Do you prefer war or infrastructure? (wage, federal government, federal, Americans)

[SWFL_Native]

I prefer a government that doesn't create additional deficits to fund consumption or spending. Why leave the sins of the present to be paid for by our grandkids and great grandkids?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

It is a silly rhetorical question designed to salvage Biden's awful decisions.

As I said before, you could do both, but Biden has done neither. Spending to expand infrastructure and conduct competent military decisions has never been a problem for other presidents who were not demented and/or compromised by corruption from foreign governments.

What should have been done?

1. Maintain Bagram airforce base. We have maintained airforce bases in many other nations and withdrawn a good deal of ground troops. Keeping the airforce base would have (AND DID) maintain the Afghan ground troops by providing intelligence and air support. There was no need to abandon Bagram- none at all.

2. Actually provide for infrastructure in the "infrastructure bill". This is basically a liberal pork spend-o-rama that bails out democrat states and cities irresponsible debts and uses money to promote all the dem pet projects, WHICH ARE NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.


So........................... BOTH could have been easily done, but Biden screwed up both.

And just WHAT was competent about staying in Afghanistan for twenty years with little cost-effective benefit to the US? WHAT was competent about attempting to fight for those who refused to fight for themselves?

WHY is it the RW has no problem spending TRILLION$ on unnecessary wars of choice yet cries SOCIALISM! at the mere mention of spending on America and Americans?

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by sandsthetime

How about a government that shrinks?

There's only one way that government ever "shrinks".

And it's usually quite messy.

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

You didn't answer the question which was which would you prefer? A government that fights, or a government that builds? I prefer a government that builds. Major countries that are not frequently at war have better infrastructure than we do. Besides many conservatives would say we need our military at home guarding the southern border.

I prefer a government that fights when fighting is necessary allows the free market to build constantly.

And many of those countries that you speak of can only afford their "infrastructure" at the expense of "fighting" because we do their fighting for them, or at least cover the lions share of their national defense needs as their allies.

Canada comes to mind.

You think if China or Russia decided to lob a few ICBMs at Toronto that it would be Canada that shoots them down?

No ....it would be us.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by burdell

And just WHAT was competent about staying in Afghanistan for twenty years with little cost-effective benefit to the US? WHAT was competent about attempting to fight for those who refused to fight for themselves?

The problem was that the US over estimated the Afghan Army, and it was not a highly disciplined force and was subject to desertion, and Biden over stated the strength and capabilities of the Afghan forces who relied heavily on western support.

Furthermore the main support for the Afghan Army was provided via the US Airbase at Bagram, which Biden ordered to be closed.

Bagram provided air support, logistics, medical care and even administered wages in relation to the Afghan Army and without this support and without US and western forces and commanders, the Afghan Army was a beleaguered force.

Many Afghan volunteers also feared for their families if they fought the invading Taliban, as the Taliban has no problem killing woman and children.

It should however be noted that the Afghan Army was not made up of cowards and over 70,000 Afghan soldiers died fighting the Taliban.

[Kracer]

Must have been posted by a socialist, only deals in extremes, no degrees of compromise or levels of an issue.

The left sees only extremes, no middle ground. there can be no argument or discussion only binary choices.

[saltine]

Not the 'human infrastructure' biden promotes

[FatBob96]

Originally Posted by burdell

And just WHAT was competent about staying in Afghanistan for twenty years with little cost-effective benefit to the US? WHAT was competent about attempting to fight for those who refused to fight for themselves?

WHY is it the RW has no problem spending TRILLION$ on unnecessary wars of choice yet cries SOCIALISM! at the mere mention of spending on America and Americans?

Americans are, by and large supposed to support themselves.

It's one of the things that defines us as Americans.

That doesn't mean that we have to live in a dog eat dog, every man for himself society.

But it doesn't mean that we need things like generational welfare or UBI either.

And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that we need multiple trillion dollar "infrastructure" bills with only a small percentage of it actually going towards infrastructure.

[swagger]

The big lobbying power should be the citizenry. The only reason that these iron triangles are able to exist is because the citizens aren't giving their governance the consideration it deserves. It gets plenty of their attention, especially these days, but very few actually give politics any real consideration.

[Peasy973]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

You didn't answer the question which was which would you prefer? A government that fights, or a government that builds? I prefer a government that builds. Major countries that are not frequently at war have better infrastructure than we do. Besides many conservatives would say we need our military at home guarding the southern border.

Definitely agree.