BoatShoes;1351305 wrote:The Japanese were far in away a more clear and present danger than the North Koreans. They invaded China in 1937 and raped and murdered their people while dead set on imperialism. The North Koreans can barely feed their people.

I agree the Japanese were a danger. However, FDR was asleep at the switch and ignored warnings. There's no way they would attack the USA...right?

Now, there's a country developing weapons systems that can reach our mainland and so far, there's two of you on here poo-pooing them. Do I think they'll drop one on us? No, but no one thought 19 crazed Allah Akbar terrorists would murder thousands, now did they? No one thought a crazed lunatic would murder kindergarteners, now did they? There are nutjobs living on this planet and to ignore them, like FDR, is at our own peril.

Do I think they have a hankering for f*cking with their Japanese and South Korean neighbors? Yep. And if we cut cut cut, who'll be around to stop them? What do you think the Japanese will do in retalliation? Will the Chinese allow them? I'll remind you again that the Chinese don't have any love for Japan nor the Taiwanese and would love nothing more than to reel them back into their sphere. Yeah...I know....we shouldn't be the world's policeman until we're dragged kicking and screaming into something world-wide. Never happened before did it? Maybe twice? Third time's a charm for the bad guys?

BoatShoes;1351305 wrote:We should be concerned about interest rates rising and hyperinflation despite persistent below target inflation and record low interest rates? We should cut social spending as the real menace...high unemployment persists for over half a decade leaving people without work through no fault of their own?

Off topic. No response for you.

BGFalcons82;1351370 wrote:I agree the Japanese were a danger. However, FDR was asleep at the switch and ignored warnings. There's no way they would attack the USA...right?

Now, there's a country developing weapons systems that can reach our mainland and so far, there's two of you on here poo-pooing them. Do I think they'll drop one on us? No, but no one thought 19 crazed Allah Akbar terrorists would murder thousands, now did they? No one thought a crazed lunatic would murder kindergarteners, now did they? There are nutjobs living on this planet and to ignore them, like FDR, is at our own peril.

Do I think they have a hankering for f*cking with their Japanese and South Korean neighbors? Yep. And if we cut cut cut, who'll be around to stop them? What do you think the Japanese will do in retalliation? Will the Chinese allow them? I'll remind you again that the Chinese don't have any love for Japan nor the Taiwanese and would love nothing more than to reel them back into their sphere. Yeah...I know....we shouldn't be the world's policeman until we're dragged kicking and screaming into something world-wide. Never happened before did it? Maybe twice? Third time's a charm for the bad guys?

We would because we have the most awesome military force the world has ever seen and we don't even have conscription and we still would be with significant military cuts. (we shouldn't be cutting spending now but if we have to have a budget deal this is where it should come from). If the shit really hit the fan the selective service system is still in place as a contingency for just that scenario.

A phantom menace that we'd be well prepared for even in the extremely unlikely event that it occurs. In fact, private citizens are a much greater threat to one another than the North Koreans. It's so absurd that it is a large part of the reason why the newest Red Dawn was such a fail.

I thought the other parts were relevant because you don't want to cut the military budget because of something that is not a danger to the security of Americans but things that are really harming americans...like perpetually high unemployment, seem to warrant less consideration from you.

BoatShoes;1351379 wrote:We would because we have the most awesome military force the world has ever seen and we don't even have conscription and we still would be with significant military cuts. (we shouldn't be cutting spending now but if we have to have a budget deal this is where it should come from). If the shit really hit the fan the selective service system is still in place as a contingency for just that scenario.

A phantom menace that we'd be well prepared for even in the extremely unlikely event that it occurs. In fact, private citizens are a much greater threat to one another than the North Koreans. It's so absurd that it is a large part of the reason why the newest Red Dawn was such a fail.

I thought the other parts were relevant because you don't want to cut the military budget because of something that is not a danger to the security of Americans but things that are really harming americans...like perpetually high unemployment, seem to warrant less consideration from you.

