Author Topic: Military Spending  (Read 7764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Military Spending
« on: July 19, 2010, 07:40:56 PM »
Do you guys think that we spend too much on national defense? Not enough? Currently we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with cutting the defense budget by about $100 billion.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19681
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2010, 08:18:00 PM »
too much.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2010, 08:37:00 PM »
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.   

Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan??  The answer . .  . they don't want to finish this thing off.   Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan.   Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.


wetwillie

  • Guest
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2010, 08:38:16 PM »
Yea we could definitely afford to take an axe to that monster.  Ending our two wars might be a good start.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2010, 08:39:03 PM »
Also remember that the current democratically controlled congress was swept into control of that branch of government in 2006 with the mandate of fiscal responsibility and extracting the U.S. from Middle East wars.

Fail . . . and . . . Fail.


Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2010, 08:43:45 PM »
The views of both parties regarding military spending are complete bullsh*t.  Both should believe in cutting back defense, but neither party is serious about it.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2010, 09:00:09 PM »
The views of both parties regarding military spending are complete bullsh*t.  Both should believe in cutting back defense, but neither party is serious about it.

Exactly. Pretty sad that no matter who you vote for (except Ron Paul, who would never win), we can just expect the defense budget to grow.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2010, 10:49:26 PM »
The military spending is the only thing the current admin spends money on that has any positive affect on the economy.  Be careful what you wish for.

Sort of like all the moron libs demanding illegal alien amnesty.  Wait til the Union imbeciles figures out that the illegals aren't go to keep pushing drugs, picking oranges, and shingling roofs, when they can work for GM and Alcoa and instantly increase their quality of life 5 fold.  Then we'll see who the real racists are, just like we did back in the day when the freed slaves moved North and went to work in the factories for $2 a day less.  Meanwhile yours truly will all of the sudden be able to purchase a bitchin' Chevy Malibu for $15,500 brand spankin new.

The easiest way to defeat a lib argument is to ask why, wait for an answer, then ask why again.  They never think that far ahead, which is why they're slightly dumber than independent voters, who are slightly dumber than conservatives, who are all significantly dumber than me, who is still kind of dumb.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53674
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2010, 11:01:09 PM »
I hope the Mexicans make Toyota's, too.  Toyota's are the best.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2010, 11:22:01 PM »
The views of both parties regarding military spending are complete bullsh*t.  Both should believe in cutting back defense, but neither party is serious about it.

there is maybe a thin sliver of light between the 'pubs and dems, compared to the spectrum of possible policies.  they're essentially identical.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2010, 11:39:42 PM »
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.   

Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan??  The answer . .  . they don't want to finish this thing off.   Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan.   Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.



LOLERSKATE

I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2010, 12:19:45 AM »
The military spending is the only thing the current admin spends money on that has any positive affect on the economy.  Be careful what you wish for.

Sort of like all the moron libs demanding illegal alien amnesty.  Wait til the Union imbeciles figures out that the illegals aren't go to keep pushing drugs, picking oranges, and shingling roofs, when they can work for GM and Alcoa and instantly increase their quality of life 5 fold.  Then we'll see who the real racists are, just like we did back in the day when the freed slaves moved North and went to work in the factories for $2 a day less.  Meanwhile yours truly will all of the sudden be able to purchase a bitchin' Chevy Malibu for $15,500 brand spankin new.

The easiest way to defeat a lib argument is to ask why, wait for an answer, then ask why again.  They never think that far ahead, which is why they're slightly dumber than independent voters, who are slightly dumber than conservatives, who are all significantly dumber than me, who is still kind of dumb.

How do you figure that the military spending has a positive effect on the economy? Is it because part of the spending is outsourced to the private sector? Any positive effect on the economy is offset in the long term by the deaths of thousands of 18-22 year olds fighting a war that the United States will see no real benefit from winning. The money would be better spent domestically or better yet, not at all.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2010, 06:27:54 AM »
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.  

Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan??  The answer . .  . they don't want to finish this thing off.   Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan.   Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.



LOLERSKATE

I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.

If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years.   Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.

The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy.  Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history. 

« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 06:29:58 AM by sonofdaxjones »

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2010, 08:09:58 AM »
I hope the Mexicans make Toyota's, too.  Toyota's are the best.

The racism and bigotry embedded in this comment is embarrassing to goEMAW.com.  

Mods please draft a referendum condemning everyone Michi Cat affiliates with.  TIA
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 08:21:45 AM by Sugar Dick »

Offline Brock Landers

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2010, 08:50:46 AM »
Do you guys think that we spend too much on national defense? Not enough? Currently we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with cutting the defense budget by about $100 billion.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending


Yeah but we're defending ourselves against the rest of the world.    :runaway:

JK, miltary spending is just as bloated as anything else.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2010, 10:24:41 AM »
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.  

Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan??  The answer . .  . they don't want to finish this thing off.   Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan.   Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.



LOLERSKATE

I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.

If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years.   Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.

The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy.  Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history. 



