Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have made my point more than a few times. Why spend money on destroying people and nations, when money could be spent on more fruitful endeavors? Have you not watch the video in this thread? I know it isn't the only area of the fed budget, but I believe it is the most unnecessary (in terms of current spending levels). Does people read more than just first line of my post? No, you haven't really made any point at all except that you despise the military, the very entity that gave you the freedoms you enjoy. The military did that for you. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare. Whether you get it or not, the majority of wars and conflicts we have fought over the course of this nation's existence were to guarantee either the freedom of this country or the freedom of some other country or people. The claim by you that the military is "destroying people and nations" is both ludicrous and false. You are actually actively engaged in slander with that statement. Without a strong and active military, this country would have been done a long time ago. Yes, let's definitely cut military spending because, to your way of thinking it is the easiest and fastest thing to cut. Never mind that it is not this country's biggest expenditure in terms of money spent by a long shot. Let's ignore that, because examining it would just make too much sense and be too logical. We don't like the military because it's about nothing but killing and destruction and so we go with a knee-jerk, subjective reaction. The truth is, I have never heard anyone who hated the military and felt it was ok to totally gut spending on it who also wanted to see entitlements cut. Entitlements, especially for welfare don't need to be cut. They need to be done away with. Now. Will it be easy? No, of course not, because we have taught 40 years worth of whole segments of society that if you don't feel like doing anything to earn your way in life, cool, the government will take care of you. No need to bother working. But the military is bad. Yeah. You think cutting back military spending won't cause any difficulties, and you are wrong. Cutting entitlements would cause problems yes, because a whole lot of spoiled people in this country would suddenly have to actually support themselves, and that is a situation too horrible to contemplate, for some it seems. Don't confront the real problem, just play a game of smoke and mirrors and hope everyone looks the other way while you're doing it. People are reading into your posts what you put into them. No problems with comprehension on this end. I've seen the results of the Great Society since they started instituting it in the 60's and exactly what it has caused and our country is about to reap what it has sown for 40+ years. And the military has nothing to do with it. So just advocate cutting military spending and ignore the real problem. In a year or so, it won't much matter one way or the other anyway. Good points, Cobalt. You beat me to it, but said it better than I would have. Thanks. On ending entitlements: We have a preview of what that might be like already. Just take a look at what's been going on in Greece lately. I expect we could expect riots here also when the time comes that the checks stop. Greece is a good example of what's coming here. They have hit a financial wall and can no longer borrow more money to pay for all the "gimme" programs -- and people are mad that the free money is being either reduced or cut entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have made my point more than a few times. Why spend money on destroying people and nations, when money could be spent on more fruitful endeavors? Have you not watch the video in this thread? I know it isn't the only area of the fed budget, but I believe it is the most unnecessary (in terms of current spending levels). Does people read more than just first line of my post? No, you haven't really made any point at all except that you despise the military, the very entity that gave you the freedoms you enjoy. The military did that for you. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare. Whether you get it or not, the majority of wars and conflicts we have fought over the course of this nation's existence were to guarantee either the freedom of this country or the freedom of some other country or people. The claim by you that the military is "destroying people and nations" is both ludicrous and false. You are actually actively engaged in slander with that statement. Without a strong and active military, this country would have been done a long time ago. Yes, let's definitely cut military spending because, to your way of thinking it is the easiest and fastest thing to cut. Never mind that it is not this country's biggest expenditure in terms of money spent by a long shot. Let's ignore that, because examining it would just make too much sense and be too logical. We don't like the military because it's about nothing but killing and destruction and so we go with a knee-jerk, subjective reaction. The truth is, I have never heard anyone who hated the military and felt it was ok to totally gut spending on it who also wanted to see entitlements cut. Entitlements, especially for welfare don't need to be cut. They need to be done away with. Now. Will it be easy? No, of course not, because we have taught 40 years worth of whole segments of society that if you don't feel like doing anything to earn your way in life, cool, the government will take care of you. No need to bother working. But the military is bad. Yeah. You think cutting back military spending won't cause any difficulties, and you are wrong. Cutting entitlements would cause problems