Obama plans to disarm America
- Thread starter brett636
- Start date
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Actually, what he says makes sense. It’s about time someone in the government stopped sending blank checks for every pet project, military or not. And there’s no real reason to be armed to the T with Nukes. We have enough to annihilate the world many times over. Wars of the future need nimble and precise military power. The cold war is over ( quite a few years ago). I mean really, how many nukes do we need to blast humanity back into a cave!
Interesting that you believe that this means Obama wants to spend $0 on defense. That’s not what I heard. Obama has spoken of engaging our military when neccessary. WKMAC has even posted threads on this issue. When the US is spending more $ than all other countries in the world COMBINED on “defense” it seems a little over the top and mismanaged as we went into Iraq without proper body and vehicle armour. If you feel this is fine, as a professed economist as you claim to be I think it is very paranoid and very foolish for our economy. We need smart military spending, not wasteful spending.
Interesting that you believe that this means Obama wants to spend $0 on defense. That’s not what I heard. Obama has spoken of engaging our military when neccessary. WKMAC has even posted threads on this issue. When the US is spending more $ than all other countries in the world COMBINED on “defense” it seems a little over the top and mismanaged as we went into Iraq without proper body and vehicle armour. If you feel this is fine, as a professed economist as you claim to be I think it is very paranoid and very foolish for our economy. We need smart military spending, not wasteful spending.
brett636
Well-Known Member
A lot of what he says about nuclear weapons is already in place. Ever hear of a little treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? We are decommissioning our nuclear arsenal as well as Russia because the both of us have so many nukes. I don't see this as a political will issue, but as a massive technical hurdle on how to handle all this nuclear material salvaged from current nuclear weapons.
Our military does not work on a blank check system despite what you believe. It does take alot of money to remain the world's only superpower, but as a percentage of GDP our military spending has been shrinking. Social entitlement programs are already costing us several times the cost of our military and is only going to get worse. In fact you can eliminate the military and you will still not save enough money to stop these entitlement programs from going bankrupt. Besides, its not like civilians don't benefit from the research conducted within the military. The Internet itself started as military "pet" project. Military spending makes up little if any "waste" in our governments overall budget.
My biggest beef with what Obama states above his is pledge to slow development of future combat systems. What this fool doesn't understand is that its our continued development of a better combat system that keeps our country a world superpower and our military the best in the world. Slowing and or halting any such development is dooming our country to fall behind other countries as time goes on. Obama would be a dangerous man in office, destroying our way of life and our country in the process. He has promised us this in the above clip.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Tread lightly in making that argument as it can be quickly twisted to intend something you may not want.
If gov't can create something as wonderful for soceity as the internet and create so many other wonderous things that beneift seciety, then it can also defeat poverty and suffering of all peoples. It can provide everyone with home, healthcare, a job and a good lifestyle. These are all ideals of NationState and Authoraterian principles, not ideals of freedom and liberty on which this country was founded and the organic constitution promoted even when it also fell short of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence by failing to not include "ALL" men as it should have.
Your point above is not untrue although Gore may take exception to your internet claim (LMAO) but IMO it becomes easy to twist your words in proving gov't in all areas is a good thing.
Also, where did the founding fathers intend for us to ever be a superpower to begin with? Their only goal was not to become another England as they were the Superpower of that day and in fact all facts point to their desire to be just the opposite. If we were to be anything to the world, it was an example of how individual freedom and liberty was a wonderful thing and a new light to a very dark world.
JMO.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
The military, has ample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any - repeat, any - adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan. There is a risk - but a prudent and manageable one.
The lessons of global conflict over the past quarter-century prove the greater risk is that "smaller, irregular forces - insurgents, guerrillas, terrorists - will find ways, as they always have, to frustrate and neutralize the advantages of larger, regular militaries.
Conservatives can message this issue very well, since it is easy to label those who want rational, effective military spending as weak on defense.
However, people also want effective government that does not waste their tax dollars. The bottom line is the military wastes more money than any government entity. The military does many things well, but it is a behemoth of an organization and is resistant to change. Thus, many procedures and weapon systems continue to be funded and maintained when they should be canceled.
