Is your state going broke?

[Dinsdale]

Anyway, seeing as welfare was a band-aid concept designed to keep the masses placated when they haven't got anything to do

As per usualm, you're uninformed on American History (they must teach some serious bullcrap in Upper Mexico).

Welfare had one major purpose -- to keep blacks in the inner city, and keep them from competing for "real" jobs, a good chunk of which were moving to the burbs at the time welfare was implemented.


And it's pretty much FUCKED Americans of African descent.

Subsidizing something creates more of it. When you subsidize poverty, guess what?

[Dr_Phibes]

We are in agreement Comrade Dins, you're right. It had a practical purpose and noble intentions but it's a trap, it can work, or it becomes a life sentence. Alternatively it'll breed generations of addicts and stifle them when they could be doing something better. Comrades Lenin and Stalin used to rage against it and called for its destruction

It's like arguing over the cut of a birds-mouth in a rafter when the foundation is rotten.

[mvscal]

Alternatively it'll breed generations of addicts and stifle them when they could be doing something better.

Even worse it breeds generations of bureaucrats who maintain their power by bribing the generations of addicts with ever increasing amounts of other people's money.

[Dr_Phibes]

quiet now, you'll destroy B's reason d'etre if he had a job.

[Moving Sale]

Alternatively it'll breed generations of addicts and stifle them when they could be doing something better.

Even worse it breeds generations of bureaucrats who maintain their power by bribing the generations of addicts with ever increasing amounts of other people's money.

What does a military budget as large as the next 20 highest spending countries breed? Besides stupid fools like you?

[OCmike]

What does a military budget as large as the next 20 highest spending countries breed?

You mean besides a fuckton of high and low tech design jobs, manufacturing jobs, support jobs and military jobs?

:doh:

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

quiet now, you'll destroy B's reason d'etre if he had a job.

He's a student, don't you know?

With an "office" and everything.

[Dinsdale]

What does a military budget as large as the next 20 highest spending countries breed?

I'll go with "undersized whiners."

[Moving Sale]

You mean besides a fuckton of high and low tech design jobs, manufacturing jobs, support jobs and military jobs?

:doh:

Design jobs? You mean like how to make a better bomb? How is that helping us? Our bombs are not good enough?
Manufacturing jobs? You mean like building tanks and shit? You don't think that money would be better spent building roads and bridges and stuff?
Support jobs? Like the hooker down at the local base makes a few dollars blowing soldiers so the economy is supported? Again, is that the best you can think of to do with the money?
Military jobs? You mean like paying some guy in a base in 3rd world country to sit on his ass? I can think of a lot better ways to spend that money but I'm a lot smarter then you.

[Moving Sale]

What does a military budget as large as the next 20 highest spending countries breed?

I'll go with "undersized whiners."

Stretch much?

[Dinsdale]

Stretch much?

Didn't really need to -- I was born without the genetic defect known as "dwarfism," resulting in a lack of Little Man's Syndrome.


But I'm sure those gravity boots look good on you, though.

[OCmike]

You mean besides a fuckton of high and low tech design jobs, manufacturing jobs, support jobs and military jobs?
:doh:

Design jobs? You mean like how to make a better bomb? How is that helping us? Our bombs are not good enough?
Manufacturing jobs? You mean like building tanks and shit? You don't think that money would be better spent building roads and bridges and stuff?
Support jobs? Like the hooker down at the local base makes a few dollars blowing soldiers so the economy is supported? Again, is that the best you can think of to do with the money?
Military jobs? You mean like paying some guy in a base in 3rd world country to sit on his ass? I can think of a lot better ways to spend that money but I'm a lot smarter then you.

There's lots of different ways I'd spend the money, but that wasn't the question.

And people who are smart don't need to declare it...it's obvious to their audience whether they are or not.

[Dinsdale]

I'm a lot smarter then you.

It's getting tough to keep up with his self-inflicted asskickings.

[Moving Sale]

Didn't really need to -- I was born without the genetic defect known as "dwarfism," resulting in a lack of Little Man's Syndrome.

You HAVE to be trying to sound like such a moron. What grade are you in? 10 years of short joke to a guy who is as tall as half the male population of the USA? You REALLY think that is funny?

Mike,
While it is true that you did answer the question I was just wondering why you would answer it the way you did. You seemed to think it was a good idea to spend so much money. Now if that is not the case, and you seem to be backpedaling on this issue already, why would you post in a manner that made it appear as though you thought it was a good idea if you didn't hold that view. And I didn't say I was smart, I said I was/am smarter than you. I could easily have an IQ of 40 and still be smarter than you.

