- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is military spending ignored when its clearly the largest piece?
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:50 pm to troyt37
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:50 pm to troyt37
If you want to read:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense...
as:
...then you should be interpreting the very next clause "...promote the general welfare" as justification for Welfare.
they're both stretches as far as I'm concerned.
Now you're talking like a true globalist.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense...
as:
quote:
Defending the US, US citizens, and their interests around the world
...then you should be interpreting the very next clause "...promote the general welfare" as justification for Welfare.
they're both stretches as far as I'm concerned.
quote:
Doesn't matter if it is communism in Korea and Vietnam, or Islamic atrocities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Iran. Our federal government is mandated by the Constitution to be able to take care of the problem.
Now you're talking like a true globalist.
1
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:50 pm to SoulGlo
I wouldn't call the acquisition process "completely dysfunctional"...
Virtually every piece of technology that provides our battlefield dominance was acquired through that framework.
Could it be more agile and streamlined? Hell yes. But the reality is that the rules and oversight are what bog it down...Also, going out of our way to make civil service less attractive to top candidates doesn't help either.
Virtually every piece of technology that provides our battlefield dominance was acquired through that framework.
Could it be more agile and streamlined? Hell yes. But the reality is that the rules and oversight are what bog it down...Also, going out of our way to make civil service less attractive to top candidates doesn't help either.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:51 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
3.) People compensated by the federal government are so overpaid and inefficient!! Drain the swamp!! Except for military who should receive massive pensions, GI bill, healthcare for life, raises every year even during pay freezes.
oh frick off
This is just lazy
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:51 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
No, it doesn't, it tuerns it into what it's supposed to be: Retirement INSURANCE.
So people who are disabled, and who are not of retirement age, don't deserve Social Security benefits?
I think we agree on that point.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Fair play. Let's agree on "some". There is no reason for a uniform to spend 3 years in DC running an IT project. If we need a military perspective hire a Veteran.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:53 pm to texashorn
quote:
So people who are disabled, and who are not of retirement age, don't deserve Social Security benefits?
I think we agree on that point.
nope! social security should be frozen. Quit bringing in money to social security and pay off everyone who is on it and then cut the damn program.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:54 pm to the808bass
quote:you have to take social security back to what it was supposed to be. It wasn't supposed to be a universal retirement program for everyone in the country. Not everyone was supposed to draw SS, and people were not supposed to be on it for half their lives. We have to cut it off from anyone that makes over a certain threshold in retirement income, we have to push back the age when you can draw because people live so much longer. Otherwise it's going to completely collapse
Not sure how you can ethically cut SS.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:55 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
I get it. But conservative doctrine seems to not apply to the military:
1.) Government spending is the root of all evil...Except lets raise the military budget every year we are in office.
2.) The government is terrible at providing health insurance! They have no business doing so! Except...lets have a massive bureaucracy in charge of delivering insurance to all active duty and their dependents. TRICARE!!
3.) People compensated by the federal government are so overpaid and inefficient!! Drain the swamp!! Except for military who should receive massive pensions, GI bill, healthcare for life, raises every year even during pay freezes.
I agree, it should be cut, but its the only useful thing we spend money on. id rather put a lot of money into protection than i would paying for someone else's welfare checks.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:56 pm to texashorn
quote:
So people who are disabled, and who are not of retirement age, don't deserve Social Security benefits?
Only insofar as they are covered under disability INSURANCE.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:58 pm to LSU12223
I am not actually saying to cut any of it. Just saying that the conservative fiscal doctrine is rife with exemptions and preferences
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:59 pm to Centinel
quote:
you're not even remotely touching the debt by just cutting the military, considering it's only 15% of the actual budget
This topic comes up weekly. The critical fact is that defense spending comprises over half of all discretionary spending. You can nibble around the edges by grandstanding about the arts, PBS, etc., but without meaningful cuts to defense, you will only tread water. Of course, serious discussions are needed about entitlement spending as well.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 3:59 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
I am not actually saying to cut any of it. Just saying that the conservative fiscal doctrine is rife with exemptions and preferences
The problem you have in this thread is that most of us in here are libertarian or lean libertarian.
Hell some of us are military and are saying cut the damn military budget.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:00 pm to LSU12223
quote:
Quit bringing in money to social security and pay off everyone who is on it and then cut the damn program.
All of this. I'm paying into a system where I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning while holding the winning powerball ticket, than to receive any of the benefits that I currently pay into.
frick you old people. I want my money, I don't want to give it to your decrepit arse.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:01 pm to islandtiger
quote:
This topic comes up weekly. The critical fact is that defense spending comprises over half of all discretionary spending. You can nibble around the edges by grandstanding about the arts, PBS, etc., but without meaningful cuts to defense, you will only tread water
And the counter to that is defense spending is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Most of the other crap isn't and should be relegated to the States.
I'm not saying defense spending doesn't need an overhaul...but we damn sure should cut all that other bullshite.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:01 pm to Centinel
Well most people on the board are trump supporters. Trump wants to raise the budget
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:02 pm to Tigerdev
Most of them are just sycophants because he won. If he said we needed to cut the military budget, they'd be screaming how smart he was about it.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:04 pm to LSU12223
quote:
apologize for my ignorance then
No worries.
I just wish more people knew that...
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:05 pm to the808bass
quote:
Most of them are just sycophants because he won. If he said we needed to cut the military budget, they'd be screaming how smart he was about it.
This.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
...then you should be interpreting the very next clause "...promote the general welfare" as justification for Welfare. they're both stretches as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, except none of our founding fathers were marxist/socialists. They didn't believe in the redistribution of wealth from those who do to those who don't. They didn't believe in a powerful, centralized government, able to take from the producers at will. If they did, we wouldn't be here.
Posted on 3/27/17 at 4:05 pm to the808bass
This thread reminds me of Maher's fried chicken dinner/spending analogy.
Yet, people on here celebrate cutting some small potato programs as if it is some kind of victory. The three areas pictured above dominate our spending yet no one wants to touch them. We are fricked.
Yet, people on here celebrate cutting some small potato programs as if it is some kind of victory. The three areas pictured above dominate our spending yet no one wants to touch them. We are fricked.
This post was edited on 3/27/17 at 4:06 pm
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News