Eliminating non-vidal weapons systems, military bases, and R&D would make the military more efficient and effective. Additionally, it would help decrease the deficit. Our massive deficit spending is primarily caused by Bush’s tax subsidies for the rich and military spending. Fighting two wars at the same time certainly does not help matters.
Since these wars force us to pour billions into maintaining the weapons we do have, intelligent cuts in outdated, unnecessary weapons systems will relieve the fiscal pressure the military faces in trying to fund all of its needs. Combined with overhauling the Pentagon’s accounting system, which loses billions every year, eliminating unneeded military bases and R&D, we can save money, allocate Pentagon resources more efficiently, strengthen the military, and help cut the deficit.
Last edited:
brett636
Well-Known Member
We know the government is not a benevolent organization overall when it comes to creating new ways of life for us. The internet was not created by the military so I can go purchase products on ebay, it was designed as an information system to help transmit information no matter where our troops are. It eventually made its way into the Al Gore internet we know today.
brett636
Well-Known Member
You must have a severe reading comprehension problem. Our government spends 3 times more on social entitlement programs than it does on the military. Eventually our government won't be able to pay for a military at all because its too busy paying for all the social entitlements that have been promised to people over the years. Tax revenues are at an all time high, and have been growing at record rates under President Bush due to his tax cuts. I have no problem with rich people receiving tax cuts because I would like to be one myself some day. Every government entity has some waste in it, but funding wars and the ability to wage them (if necessary) is not an exercise in efficiency but an exercise in overwhelming your enemy. Research and development is a key part to that in making weapons systems more accurate and making them safer for American troops to use. I don't have much faith in the human species outside our own borders. As soon as China believes we are too weak to defend Taiwan they will most likely start a military invasion of that country. Countries like Iran and Syria are feverishly working to create nuclear weapons so they can blow Israel off the map. Hell, even Russia is starting to act like its the cold war again with its military actions. We need to atleast maintain our military so that threats such as those mentioned do not become so overwhelming to us that we cannot handle them should they arise.
Obama is promising us that he will dismantle our ability to defend ourselves and our allies in the hopes the rest of the world will follow our lead. Just like the idea of communism itself this sounds great until you put it into action and find out human nature doesn't react that way. Our current enemies and potential enemies need a reason to fear us. Take that away and watch the chaos ensue.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
The common Republican claim that we currently face problems because Bill Clinton drastically cut back on the military:
Actually, most of the defense cutting to which Rep chicken hawks refers to Clinton and the Democrats, actually occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush and the Republicans. Go figure.
George H.W. Bush’s Department of Defense, run by Dick Cheney ironically, worked with Congress to reduce defense spending and shrink the Pentagon by 25 to 30%. Meanwhile, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large, but nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent, more like 16 to 18%. The decline was one of those rare points of agreement between President Bill Clinton and Republicans like Newt Gingrich.
Recently, when the Neo-con Conservatives hijacked the Republican party,
the argument that US needs the military superiority AT ANY EXPENSE to keep its No. 1 world power status, is logically un-republican-like.
That No. 1 status has always been acheived by a No.1 ECONOMIC status in the world, and in fact the economic dominence has been the very foundation of that military superiority, and in turn, the military superiority has helped keep America the economic authority in the world.
We all agree "social entitlements" are a major concern. Your thread originally addressed disarming America, however you decided to spin it to social entitlements. So your "severe reading comprehension" comment was unjustified and immature.
Assuming that Congress balks at such large tax hikes, it becomes more likely that discretionary spending will have to be substantially reduced to make room for those entitlements for the time being. Competition for scarce budget resources will become increasingly intense, and the big three entitlements will leave smaller and smaller crumbs for discretionary spending. Overall, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending increases are projected to squeeze out the entire non-defense discretionary budget by 2020, and the entire discretionary budget (including defense) by 2034.
