Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More liberal nonsense ... unjustifiable bumper sticker material.
GREAT response!!!No, defense spending is military spending since it's only the military can defend this country from attackers of another country.
As for a declaration of war, we haven't had a declaration of war since WWII. They conveniently call them police actions or some other such terms. But nothing in the Constitution requires a declaration of war to send troops anywhere or build arms for defense.
Whether you agree with it or not, our military overseas is so that we don't have to wait until our homeland is attacked first. We used to do it that way, and then 911 happened.
My goodness. You're fully indoctrinated, aren't you?
Way to address the issue ....
Rule 4a. When lacking a cogent or coherent counter-argument, attack the poster.
When are you going to make a contribution to the discussion?This is a laughable response. We've been printing money for years. And, again, 21 trilion in debt. The middle class is being wiped out. We're broke.
The neocons here are not that different than the "liberals" when it comes to spending money we don't have, and not understanding what is actually happening in this world. These people need to turn off the boob tube, for starters.
When are you going to make a contribution to the discussion?
All I see from you is cheap, childish, and snarky personal attacks?
Don't you have a single, solitary original thought?
Well, you wanted to bankrupt the country to fund your military imperialism in the other thread. lol.
That's always the story. The left is big on the social welfare state and the right is big on the military welfare state.
More liberal nonsense ... unjustifiable bumper sticker material.
Talk about upside down. You neocons are a hoot.
NOW you're worried about the debt???? Only took you 8 years, huh?The US Constitution charges our representatives with the protection of this country. It does not say we should use our tax dollars to get HUD homes in the suburbs and let anybody live there.
Defense spending and military spending are two entirely different things. The constitution also requires a declaration of war by congress to send our troops all over the world. Does it not? Not one bit of the trillions of dollars being printed out of thin air for that purpose is constitutional without a declaration of war. You're no less statist than the op by your model.
Stop the unconstitutional military spending and imperialism and bring them home and build bases here and then you can talk about defense spending. Not until then. Heck, I'd have more bases here at home than we do abroad. That's real defense spending.
We're trillions of dollars in debt.
Absolutely - would be delighted to tell you where you get the money.When are you going to make a contribution to the discussion?
All I see from you is cheap, childish, and snarky personal attacks?
Don't you have a single, solitary original thought?
Well, why don't you tell us where you're going to get your money of the military welfare you were promoting? We're broke. Prove to us how you're not a statist.
Conservatism (small government) and statism (large centralized government) are diametrically opposed.Swing and a miss, I'm a fiscal conservative who called BS on the Iraq war on day 1 and Bush claim that it would only cost $74 billion and that we'd get paid back in oil money.
I wasn't referencing you. I was referencing the other poster in my response to you.
The first sentence in my response to you was directed to you. The latter part of my posting was a general reference to what I'm seeing here. I see a lot of people identify as conservatives but they're really statists. They do the same thing they accuse the left of doing. A welfare state is a welfare state regardless of whose welfare it is.
More pap --- no substance. Done yet?More liberal nonsense ... unjustifiable bumper sticker material.
How so? I'm the one being conservative here. You're the one wanting to spend money we don't have.
What you don't understand is that I'm a real liberal. Which means I'm the conservative.
Here. I'll share with you what I shared with 'Admiral war is his business' a few posts back.
You'd do well to take the time to learn the term liberal before you utter it, statist. Ludwig von Mises and the Real Meaning of Liberalism | Richard M. Ebeling
Well, unfortunately, you're the one promoting the latter. I'm the only one promoting small government here so far as I can tell in this discussion. And as soon as you explain for us where you're going to get the money for your militarism, I'll demonstrate it for you. I call your spending waste.Conservatism (small government) and statism (large centralized government) are diametrically opposed.
Can't you get ANYTHING right?
Had you bothered to actually read the thread, you would have seen the answer in post 167. But, hey, you don't seem to much care about facts ---- you'd rather participate in character assassination, right?
Had you bothered to actually read the thread, you would have seen the answer in post 167. But, hey, you don't seem to much care about facts ---- you'd rather participate in character assassination, right?
Had you bothered to actually read the thread, you would have seen the answer in post 167. But, hey, you don't seem to much care about facts ---- you'd rather participate in character assassination, right?
Oh, I see. I didn't refresh the page. I actually agree with closing the Close the Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Energy. I'd close a few more on top of your list. The FDA comes to mind as well as a few others. The states will be fine on their own.
Do you know what else I'd end. The federal reserve. Gradually, of course. That'd solve the whole problem and we could get back to the free market instead of a controlled economy that we have now by a central bank. Right now the government tells the market what to do instead of the other way around like it should be with the market telling the government what to do.
You do agree that it's the market that should be telling the government what to do, don't you? After all, you say you're a conservative. What's wrong with legalizing freedom?
But, to your point, you're going to end the social welfare and and fund your own welfare with the other welfare. Am I correct? Now where did that money come from, may I ask?
What's wrong with ending both? Bring the troops home and build bases in our own country? That, to me, would seem like true defense spending. And actully constitutional. I call over 900 bases across the globe waste. And most 'conservatives' would agree.
Give us single payer and we'll fund your Wall(with gold if you wish!) and double the size of Ice enforcement. Would this be a good deal?.
If you need more I'd consider it.
Fuck that. Trump's immigration polices have been a monumental success, even without a wall.
Give us single payer and we'll fund your Wall(with gold if you wish!) and double the size of Ice enforcement. Would this be a good deal?.
If you need more I'd consider it.
Fuck that. Trump's immigration polices have been a monumental success, even without a wall.
Monumental success really? How many illegals did trump deported this year compared to Obama’s 2016?
Like you and other poorly informed Americans people that I know. They heard Trump deporting OMG. OMG OMG Trump is deporting illegals. Obama has been deporting illegals dude.
Give us single payer and we'll fund your Wall(with gold if you wish!) and double the size of Ice enforcement. Would this be a good deal?.
If you need more I'd consider it.
Fuck that. Trump's immigration polices have been a monumental success, even without a wall.
Monumental success really? How many illegals did trump deported this year compared to Obama’s 2016?
Like you and other poorly informed Americans people that I know. They heard Trump deporting OMG. OMG OMG Trump is deporting illegals. Obama has been deporting illegals dude.
Comprehension problems again? Where did he say deportation? He said immigration which has been slowed down to a snails pace.
Give us single payer and we'll fund your Wall(with gold if you wish!) and double the size of Ice enforcement. Would this be a good deal?.
If you need more I'd consider it.
Fuck that. Trump's immigration polices have been a monumental success, even without a wall.
Monumental success really? How many illegals did trump deported this year compared to Obama’s 2016?
Like you and other poorly informed Americans people that I know. They heard Trump deporting OMG. OMG OMG Trump is deporting illegals. Obama has been deporting illegals dude.
Comprehension problems again? Where did he say deportation? He said immigration which has been slowed down to a snails pace.
Then explain to me what he meant of monumental success? Did you check how many illegals entered/deported from 2005 to 2016? It slowed down isn’t it?
Mexico’s economy is booming is also one of the reasons the illegals slowed down.
First ---- "...end the social welfare and and fund your own welfare with the other welfare..." I'm sure you didn't say what you meant to say, since what you said makes no damn sense at all.
Second ----- " ... Bring the troops home and build bases in our own country..." makes very poor fiscal sense. It is much cheaper to preposition assets than it is to keep them in-country and then transfer them when a crisis arrives. I'm not even going to discuss the tactical folly of such an approach (you obviously have no idea of the length of time necessary to ready a unit for transfer)
Let's create a fictional scenario ..... Russia decides to attack Germany. If the US isn't there, they walk thru Germany in about 3 weeks. (Yeah, I used to work at Plans in the Pentagon). Then, the US is faced with a choice -- attempt to dislodge an entrenched army from Germany (keeping in mind that we can't put assets in place in less than 3 months), or allow them to own Germany. Keep in mind it took from 2 Aug 90 (the date of Iraq invasion of Kuwait) until 17 Jan 91 to muster the resources necessary for Desert Storm (and that's with troops stationed much closer to Baghdad than Kansas City).
