[quote]dhickey wrote:
Most of the Iraq war is funded with supplimentals. Through 2007 this was $115B.[/quote]
Meant in 2007 not through
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Dude, The military spending isn’t what he is talking about. It’s using the military to bomb a bridge in Iraq, and then using our Taxpayers money to rebuild it. The occupation is what is hurting us. If we just went in, whipped some ass and then got the hell out of there, it would have been a good thing.
[/quote]
This is just an extension of the social welfare. The defense budget should contain $0 for reparations.
But - even with that factored in, we still spend a shit ton more money on unconstitutional items than we do defense.
I agree 100% with your assessment of the war, or lack thereof, though. We should go in destroy everything we need to and get out.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Dude, The military spending isn’t what he is talking about. It’s using the military to bomb a bridge in Iraq, and then using our Taxpayers money to rebuild it. The occupation is what is hurting us. If we just went in, whipped some ass and then got the hell out of there, it would have been a good thing.
This is just an extension of the social welfare. The defense budget should contain $0 for reparations.
But - even with that factored in, we still spend a shit ton more money on unconstitutional items than we do defense.
I agree 100% with your assessment of the war, or lack thereof, though. We should go in destroy everything we need to and get out.
[/quote]
I knew we had some common ground, we used to be old allies against the likes of vroom and some of the others.
V
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Still a lot of deflection and subject changing. Still don’t want to take a stab at this?
[/quote]
Go reread what he said. Just because you don’t like Ahmadinejad doesn’t mean what he says is not relevant or generally true.
I think you know government spending is also part of the general problem. Don’t pretend like it has nothing to do with anything.
He never said Military spending caused banks to fail. Go back and reread it and quote specifically where he said that. Your initial claim is a red herring.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
[/quote]
This is not all military spending. There is spending that doesn’t even get accounted for.
We have 2 different threads going in this one now, neither of which is the original topic =]
I have a specific reason why I’m asking how bad people think the perception of the US is, especially as an occupational force in Iraq.
Personally, I don’t care what other nations think any further than it serves our interests, but that isn’t the point I’m getting at.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
This is not all military spending. There is spending that doesn’t even get accounted for.[/quote]
Defense spending should be bout 90% of our budget.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
This is not all military spending. There is spending that doesn’t even get accounted for.
Defense spending should be bout 90% of our budget. [/quote]
Agreed. I wouldn’t mind if the DOD swallowed the budgets for the SSA, HUD, DOE and some others tomorrow.
At least that would sit better than all this destructive waste we have now.
Of course the best way would be to eliminate those boondoggles, cut the omnibus budget accordingly and slash taxes across the board with the wholesale elimination of several crackpot immoral taxes altogether.
Oh yes, that is what we need – a military state. We should just dress our leaders in uniform and get it over with.
It doesn’t really matter how much you think should be dedicated to the military budget since most spending falls outside of the budget. If the government could actually follow a budget there would be no deficits or debt.
The idea of a budget is one of economic calculation – directing the best possible means to the best possible outcome. Government is incapable of doing this because there are no rewards or punishments for malinvestment outside of the market – no profit or loss.
Government can only steal what it needs and direct funds to where it thinks it might be needed most. If it guesses wrong it incurs a debt and then tries to correct the problem in the next fiscal budget.
If it now dedicates more money to the budget it now faces a new problem – what to do with all the leftovers.
I can tell you from experience government does not give it back to the tax-payer from whom it was stolen. It increases spending even if it is not needed. This then sets the precedence for even more spending.
The lesson is that government does not ever shrink in size but grows ever more huge and inefficient. The US military is one of the worst bureaucracies of inefficiency in government.
No thank you. If we need defense then all we need do is pick up a rifle and learn to shoot it. Case closed.
I don’t really give a fuck what a Ahmadathingy thinks. He has zero credibility and is not worth even addressing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
This is not all military spending. There is spending that doesn’t even get accounted for.
Defense spending should be bout 90% of our budget. [/quote]
95%…What are you trying to weaken our country?
[quote]lixy wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
The government has no business ‘schooling’ children (http://www.schoolandstate.org/case.htm). Public schools are a disaster-- please give me my voucher so I can educate my kids how I want.
