USA Federal deficit

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quite the turnaround from '04, John, when you said the military didn't have enough money to buy armor... now it has too much money? Which one is it?

Having been there, I know damn well it's Joe Snuffy that's going to take the hardest hit from a reduction in defense spending... some perfumed prince general will decide his pet project is too important to be canned, regardless of flaws (Stryker, anyone?).

Just because you have a lot of money does not mean you use it wisely. I don't think I said they were too hard-up to buy armor, just that they hadn't bought it.

Misplaced priorities. Too much money spent on ridiculous things like "star wars", and not enough on the basics for troops on the ground. My son was involved in the Stryker testing at Fort Knox, I know all about THAT!

Anyhow, can you justify the USA spending more on defense than the next EIGHT nations combined?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Anyhow, can you justify the USA spending more on defense than the next EIGHT nations combined?

Nope... I've not looked at the Defense budget THAT closely.

However, considering we're in a two-front war... can you justify NOT spending the money?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, can you justify the USA spending more on defense than the next EIGHT nations combined?

Nope... I've not looked at the Defense budget THAT closely.

However, considering we're in a two-front war... can you justify NOT spending the money?

I think that is his point. The two-front war business.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Anyhow, can you justify the USA spending more on defense than the next EIGHT nations combined?

Nope... I've not looked at the Defense budget THAT closely.

However, considering we're in a two-front war... can you justify NOT spending the money?

One of those wars was justified, the other completely optional. And I don't see the $billions spent on B2s, F22s and missile "shields" as contributing very much to our success (or lack thereof, since both seem to be going badly due to ineptitude at the CinC level).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>However, considering we're in a two-front war... can you justify NOT spending the money?

Ding ding! Give the man a cigar.

Now, the best solution to not having enough resources to fight a two-front war is:

1) Borrow and borrow and borrow and borrow
2) Raise taxes to cover the expenditures until the war's over
3) Reduce the need for more military; have fewer optional wars
4) Start a third war

I prefer 2) and 3) myself, although a suprising number of people support 1) and 4). If the 40% of americans like war so much that they are willing to see americans die in them, surely they would not begrudge paying a few thousand to support the men and women they send to their deaths.

And if they don't like paying for it? Have fewer wars! Then they save the money (and more importantly, fewer americans die.) One of the reasons that so many americans support war nowadays is that a) it's not _them_ in harm's way and b) it doesn't cost them anything. Change either one, and you'll see much more intelligent decisions being made about the use of force.

[hairyjuan 0]

this is another u.n. police action as have been all 'wars' since the planned and staged ww2. the fact of the matter is that all combined 'defense spending' comprises 68% of what is borrowed from the Federal Reserve, who in fact, owns everything and everybody IN THE WORLD , RIGHT NOW!

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[GTAVercetti 0]

You are totally awesome.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I just want some of the pills he is taking...damn they must be good.