Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:15 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
That's another good reason to vote for conservatives. Progressives try to undermine our military so that the bad guys can destroy us.

1. For the most part, I am a progressive.

2. I definitely believe in funding a strong military for our National defense.

3. I also believe in funding a strong cyber defense for our National defense.

4. I also believe in the United States helping our allies when our help is needed.

5. I also believe in the United States getting involve with other nations diplomatically and sometimes militarily when our national defense is at stake.

6. On the other hand, I don't believe in wasteful spending on our military and national defense.

7. What is considered wasteful spending is a debate in itself.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:16 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I might not even mind that sort of isolationism if it was coupled by a warning to the rest of the world that if you mess with us or our good friends we will bury you,

I am 100% confident that this is my candidate’s mindset.

We just know that most of the aggression has come from us. Even a much reduced military here is more than enough for us.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:21 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
When you have a fighting force that can destroy the world 70 times over, maybe you can reduce it to a fighting force that can destroy the world--oh, I don’t know--maybe 5 times over.

That's just propaganda to try to fool people into letting the left destroy our military so that the entire country will in turn be destroyed (which is the left's real goal here).

That ultimate goal is also why leftists always fight to allow terrorists and evil dictators to acquire as many illegal weapons as possible.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:22 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You must not have to subsist on Social Security. Many elderly people do.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:22 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
What will President Bernie do if Israel, South Korea or Japan are attacked?

Only Bernie himself can answer that question.
But, that is a good question.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:24 am
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
6. On the other hand, I don't believe in wasteful spending on our military and national defense.
7. What is considered wasteful spending is a debate in itself.

The left is trying to cripple and disable our military, and is trying to disguise this effort as "opposition to wasteful spending".

Under Obama our military readiness slipped so badly that we would have been unable to defend ourselves if we had been invaded. The only reason why the nation still exists today is because no one tried to destroy us.

Even today we are still lacking in air-superiority capability because of the damage that Obama did to our military.
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:34 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Pure capitalism. Survival of the fittest.

The ultra wealthy know humanity and animals will be locked in a battle for clean water and food, arable land, livable land.

They want us to die off ASAP. More for them.

They’re culling the weakest from the herd.

I AGREE with everything you are saying.

I also want to add:
There are some good things and some bad things in capitalism.
There are some good things and some bad things in socialism.

I believe that pure capitalism is a bad thing.
I also believe that pure socialism is a bad thing.

Finding the right balance is the key.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 11:44 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The left is trying to cripple and disable our military, and is trying to disguise this effort as "opposition to wasteful spending".

Under Obama our military readiness slipped so badly that we would have been unable to defend ourselves if we had been invaded. The only reason why the nation still exists today is because no one tried to destroy us.

Even today we are still lacking in air-superiority capability because of the damage that Obama did to our military.

I don't have any reasons to believe the assertions you are making.
You have not provided any evidence to support these assertions you are making.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:02 pm
America's Indefensible Defense Budget

J. T. Mathews

Quote:
A parable, to begin: in 2016, the 136 military bands maintained by the Department of Defense, employing more than 6,500 full-time professional musicians at an annual cost of about $500 million, caught the attention of budget-cutters worried about surging federal deficits. Immediately memos flew and lobbyists descended. The Government Accountability Office, laying the groundwork for another study or three, opined, “The military services have not developed objectives and measures to assess how their bands are addressing the bands’ missions, such as inspiring patriotism.” Supporters of the 369th Infantry Regiment band noted that it had introduced jazz to Europe during World War I. How could such a history be left behind? A blues band connected effectively with Russian soldiers in Bosnia in 1996, another proponent argued, proving that bands are, “if anything, an incredibly cost-effective supplement” to the Pentagon’s then $4.5 billion public affairs budget.

When the dust cleared, funding for the bands was not cut, because the political cost entailed in reducing the number of them by, say, half would have been enormous. The resulting $250 million in annual savings, on the other hand, while a significant sum for most government agencies, would have produced the almost unnoticeable difference of three one-hundredths of one percent in the Pentagon budget.

The sheer size of the military establishment and the habit of equating spending on it with patriotism make both sound management and serious oversight of defense expenditures rare. As a democracy, we are on an unusual and risky path. For several decades, we have maintained an extraordinarily high level of defense spending with the support of both political parties and virtually all of the public. The annual debate about the next year’s military spending, underway now on Capitol Hill, no longer probes where real cuts might be made (as opposed to cuts in previously planned growth) but only asks how big the increase should be.

