PDA

View Full Version : Finally! Bravo Pres. Obama! Defense SpendingCuts!



Gayle in MD
01-05-2012, 09:09 PM
Defense spending is finally being highlighted as a major cause of high deficits, instead of being painted as not a deficit problem!!!

Perhaps this will end the notion that America must stay in countries full of radical barbarians who hate one another, and risk the lives and limbs of our troops. Waste our treasure, and raise our deficits, and all for naught.

Could it be that we are realizing that trying to force others who do not want us in their country, to be reasonable and civilized to one another, when they will never give up their grudges and barbaric ways, regardless of how many of our troops lose their lives, and limbs, or how much money we waste, trying to force democracy down their throats with guns and bombs, that we accomplish nothing of value, in the long run, through such irrational foreign policies, and in fact, hurt ourselves, and those others, even more, while winning nother of value for anyone?

A HUGE advance in our policy thinking!

One of the advantages of having a brilliant man as President.

Warring lifts no one. If it isn't worth re-instating the draft, then it isn't worth doing at all.

G.

cushioncrawler
01-06-2012, 12:28 AM
Not to mention reason and civility and barbarity at home.
mac.

Gayle in MD
01-06-2012, 06:55 AM
Absolutely, Mac,

Our efforts should go to violent criminals, who bomb abortion clinics, rape women and children, rob and steal from and kill, Americans, and commit devastating White Collar Crimes, the major cause of our current economic mess can be laid at the foot of these irrational Neocon Wars in the Middle East, and Corruption by the top CEO thieves in this country.
Thankfully, our President is doing his best to change that, with his efforts to get us out of these Bush Wars, and create protection for American Consumers!!!

Bravo!



The definition of Republican Policies: fascism n. a merging of the interests of big corporations and government, adjoined with a systematic curtailment of civil liberties

Gayle in Md.

llotter
01-06-2012, 07:20 AM
I am not an expert on how much we need to spend to guarantee our security but since that is the primary function of the federal government, I think the level should consume the lions share of all federal spending...say something around 80% or so. If we were sticking to the Constitution, we wouldn't have a budget problem because we would be a much wealthier nation and with a much smaller government.

It is difficult to have any confidence with The Moron guiding our defenses, that for sure. The world seems to be suffering from a great deal of turmoil and it is strange to be cutting our defenses now.

Gayle in MD
01-06-2012, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not an expert on how much we need to spend to guarantee our security but since that is the primary function of the federal government, I think the level should consume the lions share of all federal spending...say something around 80% or so. If we were sticking to the Constitution, we wouldn't have a budget problem because we would be a much wealthier nation and with a much smaller government.

It is difficult to have any confidence with The Moron guiding our defenses, that for sure. The world seems to be suffering from a great deal of turmoil and it is strange to be cutting our defenses now.



</div></div>

The moron is gone. How many times do I have to tell you?

The moron was the guy who lied us into an unconstitutional, illegal, immorral war and occupation in Iraq, a country which was no immediate threat, and had never attacked us on our shores.

This Moron Bush Fiasco is damned by 75% of Americans who say it was a huge mistake.

Five former secretaries of state, from the right and the left, and numerous military career Generals, all agree, it was the worst foreign policy decision in the history of this country, and historians give Bush close to the lowest ratings on foreign policy, ever given out.

Our current President, has been focused on freeing us from these illegal, disastrous, MORON Bush, NEOCON WARS!

Our current President, is the guy who killed bin Laden, without invading any country, or launching any war.

Our current president, has been more successful in destroying al Qaeda, than Bush was, since Bush, the moron, franchised al Qaeda, over eight years, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, wasted trillions of dollars doing it, and then walked out and dumped his entire fiasco in the Middle East, in President Obama's lap.


To suggest that we spend more money on bombs and wars, when we are now living in a cyber world, shows a person's anachronistic views, and lack of awareness not only about the cyber world, and the future of defense, but about where national security dollars should be spent, and that is surely NOT on the battlefield.

Additionally, the big war is about Climate Change, a real threat to the world, as even SOME republicans are beginning to realize.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/gop-climate-hawks-new-hampshire-primary

Your thinking is so outdated, it is amazing. We have people starving in this country, and the Middle Class living like low income people in third world countries, being gouged to death by Greedy CEO's and it is unbelievable that you think we should just go on ahead and let our people starve, saying that you want to spend 80% on killing people!