The message is clear: If you prioritize spending on education, health research, veterans’ health care, homeland, security, defense or the environment – the single biggest threat to these programs is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that within a decade, the big three entitlements will be growing $172 billion each year – which will be more than the entire combined budgets of the Departments of Education and Justice at that time. At that point, it will become difficult to maintain even a shell of current discretionary programs. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will swallow almost all of the tax dollars. (Source= The Budget Commitee-House of Reps)
While Congress top domestic priority should be reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they should also seize this opportunity to take a fresh look at discretionary spending growth. Besides cutting Defense, Corp welfare and the tax cuts for the rich, regulating healthcare cost and severing the head of drug pharmacueticals Co's and lobbiest greasing the palms of Washington Politicans. Other examples, education, housing, and transportation, are traditionally state and local functions run by the feds. Many of these federal programs currently force Americans to pay large taxes to Washington, which entails administrative costs, and then send the money right back to state and local governments with new strings attached. It may be more efficient, more democratic, and less costly to bypass the federal middleman and have taxpayers send the taxes for these programs directly to local governments who can tailor these programs to local needs. This would allow Congress to focus more on key national issues such as the social entitlement quagmire and national security. So for the time being, until we start reforming the big three, we need to get the ball rolling with our economy, trim the fat and pork bellys and reduce federal spending and healthcare cost instead of belly aching about it with inflated entitlement costs predictions that can be reduced dramatically and stop encouraging wasteful military spending than neccessary that saps our economy and nat'l debt. If you can come up with a plan for our seniors well being and reduce healthcare and Rx cost at the same time by privatization we all like to hear it.
Actually, most of the defense cutting to which Rep chicken hawks refers to Clinton and the Democrats, actually occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush and the Republicans. Go figure.
George H.W. Bush’s Department of Defense, run by Dick Cheney ironically, worked with Congress to reduce defense spending and shrink the Pentagon by 25 to 30%. Meanwhile, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large, but nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent, more like 16 to 18%. The decline was one of those rare points of agreement between President Bill Clinton and Republicans like Newt Gingrich.
Recently, when the Neo-con Conservatives hijacked the Republican party,
the argument that US needs the military superiority AT ANY EXPENSE to keep its No. 1 world power status, is logically un-republican-like.
That No. 1 status has always been acheived by a No.1 ECONOMIC status in the world, and in fact the economic dominence has been the very foundation of that military superiority, and in turn, the military superiority has helped keep America the economic authority in the world.
We all agree "social entitlements" are a major concern. Your thread originally addressed disarming America, however you decided to spin it to social entitlements. So your "severe reading comprehension" comment was unjustified and immature.
Assuming that Congress balks at such large tax hikes, it becomes more likely that discretionary spending will have to be substantially reduced to make room for those entitlements for the time being. Competition for scarce budget resources will become increasingly intense, and the big three entitlements will leave smaller and smaller crumbs for discretionary spending. Overall, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending increases are projected to squeeze out the entire non-defense discretionary budget by 2020, and the entire discretionary budget (including defense) by 2034.
The message is clear: If you prioritize spending on education, health research, veterans’ health care, homeland, security, defense or the environment – the single biggest threat to these programs is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that within a decade, the big three entitlements will be growing $172 billion each year – which will be more than the entire combined budgets of the Departments of Education and Justice at that time. At that point, it will become difficult to maintain even a shell of current discretionary programs. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will swallow almost all of the tax dollars. (Source= The Budget Commitee-House of Reps)
While Congress top domestic priority should be reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they should also seize this opportunity to take a fresh look at discretionary spending growth. Besides cutting Defense, Corp welfare and the tax cuts for the rich, regulating healthcare cost and severing the head of drug pharmacueticals Co's and lobbiest greasing the palms of Washington Politicans. Other examples, education, housing, and transportation, are traditionally state and local functions run by the feds. Many of these federal programs currently force Americans to pay large taxes to Washington, which entails administrative costs, and then send the money right back to state and local governments with new strings attached. It may be more efficient, more democratic, and less costly to bypass the federal middleman and have taxpayers send the taxes for these programs directly to local governments who can tailor these programs to local needs. This would allow Congress to focus more on key national issues such as the social entitlement quagmire and national security. So for the time being, until we start reforming the big three, we need to get the ball rolling with our economy, trim the fat and pork bellys and reduce federal spending and healthcare cost instead of belly aching about it with inflated entitlement costs predictions that can be reduced dramatically and stop encouraging wasteful military spending than neccessary that saps our economy and nat'l debt. If you can come up with a plan for our seniors well being and reduce healthcare and Rx cost at the same time by privatization we all like to hear it.