yes, because a whole lot of spoiled people in this country would suddenly have to actually support themselves, and that is a situation too horrible to contemplate, for some it seems. Don't confront the real problem, just play a game of smoke and mirrors and hope everyone looks the other way while you're doing it. People are reading into your posts what you put into them. No problems with comprehension on this end. I've seen the results of the Great Society since they started instituting it in the 60's and exactly what it has caused and our country is about to reap what it has sown for 40+ years. And the military has nothing to do with it. So just advocate cutting military spending and ignore the real problem. In a year or so, it won't much matter one way or the other anyway. Good points, Cobalt. You beat me to it, but said it better than I would have. Thanks. On ending entitlements: We have a preview of what that might be like already. Just take a look at what's been going on in Greece lately. I expect we could expect riots here also when the time comes that the checks stop. Greece is a good example of what's coming here. They have hit a financial wall and can no longer borrow more money to pay for all the "gimme" programs -- and people are mad that the free money is being either reduced or cut entirely. True. The Bible says that he that does not work will not eat (not an exact quote). No one can tell me that the people ranting about being out of work for over two years could not have taken a job SOMEWHERE in all that time. My point is that living on the public dole is not living in accordance with His plan and massive entitlement programs are NOT sustainable...in any country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have made my point more than a few times. Why spend money on destroying people and nations, when money could be spent on more fruitful endeavors? Have you not watch the video in this thread? I know it isn't the only area of the fed budget, but I believe it is the most unnecessary (in terms of current spending levels). Does people read more than just first line of my post? No, you haven't really made any point at all except that you despise the military, the very entity that gave you the freedoms you enjoy. The military did that for you. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare. Whether you get it or not, the majority of wars and conflicts we have fought over the course of this nation's existence were to guarantee either the freedom of this country or the freedom of some other country or people. The claim by you that the military is "destroying people and nations" is both ludicrous and false. You are actually actively engaged in slander with that statement. Without a strong and active military, this country would have been done a long time ago. Yes, let's definitely cut military spending because, to your way of thinking it is the easiest and fastest thing to cut. Never mind that it is not this country's biggest expenditure in terms of money spent by a long shot. Let's ignore that, because examining it would just make too much sense and be too logical. We don't like the military because it's about nothing but killing and destruction and so we go with a knee-jerk, subjective reaction. The truth is, I have never heard anyone who hated the military and felt it was ok to totally gut spending on it who also wanted to see entitlements cut. Entitlements, especially for welfare don't need to be cut. They need to be done away with. Now. Will it be easy? No, of course not, because we have taught 40 years worth of whole segments of society that if you don't feel like doing anything to earn your way in life, cool, the government will take care of you. No need to bother working. But the military is bad. Yeah. You think cutting back military spending won't cause any difficulties, and you are wrong. Cutting entitlements would cause problems yes, because a whole lot of spoiled people in this country would suddenly have to actually support themselves, and that is a situation too horrible to contemplate, for some it seems. Don't confront the real problem, just play a game of smoke and mirrors and hope everyone looks the other way while you're doing it. People are reading into your posts what you put into them. No problems with comprehension on this end. I've seen the results of the Great Society since they started instituting it in the 60's and exactly what it has caused and our country is about to reap what it has sown for 40+ years. And the military has nothing to do with it. So just advocate cutting military spending and ignore the real problem. In a year or so, it won't much matter one way or the other anyway. You could use this argument to increase military spending without limit. If the military spending is at 2,3,4 trillion you would still go on about how this is needed to fight terrorist and enemies. There is such thing as spending too much on the military. If you want to fund expensive military sure, but it shouldn't be written on bank account of your children. Fund the military solely from taxes! The currently military strength is an illusion because it is funded on debt. And wars should only be fought when declared by the congress, in agreement with the US constitution, not on the whim of the president as the war in Iraq. I never said I hated the military, you are misinterpreting me yet again. If US haven't been meddling with other country's affairs since after WWII it wouldn't have made that many enemies that require 'policing'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 cut the military and its the troops not the gear that get hit. case in point panetta has said we will reduce the retirmement rates a payout and also increase tricare payments. tricare is also used to give medical treatment to the disable vets. so cut away then. