Moonglow
Diamond Member
Well then you should look a little deeper..
Correcting the liberal lies about the defense budget
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #42
Moon can never back up his claims. He's a typical liberal. Lie. Make shit up. Lie some more. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Good luck trying to find a single post by moon that includes some sort of link/citation. I can honestly say I don't remember a single one. He usually just puts one short sentence that is either a blatant lie or is a snarky response because he can't dispute the truth that he doesn't like.
mamooth
Diamond Member
Don't try to hide behind the skirts of the military to justify your hate crusade. Even for you, that's wussitude above and beyond the call.
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #44
Well stupid - does ISIS have a national defense budget? Does Al Qaeda have a national defense budget? They aren't even nations dumb-ass. And yet Al Qaeda was able to inflict the worst damage to the U.S. in our entire history. Not the U.S.S.R. Not Germany. Not China. Al Qaeda.
How dumb do you feel right now?
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #45
What "hate crusade"? Correcting the lies of you people is a "hate crusade"? Advocating that the men and woman who serve to protect this nation deserve the best tools, the best technology, the best benefits, etc. is a "hate crusade" in your mind?
Mammy....what happened here is the liberal false narrative got corrected with facts to back it up and your pissed off about that. So now you need to change the subject. Next you'll call me "racists" and run like hell. It's the typical liberal playbook.
mamooth
Diamond Member
It creeps me out when old conservative queers hit on me. Happens a lot, unfortunately. I seem to be a queer magnet.
Because it's not a true statement. Duh. The USA is a nation, with good and bad points. The Russians and Chinese and a whole bunch of other nations will also proclaim themselves to be the best nation in world history, and it's crap coming from all of them.
On behalf of all liberals, let me say I'm sorry how the liberals beat you up on the playground every day. Can you get over it now?
So those thousands of refugees who have drowned crossing the Med didn't really exist?
You're either amazingly stupid or amazingly dishonest. I'll leave it to you to explain which. In the meantime, everyone here will be laughing at your failure, and your inability to use any tactic other than shrieking "USA FUCK YEAH!".
Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #47
No, you're just an old road whore.
mamooth
Diamond Member
I notice you're not denying hiding behind the skirts of the military. Good. That's progress. Some tactics should be considered even too low for you to stoop too.
You clearly get off on whining about the mean ol' libeals. We probably shouldn't encourage it, because it's kind of gross.
When a conservative snivels "YOU ALWAYS CALL ME A RACIST!", that's another way I know I've spanked their little bitch ass and made them cry. Time to carve another notch in my WussSmackingStick.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,956
- 227,064
- 3,615
The U.S. spends 43 cents out of every defense dollar on earth
Ok here's what I don't get it. You think the defense budget should be massive, yet you don't want any other spending increases anywhere else. Don't you think republicans should invest in our nation's crumbling infrastructure?
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #51
When and where did I say I didn't want spending increases else where? What you don't understand is that there is a monumental difference between federal government, state government, and local government.
If your state, county, or local municipality identifies "crumbling infrastructure" and determines to correct it - I support that 110%.
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #52
Um.....no. No they wouldn't actually. There isn't a single person in China (outside of their ruler of course) who would declare that China is superior to the U.S. Same with Russia. That's literally as stupid as claiming "Cuba considers their nation better than the U.S." or "Cambodia considers their nation better than the U.S.".
I would call you a liar but I don't think you're lying. You're just clearly dumb as hell.
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #53
And yet our military has to scavenge for parts from museums...
Clearly we need to be spending $0.83 out of every defense $1.00. It's ok though - we have the money. We illegally spend over one trillion per year on "public assistance". All we have to do is take half of that money and apply it to defense. Then take the other half and apply it to the national debt. All of our problems solved.
Moonglow
Diamond Member
What parts would they be scavenging, since they remove the engines and fuel tanks when they are put into a museum..??And yet our military has to scavenge for parts from museums...
Clearly we need to be spending $0.83 out of every defense $1.00. It's ok though - we have the money. We illegally spend over one trillion per year on "public assistance". All we have to do is take half of that money and apply it to defense. Then take the other half and apply it to the national debt. All of our problems solved.
When I was in during Reagan we could have shelf stock of repair parts..
Searcher44
Gold Member
"Obama has gutted the military" is a phrase commonly bandied about by the right in America. But has he really? Doesn't it make sense that the military budget decline reflects the fact that America is disengaging from two major wars, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Also, in 2013 WaPo said this about public opinion;
"Back in May, the Stimson Center unveiled the results of a new survey asking U.S. voters about their views on defense spending. As it turns out, Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed. Congress isn't likely to pay much attention here, but it's a reminder that defense cuts tend to be extremely popular."
And;
"Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287 billion to $530 billion — and that's before accounting for the primary costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But now that those wars are ending and austerity is back in vogue, the Pentagon will have to start tightening its belt in 2013 and beyond."
U.S. "Defense" spending compared to the rest of the world circa 2007-8.
