Sequestration and What It Would Do to U.S. Military Power

One people, one empire, one leader, is that it?

The fact that a democratic republic wields the power is probably reasurring to the rest of the world, and should be reasurring to us. This is not empire in the classical sense.


and you get negative points for going for a godwin slam in a sneaky way. Next time just type in Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furher.

Also considering Hitler was an idiot when it came to power projection, in particular, sea power, you point has no merit.

Germany was a "Democratic Republic" as well. Until it wasn't.

Having all the marbles in one nation or state isn't something that "reassures" the world. Quite the opposite. The world tends to rid itself of bullies.

Germany was a poorly setup democratic republic. Also agrumentum ad hitlerem is frowned upon.

And having all the marbles in one basket worked well in the past century, or was the pax britannica on the oceans a bad thing?
 
It may be a good idea, however, the US has gotten used to the fact that the oceans and the littoral areas of the world are basically under our protection, which means they are under our influence. If we cut back, someone else may enter in the resulting vacumn, and we may not like who it is. This can be an issue considering how much coastline our country has, and how much we depend on our sea routes to maintain our way of life.
One people, one empire, one leader, is that it?

The fact that a democratic republic wields the power is probably reasurring to the rest of the world, and should be reasurring to us. This is not empire in the classical sense.


and you get negative points for going for a godwin slam in a sneaky way. Next time just type in Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furher.

Also considering Hitler was an idiot when it came to power projection, in particular, sea power, you point has no merit.

Reassuring? In what way? Domination is reassuring only to those who cannot reason for themselves.
 
The waste is what needs to be addressed not the military being too large. It protects your lame ass so that you can post your stupidity here without having your tongue cut out or your head lopped off.

I wonder which one of these might be a tiny bit over bloated..:eusa_think:

discretionary_spending_fy2011.png

and which ones are actually mandated by the consitution as a federal power?

I also love how you guys always leave out SS medicare and all the other crap.

Social Security and Medicare are not crap. I love how the Republican members of Congress want to cut the entitlements of others but leave their own in full force and effect.
 
One people, one empire, one leader, is that it?

The fact that a democratic republic wields the power is probably reasurring to the rest of the world, and should be reasurring to us. This is not empire in the classical sense.


and you get negative points for going for a godwin slam in a sneaky way. Next time just type in Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furher.

Also considering Hitler was an idiot when it came to power projection, in particular, sea power, you point has no merit.

Reassuring? In what way? Domination is reassuring only to those who cannot reason for themselves.

Somone is going to have control over the means of trade, including the Oceans. American control is far more benevolent than the other alternatives.
 
You're a fucking idiot....that chart is not the whole story.

"The budget" is mostly entitlement spending like welfare, social security, medicare, etc.

Obamare is going to be around $1T added to the budget once fully implemented then pretty much there will be $0 for anything else.....DoD money too.

So shut the fuck up, idiot.

I wonder which one of these might be a tiny bit over bloated..:eusa_think:

discretionary_spending_fy2011.png

and which ones are actually mandated by the consitution as a federal power?

I also love how you guys always leave out SS medicare and all the other crap.

Social Security and Medicare are not crap. I love how the Republican members of Congress want to cut the entitlements of others but leave their own in full force and effect.
 
Liberals imagine that we have no enemies and no threats so we don't need a military. Spend the money on free birth control. It's more important.

Right wingers think we should all be curled up, shaking in the corner grasping onto bibles and muskets because the boogey man is coming to get us at any second, and the only why to stop him is to spend ever single dime we possible can on the military.
To hell with the debt, less freedom and more government is what keeps up safe! Is the motto of the GOP.

Shaking? Not quite. Having the "bogeyman" in the living room would do us a world of good.
 
I wonder which one of these might be a tiny bit over bloated..:eusa_think:

discretionary_spending_fy2011.png

and which ones are actually mandated by the consitution as a federal power?

I also love how you guys always leave out SS medicare and all the other crap.

Social Security and Medicare are not crap. I love how the Republican members of Congress want to cut the entitlements of others but leave their own in full force and effect.

You didnt answer why those costs are left out. I know why, its because they dwarf all other forms of spending.
 
