other social programs) are 'off
budget', I.E. the money spent on them is not discretionary.

Until you can at least provide factual data to support your claim, then all
you are doing is arguing against the facts I have presented, based on your
opinion. I presented the breakdown of a $1.7 trillion federal budget. If
you have factual data showing totally different amounts, please present
them. If you sincerely believe that the "administration" of the Education,
Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department, Soc.
Sec. Admin departments actually use almost $600B, just to "administrate,"
you're nuts.

I have shown that it is indeed justified.

No, you have done no such thing. You supplied your opinion that the
National Debt was directly attributed to excessive defense spending.

Again, at least I can say that I have supplied data to support my position,
including showing where the data came from. You have yet to show ANY
supporting data at all to support your position. If you can show such data,
I would be more than happy to discuss it. Until such time though, you do
not have a leg to stand on.


No. You have provided carefully slanted data from a selected portion
of the available sources.

LOL What I have done is provide actual data. Whether or not your opinion
agrees with it is irrelevant. Please provide factual evidence to support
YOUR conclusions.


Your main point remains an unsupported assumption based on your
personal opinion and incomplete information.

Again, this is ridiculous. Your original point, regarding social spending
being a magnitude more than defense spending was the totally unsupported
opinion. You provided absolutely NO data to support your opinion, for that
is what it was, an opinion, not a factual statement. You want to PROVE me
wrong? Then please do so. But proving means more than just saying I'm
wrong. It means backing up your words with facts. Whether or not you agree
with my facts, whether you think they're slanted or not, at least I took the
time to gets some facts to back up my ideas. You, on the other hand, appear
to think that simply spewing an opinion automatically makes it a fact. Like
the saying goes, put up or shut up.
Whether or not this "debate" (if I can call it that, as, between the two of
us, I am the only one presenting any facts) will continue probably depends
on whether or not the moderators here care to let it go on. Since it
appears that most of the people in the group are rather more on the
conservative side of things, it probably won't be long before I get shut
out. But then again, who knows? Like I have said repeatedly, I'm all for a
good spirited debate, but it's pointless when the other side can not, or
will not, back up their positions. So, if you can nor or will not provide
factual data from a reputable source, then please do us all a favor and not
respond back.