tieguy
Banned
i think or at least I hope you're smarter then that. The fact is Obama can not pull us out of Iraq as quickly as he promises. Doing so would quickly destabalize the middle east. That would be political suicide for this country and possibly be the advent of world war three. Should be interesting watching Obama squirm out of his committments should he be elected. It would be great if I lived in some unaffected country and could watch Obama run this ship aground. But alas I'm on the ship and have to be concerned about who the ships captain may be next year. Bush may realistically be a better choice then either McCain or OB Hussien.
tieguy
Banned
Blank Checks? The real hope for peace is not dumping your arms in the trash dumpster but having a bigger and better gun then your nieghbor. Doing so keeps him at bay. Obamas message is I'll get rid of my weapons and stop pursuing better weapons which will somehow keep us safe.
If he wants to change our milataristic mindset and keep us out of wars then I don't necessarily disagree with that mindset. If however he wants to scrap the pursuit of bigger and better weapons then i honestly believe he is setting us up to fail in the future.
We can argue about the merits of Iraq. But regardless we still have to be prepared to stop the possible hitlers of the world before they start a world war. scraping our defense initiatives makes us weaker not stronger. If we are prepared to become a nation of timid servants then we should support Obama. If we want to deal from a position of strength then we should question what Obama thinks he would do here.
The pendulum often swings from one extreme to another politically. We can not afford to do so militaristically. Does anyone remember the years of impotence under Jimmy Carter?
tieguy
Banned
Realistically the biggest gripe i would have with Clinton was his ineffective methods of dealing with the threats of Osama bin laden. Clinton with a little initiative could have eliminated Osama and his crew. He certainly had enough terrorist history to know Osama was a threat. Yet he ignored it and thus we had 9/11. Democrats then tried to blame Bush for that event though he had less then 8 months in office prior. Bush then gets the Blame for dedicating all resouces to eliminating the terrorist threat. How ironic that many detractors live and enjoy this country free of terrorist threats yet try to slam the provider G. Bush for providing them their safety.
Politically its a great time for democrats to try to paint Bush as a liberal spender when they could have done their job and thus kept Bush from having to fix the mess.
Kind of like hiring a bouncer to protect your bar. Instead of thanking the bouncer you b___tch at him for leaving blood and gore everywhere. If you're willing to lose the bar and serve whatever master moves in your neighborhood then drop to your knees and do so.
The good news is soon someone else will have the headache and the second guessing. Its always easier to second guess a president while you're drinking a cold one on the deck then it is to run for the job and show everyone how much smarter you are then the guy you have been criticizing.
BrownShark
Banned
Tieguy,
You and the others on the right wing-nut side of the spectrum only dare to take the "wayback machine" so far, then stop.
You fail to go further back in time to your beloved brain dead President Reagan, who allowed Dick Cheney, Donald Dumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Oliver North and John Poindexter... (both North and Poindexter are convicted felons only pardoned by Reagan or someone moving his hand on the document enacting it)...to provide MILLIONS of dollars in cash, millions of dollars in weapons and trips to both texas and to Langley CIA for training.
It was REAGAN who created the threat OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Your beloved republican party who's sole interest was OIL at the time, created a threat that today young american men and women are giving up their lives for.
Your party created the middle east crisis 2008, in the 80's
You want to stop at Clinton and blame him for not killing him.
Take ownership for the creation, take ownership for the lives lost today for the interests of the OIL companies.
Take ownership for being a fan of the biggest numbskull in presidential history.
Peace
You and the others on the right wing-nut side of the spectrum only dare to take the "wayback machine" so far, then stop.
You fail to go further back in time to your beloved brain dead President Reagan, who allowed Dick Cheney, Donald Dumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Oliver North and John Poindexter... (both North and Poindexter are convicted felons only pardoned by Reagan or someone moving his hand on the document enacting it)...to provide MILLIONS of dollars in cash, millions of dollars in weapons and trips to both texas and to Langley CIA for training.
It was REAGAN who created the threat OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Your beloved republican party who's sole interest was OIL at the time, created a threat that today young american men and women are giving up their lives for.
Your party created the middle east crisis 2008, in the 80's
You want to stop at Clinton and blame him for not killing him.
Take ownership for the creation, take ownership for the lives lost today for the interests of the OIL companies.
Take ownership for being a fan of the biggest numbskull in presidential history.
Peace
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Well, yes and no! Reagan did help the cause but it was first created during the Carter years via the CIA. This IMO doesn't detract from your larger point but I do think from a historical viewpoint it should be on the table. It also should be noted that the US gov't also backed the Taliban (democrats and republicans) over the Tribal Warlords for control of Afghanistan on the premise of fighting the drug war and opium production. The Taliban did kill opium production but at what greater cost down the road?
JMHO!
BrownShark
Banned
Wkmac,
Not sure your level of historical education, but OSAMA bin Laden had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter or his administration.
Osama, the son of an arab saudi sheik and business partner of the BUSH family was recruited by the Reagan administration to wage a proxy war with the soviets in afghanistan.
In addition, OSAMA was a business partner of Oliver North, who illegally sold weapons around the world destabilizing countries and accounting for millions of innocent civilian deaths in africa, the middle east, and central america.
This action came long after Carter, and to which Carter denounced the action.
The head of the CIA involved was Dick Cheney, no friend of Carter.
REAGAN is where the buck stops.
Those ignorant enough to believe it stops with Clinton need to have their collective heads examined.
You took the wayback machine too far and found the wrong source.
Peace
Not sure your level of historical education, but OSAMA bin Laden had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter or his administration.
Osama, the son of an arab saudi sheik and business partner of the BUSH family was recruited by the Reagan administration to wage a proxy war with the soviets in afghanistan.
In addition, OSAMA was a business partner of Oliver North, who illegally sold weapons around the world destabilizing countries and accounting for millions of innocent civilian deaths in africa, the middle east, and central america.
This action came long after Carter, and to which Carter denounced the action.
The head of the CIA involved was Dick Cheney, no friend of Carter.
REAGAN is where the buck stops.
Those ignorant enough to believe it stops with Clinton need to have their collective heads examined.
You took the wayback machine too far and found the wrong source.
Peace
tieguy
Banned
Tieguy,
Peace
Why BS thanking you so much for taking the time to point out the fact that Reagan actually had Osama working for us against our enemy.
Thats like Ronnie going down to hell and making the devil shine his shoes.
Ronnie you were truly a brillant and Baaaaaad man.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
This is what you've been conditioned to think
.Teachers of Hardcore
rt wing propaganda teach in theory, not whats factual.It doesn't matter who steering the ship, if we stay the course, we will hit the iceberg and sink. We all think our ship is unsinkable....well what happened to the Titanic.
One thing I will sacrifice is running our military like a business. Keeping up and above with the Jones' is priority, but cutting waste, reduce over paying for goods and services, and creating a tremendously efficient military for today's warfare is the way to go.
Bigger and better guns than your neighbor.....Lets see, if my nieghbor has bigger guns(arms) than me, I kick him in the nuts and drop him to his knees. Thats how the enemy thinks. But if your smart and efficient, you'll where a cup.
As I already have pointed out during an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, there an angry Bill Clinton defending that scenario about Ben Ladin and the Reps' balking at him not to go in. Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is comparable to blaming secular and gay population for 9/11 like Rev Fallwell.