Of course, we would bluster and stomp our foot, but the liberals wouldn't allow us to actually respond. We would have abrogated our responsibility under NATO. The minute we do that - the rest of Europe is threatened. It is nonsensical - and quite naive - to believe that the military resources exist in Europe to stop a Russian advance.
Then, all of Europe and half of Asia is mustered against us. It only becomes a matter of time - to re-arm and re-trench - until they are at our shores - much stronger and much more emboldened by our "cowardice" in the face of a challenge. So, we end up fighting in the streets of Charleston, SC (the most likely point of initial entry into the US for an invading army) or Richmond, VA or any of a number of other points of vulnerability.
So, like it or not - we can fight them here OR we can prevent them from even beginning.
First ---- "...end the social welfare and and fund your own welfare with the other welfare..." I'm sure you didn't say what you meant to say, since what you said makes no damn sense at all.
No. I meant what I said. You just don't understand it. It's okay. Few do. And with you being a cookie cutter neocon, you especially don't understand it because you're under the illusion that we have capitalism when we have nothing of the sort. It's why you don't know that you're actually a statist. A statist is okay with the government telling the market what to do instead of the other way around where the market tells the government what to do, so long as they get somethign they want out of it. By the mere fact that you obtusely bring into question the actual monetary policy that Americans are perpetually enslaved by in order to fund militarism and other welfare tells me that you do not understand our policy.
So. I've taken a great deal of my time to type out what might equate to a small book in order to explain it thoroughly for you. Which is why I didn't respond last night. Though it is a courtesy to you, make no mistake, I do it for the beneit of the casual passers-by who may stumble over it.
Here's how it works. The politicians aren't running on the idea of spending less.They instead say vote for me because I'll make sure that the government provides you with more free stuff than my opponent say's he will. Of course, there's no such as a free lunch, is there? Of course there isn't. So to provide that supposed free stuff that they ran on, the politicians vote for the country to spend more than its income. This is called deficit spending. To pay for that deficit spending the Treasury borrows currency by issuing a bond. So, let us learn what a bond is. A bond is an IOU. It's a piece of paper with numbers printed on it that says loan me a trillion dollars today and I promise that over a ten year period I will pay you back that trillion dollars. Plus interest. But...treasury bonds happen to be our national debt. The Treasury then holds a bond auction. And the world's largest banks show up and compete to buy part of our national debt and make a profit on it by earning interest. As we move through this process, the big banks are there taking a cut every step of the way. This is not by chance, which I'll explain.
Through a shell game called open market operations, the banks get to sell some of those bonds to the Federal Reserve, at a profit. How does the Federal Reserve pay the bonds? I'll tell you how. The Federal Reserve opens its 'checkbook' and writes bad, bogus, counterfeit checks that should bounce because they're drawn on an account that always has a zero balance, because their isn't a single penny in it. They're creating 'currency''. Which is different than ''money''. I'll get to that later. Of course, when you or I write a check, the money has to be in there. Right? To steal a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.” The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction. You see?
Now. What is a check? A check is also an IOU. When you write a check, you're making a note that says here's my IOU for cash, all you have to do is go to the bank and pick it up. This particular process is very important that you understand, Mr. Spare_change. Pay attention here, please, because we're gonna come back to this later in my long-winded post to explain how this affects you and I.
