RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving?

RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

samboct -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 12:41:57 PM)
Firm "I'm a firm believer in a good strong defense, but wouldn't have a problem with a lot of downsizing, if all the money didn't end up in wasteful social programs." As something of a student of WWII history, I certainly concur with the need for a strong defense as perhaps the best way to keep out of wars, although that does assume a modicum of intelligence in the chief executive. However, I urge you to reconsider what I think is an implicit assumption in your comment- i.e. that we actually have a strong defense. Because we don't. Oh, we've certainly spent more than enough money- but it's been a boondoggle and we're continuing to spend money on useless weapons systems ranging from the Poseidon to the F-35 (which Ken and I debated somewhat vociferously a few months back) to ballistic missile "defenses". Since many of your comments imply a distrust of government- and I always get aggravated at gov't intrusion into our privacy-I suggest that if you think the gov't is incompetent in many things, do not assume that they have been competent in either weapons development or procurement. The track record of spending on "wasteful" social programs is probably a heck of a lot better in terms of bang/buck than defense. Of course, I still hearken back to the Rev. Jesse Jackson pointing out the choice between welfare or jail care. Welfare is cheaper by far- we've got too many people in prison. And there's a link between crime and economic growth- in a growing economy, crime rates diminish. In short, spending some money to stimulate an economy, and provide good jobs and an education has been a winning formula for this country for a number of years- till Ronald Reagan threw it in the dustbin of history. Sam

Jack45 -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 3:59:19 PM)
Secession movement seems to be growing: http://secession.net/ Tribalism will be the future of what was America. It may be possible to keep the framework going for a while but the future is going to be either like Brazil, only with nukes, or outright Communist or Nazi. In any event this dear nation is going down, of that I am convinced. It was a great place, once upon a time.

slvemike4u -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 4:01:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jack45 Secession movement seems to be growing: http://secession.net/ Tribalism will be the future of what was America. It may be possible to keep the framework going for a while but the future is going to be either like Brazil, only with nukes, or outright Communist or Nazi. In any event this dear nation is going down, of that I am convinced. It was a great place, once upon a time. Please tell me this post is a joke.......please!

MarsBonfire -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 4:10:30 PM)
Hummm... If Jeb did run, I wonder what his campagin slogan would be? "Jeb Bush: The Third Time's the Charm!" "Bush: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" "Jeb: Here to Finish off America!" "Jeb Bush: Real American Political Experience!" (R.A.P.E.) Then all of America could cry, "A Bush again? RAPE!" "Jeb Bush: A Politician of Biblical Proportions!" (After all, the anti-christ IS in the Bible...)

rulemylife -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 4:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Jack45 Secession movement seems to be growing: http://secession.net/ Tribalism will be the future of what was America. It may be possible to keep the framework going for a while but the future is going to be either like Brazil, only with nukes, or outright Communist or Nazi. In any event this dear nation is going down, of that I am convinced. It was a great place, once upon a time. Please tell me this post is a joke.......please! (pssssst.................. Jack45 is really Todd Palin.............. but you didn't hear that from me)

slvemike4u -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 5:34:41 PM)
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 5:35:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Hummm... If Jeb did run, I wonder what his campagin slogan would be? "Jeb Bush: The Third Time's the Charm!" "Bush: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" "Jeb: Here to Finish off America!" "Jeb Bush: Real American Political Experience!" (R.A.P.E.) Then all of America could cry, "A Bush again? RAPE!" "Jeb Bush: A Politician of Biblical Proportions!" (After all, the anti-christ IS in the Bible...) Could your keep your hatred under control just long enough to post something at least slightly relevant to the threads topic, please? Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 5:37:14 PM)
Aw, come on Firm......it wasn't all bad.I liked the "third times the charm" one.