Unbelievable!

You have been brainwashed by war profiteering PIGS, who buy politicians and get them to launch wars, so they can make money off the blood of our youth, in Fiasco missions, which accomplish nothing of value.

Remember, it was the last decent Republican in the Oval Office, who warned us about the Military (congressional) Industrial Complex, surely, he was learning about them as they pushed for war in Vietnam, another wrong headed Fiasco!

I have alwasy believed, and believe to this day, that it was those very same first generation, NEOCON, War Mongering RW war profiteering pigs of the right, hooked up with the CIA, that were behind President Kennedy's assassination, because he was determined not to excalate anything in Vietnam.

Pushing for higher spending for defense, is truly stunningly ignorant, given our real and present threats from climate Change, in terms of all the impact we will see on our food, air, and water, frome floods annd draught, and all of the other disastrous weather consequence which we will face, as we can already see.

Republicans have blocked everything that is urgent, and we will all pay a very heavy price for their corruption, and denials, all of this due to their fascist corporate scenario.

G.

llotter
01-06-2012, 09:20 AM
War has been a pregnant historical fact from the beginning and I know that it isn't about to end any time soon so following a new Moron policy of 'Peace through Weakness' gives evidence to his lack of any intelligence at all.

eg8r
01-06-2012, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps this will end the notion that America must stay in countries full of radical barbarians who hate one another, and risk the lives and limbs of our troops.</div></div>So now you think it was wrong of Obama to send mercenaries into Pakistan?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Warring lifts no one. If it isn't worth re-instating the draft, then it isn't worth doing at all.
</div></div>The only people with this belief are the ones that know they can never be drafted.

eg8r

eg8r
01-06-2012, 10:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not an expert on how much we need to spend to guarantee our security but since that is the primary function of the federal government, I think the level should consume the lions share of all federal spending...say something around 80% or so.</div></div>Wow, that is definitely the lion's share. You probably will never get any traction with that idea. Defense is one of the top 4 expenditures in this country along with medicare, SS and interest on debt.

I have no problem with bringing troops home from areas of the world that don't want us or need us.

eg8r

llotter
01-06-2012, 10:59 AM
The idea that America might follow the Constitution lost its traction many decades ago and now that we have reached a high-water mark of having half the population dependent on transfer payments of one sort or another, including Entitlements, it isn't likely that logic or reason will ever prevail again...without a lot of blood being shed.

eg8r
01-06-2012, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idea that America might follow the Constitution</div></div>Don't go changing the subject now. Where in the Constitution does it say 80% of budget should go to Defense?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-06-2012, 01:03 PM
This is premature celebration.

There will be no actual cuts to the military budget, which will still increase, just at a far more modest rate of increase.

Whereas we should probably be looking at reducing it to Cold War levels (in real terms), as the highest plausible spending total.

That would be whatever approx. $300 billion a year in 2000 US dollars would be now.

Realistically, that far lower level than now (approx. half) could probably be cut a further 50%, in terms of actual national defense needs.

What that is wholly inadequate for is maintaining our international empire.

Funny, but those most concerned about the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders, etc., always ignore that they were nearly terrified of having standing armies, and strongly warned against entangling foreign affairs or alliances. A large standing army was said to be the likeliest cause of the loss of our republic, from its attendant war costs, war debts, and necessary war taxes.

Maybe we couldn't 'defend' Europe from a Soviet empire invasion if we did this, but as I recall, the Soviet empire collapsed from various causes now 20 years back, among them overspending on their military trying to control the world. (major hint)

llotter
01-06-2012, 01:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idea that America might follow the Constitution</div></div>Don't go changing the subject now. Where in the Constitution does it say 80% of budget should go to Defense?

eg8r </div></div>

I just posted the constitutional rights of the government and the only ones that are very expensive at all is the military used to protect our freedom. As I mentioned, I have very little knowledge about what those costs should be but, I don't have to know all that much because the People delegate that power to those within government and like it or not, that is probably best.

