I am not opposed to cutting the defense budget, I am sure last year’s model tank works just fine.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.
Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]
First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?[/quote]
Hmmmm. Maybe to maintain American hegemony, which yields immense benefits not only for the United States but for all democracies? Not only militarily, but politically, diplomatically, and economically? I’m speaking of what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power.” Take a wild guess at who protects every major maritime trade route across the globe.[/quote]
I want our men and women in uniform to not have to fight fair. I want them to have overwhelming power at their disposal to keep them as safe as possible when ugly stuff has to be done. That’s one of the very few things I’m glad my tax dollars can go towards.
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.
Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]
First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?[/quote]
Hmmmm. Maybe to maintain American hegemony, which yields immense benefits not only for the United States but for all democracies? Not only militarily, but politically, diplomatically, and economically? I’m speaking of what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power.” Take a wild guess at who protects every major maritime trade route across the globe.[/quote]
I want our men and women in uniform to not have to fight fair. I want them to have overwhelming power at their disposal to keep them as safe as possible when ugly stuff has to be done. That’s one of the very few things I’m glad my tax dollars can go towards.[/quote]
Agreed. The rewards of maintaining an overwhelming military edge extend far beyond the battle field. The United States and its allies benefit greatly economically from American hegemony.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Oh God,as if that is a viable analogy. Get real![/quote]
Why isn’t it?
Point still stands, as you can’t address his point, so you change the conversation.
Why on Earth would what it is called have any affect what-so-ever on how much is spent on it?
You are a fascists wetdream. You are, in almost every way, every stereotypical, anti-American talking point the left has come up with in the last 100 years.
I swear you are picking this stuff up out of a handbook.
[quote] I thought you were against government waste?
[/quote]
Please point out where I’ve ever said military spending shouldn’t take a haircut.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This is just one of many. I will post more if you’d like but since Rush didn’t say it was true, I don’t expect you to accept the premise.[/quote]
You know, if you took as much time to worry about your own confirmation bias as you do falsely projecting it upon others, you wouldn’t sound like a sock puppet for the progressive left.
Also, such a cliche tactic. Aren’t you supposed to keep your tactics fresh? I mean the Rush tactic was played out awhile ago.
[quote]Military Spending Costs Jobs, Doesn't Create Them, Anti-War Group Says | HuffPost Latest News
[/quote]
How about an independent source? An article in a lefty rag website, from a chickenhawk lefty think tank, holds little water.
How about, anyone with any sort of credentials in economics?
Why do you guys object to a National Socialist state? The only way to have your cake and eat it too is by brute force. That’s what you secretly crave in your craven hearts…to have your cake and eat it too.
Admit it…you want free stuff stolen from someone else. So you put in place a thuggish government to do exactly what you wanted.
It never dawned on you dumb fuckers that the clubs and guns might come your way?
Dumb fuckers are dumb.
Bill Clinton was prez for 8 years and Hillary probably will be for 8. Now throw in that other piece of walking and talking human feces named Obama…you WANT THIS. You wanted them.
Enjoy the bed you made.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.
Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]
First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?[/quote]
Hmmmm. Maybe to maintain American hegemony, which yields immense benefits not only for the United States but for all democracies? Not only militarily, but politically, diplomatically, and economically? I’m speaking of what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power.” Take a wild guess at who protects every major maritime trade route across the globe.[/quote]
I want our men and women in uniform to not have to fight fair. I want them to have overwhelming power at their disposal to keep them as safe as possible when ugly stuff has to be done. That’s one of the very few things I’m glad my tax dollars can go towards.[/quote]
Agreed. The rewards of maintaining an overwhelming military edge extend far beyond the battle field. The United States and its allies benefit greatly economically from American hegemony. [/quote]
There’s also the law of diminishing returns. The question is, how much do we really need to spend to maintain hegemony and how much hegemony is necessary. Also, shit like “deepwater” with the coastguard really chaps my hide:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-2823448.html
I’m from a coastguard family and this shit really burns me:
"You can begin with the fact that the Coast Guard spent nearly $100 million to ruin eight patrol boats. The plan was to take the aging workhorses of the fleet, the 110-foot Island Class patrol boats, and lengthen them by 13 feet, adding a launch ramp for small inflatable boats and expanding the superstructure. But something went drastically wrong at the Bollinger Shipyard near New Orleans, where the first eight boats were extended.
