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

[Pooty22]

What's going on in this thread?

Oh, never mind.

And that's somehow different from every other thread in Politics?

 

[scatwater]

I have been one of those Soldiers having served. You want to down size the military? I disagree we are already small enough. Less than 1 percent of the populations serves. Your military force is just over 2 million service men and women. Defending 300 million people. It used to be the doctrine to have a be enough military to fight on two fronts. Technology is expensive. Can there be things done to cut costs yes I agree. But down sizing should not be an option. Why would I want to see my hard earned tax dollars go to someone who chooses not to work for 2 to 3 years because they can get a ride..

 

[Pooty22]

You need to read the whole thing. There was still an enormous national debt. The Clinton budget spent less than it taxed, mainly due to large tax increases. What is called a "surplus" by politicians is essentially debt increasing at a decreased rate. They just pretend to have spare money.

To make it easy to understand, say you owe $1000. Every year that increases by $10. But you rewrote your budget to spend $8 while increasing taxes to bring in $9. Technically you made $1 but you still owe $999. That's not a balanced budget and its not excess.

and the ***** increased taxes to a ridiculous high.

So basically what you're saying is we had more money because of higher taxes and no increase in spending. How is that a problem?

 

[halfmileharry]

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Sorry, Watching Football. Jets beat the Saints.
Our National Debt increased by about 1.3 trillion due to the fact of raising taxes and NOT paying our country's debts. Most of the tax raises were put on the rich again btw. More redistribution of course.
I'll have to dig up the "proof" for you but it was in one of the classes I took. I had to do a paper on it with charts, graphs, and a bunch of other stuff I "borrowed" and copied at the time.

 

[Leo]

We have to watch words where the meanings shifted. When people talk about the surplus during clinton, they are not talking about more money than we owed. What slick willie was talking about was "budget surpluses" To be simple, that means if we write down that we are going to spend 10 million that we do not have and only spend 9 million that we do not have, that means we have a 1 million budget "surplus". That sounds way better than "we just went another 9 million in the hole". That was the reality AFTER making the biggest tax increase in the history of the nation.

To answer your question about peace time military, that was another place where we messed up during the clinton years. He sold us on the "peace time dividends" where we took money out of the military. Some lowering of budget would have been ok, but they cut way too deep.

Unfortunately, even in peace time it takes manpower and materials to maintain some level of readiness. Within a couple of years, the warehouses were getting pretty picked over and the equipment was falling into disrepair, partially from just sitting, and partially from lack of spare parts. I was at Atterberry and saw an instance where 4 out of 5 pieces of equipment were down and missing parts because the parts were used to keep the 5th piece of equipment running. I don't care if it is just a $200 hydraulic manifold, If you cannot use a $400,000 dollar piece of equipment without it, that is a big deal. I was involved in training ROTC cadets small arms training before their initial qualification test. All training supplies had to be begged for with long lead times due to lowered inventories. From this weakened position, the military had to be called up due to middleeast terrorists. All supplies had to be expedited the fastest way possible, guess what that means? The price goes through the roof. After you realize you need military is the wrong time to try to get and supply one.

Everything is so screwed up, I really do not know how to fix it, but continuing the course that we know has always failed is not the solution.

 

[Pooty22]

I have been one of those Soldiers having served. You want to down size the military? I disagree we are already small enough. Less than 1 percent of the populations serves. Your military force is just over 2 million service men and women. Defending 300 million people. It used to be the doctrine to have a be enough military to fight on two fronts. Technology is expensive. Can there be things done to cut costs yes I agree. But down sizing should not be an option. Why would I want to see my hard earned tax dollars go to someone who chooses not to work for 2 to 3 years because they can get a ride..

I too have served. I'm not saying all the money should go to welfare. It should also go to medical research, infrastructure development, Social Security, Medicare, and tuition assistance.