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html?pagewanted=all In what he described as the most sensitive of the potential cuts facing an all-volunteer force, Mr. Panetta said the Pentagon was considering raising fees for the military’s health insurance program, Tricare. Today, military retirees and families, who are guaranteed Tricare for life, pay only $460 a year in fees — far below what they would pay if they worked for a private employer — although a modest increase for new enrollees began last month. the only way one get tricare for life is to be disabled to the point you cant work. that isnt right for us. yes we do need to get out europe,but its laughable here is the iraq surge disproved rummys idea of light and agile. so we will once again learn the hard way. glad i can retire soon. It is laughable that US involve itself in the war in Iraq in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have made my point more than a few times. Why spend money on destroying people and nations, when money could be spent on more fruitful endeavors? Have you not watch the video in this thread? I know it isn't the only area of the fed budget, but I believe it is the most unnecessary (in terms of current spending levels). Does people read more than just first line of my post? No, you haven't really made any point at all except that you despise the military, the very entity that gave you the freedoms you enjoy. The military did that for you. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare. Whether you get it or not, the majority of wars and conflicts we have fought over the course of this nation's existence were to guarantee either the freedom of this country or the freedom of some other country or people. The claim by you that the military is "destroying people and nations" is both ludicrous and false. You are actually actively engaged in slander with that statement. Without a strong and active military, this country would have been done a long time ago. Yes, let's definitely cut military spending because, to your way of thinking it is the easiest and fastest thing to cut. Never mind that it is not this country's biggest expenditure in terms of money spent by a long shot. Let's ignore that, because examining it would just make too much sense and be too logical. We don't like the military because it's about nothing but killing and destruction and so we go with a knee-jerk, subjective reaction. The truth is, I have never heard anyone who hated the military and felt it was ok to totally gut spending on it who also wanted to see entitlements cut. Entitlements, especially for welfare don't need to be cut. They need to be done away with. Now. Will it be easy? No, of course not, because we have taught 40 years worth of whole segments of society that if you don't feel like doing anything to earn your way in life, cool, the government will take care of you. No need to bother working. But the military is bad. Yeah. You think cutting back military spending won't cause any difficulties, and you are wrong. Cutting entitlements would cause problems yes, because a whole lot of spoiled people in this country would suddenly have to actually support themselves, and that is a situation too horrible to contemplate, for some it seems. Don't confront the real problem, just play a game of smoke and mirrors and hope everyone looks the other way while you're doing it. People are reading into your posts what you put into them. No problems with comprehension on this end. I've seen the results of the Great Society since they started instituting it in the 60's and exactly what it has caused and our country is about to reap what it has sown for 40+ years. And the military has nothing to do with it. So just advocate cutting military spending and ignore the real problem. In a year or so, it won't much matter one way or the other anyway. Slander you say? Funding the CIA with sell of drugs, rigging election, supporting dictators and puppet governments, fighting covert war. These are common knowledge. You should tell all those countries getting bombed on monthly bases how you are actually helping them. This is the current mode of operation, and it isn't working too well. A true patriot does not confuse government with country. A patriot’s loyalty is to his country, and loyalty to country requires holding government accountable. -- Paul Craig Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 I don't know as much as you guys, but I know what has kept full fledged attacks and invasions at bay, it is the military with all the spending alloted to it. It has been said many time and it bears repeating, Peace is a Strong Military, or something like that. and sometimes peace comes through war. Anybody here interested in every target that the enemies already planed be hit by a Nuclear Dirty Bomb, the Enemies aren't cutting military spending. Also, this Nuclear Disarmament is lop-sided, the US disarms and Russia led Arabs will launch missiles. America is surrounded by the enemy without and the enemy within and I know many of the enemy within, but I feel it is not appropriate to mention them here. Actually that is not quite right. Having a strong military isn't a sure thing for peace and security as the media would like you to be believe. I agree with the founding father's position on peace and prosperity. You can not have a large military without a large government. Large government have always encroach on the rights of the people. "War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few." "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare" James Madison "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." George Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The philosophy of the United States military is that we should have a force large enough and mobile enough to be able to fight two wars at one time and win both of them. That requires a very large amount of spending. I would cut any military spending that is wasteful, redundant and no longer relevant to the current needs of the US military. I would not cut the military, though. Cutting costs usually begins where it hurts the most and this is the wallets of current service men and women as well as retired service men and women. The salaries and retirement benefits not to mention health care benefits of service personal, active, reserve and retired should be sacrosanct. If we start canablizing our armed forces, we set ourselves up to lose the next big war. There is also plenty of waste, fraud and redundancy in nonmlitary gov't programs. There are hundreds of Billions of $$$ being wasted on people who are getting food stamps and welfare that don't deserve them. There are able bodied people who don't deserve SS benefits that are getting them. There are illegals who are also drawing SS benefits who don't deserve them. That is where we need to begin cutting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) cut the military and its the troops not the gear that get hit. case in point panetta has said we will reduce the retirmement rates a payout and also increase tricare payments. tricare is also used to give medical treatment to the disable vets. so cut away then. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html?pagewanted=all In what he described as the most sensitive of the potential cuts facing an all-volunteer force, Mr. Panetta said the Pentagon was considering raising fees for the military’s health insurance program, Tricare. Today, military retirees and families, who are guaranteed Tricare for life, pay only $460 a year in fees — far below what they would pay if they worked for a private employer — although a modest increase for new enrollees began last month. the only way one get tricare for life is to be disabled to the point you cant work. that isnt right for us. yes we do need to get out europe,but its laughable here is the iraq surge disproved rummys idea of light and agile. so we will once again learn the hard way. glad i can retire soon. It is laughable that US involve itself in the war in Iraq in the first place. ron paul had to be coerced by his staff as they threatened to resign and also inform his constitutents if he voted no on the war in afghanistan that said, can your man paul also not guarentee suich an attack or threat would occur? we cant so we would have use the same dumb philosophy again in war. paul i dont think would know what to do. i dont think has the courage to allow the congress to decide.i can see no on iraq but afghanistan?? Edited February 18, 2012 by jasoncran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 cut the military and its the troops not the gear that get hit. case in point panetta has said we will reduce the retirmement rates a payout and also increase tricare payments. tricare is also used to give medical treatment to the disable vets. so cut away then. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html?pagewanted=all In what he described as the most sensitive of the potential cuts facing an all-volunteer force, Mr. Panetta said the Pentagon was considering raising fees for the military’s health insurance program, Tricare. Today, military retirees and families, who are guaranteed Tricare for life, pay only $460 a year in fees — far below what they would pay if they worked for a private employer — although a modest increase for new enrollees began last month. the only way one get tricare for life is to be disabled to the point you cant work. that isnt right for us. yes we do need to get out europe,but its laughable here is the iraq surge disproved rummys idea of light and agile. so we will once again learn the hard way. glad i can retire soon. It is laughable that US involve itself in the war in Iraq in the first place. ron paul had to be coerced by his staff as they threatened to resign and also inform his constitutents if he voted no on the war in afghanistan that said, can your man paul also not guarentee suich an attack or threat would occur? we cant so we would have use the same dumb philosophy again in war. paul i dont think would know what to do. i dont think has the courage to allow the congress to decide.i can see no on iraq but afghanistan?? What are you talking about here? Coerce by his staff to do what? Citations please. Paul is the only candidate that pledge to only go into war after congress has declared it, in agreement with the constitution. Everyone else is content in violating the constitution by going to war when the president see fit, which is the power that makes a tyrant not a elected president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted February 18, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) his own staffer, told the world that story a while ago. bush asked the us congress to go to war. unless you are one of those that really thinks the president should wait till congress convenes when we are attacked such as pearl harbor. if we knew early enough that could have been halted then like fdr the next day he went to congress to make his case. so the president must have some lattitude when intellgence says oh crap we have hours to act and need to act! http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/fmr-staffer-ron-paul-planned-no-vote-for-afghanistan-invasion-staff-threatened-mutiny/ Edited February 18, 2012 by jasoncran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts