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

[jbombelli]

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.

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?

Still waiting for that answer ...

 

[usaf64]

Weren't we in a surplus when Clinton left office?

We did have a surplus in the last few years of the Clinton administration. One of the major reasons was the welfare reform those mean old Republicans forced on Clinton. It seems that when people who could, were told to get jobs ("Workfare") a lot of them decided they would rather go off welfare than get a job and help support themselves. Remember the old saying, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and etc."

As far as your question about the military is concerned; are you aware of the fact that there is not just one threat to our way of life, the world is full of thugs who love to destroy us? We swapped guns for butter during the depression and paid for at at Bataan and Corregidor.

Let's help people who are truly needy. Those who can do for themselves should do so. Obama phones are a good example.

By the way, where did you acquire your knowledge of how big our military should be?

 

[PistolBob]

Weren't we in a surplus when Clinton left office?

You, like many victims of the "free" government run education system can't tell the difference between debt, deficit, surplus, and debt reduction. Your question tells me a couple things, firstly you believe a lot of what you hear from the media without ever considering they may be wrong, and secondly math isn't your strong suite.

Go to ustreasury.gov and look at the national debt balance at the end of each fiscal year...just go back to let's say 1945. You 'll see that the national debt has only been reduced one time since then. That was in 1957, under President Eisenhower's administration....it was really a accounting sleight of hand from when congress dipped into the social security lock box.....yes, social security USED to be safe from congressional buffoonery...not now.

The debt soared under every president since 1957 and has showed no signs of ever reversing.

A deficit is when you say this month I am going to send a million dollars on bubble gum...at the end of the month you see that you only spent one hundred thousand dollars on bubble gum. You now have a 900 thousand dollar budget deficit. That doesn't mean you have any money though.

Keep working at it.

 

[cobber]

As 88GT said, the Russians and Chinese have all sorts of reasons to "kick over the apple cart", starting with historic national aspirations and phobias, working through the greed that permeates mankind, and percolating through the prospect of assuaging national jealousy of America's success and power by bringing us down. Whether or not you are arguing against a federal military force, you've exhibited a flawed understanding of the need for an adequately-sized and prepared military force because you don't appear to grasp the potential threats and the amount of resources necessary to continue to deter them.

Typing in red and expletives doesn't make your statements more profound.

I have a fine understanding of geopolitics.

BTW, China invaded Korea? Just like the US invaded North Korea.

Your statements about German air superiority? I believe that is exactly what I said. Nicht wahr?

Russia expands in accordance with its interests, to the extent of its abilities. It is not some freakish cancer cell that just grows and grows. Russia has been larger in history, and it's been smaller. At one time Poland and Lithuania united and kicked the Russians around. Things change. The current configuration of powers in Europe, and around the world, is not etched in stone.

China? Aside from minor expansion, or small border skirmishes, China has been relatively stable for centuries. And please, where did you get this factoid about China invading Korea? Ask the Koreans about Japan. I'll wait.

As for this statement, please cite your sources:

Bull crap. Russia and China have had a history of territorial expansion at their neighbors' expense ever since they've acquired the power to do so. Ridiculous to think that either country might forget long-time animosity towards the US if we become weak enough. Not to mention that while they may have vast natural resources - so do we, even if we're not using them.

Neither Russia nor China has a "history" of animosity toward the US. Unless you are talking 1945 to 1991 for Russia and 1949 to ? with respect to China. We haven't had that many dealings with them.

Georgia and Chechnya are not neighbors in the sense of long-standing nation states. So talking about a history of Russian aggression makes as much sense as the history of English aggression against the Cornish (Cornwall being an ethnicity, but hardly a nation).

Finally, the South China Sea belongs to Japan and the Philippines??? And you think that position is more outlandish than a Chinese claim to the region?

If we are to learn from history, as you seem to suggest, we should probably be far more concerned about a resurgent Japan, than China. In fact, Japan attacked the US, China and Russia, in 1941, 1895 and 1905. Each time with a sneak attack devastating the opponent's navy.


I grasp threats. I also understand national interest. I also understand saber-rattling to mollify domestic interest groups. I'll stick by my statement that neither China or Russia will be our undoing. Unless perhaps you are talking cyber-warfare (which no one has yet done in this thread).

In the interwar years (1919-1935 or so), British strategic planners conceived that France presented a major threat to British security. This would have been plausible at the time, given the history of animosity between those two nations. But in the end they were wrong...

Finally, as to this notion that nations fight wars simply to bring another country down to size, I'm open to examples where this has been the major, if not sole, factor motivating a nation to expend blood and treasure.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Typing in red and expletives doesn't make your statements more profound.

I have a fine understanding of geopolitics.

BTW, China invaded Korea? Just like the US invaded North Korea.

Your statements about German air superiority? I believe that is exactly what I said. Nicht wahr?