Downsizing has to be an option. We have been fighting a war on two fronts for the last decade. Far too much money has been spent maintaining a force large enough to sustain those wars. We are/have been mentally destroying a large portion of the men and women of my generation. The health of the vets of these wars is going to cost the country a ton of money over the next 50+ years.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have been one of those Soldiers having served. You want to down size the military? I disagree we are already small enough. Less than 1 percent of the populations serves. Your military force is just over 2 million service men and women. Defending 300 million people. It used to be the doctrine to have a be enough military to fight on two fronts. Technology is expensive. Can there be things done to cut costs yes I agree. But down sizing should not be an option. Why would I want to see my hard earned tax dollars go to someone who chooses not to work for 2 to 3 years because they can get a ride..

Our military is capable of fighting compentently on well more than 2 fronts. It is WAY too large. I honestly can't see a justification for it's size... unless one subscribes to us being a military arm of Asian and European economic powers. Japan, Germany, Korea, and a variety of other POWERFUL economies count on us to supplement their national militaries. While our economy suffers, theirs thrive... It's time their people start paying for their protection, and our people pay only for our protection.

 

[Pooty22]

We have to watch words where the meanings shifted. When people talk about the surplus during clinton, they are not talking about more money than we owed. What slick willie was talking about was "budget surpluses" To be simple, that means if we write down that we are going to spend 10 million that we do not have and only spend 9 million that we do not have, that means we have a 1 million budget "surplus". That sounds way better than "we just went another 9 million in the hole". That was the reality AFTER making the biggest tax increase in the history of the nation.

To answer your question about peace time military, that was another place where we messed up during the clinton years. He sold us on the "peace time dividends" where we took money out of the military. Some lowering of budget would have been ok, but they cut way too deep.

Unfortunately, even in peace time it takes manpower and materials to maintain some level of readiness. Within a couple of years, the warehouses were getting pretty picked over and the equipment was falling into disrepair, partially from just sitting, and partially from lack of spare parts. I was at Atterberry and saw an instance where 4 out of 5 pieces of equipment were down and missing parts because the parts were used to keep the 5th piece of equipment running. I don't care if it is just a $200 hydraulic manifold, If you cannot use a $400,000 dollar piece of equipment without it, that is a big deal. I was involved in training ROTC cadets small arms training before their initial qualification test. All training supplies had to be begged for with long lead times due to lowered inventories. From this weakened position, the military had to be called up due to middleeast terrorists. All supplies had to be expedited the fastest way possible, guess what that means? The price goes through the roof. After you realize you need military is the wrong time to try to get and supply one.

Everything is so screwed up, I really do not know how to fix it, but continuing the course that we know has always failed is not the solution.

If you mean the terrorists responsible for 9/11, why did we go to war with Iraq or Afghanistan? Couldn't we have declared war on Al Qaeda? Or gone after Saudi Arabia since that's where most of them were from?

 

[Leo]

You asked an economic question. I answered an economic question. The whole middle east is a pussing open sore of craziness. I really do not want to open a can of political science, islamic theology, international relations, military strategies, and biblical vs unbiblical world views and opinions. Many of the problems there stem from political relationships in the 1950's through the 1980's. Islamic terrorism has been in existance since it was founded by a warlord in the middle 700's AD. It didn't start Sept 11th. It is a way bigger topic than can be addressed here.

The bottom line of the financial woes is that we allowed privately owned centralized banking to set up a ponsi scheme in 1913 that requires ever increasing debt to self sustain until the parasitic debt crushes the host. The framers of the Constitution designed against it, but the politicians thought they were smarter.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Is the size of the military purely a Republican issue? What was the initial vote on Iraq in congress? What was the vote on Afghanistan? If you commit to an engagement you must see it through. Regardless of where you stand on foreign affairs, when the country sends the military to fight it costs money. How many democrats stood up post911 and said we're not going in to Afghanistan? How many republicans said no? It appears to me - historically - everyone votes to fight, but democrats tend to want out sooner...getting out is complicated and never happens quickly.

