Where are the fiscal conservatives?

[st8_o_mind]

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.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

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.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov
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.

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.

Originally posted by Zhukov 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. [/B]

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
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.

And military expenditures are the ONLY thing idiots like you question.

 

[freeandfun1]

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?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Many would argue that it is the feds responsibility to provide health insureance to poor children.

Yes, those people are called socialists, and they are wrong.

I believe you mean "Constitutionally mandated" responsibility.

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

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?

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.

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

So long as it is done Constitutionally.

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.

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.

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.

That's almost funny. Military spending amounts to 3.2% of our GDP.

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
And military expenditures are the ONLY thing idiots like you question.

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[William Joyce]

"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.?

 

[Annie]

Willy, you are too much. The Jews have helped the US more than you will know.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by William Joyce
"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.?

I'll bite-----What are the Jews doing to us?

 

[boss13]

There is far too much power concentrated in Washington DC.

In politics money = power.

What needs to happen is to push this power from DC to the several states. The governors of our states should begin by with holding gasoline taxes from DC. Those would be the easiest to keep. Why on earth send .18 cents of every gallon to Washington so they can send a nickel back with an unfunded mandate? This makes no sense.

Lincoln said, "If you want to remove the politics from Washington DC, remove the money."

 

[William Joyce]

I agree. It has been said that 90 percent of what Congress does is spend, and that's 90 percent unConstitutional. The spending clause was meant only to advance that which is allowed under Article I --- defense, etc. It did NOT allow for welfare, pork barrel and the like.

I would amend the Constitution so as to make this point clear. Of course, the vast majority of the federal government would have to pack up and go home, but I think that would kick ass.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by William Joyce
"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.?

Well, if you see something illegal going on it is your civic duty to report it to the proper authorities.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Zhukov
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.

However, 'Star Wars' is a cold war relic which is useless against the threats we face today. It is ineffective against aircraft flown into skyscapers, it is ineffective against WMD's smuggled into the country in cargo containers.

If Dubbyuh really wants to ensure the security of this country, he would ask for $10 billion to secure our national borders against such threats. His insistence on funding a space based missle defense system only highlights his disconnect from reality.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
However, 'Star Wars' is a cold war relic which is useless against the threats we face today. It is ineffective against aircraft flown into skyscapers, it is ineffective against WMD's smuggled into the country in cargo containers.

If Dubbyuh really wants to ensure the security of this country, he would ask for $10 billion to secure our national borders against such threats. His insistence on funding a space based missle defense system only highlights his disconnect from reality.

SDI can be a valid defense against the Chinese and North Korean long range missle capability. While not in the same vein as the current war against the Islamofascists, the US still faces the threat of long range missle attack.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
SDI can be a valid defense against the Chinese and North Korean long range missle capability. While not in the same vein as the current war against the Islamofascists, the US still faces the threat of long range missle attack.

Precisely. SDI predominantly addresses the mounting threat of Red China, in addition to the ballisitic missile threat posed by North Korea, Syria, and Iran to us and our allies around the world including Japan, South Korea, and Israel.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
However, 'Star Wars' is a cold war relic which is useless against the threats we face today. It is ineffective against aircraft flown into skyscapers, it is ineffective against WMD's smuggled into the country in cargo containers.

If Dubbyuh really wants to ensure the security of this country, he would ask for $10 billion to secure our national borders against such threats. His insistence on funding a space based missle defense system only highlights his disconnect from reality.

First, SDI is designed for missile defense, not WMD smuggling, you're right. But that's like saying that a tennis racket is not effective for kicking field goals - who the hell cares? No one ever said that SDI was going to protect against WMD smugglers, but we have other means of protection against that threat.

Second, I totally agree that our borders should be more secure. We should have troops on the borders, and we should start decreasing the numbers of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries.