A question for Republicans that I've had for a long time

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,270
    113
    Gtown-ish
    We can easily reduce military spending to less than 1% of all spending without diminishing the capacity of the military. Just increase spending on everything else! No problem.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    39,733
    113
    Uranus
    We can easily reduce military spending to less than 1% of all spending without diminishing the capacity of the military. Just increase spending on everything else! No problem.

    You sir........... are a genius!

    Obama-Pointing-Smile.jpg
     

    Arthur Dent

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 21, 2010
    1,546
    38
    You think the Dems could live with a cash surplus? I'd love to see that but history shows me it won't happen. I have taken notice for years on this. Every time I cashed my paycheck and all the money came out that the Govt didn't deserve. I'm retired now and they'll NOT get another dime of my paychecks to waste.

    So spend it before someone else does?
     

    Tsigos

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 19, 2012
    456
    18
    I figured a "general" idea of the % was well known. Typically, at it's absolute lowest 15-16%, and at it's highest just shy of 25% (as far as modern expendatures go). 2012 was 19%. It's estimated to be at 23% by years end.

    Add to this the 5-7% spent on veteran healthcare. Also, where is the cost of other veteran benefits like college tuition, home loans etc.? I'm not saying veterans are not deserving of such benefits, only that the federal budget tries to hide such costs by including them in categories other than "defense" to make the defense budget look smaller.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    If we were operating according to the Constitution, defense would represent one of the largest, if not the largest, expense. Most of the federal budget is spent on things for which the government has no authority whatsoever to engage itself in doing.
     

    zippy23

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    27   0   0
    May 20, 2012
    1,815
    63
    Noblesville
    The biggest guns usually win, but having the best military in the world is a deterrent, why would you attack or try to hurt any country that could wipe you off the map? Welfare programs and military spending have nothing to do with each other. Why should i pay for someone who wont do anything? I would gladly pay for a huge military to protect this country IF it was ever needed. If you look at it financially, the military has developed and refined or perfected some of the greatest technologies we have today, GPS, the internet, reliable transportation, communication, the list goes on and on, that is extremely beneficial. Paying for your neighbor to sit on his butt and vote democrat does nothing but wreck the country financially, morally, economically, etc. My question is, why would you be against military spending and for social welfare programs?
     

    SkullDaddy.45

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 25, 2012
    21,053
    113
    0hio
    If we were operating according to the Constitution, defense would represent one of the largest, if not the largest, expense. Most of the federal budget is spent on things for which the government has no authority whatsoever to engage itself in doing.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    THIS!
    The states are supposed by doing what the federal gov. Is doing!
     

    Fester

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 21, 2012
    771
    93
    Greenfield
    While there has been talk of decreasing the numbers of Aircraft carriers, it also would equate to job loss in the civilian sectors. It is civilian contractors that builds those ships, tanks, and aircraft. Thus you would be willing to toss out those workers as well by trickle down. Will they then have to go onto to social programs? Where will these highly skilled civilians go to work? It is far better to battle a foe on their soil than ours. Expensive? Yes. But allows for peace of mind.
    The problem I see with social programs is that laziness is rewarded. A host of liars, cheats, and thieves line up for their free benefits. I was at the grocery store a couple months ago when a lady was paying for her purchase with a "State issued" debit card while talking on the phone about her new car. I get out to my car and she is parked next to me in a brand new Mustang. This is the type of BS we pay for. When someone on food stamps can an expensive car like that is thievery. The states should be able to establish ways to monitor and perhaps catch such deception.
    One thing that definitely needs to be done is to quick "giving" money away for foreign countries. We hand out huge wads of cash to countries who could give a crap about us. Shut down foreign aid to those who are hostile towards us.
    OK - Bit*h me out, now.
     
    Top Bottom