I don't think it's so much "liberal lies" as a genuine debate about the nature of the society desired by various groups. Generally I think a large percentage of American conservatives lean towards a neocon vision of the U.S. military where it should be powerful enough to impose American economic hegemony on a global scale. This obviously has nothing to do with "spreading democracy" as a scan of the Authoritarian regimes that the U.S. arms and supports proves. And Cui Bono? Who benefits? The financiers who produce the money, the Multi-Nationals (not necessarily American) who produce the weapons, the Oil and gas giants that fuel the beast, again - the 1%.
There seems to be a kind of multiple personality conflict in many conservatives who claim to embrace Libertarian ideals in most areas and yet are vigorously opposed to the strict libertarian philosophy of defending the homeland and otherwise "minding our own business". Does today's conservative believe more in an "Offense" budget than a "Defense" budget?
2013 comparison of U.S. "Defense" spending vs. Rest of World.
Here are a few questions an American liberal might ask;
1) Why does the U.S. have to police the world, shouldn't it demand that every other nation pay it's fair share in the Global fight against terrorism? Right now terrorism is really the only major active threat isn't it?
2) How much of the military budget is in reality "pork" that congress people and senators fiercely defend as election goodies for voters in their home districts. For example the Army has repeatedly requested a freeze in spending on building and upgrading the Abrams tank and yet in 2015 congress pushed through 120 million dollars in the budget for that purpose. "In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected." That's from Military.com And this; "The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno (General Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff) testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need." Congress people trade these favors and the unneeded weapons projects continue to mount. "In 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress the defense spending bill contained $6.9 billion for things he did not need. Congress approved it anyway." - http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-approves-useless-military-spending-2013-5
I think that $6.9 billion would turn out to be the tip of the iceberg if a group of unbiased experts that weren't the SecDef examined the budget.
3) Are the expensive new upgrades to the Nuclear Triad going to make the U.S. less safe by encouraging a competition between the major powers, possibly launching a dangerous new Cold War? People like former Defense Secretary William Perry testified on Capitol Hill yesterday, "We're now today on the threshold of a new Cold War. We're on the threshold of a new nuclear arms race, and in addition but not related to that there's a rising threat of nuclear terrorism and a regional nuclear war," former Defense Secretary William Perry said. "For all these reasons, I assert today the likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe is actually greater than it was during the Cold War. Perry, who served as Pentagon chief from 1993 to 1997, supported a modernization of the country's nuclear triad, but said that could be done without the LRSO. "We can reject a modernization program that would increase the risk of a nuclear war by accident or miscalculation,"
4)I don't have to quote Eisenhower's warning about the Military/Industrial complex, anybody interested in the issues raised in the OP is familiar with it, although I don't think enough conservatives take it as seriously as it deserves. War profiteering has been around almost since man picked up his first weapon. So - how much of the pressure on Congress to increase military spending comes from the billionaire donors that, even by Donald Trumps contention, pull the strings of these congress people?
5) And how much effect have these same billionaires had on conservative public opinion through the politics of fear spread by controlled Mass Media and their relentless drumbeat of security, security, security. Examples of the spread of disinformation leading the American people towards accepting the entrenching of Militarism in their psyche and in the nation are glaring to anybody paying attention. See my avatar.
I could come up with many more questions but I think these define the divide between those who think society should be more concerned with positives like education and economic mobility and a healthy environment rather than those things that drive the fruits of a productive people upwards to the "1%" and not to reinvigorating a morbid middle class. Remember, a cold war fuels an endless need to replace "obsolete" weapons with new. And better yet -for the war profiteers - a hot war disposes of millions of tons of killing machines and replacing that arsenal of death only makes the rich obscenely more rich while killing off the cream of the younger generation. Check out the chicken hawks who usually demand these wars and their war records, usually in our generation of chicken hawks it's a record of deferment after deferment. What was Cheney's number? 5 or 6?
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
“Correcting the liberal lies about the defense budget”
You’re not ‘correcting’ any ‘lies,’ you’re contriving and propagating new lies.
You’re not ‘correcting’ any ‘lies,’ you’re contriving and propagating new lies.
Moonglow
Diamond Member
The budget for the military did go up this year, due to Congress passing a resolution to exceed budgetary restraints called sequestration..
P@triot
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #58
Exactly. Because Ronald Reagan properly funded the U.S. military. Instead of gutting defense like Carter, Clinton, and Obama, he increased spending on defense. And all you had to do was walk over to the shelf and get the parts you needed.What parts would they be scavenging, since they remove the engines and fuel tanks when they are put into a museum..??And yet our military has to scavenge for parts from museums...
Clearly we need to be spending $0.83 out of every defense $1.00. It's ok though - we have the money. We illegally spend over one trillion per year on "public assistance". All we have to do is take half of that money and apply it to defense. Then take the other half and apply it to the national debt. All of our problems solved.
When I was in during Reagan we could have shelf stock of repair parts..
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Senior DOJ Officials Didn’t Know Database Allowed FBI To Bury Existence Of Russiagate Documents- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
