25
   

Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?

 
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 11:44 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Unlike Social spending, the Constitution says we have to spend money on the military, it says nothing about social programs.

The constitution says no such thing. It allows for spending but says nothing about "we HAVE to". The requirement that military spending can be for no more than 2 years at a time would seem to indicate we don't have to spend money on the military.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 12:04 pm
@Setanta,
I wonder where in the Constitution it was authorized to purchase land such as the Louisiana purchase and the Alaskan purchase. Does that mean that anyone living west of the Mississippi is unconstitutional?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 12:04 pm
@parados,
Probably . . . we should send them back to Europe . . . or wherever.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2011 04:57 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
It may be a small piece of the pie, but it would make a positive change in America. Seeing the country spend the money at home instead of abroad would strengthen the perceived concern the government has for it's own people. Take that 50% and spend it on domestic issues instead. 1/2 of 1% of our federal budget on domestic programs is a heck of a lot of money that we aren't spending at home now.


That's like someone who spends most of their money on a huge coke habit deciding to get their financial house in order starting by tipping service personnel less.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2011 06:09 pm
@Setanta,

You’re the one quibbling. I provided you an outline for Common Defense and now you want more definitions all without providing one for General Welfare. Saying that Congress has the power to decide what General Welfare is, is crap.

I'm not going to defend the extra Constitutional agencies because I didn't bring them up, Art did. You want me to defend items he brought up, it’s not going to happen.

Quote:
Keep your bullshit straw man arguments to yourself. I did not at any time say anything remotely resembleing this horseshit: "whatever law Congress makes is what General Welfare means"--your argument is so feeble and your attempts at logic so desparate that you have to make up things now.


This single line is all you have when it comes to the outline of General Welfare: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This is weak reasoning by most peoples standards. I will say it again according to this line General Welfare is what Congress wants’ it to be. I'm not quibbling I'm asking for an outline which the above line does not do, and which you have failed to do.

Quote:
You are happy with militarism, but not what you see as socialism. Tough ****.


You know I'm happy with militarism, because I put my money where my mouth was and joined the Army at the age of 30 when I didn't have to. I went to Afghanistan and continued to put my money where my mouth was. What have you done when it comes to General Welfare? Have you put your money where you mouth is to support it, or have you just called for more money?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2011 06:13 pm
“Force always attracts men of low morality.”

Albert Einstein
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2011 06:20 pm
@JTT,
Are you saying that all people who have joined the military are of low morality?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2011 06:28 pm
@Baldimo,
It would be hard to make an accurate guess as to how many fit that profile at enlistment but we certainly know that once they're in their morals can drop to zero pretty damn fast.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 12:43 am
@JTT,
Your making military people sound like politicians. Which morals are you talking about? Doesn't the left consider morals to be relative?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2011 12:46 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Then it's your assertion that there are no current or potential military or security dangers in the world worth spending money on - no national interests worth defending?


You are making a false dilemma by insisting that those who criticize the inordinate war spending by the USA are calling for the USA to spend nothing. That is certainly an easier position to knock down than to deal with the actual position (that the USA spends inordinately on war and should cut there instead of social spending) but it would be more intellectually honest not to construct such a straw man and actually deal with the arguments with a bit of integrity.

A claim that there is no threat that justifies US levels of war spending does not mean there are no threats to justify any level of spending. That is just your way of making opposing positions more amenable to your capacity to argue against them.

Then why did you say:

"It'd have the side effect of not killing a bunch of people?"

Above here you indicate it's just a question of waste, but when you opened the thread, you implied that this money is used to "kill a bunch of people" implying that this money is being used to kill people without justification. When you opened the thread you made that argument, not the waste argument. The primary goal and effect of the defense budget is to protect you, not to "kill a bunch" of random people for no reason except malice.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2011 01:43 am
@Brandon9000,
malice and oil...
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2011 08:03 am
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

malice and oil...

Anyone can say that at any time without a spec of proof.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Aug, 2011 08:44 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The primary goal and effect of the defense budget is to protect you, not to "kill a bunch" of random people for no reason except malice.


That's absolute BS, Brandon.

Quote:


Clark: Our foreign policy has been a disaster since long before that planning guide — for a lot longer than we'd like to believe. We can look all the way back to the arrogance of the Monroe Doctrine, when the United States said, "This hemisphere is ours," ignoring all the other people who lived here, too. For a part of this past century, there were some constraints on our capacity for arbitrary military action — what you might call the inhibitions of the Cold War — but with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we've acquired a headier sense of what we can get away with.

Our overriding purpose, from the beginning right through to the present day, has been world domination — that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible; and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of our foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources. And insofar as any people or states get in the way of our domination, they must be eliminated — or, at the very least, shown the error of their ways.

I'm not talking about just military domination. U.S. trade policies are driven by the exploitation of poor people the world over. Vietnam is a good example of both the military and the economic inhumanity. We have punished its government and people mercilessly, just because they want freedom. The Vietnamese people had to fight for thirty years to achieve freedom — first against the French, and then against the United States. I used to be criticized for saying that the Vietnamese suffered 2 million casualties, but I've noticed that people now say 3 million without much criticism. Yet that war was nothing compared to the effects of twenty years of sanctions, from 1975 to 1995, which brought the Vietnamese people — a people who had proven to be invincible when threatened by physical force on their own land — down to such dire poverty that they were taking to open boats in stormy seas, and drowning, to get to a refugee camp in Hong Kong, a place no one in his or her right mind would want to be. They went simply because they saw no future in their own country.

I went to North Vietnam in the summer of 1971, when the U.S. was trying to destroy civilian dikes through bombing. Our government figured that if it could destroy Vietnam's capacity for irrigation, it could starve the people into submission.
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 01:47 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
The primary goal and effect of the defense budget is to protect you, not to "kill a bunch" of random people for no reason except malice.


That's absolute BS, Brandon.

Quote:


Clark: Our foreign ...


Can you give an example of how our goal is world domination from some event in the past 25 years, or do you just make unsupported statements, and cut and paste other peoples' words?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2011 10:15 am
@JTT,
Was the quote from Wesley Clark? The same General that was fired by Clinton?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2011 11:59 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Then why did you say:

"It'd have the side effect of not killing a bunch of people?"


Because I believe that America kills too many people.

Quote:
Above here you indicate it's just a question of waste, but when you opened the thread, you implied that this money is used to "kill a bunch of people" implying that this money is being used to kill people without justification.


I don't see the concepts as mutually exclusive. One can see the unjustified killing of people at great fiscal expense as somewhat wasteful.

Quote:
When you opened the thread you made that argument, not the waste argument. The primary goal and effect of the defense budget is to protect you, not to "kill a bunch" of random people for no reason except malice.


Never did I make the no-reason-but-malice argument, but I find the notion that the American military is protecting me risible. I think that the American military endangers my life much more than they protect it. And that is not a position that is in any way mutually incompatible with considering the exorbitant spend wasteful.

Thing is, I think reasonable people who do not subscribe to my theory that America is the greatest threat to world peace can still acknowledge that American military spending is out of control. There is no threat to America that this spending addresses. There is ridiculous amounts of pork.

These aren't positions that you need to be a dove to support, even the hawks have been advocating cuts in some of the more ridiculous programs.
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2015 08:48 am
@Robert Gentel,
Cut war spending? Been in the US long? Smile US loves war and spending money on creative ways of murdering people. Government would just adore you and lavish love and kisses all over you if you voluntarily joined the military to go murder people for them. Of course if you get fucked up and can't murder any more they kinda relegate you to dimly lit backrooms and screw you over but up until then it's all wine and roses.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2020 09:30 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?
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.

Because an inability to defend ourselves would result in us being conquered and enslaved (or worse).

How'd I miss this thread before now?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2020 09:31 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:
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.

Your intended sarcasm actually sums up the truth quite well.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2020 09:32 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
But let's not forget it is not only the US which has made so many enemies, its obliging allies have as well. (Including my own country & quite a few others.)

Would you prefer to be conquered and enslaved?


msolga wrote:
What exactly is the point of all this expenditure for all this carnage?

It protects us from the bad guys.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/29/2020 at 05:56:41