Where are the fiscal conservatives?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by st8_o_mind, May 19, 2004.

  1. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    AGAIN, MATERIAL FORWARDED. MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS TO AVOID CONFUSION. THE DOD AUTORIZATION BILL IS CURRENTLY BEING DEBATED IN THE SENATE. IN ADDITION TO FUNDING FOR MISSILE DEFENSE DISCUSSED BELOW, THE WHITE HOUSE IS ASKING FOR NEARLY 100 MILLION FOR NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WEAPONS PROGRAMS.

    WHERE ARE ALL OF THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES??? THIS REPRESENTS A MONUMENTAL WASTE AT BEST. WITH TROOPS UNDER FIRE IN THE FIELD, SPENDING THIS KIND OF MONEY WHEN US TROOPS HAVE TO WAIT FOR MONTHS TO GET THE CERAMIC INSERTS FOR THEIR BODY ARMOR IS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.


    President Bush wants to spend $10 billion on Star Wars this year. That's enough to provide health insurance to all uninsured kids in our country.

    Could it ever work? Nobody knows. The President is in such a rush that the first phase of the Star Wars program can't even be operationally tested. We have to take it on faith.

    THIS REPRESENTS A CHANGE IN POLICY FROM PAST ADMINISTRATIONS, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ALIKE. THE PENTAGON USED TO USE THE "FLY BEFORE YOU BUY" STANDARD FOR WEAPONS AQUISITION. IT BEGS THE QUESTION: WHO'S GETTING RICH OFF THIS BOONDOGLE?



    Background on Star Wars: The Bush administration plans to deploy a national missile defense system in California and Alaska by September 2004. America's taxpayers have already sunk $130 billion into this program, with nothing to show for it. This year's budget request by the administration for Star Wars is another $10.2 billion. Thomas Christie, director of the Pentagon's testing office, has admitted to Congress that there is no way to determine whether the system will work.

    To learn more about Star Wars, go to http://64.177.207.201/pages/16_571.html

    To see how the money spent on Star Wars could be invested in human needs programs in your community, go to http://database.nationalpriorities.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/NPP.woa/wa/tradeoff.
     
  2. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Here's the difference. It is the federal government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from external aggressors. It is not the federal government's responsibility to provide health insurance.

    I'm fiscally conservative on education, social security, welfare, and every other aspect of the federal government that wasn't a mandated responsibility for it in the Constitution. As far as military spending goes, I leave it at their discretion. Federal revenue should be a great deal less, and military expenditure should comprise a much greater share of it.
     
  3. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Many would argue that it is the feds responsibility to provide health insureance to poor children. I believe you mean "Constitutionally mandated" responsibility.

    It is also not the feds responsibility to build roads, but have you checked out the massive expenditures this year in both the transportation bill or, seperately, in farm subsidies?

    The point is, it is the feds responsibility what the governed in a democracy say is the feds responsibility.

    Still, you ducked my point -- that troops in the field went into combat without body armor while we spend billions on weapons that do not work.


    Every politician on capitol hill knows that the safest place to load up on the pork spending is in the military budget for exactly the reason you stated. Folks like you don't question it.

    You are being played.
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    And military expenditures are the ONLY thing idiots like you question.
     
  5. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    actually, the need of roads could easily be justified as being in the interest of our national defense.... the easy transport of goods.....

    In many developing countries the first thing developed is a road system for the movement of military personnel and materials. Why do you think we were so quick to get roads built in Afganistan?
     
  6. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Yes, those people are called socialists, and they are wrong.

    What other mandate for the creation of the federal government is there?

    Yes, it's too much. But as free stated, the initial purpose for the construction of our interstate highways was to rapidly move vehicles and soldiers.

    So long as it is done Constitutionally.

    I ducked nothing. You don't understand the methods of Congressional appropriations. Missile defense was not authorized at the expense of paying for ceramic body armor. It isn't as if the President had to chose between the two. If you don't like it, send an e-mail to your Congressional representatives for an emergency body armor appropriations bill.

    Additionally, the test results for our missile defense program look promising.

    That's almost funny. Military spending amounts to 3.2% of our GDP.
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Zhukov makes some excellent points.

    First, it is not the job of the federal government to pay for the health of children - it is a parental responsibility.

    Second, SDI is part of our national defense strategy. So are tanks, submarines, and fighter jets, along with rifles, radios, and body armor. Just because one costs more than another doesn't make it any better or worse. And yes, it's still being developed, but parts of SDI are apparently operational, or else it wouldn't be fielded.

    Third, the fiscal conservatives among us are trying to minimize the effects of NCLB, farm subsidies, drug subsidies in Medicare, and unfair tax codes already. It's not like we rolled over and played dead.
     
  8. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Not exactly. Idiots like me also question the record growth in federal expenditures (26%) being presided over by Bush and the Republican House and Senat making a mockery of the term fiscal conservative hense the title of the thread.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    See Reagan, see deficits go down afterwards. It's the economy, stupid! (To quote one of your heroes). When there is tax relief, the consequent increase in the economy can ease the debt. Clinton benefitted, as did the country. Came too late for Bush I.
     
  10. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    "It is the federal government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from external aggressors."

    So how about Jews, the INTERNAL enemies of the U.S.?
     

Share This Page