Obamacare is going to add close to $1T to the debt once implemented.

Hmmm, I wonder why Obamination is slicing up the DoD budget when he is forcing Obamacare spending on us.....oh, he needs the purple part of the pie to eat more of the yellow part of the pie.
 
Good. the military spending is completely out of control and we can't afford it.


The waste is what needs to be addressed not the military being too large. It protects your lame ass so that you can post your stupidity here without having your tongue cut out or your head lopped off.

I wonder which one of these might be a tiny bit over bloated..:eusa_think:

discretionary_spending_fy2011.png

Right. Discretionary spending. The number one priority of the government is the defense of the nation. Your point . . . is pointless.

Now let us present an accurate understanding of the matter from an overall perspective:

chart


Ah! There we go. LOL!

Instead of reducing the size of the national debt by half of what it was when he took office as promised, the unpatriotic Obama increased the national debt by nearly six trillion dollars, an increase that is greater than that accrued under all other administrations in American history combined. For the most part the leftists on this thread conclude that the real problem is that tax rates are too low for some and that military spending (only 14% of all federal spending) is too high. And of course the only effect of these measures would be to further undermine an ailing economy and gut a national defense that is in dire need of replenishment.

But wait, there's more! Annual receipts at all levels of government would continue to decline as the revenue base continued to shrink. As an added bonus, entitlement spending, the real culprit, accelerated by ObamaCare, would continue to soar at an unsustainable rate, ever-increasing an unsustainable national debt.

Now, drop down the fine print at the bottom of the page:

Hundreds of millions of dollars in necessary military contracts would disappear. Hence, hundreds of business and military facilities would be down-sized or eliminated altogether as a result of the indiscriminate cuts in defense spending. Hundreds more businesses would be negatively impacted as well, i.e., those that provide goods and services to the interests immediately affected. Tens of thousands of more jobs in both the public and private sectors would be lost. The millions of dollars of surplus wealth and revenue generated by defense spending would be lost.​

(You see, defense spending, unlike virtually every other aspect of federal spending actually produces a set of durable goods as it generates an expanding network of private wealth, an overall net gain for both the public and private sectors, despite the portion that is inevitably squandered in graft.)

Tax rates are not too low, they're too high. Even the unnecessary subsidies and loopholes of corporate welfare, for example, are relatively insignificant as far as the dynamics of revenue are concerned. Eliminating them at current rates of regulation and taxation would result in a little to no increase in revenue. The real problem is that the private sector is overburdened by a colossal government of out-of-control regulation and entitlement spending. That is the principle culprit behind out-sourcing and offshore accounts, behind the nation's diminishing manufacturing base and subsequent loss of jobs. The revenue base is shrinking. Over-regulation and -spending are the problem. The overly complex tax-and-revenue system is just another symptom, and besides, lefty elites want to keep it complex for the sake of big business and other favored interests at the expense of small business anyway.

It's mostly conservatives that would like to eliminate unnecessary subsidies and loopholes, reduce the complexity and even out the playing field.

Lefty thinks he can punish the energy industry without punishing consumers and all other interests, particularly those of agriculture and manufacturing. Lefty is an idiot.

Lefty wants more regulation, not less. Lefty wants more spending, not less. Lefty has no intention of reducing, eliminating or reforming entitlement spending and programs.

Solution: vote lefty out.

Obama claims that the economy is improving. Really? The economy is dramatically worse off than it was when he took office. His 4.5 million new jobs are actually a net loss of nearly 10 million. The measured unemployment rate is still higher than it was when he took office, and the actual unemployment rate is twice as high. The economy is dramatically smaller than it was when he took office and continues to shrink. Revenues are in the basement and continue to fall. Approximately 23 million are unemployed or under-employed, a figure that is nearly three times higher than it was when he took office.

We spent billions more on a "stimulus" package, the vast majority of which went to the various state and local governments to pay off debt accrued due to expenditures on goods and services already consumed by these governments. The rest went to public employees, some new hires, but mostly to increases in the pay and benefits of existing workers. Obama wanted more of the same. Shovel-ready jobs? LOL! We conservatives told you this would happen. Many of you thought that was just the stuff of political rhetoric. No. That is the historical experience of Keynesian economics.