[Dinsdale]

I said I was/am smarter than you.

No, it isn't.

[Moving Sale]

If you are trying to sound so stupid that no response, besides stunned silence, is possible, you are one the right track.

[mvscal]

What does a military budget as large as the next 20 highest spending countries breed?

A robust national defense as specified in the US Constitution. What, exactly, is your point?

Should we have a piece of shit military? We tried that back in the 30s and it didn't really work out all that well.

[Moving Sale]

A robust national defense as specified in the US Constitution.

What you know about the Constitution would fit in a rat’s ass. The war we fought immediately following the 30's turned out a hell of a lot better than the one we fought in the 50's or the 60's or the 70's or the 2000's you historically stupid fuck.

[mvscal]

The war we fought immediately following the 30's turned out a hell of a lot better than the one we fought in the 50's or the 60's or the 70's or the 2000's you historically stupid fuck.

Well except for the 420,000 dead guys it did, I suppose. We also brought about that successful conclusion with the largest and most expensive military establishment in our history. Hmmm, funny how that works.

Naturally we gutted it right after WW2 and were totally unprepared for Korea. Once again we see how a weak military invites aggression.

The failure in Vietnam was political not military.

2000's? What the fuck are you talking about? The war in Iraq has been a complete success. It is time to shut it down in Afghanistan, though. We've done all we can do militarily. A small presence to provide security for drone strikes is all we really need at this point.

[Moving Sale]

A robust national defense as specified in the US Constitution.

What you know about the Constitution would fit in a rat’s ass.

Crickets

That's what I thought.

The failure in Vietnam was political not military.

Not sure what you call it when a blind squirrel finds a nut but has no idea what he found but that is where you are. What good is 900Billion$ worth of military when you only have 200Billion$ worth of political muscle behind it? I know you are too stupid to figure it out so I'll tell you. You have wasted 700Billion$. Light going on in that little racist head of yours?

2000's? What the fuck are you talking about? The war in Iraq has been a complete success. It is time to shut it down in Afghanistan, though. We've done all we can do militarily. A small presence to provide security for drone strikes is all we really need at this point.

"Complete success?" A 6cent bullet could have done the job that your boys took Hundreds of Billions of $ and Thousands of lives to pull off.
Time to shut it down eh? Because the Taliban is gone? Because OBL is behind bars? Because AQ is gone? You are one stupid fuck.

[mvscal]

A robust national defense as specified in the US Constitution.

What you know about the Constitution would fit in a rat’s ass.

Crickets

That's what I thought.

You think? Since when?

So...we should have a piece of shit military? That will aid our diplomacy? Is that the way "you think" it works?

[OCmike]

Don’t you think that money would be better spent building roads and bridges and stuff?

Idealistically? Sure, why not. But in practice I’m smart enough to know that that money wouldn’t go to bridges and roads that actually needed to be fixed, but would instead be used to repay congressional favors, buy votes, etc, in the form of paved highways that didn’t need re-paving and shiny new unnecessary bridges. If you’ve travelled much in the US, then you know that the backwater states with long-tenured politicians are the ones with the pristine roads, while states like CA and NY drive on freeways that resemble jeep trails.

Military jobs? You mean like paying some guy in a base in 3rd world country to sit on his ass? I can think of a lot better ways to spend that money, but I’m a lot smarter than you.

Actually, that’s exactly what I mean. We’ll save billions in jet fuel having our bombers take off from bases like Diego Garcia rather than a US-based AFB , once we go to war with China, which will likely occur before 2020.

If you want a straight answer, I’m sure there’s graft and dead or dying projects that should be outright cut from the military's R&D budget and diverted to Veterans with service-connected disabilities. Apart from that, no, I don’t think it should be trimmed at all. I served during the Clinton “cutback” years when we were forced to operate a 720psi, 900 degree main steam boiler unsafely numerous times. The fact that no one was killed is a credit to the people that I worked with.

Anyway, you’ll notice that even your beloved Barry hasn’t slashed the military budget as you retarded peaceniks would like. Don’t’ worry though. I’m sure someday the nations of the world will gather ‘round the campfire to sing Peter, Paul & Mary songs together and we won’t need a military any more. We can just eliminate it altogether and divert the entire budget into R&D on a gigantic rainbow machine. Until then, feel free to keep bitching ignorantly about the military from your rock-solid pedestal of retardation.