 

[Que]

I disagree with the military needing to be as large as it is. We have no responsibility to be a global police force. We will soon be exiting (for the most part) Afghanistan and we are already mostly out of Iraq. It is time to downsize the military. It is unsustainable at its current size.

I can agree the military can be reduced slightly, but what do you say about social programs?

 

[cobber]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

Of course you're trying to start either an argument or a discussion, or you wouldn't be posting this.

I disagree with the military needing to be as large as it is. We have no responsibility to be a global police force. We will soon be exiting (for the most part) Afghanistan and we are already mostly out of Iraq. It is time to downsize the military. It is unsustainable at its current size.

What did Wilson say when he sent Pershing into Mexico?

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

Speaking as a non-GOP, lifetime Dem, look at the presidencies of Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ. Then tell us again how the GOP is somehow responsible for the size of our armed forces.

Social programs are not a role of the federal government as stated in the Constitution. National Defense is.

So proper balancing should be, LEAVE the social programs up to the States under the 10th Amendment. Fini.

Some states will do well, and attract more moochers, er, residents, where other States will be miserly. But going back to the Foundation of the Republic, charity has always been a feature of American society. We have had that schooled out of us by the post-Vietnam War progressives, who seek an ever larger role for the federal government, but to suppose that one needs the federal government to provide services is ahistorical.

Or if you want, continue to centralize governmental functions, and we'll end up with something like China. It won't be particularly nice to live in, but on paper it'll be swell.

 

[Shadow8088]

I can agree the military can be reduced slightly, but what do you say about social programs?

Honest opinion, it is a country's responsibility to take care of the welfare of it's citizens. With that said however, unless you employ a VAST number of people to monitor, trace, and enforce the rules involving eligibility to remain on the social programs, you are never going to be able to make sure that only people that actually need the help are receiving benefits. This doesn't mean that the social programs shouldn't exist. They truly help MOST of those people that need it. There are always going to be abuses, but when it all comes down to it, you, as a taxpayer, don't get to dictate how the money is spent.

 

[Pooty22]

I can agree the military can be reduced slightly, but what do you say about social programs?

As I said earlier, I think the money that has been spent on these wars or extra money in the future that would come from a smaller military should go to things like education, tuition assistance, infrastructure improvements, medical research, environmental research, NASA, Social Security, and Medicare. I would like to add that most of these things would result in more jobs.

 

[jbombelli]

As I said earlier, I think the money that has been spent on these wars or extra money in the future that would come from a smaller military should go to things like education, tuition assistance, infrastructure improvements, medical research, environmental research, NASA, Social Security, and Medicare. I would like to add that most of these things would result in more jobs.

In other words you don't actually want to cut any of that exorbitant spending that we can't afford because it's war ... you just want to move it to other things. I guess all of a sudden it's affordable if it's not spent on war? Where is the YOUR limit? What is too much?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

As I said earlier, I think the money that has been spent on these wars or extra money in the future that would come from a smaller military should go to things like education, tuition assistance, infrastructure improvements, medical research, environmental research, NASA, Social Security, and Medicare. I would like to add that most of these things would result in more jobs.

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?

 

[Pooty22]

In other words you don't actually want to cut any of that exorbitant spending that we can't afford because it's war ... you just want to move it to other things. I guess all of a sudden it's affordable if it's not spent on war? Where is the YOUR limit? What is too much?

Never said we had to spend all of it.

 

[cobber]

As I said earlier, I think the money that has been spent on these wars or extra money in the future that would come from a smaller military should go to things like education, tuition assistance, infrastructure improvements, medical research, environmental research, NASA, Social Security, and Medicare. I would like to add that most of these things would result in more jobs.

If things would result in more jobs, why wouldn't private enterprise take care of them?

 

[Mgderf]

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

And yet, we still did NOT have enough assets in place to save our people in Benghazi.

 

[-Jake-]

How about letting me opt out of social security?