22
   

Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?

 
 
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 03:23 pm
It'd have the side effect of not killing a bunch of people as well and making America fewer enemies. Seems like a better idea to me.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 22 • Views: 8,701 • Replies: 96

 
ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 03:30 pm
@Robert Gentel,
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.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 03:32 pm
@ossobuco,
They can pay for their own damn wars.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 03:34 pm
I totally agree with this.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 03:34 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Halliburton? Blackwater? Firms I don't know the names of?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 03:38 pm
@Robert Gentel,
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

0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 03:44 pm
@ossobuco,
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.
JLNobody
 
  4  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 04:16 pm
@ossobuco,
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.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 04:31 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

It'd have the side effect of not killing a bunch of people as well and making America fewer enemies. Seems like a better idea to me.


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.

Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 05:52 pm
@Robert Gentel,
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?
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 05:59 pm
@Setanta,
Naive, or the point?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 06:03 pm
@ossobuco,
Spare me your pointless "points," 'K?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 06:19 pm
@Robert Gentel,
"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.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 06:30 pm
@Setanta,
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.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 06:43 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

They can pay for their own damn wars.


Why on earth would they do that?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 06:56 pm
@ossobuco,
Question whatever you like, your post was a non-sequitur.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:08 pm
@Setanta,
I don't take my question as all that different from your last one before that,

oh, prince.
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:09 pm
@ossobuco,
Why don't you go to bed, smart ass, and we'll talk tomorrow when you've sobered up.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:18 pm
@Irishk,
My guess is the statement is more on the order of closing Guantanamo.

At least he said something.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2011 07:20 pm
@Setanta,
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/06/2020 at 05:26:12