Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Military spending could be cut by 50% and it would not have a detrimental impact on the defense of this country. Still would be far more than any other nation spends.
Nevertheless, the country has been led to believe that more military spending is always good, and thus, it is politically unpopular to suggest any cuts whatsoever. But it's the elephant in the room - the budget cannot be brought down unless the military is cut. As it stands now, the military is the biggest welfare program in the country.
Get that basic fact straight first. Do some reading on how much money we already blow in the name of "national security". At what point will even utterly brainwashed Romney apologists like you will say "Enough"?
Get that basic fact straight first. Do some reading on how much money we already blow in the name of "national security". At what point will even utterly brainwashed Romney apologists like you will say "Enough"?
I find the Paulbots far more brainwashed than Romney supporters.
Now that that's out of the way - how do you know that we agree with Romney on everything? I don't necessarily agree with this plan (though I somewhat agree with what I believe is the idea behind it, as I will explain later). I have never been able to vote for someone who I agreed with on everything. You Paulbots seem to literally always be on the same page as each other and Ron Paul on every issue. It's akin to groupthink - and it's somewhat creepy. It's like you are incapable of thinking for yourselves. Even most Obama supporters - the staunchest ones of whom I see as being brainwashed and idolizing Obama - seem to disagree with him on at least a few things.
About the plan - we are really spending close to 5% of GDP on defense already. My understanding is that the idea is to build up our military and national defense stronger so that there is less need for wars and to reduce the risk that anyone will pose a threat to our national security. This could actually reduce military spending in the longrun. I do not think minimum baseline defense spending, however, should be tied to GDP.
Get that basic fact straight first. Do some reading on how much money we already blow in the name of "national security". At what point will even utterly brainwashed Romney apologists like you will say "Enough"?
That poster is not simply a Romney apologist, they actually work for the campaign.
That poster is not simply a Romney apologist, they actually work for the campaign.
He already told you he didn't when you made the assertion previously, yet you continue to repeat this. A lot of the Paul supporters and Obama supporters on the forum frequently basically regurgitate talking points (not to mention that I don't think tmsterp's posts sound like regurgitated talking points) yet you never suggest that any of them work for the Paul campaign or Obama campaign.
I find the Paulbots far more brainwashed than Romney supporters.
Now that that's out of the way - how do you know that we agree with Romney on everything? I don't necessarily agree with this plan (though I somewhat agree with what I believe is the idea behind it, as I will explain later). I have never been able to vote for someone who I agreed with on everything. You Paulbots seem to literally always be on the same page as each other and Ron Paul on every issue. It's akin to groupthink - and it's somewhat creepy. It's like you are incapable of thinking for yourselves. Even most Obama supporters - the staunchest ones of whom I see as being brainwashed and idolizing Obama - seem to disagree with him on at least a few things.
About the plan - we are really spending close to 5% of GDP on defense already. My understanding is that the idea is to build up our military and national defense stronger so that there is less need for wars and to reduce the risk that anyone will pose a threat to our national security. This could actually reduce military spending in the longrun. I do not think minimum baseline defense spending, however, should be tied to GDP.
You are putting the cart before the horse. I don't agree with everything Paul says because I support him, but rather, I agree with Paul on everything, which is why I am supporting him. Whatever I do disagree with him are so frivolous and minor that they are not even worth mentioning, and they are not staunch disagreements either. And the reason that I agree with pretty much most of Paul's ideas is because they all dovetail perfectly with each other.
For example, it would have been incongruous for Paul to wax eloquent about fiscal conservatism, and then turn around and say that he was going to blow $2.1 Trillion on the military, with no means to pay for it. That would have put me off in a major way. But obviously, you don't see anything wrong or discordant about Romney's unfunded military buildup.
Do you know that 59% of our current budget is military and ancillary affairs (veterans affairs, associated departments etc.)? Do you know that we do 41% of the TOTAL military spending in the world, and China, the next biggest spender, only has an 8% share? Then it's Russia with 4%, and the next TWELVE biggest spenders are ALL our allies? Where is the boogeyman for which we are militarizing to our teeth here? Some relatively defenseless Middle Eastern countries? We could fight them 10 times over with half of what we currently have! Do you not feel ASHAMED of fattening the wallets of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon, when we have our own poor people out on the streets begging for a morsel of food? Please have some sense of proportion, some common sense, and some compassion.
For all our spending our military really does a **** poor job of defending the US homeland. For example, on September 11, 2001 the nearst air defense assets to New York and Washington DC were in Andover MA and Norfolk Virginia and these interceptors took nearly an hour to get over the two cities after the Twin Towers and Pentagon had been attacked. It other words the pilots in those twin F-15s (New York) or F-16s the Washington DC area was a pair of black smoke plumes . The planes that were sent to Washington had no air to air missiles so the pilots would have had to do a ramming . This is really great on the ball air defense.
i would totally agree with better DEFENSIVE spending, and stop the crap of going over to other countries and making ourselves clearly visible to people who haven't even started to hate us yet.
not to mention leaving the borders open (which i like to mention every chance i get )
people do forget that some of the military spending is for american jobs-we don't need all that foreign "investment" however. it really aggravated me when we were killing people over there and then bribing their families with payments-just a lousy deal all around.
He already told you he didn't when you made the assertion previously, yet you continue to repeat this. A lot of the Paul supporters and Obama supporters on the forum frequently basically regurgitate talking points (not to mention that I don't think tmsterp's posts sound like regurgitated talking points) yet you never suggest that any of them work for the Paul campaign or Obama campaign.
The poster admitted that they were a volunteer for the Romney campaign, can you point out any of the pro-Paul or pro-Obama posters that have made that same admission?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