So. Before moving on, let's recap what we have thus far. The Treasury issues IOU bonds. The banks then buy those IOU bonds with ''currency.'' The Federal Reserve then writes IOU checks and hands them to the banks in exchange for the Treasury's IOU Bonds. Thus ''currency'' is created. What's really happening here is that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are just swapping IOUs using the banks as middle men and, presto, ''currency'' magically comes into existence. This process repeats over and over and over and over and over again, enriching the banks and indebting the public by raising the national debt. The end result is that there is a build-up of bond at the Federal Reserve and 'currency' at the Treasury. This process is where all paper ''currency'' comes from. The Federal Reserve and the government incorrectly call it ''base money'' because they don't know the difference between ''money'' and ''currency.'' It's correctly called ''base currency'' because it is not ''money.'' It is ''currency.''
''Money'' has to be a store of value and maintain its purchasing power over long periods of time.' But the base currency that is piling up as a consequence of the process which I've explained is nothing more than a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond. So it's really nothing but a supply of numbers. So, then the Treasury now deposits the newly created ''currency'' into the various branches of the government and the politicians I mentioned in the very sentence here who were claiming they were going to give you free stuff say, 'hey thanks for that.'' Then the government does some deficit spending on public works, social programs, and, of course, your wars, Mr. Spare_change, to include paying weapons manufacturers and contractors, along with the soldiers' pays. The government employees, contractors, and soldiers then deposit their pay in the banks.
Now. When they deposit this ''currency'' into the bank, they're not actually depositing it into an account to be held safely in trust to them. Instead, you're actually loaning the bank your ''currency'' and they can do pretty much whatever they please with it to include gambling in the stock market, and loaning it out at a profit, of course. This is where the process of ''currency'' really gets cranking. This is where fractional reserve lending comes into play. Now, what does that mean? It means precisely what it says. It means that the banks reserve only a fraction of your deposit and they loan the rest out. Though rates vary, I'll use a 10% ratio here to explain the process. If you deposit 100 'dollars' into your account, the bank legally takes 90 'dollars' of it out and loans it out without telling you. The bank must hold 10 'dollars' of your deposit in reserve just in case you want some of it. These reserves are called 'vault cash.' Now, why does your bank account still say that you have 100 'dollars' if they stole 90 of it? It's because the bank left IOUs that it created called 'bank credit' in its place. That's why. To reference the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they say that "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU." End quote. These are nothing but numbers that the banks type into their computers. And even though these 'bank credit' IOU numbers are very different from 'base currency' numbers, because they only exist in computers, they are still 'currency.' So now there is 190 dollars in existence. Created out of the 100 dollars deposited. You see?
Of course, the reason people take out loans from the bank is to buy something. So the borrower takes the 90 'dollars' that the bank loaned to him from your account and he pays the seller of the item. Then the seller deposits that money into his account and his bank loans out 90% of that 'currency' and leaves 'bank credits' in its place. So now theres' 271 'dollars' in existence from the original 90. This process repeats and repeats and repeats until it's under a 10% reserve ratio and all backed by 100 'dollars' of 'vault cash." Of course, some rates of deposits are only 3%. Some are 0%. The result is the expansion of the 'currency' supply by the banks. Of course, 'currency' is not 'money.'
So let us recap the second aspect of the process which I've just explained. When 'currency' is deposited into the banks, the banks get to lend it out and then it gets redeposited and lent out again, over and over and over again creating 'bank credit' all along the way. This is where the vast supply of our 'currency' comes from. In fact around 96% of all 'currency' that is created is created by the banking system.
Now. At first, massive amounts of 'currency' spewing into society might sound like a fun idea. At least until you remember that the prices of every day goods and services act as a sponge on an expanding 'currency' supply. The more 'currency' we have, the more prices will rise. This is where 'inflation' comes from. The true definition of inflation is an expansion of the currency supply. Rising prices are merely the symptom. Our entire 'currency' supply is nothing but a few dollars whipped up in this scam where the Treasury and the Federal Reserve swap glorified IOUs and a bunch of numbers that the banks just type into their computers. That's it. That's our entire currency supply. It's a set of numbers. Some of them printed and most oft hem typed. There is nothing else.