“What you see is a lot of buckling. In the floor. And spaces where you know something is bending that shouldn’t be bending in other words it should be flat,” Cummings recalls.
After just a few weeks on the water, all eight boats experienced severe structural problems and had to be pulled out of service. They are currently tied up at a pier at the Coast Guard’s Baltimore yard waiting to be decommissioned. Their problems, the Coast Guard says, are too serious to be fixed."
And rather than throw the contractors in jail or even get a refund, they just pay them and pretend like nothing’s wrong:
"From the outset, the Coast Guard didn’t have the resources to run a $24 billion project. So it outsourced the entire program to the private sectorâ??not just the constructionâ??but the day-to-day management of the contract. It went to a company called Integrated Coast Guard Systems, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman that had been formed specifically for this job. Not surprisingly, the joint venture picked Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to do the lion’s share of the work.
One of the first people to send up a warning flare about the contract was Captain Kevin Jarvis, who, until his retirement last fall, commanded of the Coast Guard’s Engineering and Logistics Center.
“People have told us, ‘Look, the people that were supposedly managing the contractors were, in many cases, the contractors themselves.’ The same companies. Correct?” Kroft asks.
“Correct. Correct. People say that this is like the fox watching the henhouse. And it’s worse than that,” Capt. Jarvis says. “It’s where the government asked the fox to develop the security system for the henhouse. Then told 'em, ‘You’re gonna do it. You know, by the way, we’ll give you the security code to the system and we’ll tell you when we’re on vacation.’”
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Also, there is waste born of inefficiency that is not tied to jobs. It should go first–from every government program.[/quote]
Only bad part is, government will have to hire 45 people to achieve this.
Government is like a hydra… Chop off a head, two grow in its place[/quote]
lol, true. We’ll axe them right after though.[/quote]
wut? do you not understand the concept of a hydra? You’re going to axe the heads knowing there will be four next?
The point is politics doesn’t allow for any segmented cuts to “waste born of inneficiency”. You either kill the beast or it kills you.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.
Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]
First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?[/quote]
Hmmmm. Maybe to maintain American hegemony, which yields immense benefits not only for the United States but for all democracies? Not only militarily, but politically, diplomatically, and economically? I’m speaking of what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power.” Take a wild guess at who protects every major maritime trade route across the globe.[/quote]
I want our men and women in uniform to not have to fight fair. I want them to have overwhelming power at their disposal to keep them as safe as possible when ugly stuff has to be done. That’s one of the very few things I’m glad my tax dollars can go towards.[/quote]
Agreed. The rewards of maintaining an overwhelming military edge extend far beyond the battle field. The United States and its allies benefit greatly economically from American hegemony. [/quote]
Bravo! Someone who actually has the balls to defend American dominance over other countries for it’s own benefit. Is it any wonder why a good number of the outside world actually hates this country.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
This is just one of many. I will post more if you’d like but since Rush didn’t say it was true, I don’t expect you to accept the premise.[/quote]
You know, if you took as much time to worry about your own confirmation bias as you do falsely projecting it upon others, you wouldn’t sound like a sock puppet for the progressive left.
Also, such a cliche tactic. Aren’t you supposed to keep your tactics fresh? I mean the Rush tactic was played out awhile ago.
[quote]Military Spending Costs Jobs, Doesn't Create Them, Anti-War Group Says | HuffPost Latest News
[/quote]
How about an independent source? An article in a lefty rag website, from a chickenhawk lefty think tank, holds little water.
How about, anyone with any sort of credentials in economics?[/quote]
What would be an independent source in your eyes?
I consistently upload news interviews form The Real News Network. This is about as unbiased as you can get in the modern day.
Why is the Huffington Post a lefty rag? And where do you get your info. from?
@ Beans you act as though the left and right are all so different ?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What would be an independent source in your eyes?
[/quote]
How about, in this particular instance anyone with any sort of credentials in economics. Well, upon further review, anyone but Krugman.
Unbiased? Lol, this is the same website that held Oliver Stone out as some sort of truth sayer… Calling your favorite website unbiased is like saying Fox or MSNBC are unbiased.
I assume you don’t go there often if you have to ask.
Depends. If it is anything I’m going to base an opinion on I try and get the “story” from both sides, and the original source.
But, in the end, it depends. I don’t “trust” any media source.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ Beans you act as though the left and right are all so different ?[/quote]
In matters of foreign policy, they aren’t. The fringe in both parties are pretty different, but the establishment are pretty much on the same page.