BGFalcons82;1016380 wrote:Really? I thought we were running budget surpluses.
I heard this morning, during a discussion about this very topic, that the Defense budget is only 17% of total federal spending. Yet, entitlement outlays are close to 60%. Why is it everyone thinks the money to cut is Defense first, aid to foreign countries second, everyone elses ox third, and then finally, when no other solutions present themselves, entitlement spending. Going back a few posts, Cleveland Buck correctly points out that spending money to defend the US of A is entirely worthy Constitutionally. However, social experimenting, social engineering, income redistribution and invented healthcare mandates, which aren't enumerated anywhere, are off limits. The defenders of these call them part of America's 3rd rail of politics....touch them and you get burned.
But here several of you are, wanting to gut the military, pull back, ignore the world, and save a couple hundred billion yearly. Hooray for the fiscal hawks, and the Taliban...and the Al Quedas....and the People's Republic of China....and Kim Jong Il...and King Hassad....and Hammas....and Hesbollah...and any other anti-American group. The real targets for spending cuts aren't even on the table and here we are arguing whether or not we'd even have a country by castrating our ability to defend it.
Great point. You can disagree with Ron Paul and still agree with pulling back our military presence in the world somewhat. Some people act like military spending takes up 60% of the budget and is the sole cause of our yearly $1 trillion + deficits.
And several posters on here need to watch how they use the term "war" when they should be using the phrase "nation building". The dreary decade of spending, lives lost, and frustration is from trying to rebuild Western democratic values into an ungrateful foreign population whose underlying ideology automatically springs forth totalitarianism. That's no excuse to ignore real threats to our national security now, which is the point I think Santorum was trying to make.
BGFalcons82;1016386 wrote:You have swerved into actually making my point. Left to their own will to survive, look what they did. Their actions, to this day, are the source of much of the terrorism they absorb and war they perpetuate. Getting out of their way again, what do you think will happen? Will they shrivel and acquiesce to Muslim demands or will they fight harder, knowing that we won't be around to stop their aggression? The past is an excellent predictor of the future I would opine.
I pretty much agree there, although Israel absorbed a whole lot of terrorism before 1967.
fish82;1016928 wrote:If by "fired up," you mean "babbling incessantly," then yeah. That exchange on Iran was precisely why some people have heartburn over him.
Does Dr. Paul know who the biggest state-supporter of terrorism is? Would he answer Iran, or the United States?
One reason among many. I sympathize with the Paul supporters about the attention he gets at the debates, albeit for different reasons. I can't stand the moderators picking the front-runners for everyone, and ignoring certain people on the stage. But people need to hear how this guy really feels about the causes of hatred toward America.