As I've been writing...IF we cut cut cut the military to the tune of hundreds of billions as has been suggested on this website, then we won't have "the most awesome military force the world has ever seen". I get the impression some people think there's huge caches of funds lying around that can be tapped at a moment's notice. Selective Service is your panacea? By the time that's employed, there won't be much left to defend.

If the military is cut, they'll reduce forces around the globe as necessary. I'm not saying there's no fat to be cut, however by the end of Our Dear Leader's 2nd term, there will be much larger budgetary fish in the sea than Defense. Put it this way, if you reduce military spending to zero, we'll still have a yearly budget deficit. Oh wait...I forgot...we don't pass budgets anymore. That's so passe, right Harry?

BoatShoes;1351379 wrote:We would because we have the most awesome military force the world has ever seen and we don't even have conscription and we still would be with significant military cuts. (we shouldn't be cutting spending now but if we have to have a budget deal this is where it should come from). If the **** really hit the fan the selective service system is still in place as a contingency for just that scenario.

A phantom menace that we'd be well prepared for even in the extremely unlikely event that it occurs. In fact, private citizens are a much greater threat to one another than the North Koreans. It's so absurd that it is a large part of the reason why the newest Red Dawn was such a fail.

I thought the other parts were relevant because you don't want to cut the military budget because of something that is not a danger to the security of Americans but things that are really harming americans...like perpetually high unemployment, seem to warrant less consideration from you.

1. The defense budget definitely can use some trimming.
2. Of the "big 4" (SS, Medicare/caid, Welfare, and defense) defense is the ONLY one specifically allowed by the Constitution to be supplied by the Federal Government. So, since it is the only one the founders called for to be funded how about we look at the other "big spenders" first and see where they can be trimmed?
3. The fact that, assuming we go over the 'cliff', defense is the ONLY thing being cut is utterly retarded.

jmog;1351427 wrote:1. The defense budget definitely can use some trimming.
2. Of the "big 4" (SS, Medicare/caid, Welfare, and defense) defense is the ONLY one specifically allowed by the Constitution to be supplied by the Federal Government. So, since it is the only one the founders called for to be funded how about we look at the other "big spenders" first and see where they can be trimmed?
3. The fact that, assuming we go over the 'cliff', defense is the ONLY thing being cut is utterly retarded.

Our military expenditures need a lot more than a little "trimming". Our forefathers did in fact authorize budgets for this activity. What they also made very clear...their disdain for Empire and unbridled global intervention.

Our defense related expenditures now approach 1.1 trillion per year. One has to dig a little deeper to understand the true costs of global intervention, wars, and God only knows what else.

Just one example....we have treated over 900,000 armed service people for chronic mental issues over the past year. Chronic means ongoing...as in each and every year. Never mind those that are physically maimed for life.

Funding for these casualties of Middle Eastern Wars falls into the horrible category of future unfunded liabilities. People that think we need " a little trimming" to our defense budget really don't have the slightest notion as to how crippling this is to our overall economy.

When it comes to handling a military crisis, George Herbert Walker Bush had it right. His boy? Not so much.

Footwedge;1351453 wrote:Our military expenditures need a lot more than a little "trimming". Our forefathers did in fact authorize budgets for this activity. What they also made very clear...their disdain for Empire and unbridled global intervention.

Our defense related expenditures now approach 1.1 trillion per year. One has to dig a little deeper to understand the true costs of global intervention, wars, and God only knows what else.

Just one example....we have treated over 900,000 armed service people for chronic mental issues over the past year. Chronic means ongoing...as in each and every year. Never mind those that are physically maimed for life.

Funding for these casualties of Middle Eastern Wars falls into the horrible category of future unfunded liabilities. People that think we need " a little trimming" to our defense budget really don't have the slightest notion as to how crippling this is to our overall economy.

When it comes to handling a military crisis, George Herbert Walker Bush had it right. His boy? Not so much.

Although I agree with you for the most part, please don't act as if dealing with "mental issues" of returning soldiers is somehow a new and unique phenomenon.

