- This topic has 90 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM #16994February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #508445Allan from FallbrookParticipant
We’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.
Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.
February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #509006Allan from FallbrookParticipantWe’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.
Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.
February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #509100Allan from FallbrookParticipantWe’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.
Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.
February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #508594Allan from FallbrookParticipantWe’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.
Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.
February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #509353Allan from FallbrookParticipantWe’re on our way to becoming the most well-armed Third World nation on the planet.
Obama needs to go after the Defense Dept. budget with an ax. Until that happens, he isn’t serious about deficit reduction in my book.
February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #508455CascaParticipantGenerally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.
February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #509016CascaParticipantGenerally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.
February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #509110CascaParticipantGenerally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.
February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #508604CascaParticipantGenerally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.
February 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM #509363CascaParticipantGenerally, you get what you pay for. This is an apples to oranges comparison. We field a technologically intensive force these days. That’s more expensive than the way we used to fight even twenty years ago, but it saves lives, and is more effective. To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.
February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #5086142-stroke tripleParticipantAt the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.
February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #5090262-stroke tripleParticipantAt the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.
February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #5091202-stroke tripleParticipantAt the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.
February 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM #5084652-stroke tripleParticipantAt the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.