But...we work for some of that 'currency' supply. True wealth is your time. Which we trade away hour by hour, day by day, week by week, year by year, for numbers that somebody printed on pieces of paper and punched into bank computers. We are what gives the 'currency' its value, soldier boy. Here comes the bad part...which I shared earlier in the thread via the Keynesian economics explanation to your friend...who didn't watch it and pawned off some bunk graph in response. We work hard so that we can save some of that 'currency' so that we can pay the 'tax' collector in the United States known as the IRS. They then turn it over to the Treasury so that the Treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought with a check which is drawn on an account that has nothing in it.
So. Let us recap the third aspect of this process which I've explained because this is where the system begins to rob the poor, middle class and seniors on a massive scale. Much of our taxes are not used on schools, roads, and public services. They're used to pay interest on bonds that the federal reserve bought with a check which was drawn on an account that has nothing in it. Here, the Federal Reserve is committing fraud. Recall that before the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there was no need for personal income tax. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and in that very same year, the constitution was amended to allow income tax via the 16th amendment. Do you really think that this was just a coincidence? The true solution is the practical view which is to to repeal it and get back to free market economy where the market tells the government what to do instead of the other way around, the statist way, where the government tells the market what to do. That's the actual 'conservative' solution. Wha you're saying is keep the same statist monetary policy except you're only wanting the neocons to benefit from it for your wars and endless militarism. Ask yourself how much income tax you've paid over your lifetime and realize that much of it has been siphoned away by those who own the system. We'll get to them after we learn the mumbo jumbo of the 'debt ceiling' delusion.
The debt ceiling delusion is based on a paradox. Meaning there was interest due on that bond, and there was interest due on ever one of those loans that the banks made. That means that there is interest due on every dollar in existence. Let's ask a question. If you borrow the very first dollar in existence and you promise to pay it back plus another dollar's worth of interest, where do you get the second dollar to pay the interest? The answer is that you have to borrow that dollar into existence and promise to pay it back with interest as well. So, now there are 2 dollars in existence, but you now owe 4. And so on, and so on, and so on, and so on. It keeps happening over and over and over again. The result is that there is never enough 'currency' to pay the debt. There is always more debt in the system than there is 'currency' in existence to pay the debt. Therefore the entire system is impossible. It is finite. It will come to an end one day. Right now the dollar is 98% down from 1913. 98%. We're almost there, Rambo, and you want to go create more debt. Are ya plum stupid? What would happen if the government stopped borrowing to do deficit spending? Are the payments on those Treasury bonds going to stop? What would happen if the public stopped borrowing and going deeper into debt? Are your house and car payments going to stop? No. They're not. There is a payment due every month on the principal plus the interest on every dollar in existence and those payments do not stop. If we stop borrowing, then no new 'currency' is created to replace the 'currency' that we used to make those payments. Whether you're making a payment on a loan or paying a tax to make a payment on a Treasury bond, the portion of the payment that goes to pay off the principal extinguishes that portion of the debt. BUT...the debt also extinguishes the 'currency.' When currency and debt meet, they destroy each other. If we just pay off the principal only, all of the loans and Treasury bonds that exist, the entire 'currency' supply vanishes. So, if we don't go deeper into debt every year, the whole thing goes into a deflationary collapse under the weight of those payments.