War is ugly without a doubt and the emotional scars it leaves behind has been around for thousands of years.

jmog;1351427 wrote: 2. Of the "big 4" (SS, Medicare/caid, Welfare, and defense) defense is the ONLY one specifically allowed by the Constitution to be supplied by the Federal Government. So, since it is the only one the founders called for to be funded how about we look at the other "big spenders" first and see where they can be trimmed?

I hear this argument a lot. The Constitution only specifically calls for an Army and a Navy. So, on a strict constructionist view being alluded to by most average run of the mill conservatives that wipes out an awful lot. "Defense" spending is not given some special place in the constitution above and beyond other spending for the general welfare as they're in the same clause.

"Defense" as a ubiquitous term encompassing spending that conservatives overwhelmingly think the Constitution allows is in the same "taxing and spending clause" as the term "general welfare" which could just as easily encompass social security and medicare as "defense" might encompass the air force, nuclear weapons, the DHS, the CIA, etc.

So your reasoning for why we should look to cut general welfare spending as opposed to defense spending is unsound.

jmog;1351427 wrote: 3. The fact that, assuming we go over the 'cliff', defense is the ONLY thing being cut is utterly retarded.

There are cuts to non-defense discretionary spending and mandatory spending (i.e. end of doc fix)

BGFalcons82;1351412 wrote:As I've been writing...IF we cut cut cut the military to the tune of hundreds of billions as has been suggested on this website, then we won't have "the most awesome military force the world has ever seen".

Yes...we would.

Footwedge;1351453 wrote:Our military expenditures need a lot more than a little "trimming". Our forefathers did in fact authorize budgets for this activity. What they also made very clear...their disdain for Empire and unbridled global intervention.

Our defense related expenditures now approach 1.1 trillion per year. One has to dig a little deeper to understand the true costs of global intervention, wars, and God only knows what else.

Just one example....we have treated over 900,000 armed service people for chronic mental issues over the past year. Chronic means ongoing...as in each and every year. Never mind those that are physically maimed for life.

Funding for these casualties of Middle Eastern Wars falls into the horrible category of future unfunded liabilities. People that think we need " a little trimming" to our defense budget really don't have the slightest notion as to how crippling this is to our overall economy.

When it comes to handling a military crisis, George Herbert Walker Bush had it right. His boy? Not so much.

No where did I use the word "little" in my description of trimming the military budget.

Are you done with your soapbox now?

BoatShoes;1351490 wrote:I hear this argument a lot. The Constitution only specifically calls for an Army and a Navy. So, on a strict constructionist view being alluded to by most average run of the mill conservatives that wipes out an awful lot. "Defense" spending is not given some special place in the constitution above and beyond other spending for the general welfare as they're in the same clause.

"Defense" as a ubiquitous term encompassing spending that conservatives overwhelmingly think the Constitution allows is in the same "taxing and spending clause" as the term "general welfare" which could just as easily encompass social security and medicare as "defense" might encompass the air force, nuclear weapons, the DHS, the CIA, etc.

So your reasoning for why we should look to cut general welfare spending as opposed to defense spending is unsound.

Promote the general welfare is vastly different than provide the general welfare.

Promote vs provide, since you are wanting to talk semantics over Army and Navy only.

An honest debater would also take into account the founders' arguments for and (mostly) against social welfare spending, and mention the fact that defense is one of the main reasons a federal government exists in the first place.

jmog;1351497 wrote:Promote the general welfare is vastly different than provide the general welfare.

Promote vs provide, since you are wanting to talk semantics over Army and Navy only.

You should read the things you think you're quoting before you do so :rolleyes:

"Promote" is in the Preamble.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1; otherwise known as the "taxing and spending clause" reads;

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The word "Provide" applies to spending for both "Defense" and the "General Welfare" when it comes to the Congress' enumerated spending power.

It's not that difficult to verify this type of information before you post.

jhay78;1351529 wrote:An honest debater would also take into account the founders' arguments for and (mostly) against social welfare spending, and mention the fact that defense is one of the main reasons a federal government exists in the first place.

