"How Is It Conservative To Add A Trillion Dollars In Military Spending?"

[JakeStarkey]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Man where the hekk have you been?
Interesting, since i like em both.
Rand ya don't have to worry about
Rubio, I don't know how ya stop it. Tell him we don't need another bush. I guess

My business has picked up this year and I'm struggling to keep up, hence no time for USMB. You'll note I've been posting almost exclusively from my cell for several months and only in small spurts of time. Yes, God is good.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Wonderful, hope you're cankered with riches.

Jealous, yeah, you are.

View attachment 54557

You certainly realize your lack of awareness.

 

[whitehall]

The Founding Fathers listed the duties of the federal government in a single sentence, "to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare". Of course two hundred years of left wing ignorance interprets it "provide for the general welfare and promote the common defense". Wouldn't the "trillion" dollars America spends on National Defense go back to the taxpayers in jobs and benefits? Why does the left claim that employment in useless federal bureaucracies is beneficial but national defense expenditure isn't?

 

[bendog]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Conservatives are conservative like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Democratic Republic of the Congo are democratic.

I'm having a little trouble differentiating Hillary from Marco, beyond the fact that she'd spend the money without cutting the 10%'s taxes more, and he'd spend AND cut their taxes. And of course Marco's a first time senator who's barely made it to his 40s

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Conservatives are conservative like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Democratic Republic of the Congo are democratic.

I'm having a little trouble differentiating Hillary from Marco, beyond the fact that she'd spend the money without cutting the 10%'s taxes more, and he'd spend AND cut their taxes. And of course Marco's a first time senator who's barely made it to his 40s

One's a boy, the other's a girl. Didn't you get that in school?

 

[Siete]

It'll take the next generation for the Reagan cold war spending to wear off ... maybe longer. As long as RW's spend a ton of $$ , they get to carp about needless spending ... a little trick they use coupled with a guilt trip/scare tactic about a weak military and our safety ...

 

[koshergrl]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

The military is a new program?

That's how you know a losing Republican talking point. Obfuscation.

So you're suggesting that the military doesn't have many different programs?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

No, I'm asking you...how have we traditionally funded the military?

Conservatives believe in funding the military and schools as we have historically...and ax the new, useless programs. That's pretty much what conservatism is all about. So yes, funding the military IS a conservative policy.

 

[koshergrl]

I can't believe I responded to that moron Marcatl or whatever he calls himself. Every now and then my ignore function goes cattywampus.

 

[tyroneweaver]

lets spend as much $$ as we can to round up 15 million illegals while we're at it ...

nothing conservative about RW's except their IQ's.

I would respond to this. But when you're a scratch golfer the highest I can count to is 5

 

[g5000]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

I have often pointed out our military spending is as high as it was during WWII, when adjusted for inflation, and yet we are not in a World War.

A lot of that high spending is because of the same reasons which have caused our health care costs to skyrocket. Bigger and better, and therefore more costly, gadgets.

I think our allies need to start picking up their own defense tab. The reason Europe is able to afford so many social welfare programs is because the US is subsidizing those programs on the backs of our taxpayers by picking up the cost of their defense.

If we threw the cost of their defense onto their budgets, Europe's "safety net" would come crashing down to Earth.

So let's do that. Stop paying for everyone else's defense. Stop subsidizing their safety nets as they look down their noses at us.


Next, we can increase defense spending if we cut costs elsewhere. I have explained many times how we could have an annual budget surplus of $800 billion without cutting a single dime from spending.

That surplus could be used to cut tax rates for everyone, pay down the debt, and increase spending wherever you like. Once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even more.

 

[sealybobo]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

We don't have money for infrastructure they want to build bombs.

We should let the free market decide. Citizens can donate however much they want to pay towards defense.

And Democrats should filabuster and demand tax increases on the rich or no military spending. We should tea bag the GOP.

I'm a liberal and that doesn't make any sense. The free market should decide our defense?

I was trying to be like a Republican. If the people don't want to buy or pay for it, then those defense companies should just go out of business.

I think we'd rather spend our money fixing roads than building bombs.

Yea, I was high when I wrote that yesterday. LOL.

YEA that makes sense you were high as your comment about "fixing roads" shows sense of priorities.
So if we had an EMP attack from IRAN what good is "fixing roads" if we have NO security that would have prevented the EMP attack?
Or say we decide "hell we don't need any military"... let's fix our roads... great incentive then for China/Russia/Iran/ you name the country to make an
effort to take our country over because after all we've "fixed our roads"... with the money that would have defended us....YEA our enemies are with you..."Fix the roads"!
That way we won't have to either!!!

I'm not against good military pork projects. But then I find articles from 2011 that say stuff like this: U.S. Department of Defense is now working to rebuild and restaff the agency, hoping to add 4,100 civilian staff members by 2015.

Those staff members aren't protecting us. This is just big government beaurocrats. Growing the government. You guys aren't conservatives. You are brainwashed by the rich to think you or they are. You're all just dummies. If a Republican wins the white house, expect the debt to double or more on their watch. And you'll forget what chicken hawks you were when a black man was in the White House.

 

[healthmyths]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

We don't have money for infrastructure they want to build bombs.

We should let the free market decide. Citizens can donate however much they want to pay towards defense.

And Democrats should filabuster and demand tax increases on the rich or no military spending. We should tea bag the GOP.

I'm a liberal and that doesn't make any sense. The free market should decide our defense?

I was trying to be like a Republican. If the people don't want to buy or pay for it, then those defense companies should just go out of business.

I think we'd rather spend our money fixing roads than building bombs.

Yea, I was high when I wrote that yesterday. LOL.

YEA that makes sense you were high as your comment about "fixing roads" shows sense of priorities.
So if we had an EMP attack from IRAN what good is "fixing roads" if we have NO security that would have prevented the EMP attack?
Or say we decide "hell we don't need any military"... let's fix our roads... great incentive then for China/Russia/Iran/ you name the country to make an
effort to take our country over because after all we've "fixed our roads"... with the money that would have defended us....YEA our enemies are with you..."Fix the roads"!
That way we won't have to either!!!

Is Canada or Australia worried about this?

Of course not!
They belong to NATO and SEATO of which the US contributes
The United States contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO's budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $711.8 million.

SO what were you saying about Canada/Australia???
Of course they would depend on NATO/SEATO of which the USA supports with 25% of the budget!
Gates criticizes NATO; How much does U.S. pay?

But of course you don't have access to the internet to find this info out do you???
Starting in 2017, base military spending will be increased by three percent, rather than the current two percent.
This will result in an additional $11.8 billion in Canadian Armed Forces’ expenditures over a decade.
As the increases are compounded, the military budget in 2026 will be a whopping $2.3 billion higher than hitherto budgeted.

Last week’s budget also announced $390 million in additional military spending in the current fiscal year, which began April 1. This is above and beyond the $18.941 billion in expenditures outlined in the spending estimates the Conservative government presented to parliament in early March.

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Tell that to these people!

Russia Reveals Secret Nuclear-Armed Drone Sub
High-speed harbor buster shown on TV Russia Reveals Secret Nuclear-Armed Drone Sub

Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough
8:16 PM ETBY PATRICK TUCKER
Planes and warships just got a lot harder to see with microwave radar.
A group of scientists from China may have created a stealth material that could make future fighter jets very difficult to detect by some of today’s most cutting-edge anti-stealth radars. Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough

ISIS-Linked Terror Cell Was Committed to Attack in Spain: Cops
An ISIS-linked group that was committed to carrying out a jihadist attack in Madrid was broken up on Tuesday, Spanish police said.

Should we greet them this way??? Think they'll just join arms and break out in "Kumbaya" ?
View attachment 54522

We have 5000 or however many nuclear weapons. Any country that tries to destroy us will disappear.

What more do you want?

The truth.

And what do you think this "truth" is exactly?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Man where the hekk have you been?
Interesting, since i like em both.
Rand ya don't have to worry about
Rubio, I don't know how ya stop it. Tell him we don't need another bush. I guess

My business has picked up this year and I'm struggling to keep up, hence no time for USMB. You'll note I've been posting almost exclusively from my cell for several months and only in small spurts of time. Yes, God is good.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Wonderful, hope you're cankered with riches.

I'm working on it. By God's grace next year should be even better.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Conservatives are conservative like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Democratic Republic of the Congo are democratic.

I agree.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

The military is a new program?

That's how you know a losing Republican talking point. Obfuscation.

So you're suggesting that the military doesn't have many different programs?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

No, I'm asking you...how have we traditionally funded the military?

