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

[Que]

Pooty22, you keep talking about tuition assistance. Does EVERYONE deserve tuition assistance? Do you believe everyone should go to college? Do you believe everyone should go to the college of their choice? How does one qualify for tuition assistance?

 

[halfmileharry]

What interest does private enterprise have in any of those things? Who's going to pay private insurance to repair roads and bridges on public highways and interstates? Unless you want to pay for it every time you drive it.

Private enterprise does have a hand in education and tuition assistance, however the publicly funded alternatives are usually cheaper.

There are a couple companies getting into space exploration, but that is far from the only thing NASA does.

Oh and private companies that spend their own money doing research are the reason everything in the medical field is extremely, sometimes prohibitively, expensive.

So...you're promoting socialism? What's wrong with user taxes to keep the govt out of our business. What's wrong with motivation by creating something on your own? Your own invention should be rewarded and not taken by the government.
Space exploration is important to the survival of the species. Though I don't agree that all should survive. (personal observation only)
What you've mentioned for government interference wouldn't upset Stalin or Marx one bit. Or Obama..
The govt has it's place but not to interfere in the daily lives of it's citizens. Free enterprise and not socialism. Look in the mirror and face the truth please.

 

[mrjarrell]

What would you do with the vast number of military personnel removed from the military? Police departments are short on numbers, but most of them won't take a person straight out of the military right now. Our borders are defensless. Would you recommend these personnel be used in some way to defend our borders from illegal crossings from Mexico and Canada? If not, what would you do with them?

Personally, I'd do what we have historically done with returning soldiers. Turn them loose in the free market and let them find their own way to success or failure on their own. History shows that military members are suited to many fields of endeavour, not just cops or border guards. Why do you limit them and slot them into so few careers? They're not idiots that can only do things with guns. The guys who returned from WW2 shaped our economy for decades and very few of them decided they were only good enough to be cops or border guards. Our economy could stand a boost and getting these guys off the government teat wouldn't be a bad thing. Welfare, in many forms is bad for the country and its recipients.

 

[beararms1776]

Nearly everyone is going to be on gov. assistance through the ACA so I don't see those programs getting cut. Cuts in education spending would be beneficial. What more is a person going to gain education wise by throwing more money into that system. Pouring more money on it doesn't make a particular degree any better.

 

[Pooty22]

What would you do with the vast number of military personnel removed from the military? Police departments are short on numbers, but most of them won't take a person straight out of the military right now. Our borders are defensless. Would you recommend these personnel be used in some way to defend our borders from illegal crossings from Mexico and Canada? If not, what would you do with them?

Probably get a job in the private sector like I and many of my friends have done. That's the funny thing about the military though. Once you're out, most of the time they couldn't care less what happens to you.

I would also argue that a significant number of the people who've been in the military the last decade or are currently serving would not have been accepted prior to OEF/OIF. You want to talk about people taking advantage of the system? The system has been set up to let the bare minimum into the military because they needed the numbers. I honestly couldn't tell you how many Marines I served with that received waivers for drugs or an arrest record.

Heck, why not hire some as Border Agents? Border Agents are much cheaper than an over-sized military. I have a feeling it's much cheaper to pay Border Agents a living wage than it is to keep many of the overseas bases operational.

 

[Que]

Personally, I'd do what we have historically done with returning soldiers. Turn them loose in the free market and let them find their own way to success or failure on their own. History shows that military members are suited to many fields of endeavour, not just cops or border guards. Why do you limit them and slot them into so few careers? They're not idiots that can only do things with guns. The guys who returned from WW2 shaped our economy for decades and very few of them decided they were only good enough to be cops or border guards. Our economy could stand a boost and getting these guys off the government teat wouldn't be a bad thing. Welfare, in many forms is bad for the country and its recipients.

That was but one example. Have you looked at the number of unemployed vets? I'm not talking about retirees who have something coming in every month and can go to the VA when they are sick. I'm talking about those who are RIFed do to a reduction in force. I understand they aren't dumb, I'm one of them. I fully agree that people should be taken off of the government's teat, but lets start with those who are unproductive because it's their personal choice. Military personnel are workers and should not be numbered among those on the social programs.

 

[Pooty22]

Nearly everyone is going to be on gov. assistance through the ACA so I don't see those programs getting cut. Cuts in education spending would be beneficial. What more is a person going to gain education wise by throwing more money into that system. Pouring more money on it doesn't make a particular degree any better.

That's kind of funny. With tuition prices rising every year, it would seem that colleges and universities believe that the more money you put into your education the better it is.

 

[88GT]

I agree that armies have a purpose, but do we really need one as big as ours even in peace time?

It's not peace time I'm worried about. When we really need one, there won't be enough time to grow the military to a point where it can ward off a real threat. Of all the things we spend money on in this country, the military is one I don't bat an eye at. Not to say that all military dollars are good expenditures. Which brings up my next point. You are equating the size of the military with military spending. While there is usually a correlation, it is not necessarily true that you have to decrease the size of the military to decrease the spending.

The US has the world's first AND second largest Air Forces. We have, what, seven aircraft carriers? Is all that really necessary?

That's a good question. But if your answer to it is 'no' just because you don't want to spend money on it, I would argue that's a very poor reason to diminish the size of the military.

Also, would it be so bad if some of the money spend on these wars would have been spent on medical research or tuition assistance or infrastructure or NASA? The bill for the Iraq War alone is around $1.2 trillion. If you add in estimations for long term veteran care, I've seen estimations of $6 trillion. Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere. Or better yet for fiscal conservatives, wouldn't it be nice to have a surplus for a change?