Welfare is welfare and is destructive. After 60+ years of large scale institutional welfare and 40+ years of “The Great Society” there are generations of families who have known nothing except collecting welfare and are truly subjects of the State.
A strong national defense is money well spent. I used to think the government should build roads, too, but after consulting for State and Federal DOT’s, I’m not so sure I believe that anymore.
Look, I’m very much in favor of small government and all that, but between my money being used for welfare or warfare, the choice is quickly made in my mind.
You speak of a “strong national defense” and it seems like a reasonable thing to do. Trouble is that I don’t see much “defense” in the way the US military behaves. I see money spent to start wars of aggression under the guise of preemption. I see emboldening imperialistic endeavors such as that of Georgia, Morocco and the rest. I see meddling with the business of sovereign states the world over. On top of that, I hear inflammatory rhetoric.
Defense doesn’t mean what you think it means.[/quote]
Uh whatever…Iraq is not the whole world…Nice try though. Doing business with countries that want to do business with us is not meddling.
And while I think the Iraq war was a mistake, it was not with out precedence and it’s winding down big time, so you can quit whining so much.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
<<< If we need defense then all we need do is pick up a rifle and learn to shoot it. Case closed.[/quote]
Good food for thought and then this?
You can’t possibly believe that an untrained citizen infantry with civilian small arms is adequate defense in today’s world? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
We could talk about different ways to do the military, but to say, as this statement seems to, that we don’t need one makes me wonder if you’ve been watching Care Bear reruns again.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
<<< If we need defense then all we need do is pick up a rifle and learn to shoot it. Case closed.
Good food for thought and then this?
You can’t possibly believe that an untrained citizen infantry with civilian small arms is adequate defense in today’s world? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
We could talk about different ways to do the military, but to say, as this statement seems to, that we don’t need one makes me wonder if you’ve been watching Care Bear reruns again.[/quote]
I think he was thinking on a more local level. Like Ok if we get nuked, sure my rifle isn’t going to protect me. But if some goons are running around my town in the back of a pickup, it would take me and 4 buddies about 20 seconds to fuck them all up in an ambush.
Look, America is never going to get invaded by a foreign power. The logistics of it are so rediculous, if any other world power tried, I would die first of laughter. You need a rifle to hunt, and to defend yourself from goons and your government if it becomes corrupt.
And no one man with a rifle can’t do much against an oppressive government, but 10 million dudes with rifles, thats something you just cant fuck with. This is why some of us get so upset every time the government tries to increase gun regulation.
They are one of the groups I may have to use my gun against and they are trying to take it away? Just smells bad.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
<<< but 10 million dudes with rifles, thats something you just cant fuck with. >>>[/quote]
Yeah, I picked up the anti aircraft rounds for my deer rifle and 12 gauge last week.
Maybe if I find a high tree on the Oregon coast I’ll be able to ping somebody’s naval armada as well.
The very belief that we could never suffer a north American continental assault is what will pave the way for it.
As soon as somebody says, “well, we have the muscle to stop that” then you make my point.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Vegita wrote:
<<< but 10 million dudes with rifles, thats something you just cant fuck with. >>>
Yeah, I picked up the anti aircraft rounds for my deer rifle and 12 gauge last week.
Maybe if I find a high tree on the Oregon coast I’ll be able to ping somebody’s naval armada as well.
The very belief that we could never suffer a north American continental assault is what will pave the way for it.
As soon as somebody says, “well, we have the muscle to stop that” then you make my point.
[/quote]
Ok well if you think that way thats fine, I guess we will never know until it happens. I would certainly have a better chance of repelling an invasion with a long range hunting rifle, than with my bare hands, so I think I’ll keep my rifle and keep practicing with it. Besides, shooting is fun, Kill 2 birds with one bullet.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ok well if you think that way thats fine, I guess we will never know until it happens. I would certainly have a better chance of repelling an invasion with a long range hunting rifle, than with my bare hands, so I think I’ll keep my rifle and keep practicing with it. Besides, shooting is fun, Kill 2 birds with one bullet.
V[/quote]
Lifty stays so far out in left field that we might as well buy him a lawn mower and put him on the fucking payroll. as long as the citizenry is armed, there is little chance that we will ever have the military dictatorship he is whining about.
I think the provision is in the constitution for both national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms.
