In response to:

Romney Was Not the Problem

crude Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 10:34 PM
Many Neo-Con Republicans suppress the real cost that America spends for its defense and national security needs. The number, approved by the Republican party, is that the U.S. spends only 5% of GDP for defense. This number represents only the budget for the Department of Defense. Other departments in the US government also spend money for defense and national security. Let's add the cost of the War on Terror. The war in Iraq cost was $120 billion a year and the war in Afghanistan now costs $80 billion a year. All added up, the U.S.A. spent double or about 10% of GDP on defense. Can't we conservatives agree that honest assessments are needed to plan for the future?
crude Wrote: Nov 24, 2012 10:35 PM
these are national security costs,

the Veterans Administration spent $100 billion last year.

the Department of Energy, annually, spends $20 billion on nuclear weapons.

Other departments responsible for national security are the National Security Agency ($30 billion), the CIA ($40) and one could even include the Coast Guard ($8 billion). These are all yearly costs. I'm tired of Neo-Cons saying that the National Security Agency has nothing to do with national security.

Small minds always leap to the answers given the last time around, which is probably why Maxine Waters keeps getting re-elected. But the last time is not necessarily the same as this time. A terrorist attack is not the same as the Cold War, a war in Afghanistan is not the same as a war in Iraq, and Mitt Romney is not the same as John McCain or Bob Dole.

But since the election, many conservatives seem to be coalescing around the explanation for our defeat given by Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, who said: "What we...