People always talk about balancing the budget, bringing down the debt, and living within our means. But they don't understand that this is deflationary. It is impossible to do under our current monetary system without collapsing the entire economy. This is why any talk of a debt ceiling is not only ridiculous, it's delusional. The system is designed to require ever-increasing levels of debt just to continue. And that's why politicians will always kick the can down the road and raise the so-called debt ceiling over and over again until the whole system finally collapses under its own weight. In other words, they don't want it to collapse under their watch. The founding fathers of the United States knew the dangers of central banking and they fought to free themselves from this very thing. The Revolutionary War started out as a tax revolt. But now we must pay tax just to have a monetary system. Having just suffered through the hyper-inflation of the continental dollar, which was printed into oblivion to fund the Revolutionary War, they understood the dangers of a debt based monetary system. So to protect future generations from institutional theft and out of control government, they wrote in the constitution that only gold and silver can be 'money' for the simple fact that you can't print it. Personally, I don't care what it is, but we need a competing currency if we're to survive. Our current system is not only unconstitutional, but it robs us of the liberty and prosperity that our forefathers fought and died for. And we're all feeling the effects of ignoring the constitution right now. By forcing more currency into circulation our purchasing power is diluted. Inflation is a slow, insidious stealth tax that is simply the result of this debt based monetary system.
This system empowers those who create the currency and receive it first because they get to spend it into circulation before it has an effect on the economy. They're stealing purchasing power from the poor, middle class, and seniors, and transferring it to the banks and the government every hour of every day of every week of every year. Because of this false monetary system. And the people at the top know it. To quote the Federal Reserve itself, ''The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money." This is a fraud. It is a pyramid scheme. It is a ponzi scheme. It is a scam. Our entire monetary policy is nothing more than a form of legalized theft.
Of course, the Federal Reserve is not Federal. It has stock holders. There is no federal agency that has stock holders. Now, what is a stock holder? A share of stock represents a share of ownership in a corporation. So, the stock holders are the owners of the corporation. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation with owners. For reference, you may check their site. It specifically states that the stock holders receive an annual dividend of 6%. Now, we know that the stock in the Federal Reserve was originally issued to the largest banks in the United States. With mergers and acquisitions through the years, you can't actually trace who owns the stock in the Federal Reserve. That's a very closely guarded secret. The best guess would be that they are those primary dealers. The banks that get to make a profit by selling part of our national debt, those bonds, to the Federal Reserve who buys them with a check that is drawn from an account with nothing in it. Then we pay tax to pay the principal and the interest on those bonds so that the Federal Reserve can pay the banks a 6% dividend. This is purposely complex and very few understand it. And that's okay. It's why people who do understand it take the time to explain it. Our system is Keynesian. And to quote Keynes, himself, ''By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." Presented correctly, however, anyone can understand the system regardless of the complexity of it.
So. On a final note, let us recap the entire context of this communication.
Step1: The government creates glorified IOUs via Treasury Bonds. These bonds increase our national debt and put the public on the hook to pay it back.
Step2: IOUs are swapped to create 'currency.' The Treasury sells the bonds to the banks. The banks then turn around and sell our national debt at a profit to the Federal Reserve, which they likely own. Again, the share holders receive annually a 6% dividend. From the Fed's own webpage. The Federal Reserve then opens its checkbook which is from an account without a penny in it and buys those IOU with their own IOW in the form of the check from an account with 0 balance.They give those checks to the banks and 'currency' is created out of thin air. Then the whole process repeats over and over and over again. This results in a build-up of bonds at the Federal Reserve and a build-up of currency at the Treasury which is really just a supply of numbers. The Treasury then deposits the numbers into the various branches of the government and then we get to step 3.
Step 3: The government spends the numbers on promises, public works, social programs, and yes, Mr. Spare_change...your wars. Your unconstitutional, undeclared, imperialist military occupation all over the world. Then government employees soldiers, military contractors, weapons manufacturers, and everybody else deposit their pay into the banks. Then we get to step 4.
Step 4: The banks multiply the numbers by magically creating more IOU through fractional reserve lending where they steal a portion of everyone's deposit and lend it out. That 'currency' gets redeposited and then a portion is stolen again. And the process repeats over andover and over again, magnifying the currency supply exponentially. Then we the people work for some of those numbers. Which brings us to step 5 where our numbers are taxed.
Step 5: We pay tax to the IRS who then turns out numbers over to theTreasury so the Treasury can pay the principal plus the interest on bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve with a check from nothing. Then we get to step 6. The debt ceiling delusion.