JuliaGreenleaf -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 5:44:28 PM)
I honestly feel America's best bet is to stop spending money on arms (let the rest of the world protect itself!), tax the ULTRA rich more, and spend the money on restarting science and technology, which leads to good jobs. Try spending money on innovative green technology, and fix the school system. Maybe chuck up a tarrif barrier against China, ect based on the fact that their goods are made in an environment that overuses carbons... unfortunately the Chinese own most of your debt, so that might be a little problem. Good luck :) Obama is doing most of these things, as best he can. Personally, I think the death of your empire was when you all started voting conservative, and cutting taxes. In short, you don't get something for free - that's just the end of the story.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 6:26:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Firm "I'm a firm believer in a good strong defense, but wouldn't have a problem with a lot of downsizing, if all the money didn't end up in wasteful social programs." As something of a student of WWII history, I certainly concur with the need for a strong defense as perhaps the best way to keep out of wars, although that does assume a modicum of intelligence in the chief executive. However, I urge you to reconsider what I think is an implicit assumption in your comment- i.e. that we actually have a strong defense. Because we don't. Oh, we've certainly spent more than enough money- but it's been a boondoggle and we're continuing to spend money on useless weapons systems ranging from the Poseidon to the F-35 (which Ken and I debated somewhat vociferously a few months back) to ballistic missile "defenses". Since many of your comments imply a distrust of government- and I always get aggravated at gov't intrusion into our privacy-I suggest that if you think the gov't is incompetent in many things, do not assume that they have been competent in either weapons development or procurement. The track record of spending on "wasteful" social programs is probably a heck of a lot better in terms of bang/buck than defense. Of course, I still hearken back to the Rev. Jesse Jackson pointing out the choice between welfare or jail care. Welfare is cheaper by far- we've got too many people in prison. And there's a link between crime and economic growth- in a growing economy, crime rates diminish. In short, spending some money to stimulate an economy, and provide good jobs and an education has been a winning formula for this country for a number of years- till Ronald Reagan threw it in the dustbin of history. Sam, Good post (even if I do disagree with a lot of it [:D]) Rather than get into a detailed argument on weapons systems, what makes an effective military, gold plated toilet seats and all that, let me make an observation: If you have 100 social programs that fail, you can always close them down, evaluate the errors and try again. If you have a military that fails, you likely won't get another chance.to try any of those social programs. If I have to put up with some wastage, I'd prefer to do it in the military than in social programs. We can't afford to screw that poach even once. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 6:37:58 PM)
Certainly we can figure out a way to do both successfully. edited because the first version sucked.

herbcaroll -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 6:51:04 PM)
Clinton and a Republican Congress worked very hard in the 1990's to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. In 8 years, that entire fight was flushed down the toilet by a guy who is more concerned with what is happening in a lousy desert 9,000 miles away than what is going on inside this country. If he were a true "conservative", shouldn't he have let the financial institutions who engaged in idiotic lending practices and risky derivative markets go under if that is what the market dictated? I just don't see how any Republican can support Federal bail outs to businesses who run themselves poorly and are insolvent. But that is what he did. He got right on TV and peddled this nonsense, most of which isn't going to do any good for the average joe. At least be consistent in your philosophy, Republicans. If the market is the ultimate ruler, then stand back and let economic Darwinism take place.

samboct -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 8:09:27 PM)
Firm I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not sweating the "gold plated toilet seats". I understand enough of how the military orders stuff to figure out that the requirements are so onerous and the numbers so small, it's effectively hand work and therefore expensive. Nope- I'm talking about a disconnect about which weapons systems are ordered- a lack of vigorous debate in terms of what's been successful and what hasn't, and a system which does not allow originators of an idea to see it through, so that the wheel is reinvented constantly. A simple example will suffice- Perhaps the most useful aircraft in the arsenal in the Iraq war's was the A-10. This was an airplane that was unwanted by the services, and shoved down their throats by a congressman from Long Island. This airplane was also scheduled to be stricken from the AF after Iraq 1, but there has been no replacement for it. So while I can certainly agree with the idea that we need a strong defense, I don't think we're getting one- and what we're getting is bankrupting us. We need to spend less money- but purchase weapons that make sense and like our founding fathers envisioned- avoid expensive foreign adventures. There's an interesting overlap in between our defense spending and health care spending. In both cases, the problem is that there's no real check on whether what we're paying more money for is actually an improvement on what it's replacing. And in both cases, the assumption is that the more expensive version offers better performance, with really little data to back it up. So we spend a fortune- and at the end of the day, are we really any more secure? Also- in terms of your concern that we don't get to screw the pooch even once in the military world. Well, were we prepared to fight in WWII with state of the art weapons? How about Korea? How about Viet Nam? Or even in Iraq Part II? Our troops still don't have adequate armor or vehicles, and nobody's explained to my satisfaction how the Iraqis have several hours to bury large roadside bombs without our surveillance picking them up? Of course, if the surveillance you need are a bunch of little airplanes flying 24/7 rather than multi million dollar Predators and Global Hawks- but heck, what we'd need might be cheaper and we can't have that, now can we? Sam Sam

rulemylife -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 9:23:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If you have 100 social programs that fail, you can always close them down, evaluate the errors and try again. If you have a military that fails, you likely won't get another chance.to try any of those social programs. If I have to put up with some wastage, I'd prefer to do it in the military than in social programs. We can't afford to screw that poach even once. And how much "wastage" is too much? I mentioned this in another thread recently. We spent over 9x what China spent in 2008. China being second to the U.S. in military spending. Nine times the amount? I'm all for a strong defense, but when does enough become too much?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 10:22:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If you have 100 social programs that fail, you can always close them down, evaluate the errors and try again. If you have a military that fails, you likely won't get another chance.to try any of those social programs. If I have to put up with some wastage, I'd prefer to do it in the military than in social programs. We can't afford to screw that poach even once. And how much "wastage" is too much? I mentioned this in another thread recently. We spent over 9x what China spent in 2008. China being second to the U.S. in military spending. Nine times the amount? I'm all for a strong defense, but when does enough become too much? The percentage of US GDP spent for defense in the last few years is lower than historical averages. Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 10:27:47 PM)
Lower than historical averages? When WWII and the height of the Cold War?

