Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?

Well, see, there's the early named military industrial complex...

I'll make this a one sentence rant: the disparity of expenditure breaks both my heart and mind.

They can pay for their own damn wars.

I totally agree with this.

Halliburton? Blackwater? Firms I don't know the names of?

That's precisely why that was chosen as a trigger. No one expects the Super committee to accomplish anything that passes both houses. The idea was that the Republicans are so enamored with their final bastion of pork that they'd be willing to deal or even compromise with the dem members on revenues. That's never going to happen. The triggers will be pulled and the military will take a hit because Grover thinks that's a good idea too.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/9739634/video/73252176-grover-norquist-cut-military-spending

Re our expenditures - we go around as a military monitor with claws around the world (oh what, oh what, about Syria?) but we have bridges in the u.s. that have been falling apart, antiquated infrastucture including long-silly transportation modes... that's a red herring, but is part of my general concern, besides our national punitive views on helping people without resources stay alive.

I agree whole heartedly. Our legal-economic system is designed to permit certain capitalistic personality types to live very handsomely off the labor of other types. They should pay more for the privilege of such a biased system. Otherwise,when enough Americans are unemployed long enough--despite their desire to work--socialism might replace the system that benefits the capitalistic types so grossly.
And don't tell me that the wealthy should be provided tax exemptions because they create jobs with them. That contradicts the facts. Let them make proposals for tax exemptions when they have created jobs, similar to the process whereby academic researchers receive federal grants for research costs based on well-documented proposals.

Yes, it sounds good, but apparently it's bad and only suggested by people who hate the US, want her citizens to be weak slaves, don't understand real reality as opposed to delusional reality and hate freedom.



Oh, and commies and girly men.

For as much as i agree with the sentiment, you know as well as i do that it's naïve. It is both ideologically offensive to conservatives, and campaign finance suicide for any candidate with defense contracting in her or his district.

Is this just a cri de coeur out of frustration?

Naive, or the point?

Spare me your pointless "points," 'K?

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
~ Barack Obama

I'm guessing Syria's next.

Why? The fact that defense spending is so embedded it can't be questioned is important.

I have one cousin's children working for Halliburton. I get to question.

Why on earth would they do that?

Question whatever you like, your post was a non-sequitur.

I don't take my question as all that different from your last one before that,

oh, prince.

Why don't you go to bed, smart ass, and we'll talk tomorrow when you've sobered up.

My guess is the statement is more on the order of closing Guantanamo.

At least he said something.

You do have a load to pile.

I seemed not to be able to ask a simple point re a post of yours - to remind you, I asked about 'naive or not' , and how hard was that to opine one way or another? - and you jump to a dump.

Such a personal delight for me.

Perhaps we can get back to the subject of war spending, which is stark to some of us.