Step 6: The debt ceiling delusion.The system is designed to require ever-increasing levels of debt and will eventually collapse under its own weight because politicians and pundits always kick the can down the road so it doesn't happen on their watch. And finally, we get to step 7. Secret owners take their cut.
Step 7: The world's largest banks own the Federal Reserve. Those banks make a profit selling our national debt to the Federal Reserve. They make a profit when the Federal Reserve pays them interest on the reserves held at the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve pays them a 6% dividend on their ownership of the Federal Reserve.
This system is fundamentally evil. It funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector. It is the cause of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies and it causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, middle class, and seniors. The working class. And it is only possible because we no longer use real money. We use 'currency.' Worst of all, it is a form of enslavement. Bond is the root word of bondage. Whenever a government issues a bond, it is a promise to make us pay tax in the future.
I'll leave you with a great quote from a letter from George Washington, written to James Madison on the topic. He said, and correctly so, ''No generation has the right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence." By stealing from prosperity from tomorrow so that we can spend it today, we enslave ourselves and future generations.
This system relies in the public being ignorant to its function. And respectfully, you are one such person who is not only ignorant to it, but a useful idiot to its function with your constant warmongering against people who haven't done anything to us. Your wars cost money. They are unconstitutional absent any congressional declaration. And I've just explained how it gets paid for. I hope you learn something from what I've typed here.
Second ----- " ... Bring the troops home and build bases in our own country..." makes very poor fiscal sense. It is much cheaper to preposition assets than it is to keep them in-country and then transfer them when a crisis arrives. I'm not even going to discuss the tactical folly of such an approach (you obviously have no idea of the length of time necessary to ready a unit for transfer)
Moot. Refer to the above.
And I'll have you know that I often see the battlefield in a warehouse sized sandbox full of toy soldiers and trucks before any troop ever sets foot on a foreign land. That's all I'll say about that here. Ever.
Let's create a fictional scenario ..... Russia decides to attack Germany. If the US isn't there, they walk thru Germany in about 3 weeks. (Yeah, I used to work at Plans in the Pentagon). Then, the US is faced with a choice -- attempt to dislodge an entrenched army from Germany (keeping in mind that we can't put assets in place in less than 3 months), or allow them to own Germany. Keep in mind it took from 2 Aug 90 (the date of Iraq invasion of Kuwait) until 17 Jan 91 to muster the resources necessary for Desert Storm (and that's with troops stationed much closer to Baghdad than Kansas City).
Of course, we would bluster and stomp our foot, but the liberals wouldn't allow us to actually respond. We would have abrogated our responsibility under NATO. The minute we do that - the rest of Europe is threatened. It is nonsensical - and quite naive - to believe that the military resources exist in Europe to stop a Russian advance.
Then, all of Europe and half of Asia is mustered against us. It only becomes a matter of time - to re-arm and re-trench - until they are at our shores - much stronger and much more emboldened by our "cowardice" in the face of a challenge. So, we end up fighting in the streets of Charleston, SC (the most likely point of initial entry into the US for an invading army) or Richmond, VA or any of a number of other points of vulnerability.
No. Let's not. That's the nonsense that drives the wasteful creation of 'currency' for constant militarism out of thin air. Fear mongering. You neocons always need a boogyman to justify over 900 bases in countries where people haven't even done anythign to us, right? You're blowing up buildings and bridges just to pay to have it rebuilt form worthless printed debt and wiping oput the people each and everty step of the way. You;re no different than the statists on the left. Only difference is they want to try to get some personal relief from the ass raping.
So, like it or not - we can fight them here OR we can prevent them from even beginning.
No. We can mind our own business and start being a little concerned with wiping out savings of the entire American population just so you can play with your boom stick and install shadow governments abroad in order to steal their resources. None of it is constitutional unless you can provide a declaration of war.