The political momentum that drives this annual increase, disconnected from hard thought about America’s responsibilities in a transformed world, threatens to become—or may have already become—unstoppable. The consequences are huge. At home, defense spending crowds out funds for everything else a prosperous economy and a healthy society need. Abroad, it has led us to become a country reflexively reliant on the military and one quite different from what we think ourselves to be or, I believe, wish to be.

(...)

After the Korean War, defense spending dropped by 20 percent, after Vietnam by 30 percent, and after the cold war ended in 1990 those notorious softies President George H.W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell cut military manpower by 600,000 and the military budget by 26 percent. But since the September 11 attacks we have been engaged in an eighteen-year war with no fixed enemies, aims, or endpoint. Recently, congressional Democrats decided that they would no longer allow themselves to be seen as less supportive than Republicans of the military, while Republicans, once they took control of both the White House and Congress, forgot their concern for deficits. The combined result has been steep growth in the military budget.

(...)

This short-term debate aside, the underlying political dynamics are what drive the money machine year after year. The Pentagon has, by a wide margin, the best long-range planning and budgeting capability in the government. Thousands of people are involved. Even if they wanted to, Congress’s armed services committees couldn’t attempt a zero-based budget of six or seven hundred billion dollars: that is, beginning with an evaluation of asserted threats, followed by an independent assessment of the proposed strategy for meeting them and analysis of the forces and facilities needed to execute the strategy. Mostly, though, they don’t want to. They prefer to protect spending and jobs in their districts. The result is funding for weapons systems the armed forces don’t want, bases and facilities they would like to close, and bloated, inefficient back office—that is, noncombat—operations.

Tanks are a classic case. For years, the army has tried to convince Congress to stop buying new ones. They are expensive to build, maintain, exercise, and train troops to use. The army already has more than six thousand of them—far more than it needs for any conceivable future combat. More controversially, the navy remains wedded to new aircraft carriers, but at $13 billion each they are arguably more an outdated symbol of twentieth-century power than an effective weapon system for a future in which they will be increasingly vulnerable to attack by high-speed, maneuverable missiles that can be bought for a minuscule fraction of what a carrier costs.

(...)

The last ingredient in this political mix is, of course, the White House. After last year’s budget deal, Trump captured the unfortunate national mood when he tweeted, “We love and need our Military and gave them everything—and more.” This year, defending his failure to serve in Vietnam, he boasted that with his $750 billion budget, “I think I make up for that right now…. I think I’m making up for it rapidly.” Trump is not the first president to want to leave his mark on something new and bigger for defense spending. As in everything else, he is simply the least interested in the substance of his policies and the most transparently self-serving.

(...)

For many years, the United States has increasingly relied on military strength to achieve its foreign policy aims. In doing so, it has paid too little heed to the issues that military power cannot solve, to the need for diplomatic capabilities at least as strong as military ones and, in particular, to the necessity of multilateral problem-solving—as slow and frustrating as it often is—to address current threats. Sadly, it took a rash and unbelievably unwise decision by the president to throw away the Iran nuclear deal for members of Congress and the public to begin to appreciate what tough, patient diplomacy can achieve.

We are now at the point of allocating too large a portion of the federal budget to defense as compared to domestic needs, tolerating too much spending that doesn’t buy useful capability, accumulating too much federal debt, and yet not acquiring a forward-looking, twenty-first-century military built around new cyber and space technologies. We have become complacent and strategically flabby about adapting to a profoundly altered world. Major change will require a quality of leadership we haven’t seen in a long time, from men and women in the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon who are respected for their knowledge and national security experience and who are willing to pay a political price for what must be done. Even then the process will be tough, slow, and painful, but it is surely overdue.

bcpeacelinks

Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:03 pm
@oralloy,
Air Force: Trump’s border wall gambit risks national security.


Published September 13, 2019
Quote:
It was earlier this year when Donald Trump issued an emergency declaration, giving himself the authority to raid the Pentagon budget and redirect funds to his border agenda, whether Congress liked it or not. Last week, the administration started offering specific details about which projects were supposed to receive Defense funds, but which will now lose out to pay for unnecessary border barriers.

Domestically, there are all kinds of worthwhile priorities that have suddenly been stripped of funding, including schools and daycare facilities for the children of American troops, as well as construction work in Puerto Rico. But internationally, the developments are just as striking, with the president taking steps to deny assistance to European allies facing possible Russian aggression.