Russia expands in accordance with its interests, to the extent of its abilities. It is not some freakish cancer cell that just grows and grows. Russia has been larger in history, and it's been smaller. At one time Poland and Lithuania united and kicked the Russians around. Things change. The current configuration of powers in Europe, and around the world, is not etched in stone.

China? Aside from minor expansion, or small border skirmishes, China has been relatively stable for centuries. And please, where did you get this factoid about China invading Korea? Ask the Koreans about Japan. I'll wait.

As for this statement, please cite your sources:



Neither Russia nor China has a "history" of animosity toward the US. Unless you are talking 1945 to 1991 for Russia and 1949 to ? with respect to China. We haven't had that many dealings with them.

Georgia and Chechnya are not neighbors in the sense of long-standing nation states. So talking about a history of Russian aggression makes as much sense as the history of English aggression against the Cornish (Cornwall being an ethnicity, but hardly a nation).

Finally, the South China Sea belongs to Japan and the Philippines??? And you think that position is more outlandish than a Chinese claim to the region?

If we are to learn from history, as you seem to suggest, we should probably be far more concerned about a resurgent Japan, than China. In fact, Japan attacked the US, China and Russia, in 1941, 1895 and 1905. Each time with a sneak attack devastating the opponent's navy.


I grasp threats. I also understand national interest. I also understand saber-rattling to mollify domestic interest groups. I'll stick by my statement that neither China or Russia will be our undoing. Unless perhaps you are talking cyber-warfare (which no one has yet done in this thread).

In the interwar years (1919-1935 or so), British strategic planners conceived that France presented a major threat to British security. This would have been plausible at the time, given the history of animosity between those two nations. But in the end they were wrong...

Finally, as to this notion that nations fight wars simply to bring another country down to size, I'm open to examples where this has been the major, if not sole, factor motivating a nation to expend blood and treasure.

I'm touched by your faith in your reading of the Russians and the Chinese and your knowledge of what are their intentions for the future vis-a-vis the United States and the rest of the world. Forgive me for saying so, but I think you're touched too. Since we both are apparently reading the same history in two different ways, I suppose we can just agree to disagree. ( But I'm right and you're wrong. )

 

[beararms1776]

Cool! I wasn't sure I could cut my way through all this red tape but, I did. Great thread so far.

 

[cobber]

I'm touched by your faith in your reading of the Russians and the Chinese and your knowledge of what are their intentions for the future vis-a-vis the United States and the rest of the world. Forgive me for saying so, but I think you're touched too. Since we both are apparently reading the same history in two different ways, I suppose we can just agree to disagree. ( But I'm right and you're wrong. )

I have no faith in any government, including my own. As Palmerston said, there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.

I remain convinced that the blow that will be our undoing will come from a nation that we now consider to be a friend.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have no faith in any government, including my own. As Palmerston said, there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.

I remain convinced that the blow that will be our undoing will come from a nation that we now consider to be a friend.

My money's on Germany

 

[UncleMike]

My money's on Germany

Nope....
Mexico.
The invasion's already begun.

 

[churchmouse]

Nope....
Mexico.
The invasion's already begun.

And is being won with Guerrilla tactics.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In my experience, Mexicans want nothing more than to be Americans (if they aren't already). Sure they pour tons of money back to family, but they still have the same dreams as any one of us. Germans, on the other hand, like being (non-hyphenated) Germans.

 

[88GT]

Russia expands in accordance with its interests, to the extent of its abilities. It is not some freakish cancer cell that just grows and grows. Russia has been larger in history, and it's been smaller. At one time Poland and Lithuania united and kicked the Russians around. Things change. The current configuration of powers in Europe, and around the world, is not etched in stone.

Why is it that when I said that exact thing so many posts up, you felt the need to argue with me about it?

Neither Russia nor China has a "history" of animosity toward the US. Unless you are talking 1945 to 1991 for Russia and 1949 to ? with respect to China. We haven't had that many dealings with them.

First, China's cultural isolationism and superiority complex arrogance mean that they have a history of animosity toward everybody. Second, I guess there is a history between the U.S. and Russia. And third, even if neither of those statements were true, why do you think that it couldn't change?

Georgia and Chechnya are not neighbors in the sense of long-standing nation states. So talking about a history of Russian aggression makes as much sense as the history of English aggression against the Cornish (Cornwall being an ethnicity, but hardly a nation).

Eh, ultimately the nation-state boundary is just an arbitrary line on the map. Ethnicities, races, cultures, heritages are more likely to be the impetus for action. It just so happens that boundaries are usually drawn such that those ethnicities, races, cultures, heritages are divided from each other. Hitler's war was motivated by culture and ethnicity. The nation-state of Germany was just his vehicle.

If we are to learn from history, as you seem to suggest, we should probably be far more concerned about a resurgent Japan, than China. In fact, Japan attacked the US, China and Russia, in 1941, 1895 and 1905. Each time with a sneak attack devastating the opponent's navy.