Conservatives believe in funding the military and schools as we have historically...and ax the new, useless programs. That's pretty much what conservatism is all about. So yes, funding the military IS a conservative policy.

Where is the military currently lacking funding?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

We don't have money for infrastructure they want to build bombs.

We should let the free market decide. Citizens can donate however much they want to pay towards defense.

And Democrats should filabuster and demand tax increases on the rich or no military spending. We should tea bag the GOP.

I'm a liberal and that doesn't make any sense. The free market should decide our defense?

I was trying to be like a Republican. If the people don't want to buy or pay for it, then those defense companies should just go out of business.

I think we'd rather spend our money fixing roads than building bombs.

Yea, I was high when I wrote that yesterday. LOL.

YEA that makes sense you were high as your comment about "fixing roads" shows sense of priorities.
So if we had an EMP attack from IRAN what good is "fixing roads" if we have NO security that would have prevented the EMP attack?
Or say we decide "hell we don't need any military"... let's fix our roads... great incentive then for China/Russia/Iran/ you name the country to make an
effort to take our country over because after all we've "fixed our roads"... with the money that would have defended us....YEA our enemies are with you..."Fix the roads"!
That way we won't have to either!!!

I'm not against good military pork projects. But then I find articles from 2011 that say stuff like this: U.S. Department of Defense is now working to rebuild and restaff the agency, hoping to add 4,100 civilian staff members by 2015.

Those staff members aren't protecting us. This is just big government beaurocrats. Growing the government. You guys aren't conservatives. You are brainwashed by the rich to think you or they are. You're all just dummies. If a Republican wins the white house, expect the debt to double or more on their watch. And you'll forget what chicken hawks you were when a black man was in the White House.

If Bush Jr.'s Administration is any indication, and I believe that it is, we'll see the Neo-Cons rise to prominence if a Marco Rubio or any one of them somehow manages to steal, yet another, election.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[Flopper]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

I have often pointed out our military spending is as high as it was during WWII, when adjusted for inflation, and yet we are not in a World War.

A lot of that high spending is because of the same reasons which have caused our health care costs to skyrocket. Bigger and better, and therefore more costly, gadgets.

I think our allies need to start picking up their own defense tab. The reason Europe is able to afford so many social welfare programs is because the US is subsidizing those programs on the backs of our taxpayers by picking up the cost of their defense.

If we threw the cost of their defense onto their budgets, Europe's "safety net" would come crashing down to Earth.

So let's do that. Stop paying for everyone else's defense. Stop subsidizing their safety nets as they look down their noses at us.


Next, we can increase defense spending if we cut costs elsewhere. I have explained many times how we could have an annual budget surplus of $800 billion without cutting a single dime from spending.

That surplus could be used to cut tax rates for everyone, pay down the debt, and increase spending wherever you like. Once the debt was paid off, tax rates could be lowered even more.

In WWII we threw massive numbers of troops into battle commonly equipped with a rifle, bayonet, and few grenades at a cost of $170 per soldier.
Today equipping a soldier for battle with high tech weapons, communications gear, and armour cost $17,500. In WWII, air support provided by a fighter cost $30,000 to $40,000. Today that air support is likely to cost 100 to 150 million. The increase in cost have greatly increased the capability of the US solider and also dramatically reduced causalities in battles. For example in the Battle of Argonne Forest which last about 5 weeks, 26,000 US solider died more than all us military engagements in the last 40 years.

List of most lethal American battles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The True Cost of US Military Equipment

 

[sealybobo]

We don't have money for infrastructure they want to build bombs.

We should let the free market decide. Citizens can donate however much they want to pay towards defense.

And Democrats should filabuster and demand tax increases on the rich or no military spending. We should tea bag the GOP.

I'm a liberal and that doesn't make any sense. The free market should decide our defense?

I was trying to be like a Republican. If the people don't want to buy or pay for it, then those defense companies should just go out of business.

I think we'd rather spend our money fixing roads than building bombs.

Yea, I was high when I wrote that yesterday. LOL.

YEA that makes sense you were high as your comment about "fixing roads" shows sense of priorities.
So if we had an EMP attack from IRAN what good is "fixing roads" if we have NO security that would have prevented the EMP attack?
Or say we decide "hell we don't need any military"... let's fix our roads... great incentive then for China/Russia/Iran/ you name the country to make an
effort to take our country over because after all we've "fixed our roads"... with the money that would have defended us....YEA our enemies are with you..."Fix the roads"!
That way we won't have to either!!!

