I bet Obama will be up there sounding like porky pig on a combination of both meth and some heavy duty sedatives.....
Umm.... when was the last time a democrat cut military spending, or for that matter a republican cut social programs. I'm not going to hold my breath. You will probably reply with the crap that last year. Of course I will then have to point out that it was not a real cut but a decrease in the ammount of spending increased.
While I wait, I think Ill amuse myself by pointing out that we spend more then next 25 nations combined, and most of those are alies. Yup, need more spending on the military, almost as much as we need spending on social programs.
The only recollection I have of military spending cuts was back when Clinton was in office. Cause I tried enlisting in 95 but was denied cause of cuts.
Military is one thing our founding fathers were sure about spending money on. Defense was paramount.
And it should be. It's one the few things I think out govt has the right to use our money for. And I don't think we need to increase spending. It needs to stay about the same.
Umm.... you know that our founding fathers set up the contsitition so that the USA could not have a standing army? If you read the the founders papers they feared having a standing military. We where supposed to relay on militias. Our professional army was something that they tried their hardest to keep us from having, because they saw the intrinsic threat that a large militry was to liberty. More great nations have fallen from coups from their own militry to outside invasion.
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
What would be good in GA's opinion is: Make it clear that as of (fill in a date, lets say 1-1-2013)... there will be NO govt bailouts EVERY AGAIN. You blow it... you loose. In my opinion; the result would be VERY Cautious business practices. I am sure the economy would not grow as fast as it might with a safety net... however what is better:
HUGE ups and downs (like the housing bubble that burst... all happened over the last decade give or take)... or
A slow and stable rise that does not have large swings up and down?
Before one decides... remember that the latter would not include price and wage inflation during the recovery after the crash.
But the Constitution still states we needed a national defense and money was to be appropriated for it.Quote:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
And from Thomas Paine, we can thank for Social Security, taxes and the National Debt to provide for Navy. NOT!.
I'm sorry, but if your going to condem social spending, which I do, and you don't condem over spending on military, which I do, it's quite hypocritical. I'm sorry but out spending the rest of the world is over spending on the military, and goes far in excess of anything our founders invisioned.