I could easily have an IQ of 40

Agreed. Thanks for the new sig.

[Dinsdale]

Nevermind that the majority of great innovations in human history all started on the same premise -- researching newer, better ways to kill people.

[Moving Sale]

So...we should have a piece of shit military? That will aid our diplomacy? Is that the way "you think" it works?

So you are not going to address the Constitutional question. Yellow bellied fucktard much?

Nice straw man fucktard. I never said we needed a shit military. Can you read? I said it was a waste to have a military that was hundreds of billions of dollars more expensive than our politicians are willing to use.

Mike,
Saying we need to spend 600+ billion on bombs because it would be wasted if we tried to spend it on bridges is whack.
China, the UK, France and Russia are the next highest spenders on their military. If we spent as much as they do combined we could cut our military budget by over 50%. Why is that not a good idea?
I don't think you get it. My stance is that your whole platoon and its boiler should have been scraped.
Barry is beloved by me? Huh? Link? I'm a peacenik? Huh? Link?
And lastly why must you drop the straw man on me? Are you too stupid to make a solid argument that is not a big fat fallacy? I never said we should make rainbow machines and the like I think we should spend on the military. Try and stick to what I actually said and stop making shit up. It makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Dins,
Are you trolling? Serious question.

[mvscal]

So...we should have a piece of shit military? That will aid our diplomacy? Is that the way "you think" it works?

So you are not going to address the Constitutional question.

There is no Constitutional question.

[OCmike]

Mike,
Saying we need to spend 600+ billion on bombs because it would be wasted if we tried to spend it on bridges is whack.
China, the UK, France and Russia are the next highest spenders on their military. If we spent as much as they do combined we could cut our military budget by over 50%. Why is that not a good idea?

That type of isolationism has the benefit of short term savings, but leaves us woefully unprepared when we or our allies are attacked again. Think it can't happen? That line of thinking is what gave us WWII.

I don't think you get it. My stance is that your whole platoon and its boiler should have been scraped.

The Navy doesn't have platoons, the Army does. Thanks for helping show that you don't even understand the military on a basic level. And no, my ship should not have been scrapped, it should have been properly maintained so that it could safely fulfill it's mission. The LHA class, though gas hogs, were the most versatile ships in the Navy. They sported two five inch guns, carried cobra gunships, Harrier jump jets, twin rotor troop carrying helos, as well as LCAC hovercrafts that were deployed out of the rear of the ship, the latter of which could be used to deploy the 2,000 marines we carried with us for amphibious operations. Because of the sheer size of the ship, it was also used in humanitarian missions, such as in Somalia in 91-92.

Try and stick to what I actually said and stop making shit up. It makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Sorry, dude, but I have to spice things up with some random idiocy. Otherwise your Link?/strawman/liar! posts are far too spectacularly dull to bother to respond to.

Dins,
Are you trolling? Serious question.

Here's a few: radar gave us microwaves and nuclear bombs gave us nuclear power, military jets gave us jet airliners, military satellites gave us satellite TV & Radio, the cia gave us the internet, centrifugal pumps gave us hydroelectric power, etc, etc et-fucking-cetera

[Screw_Michigan]

the cia gave us the internet

Wrong. DOD gave us the Internet, CIA gave us GPS.

[OCmike]

Partial credit?

BTW, radar also gave way to Doppler and weather forecasting.

In related news, Moving Bowels is not bright.

[Moving Sale]

That line of thinking is what gave us WWII.

So what you are saying is that prior to WWII we were spending as much as the next 4 or 5 nations combined? Can you back that statement up?

Thanks for helping show that you don't even understand the military on a basic level.

I don’t have a spreadsheet on you so I didn’t know you were in the navy. So what I was supposed to figure it out from the psi of your boiler?

And no, my ship should not have been scrapped, it should have been properly maintained so that it could safely fulfill it's mission .The LHA class, though gas hogs, were the most versatile ships in the Navy.

An Amphibious Assault Ship that was launched sometime in the 70’s was indispensable to our mission. For what? Besides Somalia?

They sported two five inch guns, carried cobra gunships, Harrier jump jets, twin rotor troop carrying helos, as well as LCAC hovercrafts that were deployed out of the rear of the ship, the latter of which could be used to deploy the 2,000 marines we carried with us for amphibious operations.