I was referring to the fact that you and Michael Steele appear to be functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) when talking about politics. Stick to athletic department stuff dax. I love those posts. Bitter partisan dax that only reads World Net Daily and Free Republic is just sad.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2010, 11:08:36 AM »
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.  

Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan??  The answer . .  . they don't want to finish this thing off.   Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan.   Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.



LOLERSKATE

I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.

If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years.   Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.

The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy.  Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history. 



I was referring to the fact that you and Michael Steele appear to be functionally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) when talking about politics. Stick to athletic department stuff dax. I love those posts. Bitter partisan dax that only reads World Net Daily and Free Republic is just sad.

Um, I am actually lampooning Steele . . . thus that is not partisan in any way.   In addition there is nothing about the actions of the current administration that says that they are nothing but war mongers.   You focus way to much on what they say, and clearly have no clue as to what they're doing.   In terms of Worldnet . . . they'd be calling for more military spending as well.    Stating facts . . . over $1 trillion in defense, war and intelligence spending in FY 2011, expansion of troop prescence in Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and on and on and on.    Apparently this is a reality your typical Obamabot can't deal with.


Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2010, 11:19:23 AM »
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

Here's a nice juicy steak to dig into.  Yes, this massive expansion started under Bush/Cheney . . . but here's the catch, none of it as been curtailed in any way by the current administration.   In fact, in most cases it has been expanded.   But hey I guess I am being "partisan and bitter". 




Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2010, 11:30:44 AM »
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

Here's a nice juicy steak to dig into.  Yes, this massive expansion started under Bush/Cheney . . . but here's the catch, none of it as been curtailed in any way by the current administration.   In fact, in most cases it has been expanded.   But hey I guess I am being "partisan and bitter". 





At least give Felix credit for the link man. I understand defense spending. It should be greatly reduced. Hell, military service is currently better (pay wise) than the majority of private sector jobs by about 17 percent because all politicians don't want to be portrayed as being weak on defense come election time.

The fact that Republicans are just beginning to awaken to the fact that defense spending is massively bloated is amusing to me. It's been that way for decades.

As for lampooning Steele, generally works best if you don't double down on Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking points.

And I'll give you $100 if you can guess who I voted for in 2008.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2010, 11:34:10 AM »

Um, I am actually lampooning Steele . . . thus that is not partisan in any way.   In addition there is nothing about the actions of the current administration that says that they are nothing but war mongers.   You focus way to much on what they say, and clearly have no clue as to what they're doing.   In terms of Worldnet . . . they'd be calling for more military spending as well.    Stating facts . . . over $1 trillion in defense, war and intelligence spending in FY 2011, expansion of troop prescence in Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and on and on and on.    Apparently this is a reality your typical Obamabot can't deal with.


President Obama did win the Nobel Peace Prize . . . while his country was at war and he had done nothing to promote peace. Must have been a bad year for world peace activists.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2010, 11:45:45 AM »
First off, who said I was a republican . . . I have no idea WTH your talking about in terms of doubling down on talking points.

The bottom line is, the left/right paradigm is a lie . . . and speaking of laughing, I laugh at the Obamabots who actually bought into the propaganda of "Hope and Change", by and large it is business as usual at War Inc.  It just has a new CEO.

Oh and thanks to Felix for posting the same article in another forum in a thread about tensions at work.

Nuts kicked . . . I wonder if Obama ordered more Drone Strikes while on the way to to the Nobel reception??   At this juncture we now understand what a complete fraud the Nobel Peace Prize is.








Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2010, 12:41:51 PM »
First off, who said I was a republican . . . I have no idea WTH your talking about in terms of doubling down on talking points.

The bottom line is, the left/right paradigm is a lie . . . and speaking of laughing, I laugh at the Obamabots who actually bought into the propaganda of "Hope and Change", by and large it is business as usual at War Inc.  It just has a new CEO.

Oh and thanks to Felix for posting the same article in another forum in a thread about tensions at work.

Nuts kicked . . . I wonder if Obama ordered more Drone Strikes while on the way to to the Nobel reception??   At this juncture we now understand what a complete fraud the Nobel Peace Prize is.


The doubling down of Obama's defense spending being the greatest travesty in history. Because it's slightly more than Bush's but will be less than what the next president will spend. It's a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point.

And I never called you a Republican specifically, though your political logic aligns greatly with some tea party tards. I surely hope you're not calling me an Obamabot. You might be losing out on $100. Because, you know, it's like possible to call a talking point against one person Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) but still not agree with that person and stuff.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM »
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.

Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.




Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52961
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2010, 01:15:08 PM »
Oh, and the whole "transparency" fraud.

What hasn't Obama done to date??  There hasn't been an Inspector General at the CIA.   So in essence, the least transparent administration in modern US History, has had no on in charge of being the "good cop" over at the CIA for over a year.  Given the type of operations that the CIA is undertaking, some of which is by every definition state sanctioned assassination . . . this is not a good thing.


Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #24 on: July 20, 2010, 01:27:46 PM »
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.

Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.





Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.

So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?