As you read through those other rights We the People have given to the federal government, my guess is that those expenses would be very small when compared to the national defense. The 80% we merely a approximation.

eg8r
01-06-2012, 03:57 PM
It is absolutely impossible considering the money we spend on interest is our number one budget item. It will take an act of God to get this turned around and frankly I don't see our country moving in that direction. Dems and Reps alike are interested in growing government. We need to make sure the ones we elect just do it at a slower rate than what is currently happening.

eg8r

LWW
01-06-2012, 05:01 PM
Why is it that the left believes that it's OK to cut 500,000 troops ... but if we cut a single teacher, fire<s>man</s>person or police<s>man</s> officer the nation would instantly descend into chaos?

Could it be that unions vote demokrook and the military votes conservative?

I see no other reason for such beliefs to be held.

Soflasnapper
01-06-2012, 08:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is it that the left believes that it's OK to cut 500,000 troops ... but if we cut a single teacher, fire<s>man</s>person or police<s>man</s> officer the nation would instantly descend into chaos?

Could it be that unions vote demokrook and the military votes conservative?

I see no other reason for such beliefs to be held. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "When the Cold War ended 20 years ago, when I was Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and Mr. [Richard] Cheney was Secretary of Defense, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>we cut the defense budget by 25 percent, and we reduced the force by 500,000 active duty soldiers</span>."
--Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, January 23, 2011

At a time when the United States is facing a fiscal crisis and a mountain of debt, the former Secretary of State offered this history lesson on CNN Sunday to rebut claims that the defense budget is "sacrosanct and it can't be touched." By today's standards, the numbers seem mind-boggling. Was the defense budget really cut by 25 percent in one four-year presidential term?

The Facts</div></div>

Yes (more at link) (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html)

So I don't know that the left is saying that, but <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush 41, SecDef Cheney, and JCS Chairman Powell DID JUST THAT</span>, and I believe THEY believed it was not only warranted, but necessary, and not harmful.

Other non-leftists who are likely to agree such a thing would be good include Rep. Ron Paul, who just placed 3rd in the Iowa caucuses.

eg8r
01-06-2012, 09:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I don't know that the left is saying that,</div></div>Here on the board we have nutty gayle who pisses and moans left and right over the loss of a teacher's job or any other government position (well except when they praised the firing of the jail personnel). Now when we are talking about the military she (and our other nutcase qtip) wants to can them all.

So whether you "know" the left is saying this or not, don't worry our troops do "know" it. Up until a couple years ago I had the pleasure of working with our troops every single day and I can promise you they are no different than anyone else. Once you start screwing with their livelihood they don't sit back and thank you for it. You can darn well gaurantee every soldier that is laid off by Obama will be voting Rep in the next election. Obama won't be laying off too many this year though with the layoffs gaining steam after the election later this year.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">include Rep. Ron Paul, who just placed 3rd in the Iowa caucuses.
</div></div>Wow not bad. Third place huh. How many were there 50, 75, 100?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-06-2012, 10:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is premature celebration.

<span style="color: #990000">Could bd, but I am always glad to see steps taken in the right direction. </span>

There will be no actual cuts to the military budget, which will still increase, just at a far more modest rate of increase.

<span style="color: #990000">Not my understanding of what had been discussed, but again a step in the right direction, which probably will be expanded, once we're out of Afghanistan, I hope. </span>

Whereas we should probably be looking at reducing it to Cold War levels (in real terms), as the highest plausible spending total.

<span style="color: #990000">No question about that. </span>

That would be whatever approx. $300 billion a year in 2000 US dollars would be now.

Realistically, that far lower level than now (approx. half) could probably be cut a further 50%, in terms of actual national defense needs.

<span style="color: #990000">Again, I agree. </span>

What that is wholly inadequate for is maintaining our international empire.

Funny, but those most concerned about the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders, etc., always ignore that they were nearly terrified of having standing armies, and strongly warned against entangling foreign affairs or alliances. A large standing army was said to be the likeliest cause of the loss of our republic, from its attendant war costs, war debts, and necessary war taxes.

<span style="color: #990000">Yes, and it took the War Mongering Neocons to prove them right. </span>

Maybe we couldn't 'defend' Europe from a Soviet empire invasion if we did this, but as I recall, the Soviet empire collapsed from various causes now 20 years back, among them overspending on their military trying to control the world. (major hint) </div></div>
<span style="color: #990000">Excellent reminder. The best way to avoid enngaging in new wars, is to be sure not to vote for any Republicans, the Rah Rah War "Christians". </span>