My point was that, if you look at the budget expenditures posted, we spend 2.5 times the money on socialistic feel-good crap than we do on the things that are constitutionally granted for the government to spend money on.
The defense budget should be 90% of our expenditures.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Vegita wrote:
<<< but 10 million dudes with rifles, thats something you just cant fuck with. >>>
Yeah, I picked up the anti aircraft rounds for my deer rifle and 12 gauge last week.
Maybe if I find a high tree on the Oregon coast I’ll be able to ping somebody’s naval armada as well.
The very belief that we could never suffer a north American continental assault is what will pave the way for it.
As soon as somebody says, “well, we have the muscle to stop that” then you make my point.
Ok well if you think that way thats fine, I guess we will never know until it happens. I would certainly have a better chance of repelling an invasion with a long range hunting rifle, than with my bare hands, so I think I’ll keep my rifle and keep practicing with it. Besides, shooting is fun, Kill 2 birds with one bullet.
V[/quote]
Hold on a minute there chief. I hope you are not confusing my recognition of the need for a modern military industrial complex (I love that term) with any view that disarms the citizenry. I love shooting.
Nobody could be a stronger proponent of the 2nd amendment than I. And I don’t mean sporting arms either. I believe this society would be safer for law abiding citizens if there were absolutely no gun laws whatsoever if what we have today is the alternative. I mean full select fire, unlimited ammunition types and capacities and so on.
Try this. How bout 10 million guys with their guns AND a strong military in the case of a foreign threat? I’ll take that. It would mean 10 million instant infantry personnel. Even some sporting arms have very impressive capability.
A 7mm Rem Mag fed through a good rifle in the hands of a seasoned hunter is lethal out to 900 or 1000 yards from an improvised bench. Close combat would be rough though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You can’t possibly believe that an untrained citizen infantry with civilian small arms is adequate defense in today’s world? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
[/quote]
Essentially yes that is exactly what I am saying. Missles, tanks, bombs, etc., are only so useful. In order to occupy a country there must be troops on the ground.
One can keep wasting money and other resources on bombs but eventually there have to be soldiers to physically take the real estate. That is when the rifle is king.
Imagine the size of the military necessary to occupy this country. We have a military of about 2.5 million members and it would still not be enough to completely occupy it. The Army alone would need to be 10x bigger.
In the history of war all defending nations were made up of their own citizen soldiers. The occupying forces were mostly professional military paid out of the coffers of kings and pillaged from other nations.
It is pretty ridiculous that the defense of this nation should be expectant on someone else other than the occupant of the land being defended.
Those that cry about the sanctity of the military and how the rest of the country should support the troops should be the first to pick up a rifle and learn to defend his own home. You want to support the troops? Learn to shoot a rifle and keep a soldier from getting killed defending your sorry ass.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
You can’t possibly believe that an untrained citizen infantry with civilian small arms is adequate defense in today’s world? I know you ain’t sayin that right?
Essentially yes that is exactly what I am saying. Missles, tanks, bombs, etc., are only so useful. In order to occupy a country there must be troops on the ground.
One can keep wasting money and other resources on bombs but eventually there have to be soldiers to physically take the real estate. That is when the rifle is king.
Imagine the size of the military necessary to occupy this country. We have a military of about 2.5 million members and it would still not be enough to completely occupy it. The Army alone would need to be 10x bigger.
In the history of war all defending nations were made up of their own citizen soldiers. The occupying forces were mostly professional military paid out of the coffers of kings and pillaged from other nations.
It is pretty ridiculous that the defense of this nation should be expectant on someone else other than the occupant of the land being defended.
Those that cry about the sanctity of the military and how the rest of the country should support the troops should be the first to pick up a rifle and learn to defend his own home. You want to support the troops? Learn to shoot a rifle and keep a soldier from getting killed defending your sorry ass.[/quote]
Read my post above to Vegita.
A couple other things.
Are not our military personnel also occupants of this country. Why do you portray them as being somebody other than that… your words?
Territory is taken in today’s world by air strikes and armor subduing an opponent preemptively before ground troops are deployed to accomplish the actual occupation.
When you figure a way to take down enemy aircraft and repel armored ground units deployed by a navy off one of our coasts with bolt action rifles and slide action shotguns we’ll talk.