You're clearly presupposing that the founding fathers by and large would be against social welfare spending. It's difficult to say but as society has grown more liberal over time it's not unreasonable that a similar dichotomy between the federalists and anti-federalists would exist today. Just because Alexander Hamilton didn't argue for Medicare in the Federalist Papers doesn't mean he wouldn't support it today.

Governments are just large insurance companies with armies and police forces being a particular type of insurance against coercion. No real reason why that's fundamentally different within a social contract style republic than other types of social insurance against other types of harm.

jmog;1351496 wrote:No where did I use the word "little" in my description of trimming the military budget.

Are you done with your soapbox now?

"The defense budget definitely can use some trimming."

Your words there Jmog. What do you mean by trimming? Did you trim your Christmas tree this year? You may have had your little giggle fest on the Browns thread on my Baltimore faus pax regarding playoffs, but over here you are out of your milieu...just sayin.

From dictionary.com

"To make neat or tidy by clipping, smoothing, or pruning: trimmed his moustache."

That's your take on what should be done with our annual 1.1 trillion outlay. And I repeat...those that think the term "trim" is an appropriate one have no conception...at all....what really needs to be done/cut.

To put this in even more perspective, if one uses the 1.1 trillion dollar number (all defense related activities including operational costs of ongoing wars), the People's Republic of China pays 1/20th the cost per capita that the US does on her citizens.

Moreover, China is the second biggest spender when it comes to defense on the planet. What that means is....the US could slash their defense spending a full 90% and still meet bgfalcon's needs of having "the biggest and baddest military on the planet"

But yaeh...let's go ahead and do a little "trimming, pruning" if you will. After all, those Muslims will steamroll our borders any day now and take over our country.

And jmog...if you wanna question "my math skills" as you are so wont in doing...let er rip. Plenty of links available proving my numbers.

BoatShoes;1351536 wrote:You should read the things you think you're quoting before you do so :rolleyes:

"Promote" is in the Preamble.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1; otherwise known as the "taxing and spending clause" reads;



The word "Provide" applies to spending for both "Defense" and the "General Welfare" when it comes to the Congress' enumerated spending power.

It's not that difficult to verify this type of information before you post.

Looks like jmog needs to relearn that the google button can be his friend.

believer;1351463 wrote:Although I agree with you for the most part, please don't act as if dealing with "mental issues" of returning soldiers is somehow a new and unique phenomenon.

War is ugly without a doubt and the emotional scars it leaves behind has been around for thousands of years.

I never said that it is a new phenomenon. But it is a "cost of doing business"...this game of war is. And because we deploy all over the stinkin globe today, these ancilliary costs escalate at a phenominal pace. To repeat, Walker Bush....a decorated war hero...got it right. His boy, who flaundered around in the National Guard...never seeing one day of combat....got it dead wrong.

The true cost of wars are never illustrated in full by the media. To do so makes one anti American...a TokyoRosite. That type of thinking is disgusting...and needs to end.

Anyone else notice that the folder name for that page is "8-absurd-ways-military-wastes-our-money?"

I wonder what way they cut out.

Footwedge;1351583 wrote:... a "cost of doing business"...this game of war is.

Yoda, ladies and gentlemen!

I do in fact resemble Yoda IRL...ears not quite as pointy, though.

Footwedge;1355980 wrote:I do in fact resemble Yoda IRL...ears not quite as pointy, though.

Small, wrinkly, and green with some nasty-ass fingernails? Ten-four.

O-Trap;1355982 wrote:Small, wrinkly, and green with some nasty-ass fingernails? Ten-four.

Also wear a fifteen dollar toupee in order to cover up the scraggly hair. Nobody ever fux wid me.

Footwedge;1355985 wrote:Also wear a fifteen dollar toupee in order to cover up the scraggly hair. Nobody ever fux wid me.

I wouldn't fux wid you. You'd eat my kneecap. Then my firstborn.