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.
So that is your criteria, cut the military budget in half of what ever it is now, and that would be it, that would be the amount that the federal government would have to live on? So once that is spent ? tax increases? no more growth?
25% of the federal budget is spent on defense. (50% by some measures, it varies, I'm using the smallest number because everyone accepts that)
If you cut that in half, it still allows for ample defense, while ending the deficit.
The difference is, people want the entitlement programs.
As I said before, over 70% of Americans want social security, and medicare.
This is a majority rule country. You have to deal with what you can cut, not what you'd like to.
We spend twice what the entire rest of the world does on defense. It amounts to over 25% of our total budget year after year.
"entitlements" adds up to so much, because it contains so many categories that are under that.
Defense is just defense.
What ever in the world makes you think that people do not want the one thing that the constitution actually calls for the federal government to fund the military?
What ever in the world makes you think that people do not want the one thing that the constitution actually calls for the federal government to fund the military?
I didn't say we won't fund them. We'll just match what THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD spends, just from us.
We'd still have 4 times the military budget of China, our nearest possible competitor.
That sure does seem like not only an attack, but a false one at that. You can include multiple fallacy arguments and prejudgments in there as well. You have already demonstrated a limited and false area of "conversation" upon which the ground rules/facts are not even correct with which you want to engage. As usual and as the Republican's in the Senate and House...you want to have the discussion only based on your rules and how you determine the overall 'conversation' is framed and what it's about.
So, what's your end game. A real discussion, or a narrow and tainted flame fest with no "civil" answers? I'll be your Huckleberry...but not on your terms.
So lets here it? Why is this so difficult? why do those on the left always run from their position? If someone said ....."ok all you right wing conservatives we know you want to slash government and cut taxes and you dont think that the government should do any thing but a huge military....whats your endgame, I would dive in, heres how I see it working! why is it so hard for those on the left? you know what never mind, I want to hear from those who dont have a problem giving a straight answer to a straight question.
I love threads asking for civil answers to loaded questions.
Loaded questions? Take a look around, read and listen to BOTH sides issues. One who is fed continuous propaganda way have difficulty separating fact from fiction.
"you think the "wealthy" are keeping entirely too much of their own money"
or
"So, when you have brought the wealthy down to the appropriate wealth, gutted the military to an acceptable level and levied the maximum against the corporations,then what?"
I consider the question to be not only loaded but filled with biased and erroneous assumptions from the start.
Before writing my short response, I actually gave some thought to the questions but wound up not know where to even begin because:
Reducing the defense budget to a level that adequately provides for our national defense has been a goal of several administrations both Republican and Democratic. Such reductions are in no way intended to "gut" the Defense Department but to realistically provide for what the country actually needs.
For example, do we really need 11 strike carrier groups?
When it comes to corporate taxes, the question isn't finding some arbitrary maximum whose purpose is to "limit" wealth but to equitably provide for the nation the revenues required for achieving our national objectives. The same could be said for individual income taxes.
As for the size of government, I would be more than happy to eliminate the need for government if and when the citizens, be they corporations or individuals, learn to accept their ethical responsibilities. When coal mine operators, factories, and oil companies operate at a standard of safety far exceeding any possible government regulation rather than the bare minimum then we can do away with OSHA, the EPA, or any other regulatory agency. When corporations, ensured that their products were safe and efficacious then I would be the first to argue for the abolishment of the FDA, the PSC. When banks act in an above board and scrupulous fashion, then I'd vote for ending the FDIC.
For me it will end when individuals act as responsible citizens and abandon the idea that profits, at all cost are the holy grail.
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.