You are way to stuck on the details. It's about human behavior. Man will always be motivated by conquest, and the only thing keeping him from making the effort in the first place is his belief that said effort will result in failure, for whatever reason he might believe it. The minute he convinces himself he can and will win, he will move to strike. Where that has or has not happened in the past is utterly irrelevant to determining where it will happen in the future. The point I have been making all along is that it will happen again.

I grasp threats. I also understand national interest. I also understand saber-rattling to mollify domestic interest groups. I'll stick by my statement that neither China or Russia will be our undoing. Unless perhaps you are talking cyber-warfare (which no one has yet done in this thread).

I think if you go back to the posts where this was first introduced, you will note that nobody actually offered the opinion that the U.S. would fall to China or Russia, only that both of those nations could. You have been arguing against nothing.

I have no faith in any government, including my own. As Palmerston said, there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.

I remain convinced that the blow that will be our undoing will come from a nation that we now consider to be a friend.

Did anyone here specifically argue against you on this point? I know I didn't.

 

[88GT]

In my experience, Mexicans want nothing more than to be Americans (if they aren't already). Sure they pour tons of money back to family, but they still have the same dreams as any one of us. Germans, on the other hand, like being (non-hyphenated) Germans.

No. They like being Mexicans in America. Citizenship ain't so they can sing Greenwood's famous song.

 

[UncleMike]

In my experience, Mexicans want nothing more than to be Americans (if they aren't already). Sure they pour tons of money back to family, but they still have the same dreams as any one of us. Germans, on the other hand, like being (non-hyphenated) Germans.

That's my point....
They are taking over and in another ten years will be the majority.
As a People they're no different than the immigrants that fled the unhappy circumstances in Europe to set up new lives here.
Unfortunately the criminal elements always ride into the US on the backs of the hard working immigrants who simply want to improve their life style.
Think Mafia, Irish Mobs, Chinese Tong Society in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
The Mexican Cartels are ruthless criminals and they are arriving here every day masquerading as peaceful immigrants.

 

[traderdan]

In my experience, Mexicans want nothing more than to be Americans (if they aren't already). Sure they pour tons of money back to family, but they still have the same dreams as any one of us. Germans, on the other hand, like being (non-hyphenated) Germans.

Obviously you are not in touch with the heartbeat of the Latino community...

 

[indiucky]

No. They like being Mexicans in America. Citizenship ain't so they can sing Greenwood's famous song.

Sure it is....

"Oh I am proud to be a Mexican in America
Where at least all my stuffs free,
And I won't even acknowledge
That no one gave that right to me..

But I'll Gladly Stand up
and insult you
By not speaking your language here today..

Oh there ain't no doubt
I use this land.
God Bless my free stuff
From the USA"

Lee Rodriguez Verdewood

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Oh I am proud to be a Mexican in America
Where at least all my stuffs free,
And I won't even acknowledge
That no one gave that right to me..

But I'll Gladly Stand up
and insult you
By not speaking your language here today..

Oh there ain't no doubt
I use these land.
God Bless my free stuff
From the USA"

Lee Rodriguez Verdewood

 

[hntrroy]

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.

I have 31 years in the service and still serve now. This example is the exception and not the rule. Most people dont participate in this kind of behavior. I will admit that it does occur but not in large numbers. How would someone monitor this to make sure that personnel are not scamming? I guess there is a lack of integrity in the government.....what a shock..

 

[hntrroy]

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?

From this question, I take it that you have no idea about who our enemy is, and what they are capeable of. There are viable threats every hour of every day that are never brought to light because we have a strong military. The miitary is more than just getting a firearm and using it. There are thousands of skills and trades that are necesarry to support those in the field. Where would you like to cut? Who doesnt get to come home safely because some politician wants credit for cutting defense spending? We have to meet our enemy on his turf or he will meet us on ours. I am in favor of maintaining the strongest military avaliable. I do however agree that there are ways to spend more wisely, but I do not advocate reducing the budget.

 

[Kutnupe14]

From this question, I take it that you have no idea about who our enemy is, and what they are capeable of. There are viable threats every hour of every day that are never brought to light because we have a strong military. The miitary is more than just getting a firearm and using it. There are thousands of skills and trades that are necesarry to support those in the field. Where would you like to cut? Who doesnt get to come home safely because some politician wants credit for cutting defense spending? We have to meet our enemy on his turf or he will meet us on ours. I am in favor of maintaining the strongest military avaliable. I do however agree that there are ways to spend more wisely, but I do not advocate reducing the budget.

We don't have an enemy capable matching our military strength. Our closest military competitor has no motive to attack us, and we spend about a dollar for evry quarter on our military than they do. The military is stacked full of equipment that we don't need, but are forced to maintain. Not to mention all the money we spend training other militaries that haven't participated in armed conflict in eons.