Blah Blah Blah.

Because of the sheer size of the ship, it was also used in humanitarian missions, such as in Somalia in 91-92.

You have GOT to be kidding. That’s what you think we need to spend 660+billion a year on?

Sorry, dude, but I have to spice things up with some random idiocy. Otherwise your Link?/strawman/liar! posts are far too spectacularly dull to bother to respond to.

So you won’t back up what you say, you won’t use logic and there is no need for you to tell the truth? I now believe you were in the military.

Here's a few: radar gave us microwaves and nuclear bombs gave us nuclear power, military jets gave us jet airliners, military satellites gave us satellite TV & Radio, the cia gave us the internet, centrifugal pumps gave us hydroelectric power, etc, etc et-fucking-cetera

You are kind of dumb huh?
I know the things the military has made. Geez arguing with you guys is like playing chess with a monkey.
I was insinuating that A) That shit could easily have been made using cheaper and less destructive means B) Free enterprise is a better way to go to get it than the Gov and C) how many people have to die for you to pop some corn?

Good gawd you are dumb.

[Moving Sale]

A robust national defense as specified in the US Constitution.

There is no Constitutional question.

:doh:

[OCmike]

So what you are saying is that prior to WWII we were spending as much as the next 4 or 5 nations combined? Can you back that statement up?

Do the judges you argue before actually buy this type of silly circular bullshit?

Since you love questions so much, here are some for you…
What are the defense needs of those 4 or 5 nations and how do they relate to those of the US?

What is the length of defensible coastline of those nations and how do they compare to the US?

How much money do you think is acceptable to spend on R&D to create countermeasures to next-gen weapons like China’s anti-carrier missle?

If we slash our military now, as China is clearly ramping up their military for active use, how much will it cost us in time, money and resources to play catch up once they invade Japan, Taiwan or US Pacific Territories?

Where, specifically, in the four branches of the military should we begin cutting (besides R&D)? Should we cut a division in the Navy or a division in the Army? Do you even know the difference between the two?

[smackaholic]

we could easily cut a few divisions in the navy, maybe a few army battle groups as well.

sin,

moving stale, defense expert

[mvscal]

Where, specifically, in the four branches of the military should we begin cutting (besides R&D)?

I'd start with the Marines. They could easily be slashed and folded into the Army as an amphibious division or two. There is no need for a separate command structure to support the Marines.

[Derron]

Where, specifically, in the four branches of the military should we begin cutting (besides R&D)?

I'd start with the Marines. They could easily be slashed and folded into the Army as an amphibious division or two. There is no need for a separate command structure to support the Marines.

Really ? And the Marine culture, training and performance will blend real well with the Army's. Just put the Marines under Army command...??. :doh: :doh:

[mvscal]

There wouldn't be any more Marine "culture." The Marines are completely overhyped. They bring nothing to the table that the Army can't and hasn't done better.

[Carson]

The Marines are already part of the Navy.

The change in bureaucracy alone would be a financial boondoggle.

Consolidating all air power into one force is worth looking into.

[smackaholic]

mvscal is right about the marines. the army showed during WWII that they could do amphib ops, which really is the marine's sole purpose today.

not so sure about air power though. the navy has these things called aircraft carriers, perhaps you've heard of them. marine air could go away. as with the rest of the marines, they are redundant. i think the entire chairforce should be folded back into the army. that was the way it was during WWII.

trouble is, all those generals in DC are as entrenched as the politicians, so they would go down kicking and screaming.

[mvscal]

The Marines are already part of the Navy.

Not really.

[Carson]

Administratively and fiscally, Marines are Navy.

Is a carrier considered air power or fleet?

Was the Doolittle raid an Army, Navy, or joint effort?

The F-35 is called the Joint Strike Fighter.

[smackaholic]

Administratively and fiscally, Marines are Navy.

Yup, they are. They are part of the Navy dept. Notice there is no MC academy.

Is a carrier considered air power or fleet?

both.

Was the Doolittle raid an Army, Navy, or joint effort?

well, those mitchells didn't swim across the pacific by themselves, so it was certainly a joint effort. HNIC was bull halsey, so, i 'spose you could say it was directed by the navy, but all the flyboys were army air corp as were their support team.

The F-35 is called the Joint Strike Fighter.

it certainly is. i do believe the reason for this is unlike many previous fighter platforms, this will be used by the navy and the chairforce. it has been done before with the F-4 phantom.