- This topic has 90 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM #16994February 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM #508445
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantWe’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 Fallbrook
ParticipantWe’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 Fallbrook
ParticipantWe’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 Fallbrook
ParticipantWe’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 Fallbrook
ParticipantWe’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 #508455Casca
ParticipantGenerally, 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 #509016Casca
ParticipantGenerally, 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 #509110Casca
ParticipantGenerally, 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 #508604Casca
ParticipantGenerally, 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 #509363Casca
ParticipantGenerally, 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 triple
ParticipantAt 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 triple
ParticipantAt 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 triple
ParticipantAt 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 triple
ParticipantAt 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.