Yes, it would be so bad, because ultimately, every dollar of money spent by the federal government was taken from the people of this country for the benefit of a select few. Wealth redistribution by force is slavery. Can you honestly get behind that?

I agree but at what point is the spending considered excessive for Republicans?

Now you're changing the argument. It would seem that it's only "excessive" if it's for a cause that you don't (fully) support based on the comments you've made in this thread. It's not really the amount of money that bothers you, is it? Just what the money is being spent on. FYI: social welfare programs are #1 and 2 in the federal budget. And all social welfare spending accounts for about 60% of the total. I am not a Republican, but I can tell you THAT is excessive.

 

[jbombelli]

Let's just look at that...




I don't see the phrase "...some of the money that has been spent on these wars..."



So what is your limit?

Still waiting... At what dollar amount would you set your limit on all those social/entitlement programs, Pooty?

 

[Pooty22]

That was but one example. Have you looked at the number of unemployed vets? I'm not talking about retirees who have something coming in every month and can go to the VA when they are sick. I'm talking about those who are RIFed do to a reduction in force. I understand they aren't dumb, I'm one of them. I fully agree that people should be taken off of the government's teat, but lets start with those who are unproductive because it's their personal choice. Military personnel are workers and should not be numbered among those on the social programs.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I know several people who got married while they were in the military just so they could get the BAH and family separation pay. They would make an agreement with a female friend from back home to get married for as long as they were in the military, then divorce when they got out.

 

[Pooty22]

Still waiting... At what dollar amount would you set your limit on all those social/entitlement programs, Pooty?

Sorry I didn't word some of my replies to your liking. After all, I'm just a socialist who wants all of your money so it can be evenly distributed to everyone. Except Obama. He deserves more money than anyone else.

 

[mrjarrell]

That was but one example. Have you looked at the number of unemployed vets? I'm not talking about retirees who have something coming in every month and can go to the VA when they are sick. I'm talking about those who are RIFed do to a reduction in force. I understand they aren't dumb, I'm one of them. I fully agree that people should be taken off of the government's teat, but lets start with those who are unproductive because it's their personal choice. Military personnel are workers and should not be numbered among those on the social programs.

There's no reason we cannot take the military off the teat as well as the non-productive. Both are a drain on our resources. We need to downsize the military, as well as the social programs. People who view the military as a jobs program are a serious part of the problem. Everyone has their pet projects they want preserved. Well, the sad fact is we can no longer afford them. We cannot be the worlds policeman, spending our treasure and blood for political whims. Nor can we afford the welfare state. Everyone who thinks we can and should support either is just happy with the status quo and the continuing involuntary servitude of our children. No thanks. Plenty of room for cuts all across the board. Welfare is too big and so is our military. We're way past the time where they need to be cut. My children were not born to be slaves to anyone.

 

[88GT]

I strongly disagree with this statement. I know several people who got married while they were in the military just so they could get the BAH and family separation pay. They would make an agreement with a female friend from back home to get married for as long as they were in the military, then divorce when they got out.

Milking the system isn't a definition of social welfare. Though social welfare is an example of milking the system. Military personnel earn a wage. By definition that means they aren't on social welfare.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You asked a legitimate question about the military and its associated spending...now to democrats: Where in the Constitution can you point to where spending on virtually all that stuff is a power delegated to the federal government?

Still waiting... At what dollar amount would you set your limit on all those social/entitlement programs, Pooty?

I think we're on his ignore list.

 

[jbombelli]

Sorry I didn't word some of my replies to your liking. After all, I'm just a socialist who wants all of your money so it can be evenly distributed to everyone. Except Obama. He deserves more money than anyone else.

So what's your limit, Mr. Deflection? You're demanding to know when enough military spending is enough from the Republicans, but you can't answer about what level of social spending is enough?

Answer. Or should there no limit in your eyes?

 

[Que]

Sorry I didn't word some of my replies to your liking. After all, I'm just a socialist who wants all of your money so it can be evenly distributed to everyone. Except Obama. He deserves more money than anyone else.

Don't take the conversation down the drain. It's gone pretty well so far.

 

[beararms1776]

That's kind of funny. With tuition prices rising every year, it would seem that colleges and universities believe that the more money you put into your education the better it is.

If two universities have the same degree but one is $1000's higher, it must be better.

 

[Que]

I still want to know about this tuition assistance. We can reduce the military and then use the money for tuition assistance among other things? How is that saving money?

 

[Pooty22]

It's not peace time I'm worried about. When we really need one, there won't be enough time to grow the military to a point where it can ward off a real threat. Of all the things we spend money on in this country, the military is one I don't bat an eye at. Not to say that all military dollars are good expenditures. Which brings up my next point. You are equating the size of the military with military spending. While there is usually a correlation, it is not necessarily true that you have to decrease the size of the military to decrease the spending.

Who, right now, poses a threat large enough to warrant a military as large as ours? This year, the US will spend as much money on the military as the next ELEVEN highest spending countries in the world. To extend on my first question, who in the next five years could pose a big enough threat that we wouldn't see coming that warrants a military the size of ours?

 

[Shadow8088]

when we start talking about governmental help with tuition, it's perhaps time to stop looking at it from a "social program" and start looking at it as a "why are tuitions exploding at their current rates." I don't know about you, but my student loans aren't going to get paid off until i'm in my 60's at this rate... just in time to start collecting social security that won't exist by then...