NBC News advances the story further today, highlighting a report compiled by the U.S. Air Force.

President Donald Trump’s plan to pay for his proposed border wall by taking funds from more than four dozen Air Force military construction projects poses various national security risks for the U.S. armed forces, according to a report compiled by the U.S. Air Force.

The report, obtained by NBC News, details the importance of each of the 51 military projects chosen by the Trump administration to lose their funding….

The full report is well worth your time to appreciate the scope and scale of the problem, though I was especially struck by NBC News’ reporting on scrapped investments that would have upgraded airfields in Germany, Luxembourg, Great Britain, Hungary, and Slovakia, leaving the bases unable to support U.S. and NATO airplanes.”

The report quoted an Air Force official saying, “We had no advanced notice of what projects they chose.”

That’s not how the process is supposed to work, though then again, we’re in largely uncharted waters, so there is no real governing process to properly honor.

As for the bigger picture, there is a degree of irony to the circumstances: for reasons he’s struggled to explain, the president insists he needs to raid the Defense Department’s budget to pay for a “wall” in order to protect our national security. According to the Air Force, Trump’s gambit will actually undermine our national security.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/air-force-trumps-border-wall-gambit-risks-national-security
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:19 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
I don't have any reasons to believe the assertions you are making.
You have not provided any evidence to support these assertions you are making.

Here's an article from back when we had only two brigades that were combat ready if someone invaded us and we needed to defend ourselves:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-defense-cuts-idUSL2N0IS1X820131107


Here's an article from when Obama gutted our nation's air superiority capability:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-defense-congress-idUSTRE56R62I20090728
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:20 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
America's Indefensible Defense Budget

Progressives hate the idea of America being strong and able to protect ourselves.

Progressives only like dangerous weapons when they are in the hands of terrorists and evil dictators.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:23 pm
@oralloy,
That's not what the article said. You obviously didn't bother to read it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:34 pm
@hightor,
Excellent link, hightor. Thank you.
Quote:
The sheer size of the military establishment and the habit of equating spending on it with patriotism make both sound management and serious oversight of defense expenditures rare.
A lot of BIG money finds this particular idiocy a handy means to increase profits. "Habit" is not really the right word here as it disguises a very purposeful marketing device along with the machinations that have led to political cowardice in reigning in these powerful financial interests.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:37 pm
@oralloy,
So... Democrats (Liberals, Progressives, Socialists) want America to be ruined financially; for all its citizens to lose their civil liberties, and for the country to be defeated by a superior foreign military.

Have I got all that right?
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Here's an article from back when we had only two brigades that were combat ready if someone invaded us and we needed to defend ourselves:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-defense-cuts-idUSL2N0IS1X820131107


The following is what I cut and pasted from your link, that spells out the circumstance and reasons:

Congress and the White House, struggling to curb the massive U.S. deficit, also directed the Pentagon to slash an additional $500 billion in spending over a decade unless lawmakers could agree on alternative budget cuts and revenue increases. No deal was reached, and the across-the-board reductions went into effect in March for the first time.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:42 pm
@Real Music,
If we'd been invaded then, we wouldn't exist today. We would have been conquered and destroyed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:43 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
So... Democrats (Liberals, Progressives, Socialists) want America to be ruined financially; for all its citizens to lose their civil liberties, and for the country to be defeated by a superior foreign military.
Have I got all that right?

Pretty much correct. But leftists are unworthy of the label "liberal". They should not be referred to as such.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:45 pm
Most people seem to think it has to be either what we have now or total isolationism. Common sense should answer that we are not going to have either if we are to remain functional now and in the foreseeable future. I don't have to defend against isolationism for that exact reason.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Sep, 2019 12:48 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Here's an article from when Obama gutted our nation's air superiority capability:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-defense-congress-idUSTRE56R62I20090728

Nowhere on the link you provided does it states that Obama gutted our nation's AIR SUPERIORTIY CAPAPABILITY.

Nowhere on the link you provided does it even implies that Obama gutted our nation's AIR SUPERIORTIY CAPAPABILITY.

In regard to gutting our nation's AIR SUPERIORTIY CAPAPABILITY, that is only your assertion. Your assertion is nowhere on your link.

I did cut and pasted a part of your link, spelling out the circumstance:

In a policy statement released on Tuesday, the White House said it “strongly objects” to the House bill’s $369 million for a dozen F-22 fighter aircraft because the 187 F-22s now in the U.S. military’s fleet are enough.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.92 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 07:49:04