rulemylife -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/9/2009 10:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The percentage of US GDP spent for defense in the last few years is lower than historical averages. Firm That's all well and good, but doesn't address the question. Do we really need to spend nine times the amount of the nation closest to us in defense spending? Our 2008 military expenditures were more than twice the amount spent by the entire European Union.

StrangerThan -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/10/2009 4:43:38 AM)
I don't think it's going to matter a great deal in the short term which way the country is moving idealogically. I say that because both ends of the political spectrum have well oiled machines intent on destroying the other side. The gap between left and right in this country is at a point where compromise is a word that no longer exists in either vocabulary. I'm not talking about the general population. Regardless of the abbreviation next to most names in terms of R, D, or I, folks in general mostly just want to get about living life and let the rest live theirs. That concept is lost once you venture into the extremes sitting at either end of politics. What we've done as a country and as a society however, is allow the extremes to influence and drive a large part of the legislative efforts in the past couple of decades. Generally, I think most people are both fairly conservative. Most want taxes under control, government spending under control, and the role of government to follow the Constitution. Bush tried his damndest to circumvent that particular document. Obama is following that same path. Politics in the last 10-12 years has followed more of a "figure a way around it" philosophy rather than exist within it with some groups insisting it is time for revision. Neither party has delivered when it comes to corralling spending, taxes, or limiting the role of government. Both sides have gone about expanding all three while doing their utmost to distance themselves from the tax and spend policies of the other side. I also think there's a decent amount of liberal philosophy in most folks in that most don't really care how you live your life, what your sexual orientation is, whether you subscribe to the John Birch Society or Greenpeace. That's not good enough for the extremes of either side though. The problem is, has been, and always will be that those sitting on the ends of the spectrum just damned well can't stand that everyone else doesn't follow the same rules and have become the bullies on a playground where the bulk of the population sort of sits somewhere in the middle and sways back and forth. Maybe we just need to get out of the way and let the bullies fight it out, and deal with the refuse that's left. Shrug.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/10/2009 5:17:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan I don't think it's going to matter a great deal in the short term which way the country is moving idealogically. I say that because both ends of the political spectrum have well oiled machines intent on destroying the other side. The gap between left and right in this country is at a point where compromise is a word that no longer exists in either vocabulary. I'm not talking about the general population. Regardless of the abbreviation next to most names in terms of R, D, or I, folks in general mostly just want to get about living life and let the rest live theirs. That concept is lost once you venture into the extremes sitting at either end of politics. What we've done as a country and as a society however, is allow the extremes to influence and drive a large part of the legislative efforts in the past couple of decades. Generally, I think most people are both fairly conservative. Most want taxes under control, government spending under control, and the role of government to follow the Constitution. Bush tried his damndest to circumvent that particular document. Obama is following that same path. Politics in the last 10-12 years has followed more of a "figure a way around it" philosophy rather than exist within it with some groups insisting it is time for revision. Neither party has delivered when it comes to corralling spending, taxes, or limiting the role of government. Both sides have gone about expanding all three while doing their utmost to distance themselves from the tax and spend policies of the other side. I also think there's a decent amount of liberal philosophy in most folks in that most don't really care how you live your life, what your sexual orientation is, whether you subscribe to the John Birch Society or Greenpeace. That's not good enough for the extremes of either side though. The problem is, has been, and always will be that those sitting on the ends of the spectrum just damned well can't stand that everyone else doesn't follow the same rules and have become the bullies on a playground where the bulk of the population sort of sits somewhere in the middle and sways back and forth. Maybe we just need to get out of the way and let the bullies fight it out, and deal with the refuse that's left. Shrug. Stranger, Which is pretty much a prescription for a political environment rich for a third party, I think. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? (7/10/2009 5:20:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The percentage of US GDP spent for defense in the last few years is lower than historical averages. Firm That's all well and good, but doesn't address the question. Do we really need to spend nine times the amount of the nation closest to us in defense spending? Our 2008 military expenditures were more than twice the amount spent by the entire European Union. Yes, we do, as long as we stay on the same course we are currently set. As I said, I personally wouldn't mind a change, if it came with the correct change in other aspects of our political environment. Firm

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875