Billions of dollars more in new spending and six trillion more in debt with nothing to show for it. Cut through the crap: everything Obama is talking about this time around is more of the same.

Obama did not save General Motors, let alone the American auto industry. The American taxpayer prevented General Motors from having to go through the bankruptcy proceedings of reduced settlements and reorganization, and will never get the bulk of that "investment" back. In the meantime, thousands of other interests did declare bankruptcy or folded.

All of you folks in the middle who went for hopey-change or wanted to prove that you weren't racists in 2008, please snap out of your trance and prove that you're not idiots in 2012.
 
Last edited:

An accurate portrayal. That an absurd amount is spent on medicare/medicaid/ssi, does not negate the need to reduce defense spending.

I don't know that there is a need to reduce defense spending. In the short term it needs to increase, albeit, coupled with the "savings" that would be derived from the increased revenue of a larger economy operating under a simpler and less punitive tax code, and a direct-delivery accounting system for defense contracts.

Additionally, we can and should redeploy some resources and personnel in certain parts of the world; i.e., bring them home. For example, I'm fed up with the U.S. in effect paying for the grossly overweight "social safety nets" of our European allies. Make them pay a proportionally equitable share for defense within the NATO alliance and watch what happens to the socialist systems (the constituencies of bribery and graft) in those countries. Both South Korea and Japan want and should be allowed to bare more responsibility as well.

In any event, defense spending is not the real problem, and indiscriminate, slash-and-burn cuts across the board are not the solution to anything.

Note: Some folks are babbling about the "disproportionate" amount the U.S. spends on defense as compared to many other countries combined. Right. There's a reason for that. The money that other countries are not spending on defense is spent on staggeringly expensive socialist programs, a luxury provided by us. So, hey, all you lefties on this thread who think these things are so wonderful, by all means, let's pull the rug out from under those programs. I'm all for that. Just keep mind that much of those socialists programs would disappear too.

LOL!
 
The waste is what needs to be addressed not the military being too large. It protects your lame ass so that you can post your stupidity here without having your tongue cut out or your head lopped off.

I wonder which one of these might be a tiny bit over bloated..:eusa_think:

and which ones are actually mandated by the consitution as a federal power?

I also love how you guys always leave out SS medicare and all the other crap.
It is actually a phoney and out of touch pie chart. If there were a budget, that would look a lot different. But there is no budget, so thank your local democrats for that one.
 
I wonder which one of these might be a tiny bit over bloated..:eusa_think:

discretionary_spending_fy2011.png

and which ones are actually mandated by the consitution as a federal power?

I also love how you guys always leave out SS medicare and all the other crap.

Social Security and Medicare are not crap. I love how the Republican members of Congress want to cut the entitlements of others but leave their own in full force and effect.

What part of the constitution says the government needs to wipe peoples ass for them? Seriously, we republicans want to get back to that constitution and I hope Romney will cut deep! These entitlements are killing this nation.

It isn't the government's job to take care of you. Your family needs to do that. :eusa_shifty: How the fuck do you think conservatives think?

We want limited government!!!!
 
Last edited:
and which ones are actually mandated by the consitution as a federal power?

I also love how you guys always leave out SS medicare and all the other crap.

That's because SS and Medicare are non-discretionary spending.

People paid into them, and get benefits. Not paying them would be breach of contract.
 
Consitutional and mandated by the consitution are two different things. I dont see environmental spending, or HUD, or OSHA, or food stamps as mandated by the consitution, unlike defense, which is a federal role.

All covered by "General Welfare".

As defined by the MANY Supreme Court cases that have covered the issue.
 
This is satirical, right?

I hope not...:eusa_shifty: You never know about Mitt Romney, but if he's as conservative as he says he is that will be a breath of fresh air. No More Bushs compassionate conservatism!!!

Just flat out welfare cuts across the board! Reducing the governments budget by trillions!

Sounds like the national socialist party would be a better fit for you.

That is the stupidest post of the day, and it is in the running for stupidest post of the month.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top