Before you put Bush so high on a pedalstal for our safety and military....
Contrary to many Republicans' claims, Bill Clinton did not weaken the U.S. military—far from it. On the other hand, he provided Bush with the highly advanced weapontry to shock and awe Iraq unneccessarily IMO.
The difference of having a Bouncer protecting your Bar is electeing one that doesn't injure and maim several innocent bystanders trying to subdue one perpetrader.
Second guess a President...That's all we are, arm chair political quarterbacks throwing back a cold one with the power of one vote, but the ability to change as many minds as we can til Nov.
brett636
Well-Known Member
This is what you've been conditioned to think
Teachers of Hardcore
It doesn't matter who steering the ship, if we stay the course, we will hit the iceberg and sink. We all think our ship is unsinkable....well what happened to the Titanic.
Since your so good at predicting the future what will happen in Iraq after we leave? Keep in mind General Patreaus's remarks how the gains we are seeing in Iraq are "fragile and reversable".
The biggest source of government waste are social entitlement programs. Fix and or end these programs and you will see a massive jump in government efficiency.
You won't be able to kick your neighbor in the nuts when he disintegrates you from his living room.
Huh?
Most bars want bouncers who will force a trouble maker out. Not one who will only tell the trouble maker how bad he/she is in hopes they will leave.
tieguy
Banned
This is what you've been conditioned to think
Teachers of Hardcore
Yes Yes I know I'm hopelessly brainwashed.
Now that I have confessed to being brainwashed perhaps we can move on to other topics?
But then there are others who take a contrarian position and fool theirselves into believing it somehow makes them smarter.
Pat yourself on the back for being superior and for resisting the brainwashing and lets see if you can make sense for all of us who strive to achieve your level of enlightment.
may we call you swami?
tieguy
Banned
It doesn't matter who steering the ship, if we stay the course, we will hit the iceberg and sink. We all think our ship is unsinkable....well what happened to the Titanic.
Then prepare yourself with a good lifevest. Even Obama will stay the course or make minor troop withdrawls. He is not the brightest tack in the box but he is smart enough to stay away from destabalizing the middle east with a full immediate troop withdrawl. Should he be elected he will consult with his military advisors then sadly announce that the middle east situation is even worse then Bush let on. He wil then start pushing his time tables back until the next election. At that time he will make some force reductions and claim he has done so much more. You've been watching politics long enough you know the drill.
One thing I will sacrifice is running our military like a business. Keeping up and above with the Jones' is priority, but cutting waste, reduce over paying for goods and services, and creating a tremendously efficient military for today's warfare is the way to go.
Many have talked the talk of controlling military waste few have done so. Unless our government learns to manufactor its own toys we will continue to be subject to the current bidding processes that create the gouging.
As I already have pointed out during an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace, there an angry Bill Clinton defending that scenario about Ben Ladin and the Reps' balking at him not to go in. Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is comparable to blaming secular and gay population for 9/11 like Rev Fallwell.
Yes you're right Bill said he was not to blame. Perhaps he was recieving a favor from an intern when he should have been paying attention to Osama.
Before you put Bush so high on a pedalstal for our safety and military....
Contrary to many Republicans' claims, Bill Clinton did not weaken the U.S. military—far from it. On the other hand, he provided Bush with the highly advanced weapontry to shock and awe Iraq unneccessarily IMO.
Takes about 15 to twenty years to take a weapon from design to deployment. You may have to go all the way back to the Ronnie the greatest to give those credits. Just think Ronnie made Osama his. Ronnie was the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!
The difference of having a Bouncer protecting your Bar is electeing one that doesn't injure and maim several innocent bystanders trying to subdue one perpetrader.
Second guess a President...That's all we are, arm chair political quarterbacks throwing back a cold one with the power of one vote, but the ability to change as many minds as we can til Nov.
Here we agree.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
The head of the CIA involved was Dick Cheney, no friend of Carter.
You took the wayback machine too far and found the wrong source.
Peace
When was Cheney the head of the CIA or did you also make that up?
Similar threads
- Locked