I'm not against good military pork projects. But then I find articles from 2011 that say stuff like this: U.S. Department of Defense is now working to rebuild and restaff the agency, hoping to add 4,100 civilian staff members by 2015.

Those staff members aren't protecting us. This is just big government beaurocrats. Growing the government. You guys aren't conservatives. You are brainwashed by the rich to think you or they are. You're all just dummies. If a Republican wins the white house, expect the debt to double or more on their watch. And you'll forget what chicken hawks you were when a black man was in the White House.

If Bush Jr. is any indication, and I believe that he is, we'll see the Neo-Cons rise to prominence if a Marco Rubio or any one of them somehow manages to steal, yet another, election.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Too many people show up to vote in General Election Years. Add to that the potential for a first women President? OMG it is going to be historic. But expect it to be close. How close? That depends on who the GOP nominates. If it's Rubio or Jeb, I suspect it'll be like 2000 when Gore actually won but this time Jeb isn't the Governor of Florida. BUT, I'm sure Rubio is heavily connected in Florida. So is Jeb. Shoot! Hope they don't steal Florida again.

All this talk about Fiorino and Carson is a joke. Why even bother discussing them? The GOP are only using them as their token women/blacks.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How about this? We pay for increased military spending by cutting off welfare to illegals and other able-bodied parasites the Democrats rely on for votes?

Or better yet we don't increased military spending at all. In fact, we cut military spending because we are already paying more than the next 10 countries combined

No, first we should get rid of the excess baggage dragging our economy down. The federal government's primary job is to protect our country, not provide welfare for lazy parasites.

That doesn't give the Congress a blank check to piss away money we don't have on the military industrial complex.

OH...yea that "evil military industrial complex"... Do you know who coined that term? Obviously you don't because YOU have no sense of history.
Here is a statement you should remember...Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana (16 December 1863 )

Since you have NO historical references... just sound bites in the words of B.A. Baracus of the A-Team (97 episodes, 1983-1987) "I pity the fool"!!!!

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - President Dwight Eisenhower 1960

 

[Flopper]

I'm a liberal and that doesn't make any sense. The free market should decide our defense?

I was trying to be like a Republican. If the people don't want to buy or pay for it, then those defense companies should just go out of business.

I think we'd rather spend our money fixing roads than building bombs.

Yea, I was high when I wrote that yesterday. LOL.

YEA that makes sense you were high as your comment about "fixing roads" shows sense of priorities.
So if we had an EMP attack from IRAN what good is "fixing roads" if we have NO security that would have prevented the EMP attack?
Or say we decide "hell we don't need any military"... let's fix our roads... great incentive then for China/Russia/Iran/ you name the country to make an
effort to take our country over because after all we've "fixed our roads"... with the money that would have defended us....YEA our enemies are with you..."Fix the roads"!
That way we won't have to either!!!

I'm not against good military pork projects. But then I find articles from 2011 that say stuff like this: U.S. Department of Defense is now working to rebuild and restaff the agency, hoping to add 4,100 civilian staff members by 2015.

Those staff members aren't protecting us. This is just big government beaurocrats. Growing the government. You guys aren't conservatives. You are brainwashed by the rich to think you or they are. You're all just dummies. If a Republican wins the white house, expect the debt to double or more on their watch. And you'll forget what chicken hawks you were when a black man was in the White House.

If Bush Jr. is any indication, and I believe that he is, we'll see the Neo-Cons rise to prominence if a Marco Rubio or any one of them somehow manages to steal, yet another, election.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Too many people show up to vote in General Election Years. Add to that the potential for a first women President? OMG it is going to be historic. But expect it to be close. How close? That depends on who the GOP nominates. If it's Rubio or Jeb, I suspect it'll be like 2000 when Gore actually won but this time Jeb isn't the Governor of Florida. BUT, I'm sure Rubio is heavily connected in Florida. So is Jeb. Shoot! Hope they don't steal Florida again.

All this talk about Fiorino and Carson is a joke. Why even bother discussing them? The GOP are only using them as their token women/blacks.

After the last presidential election the GOP studied the results of the election to determine what the party needed to do to win the presidency. They concluded that you can not win the presidency with just white votes. You have to appeal to minorities. You have to appeal to more women voters. Now the leader in the primaries is Trump, a candidate who will lose black, Hispanics, and women voters.