OT: One man takes a stand against socialism

[equalizer]

[quote=DataAgent]Defense spending = socialism? Pulleezzzz…

Here… pull my finger.[/quote]
How eloquent.
Have you every read the defence spending bills?
These are all concerns from Gates:
1. Defense budget has doubled in last 10 years. [edit from 50% to 100%]
2. Health care spending is skyrocketing in Defense budget.

Even questionable programs that armed forces don’t want are revived by Democrat Congressman to keep jobs in their state. Isn’t that the definition of Socialism?

Simple question: Are these Congressman the enemy of the state for wasteful spending or is Gates for putting heroes on the street? It’s pretty clear that nearly all Republicans like me believe that Gates needs to retire, maybe in France.

“One of the members of Congress, I’m told, said, ‘Well, why is $3 billion for the alternative engine such a big deal when we’ve got a trillion-dollar deficit?’ I would submit that’s one of the reasons we have a trillion-dollar deficit, is that kind of thinking,” Gates told reporters this month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/16/AR2010051602937.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale]One of the few responsibilities given to the federal government in the Constitution is national defense.[/quote]
So you agree that Democrats in Congress should not let Gates cut defense spending (i.e., put heroes on the street) and should call for his resignation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale]One of the few responsibilities given to the federal government in the Constitution is national defense.[/quote]
So you agree that Democrats in Congress should not let Gates cut defense spending (i.e., put heroes on the street) and should call for his resignation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale]One of the few responsibilities given to the federal government in the Constitution is national defense.[/quote]
So you agree that Democrats in Congress should not let Gates cut defense spending (i.e., put heroes on the street) and should call for his resignation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale]One of the few responsibilities given to the federal government in the Constitution is national defense.[/quote]
So you agree that Democrats in Congress should not let Gates cut defense spending (i.e., put heroes on the street) and should call for his resignation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html

[equalizer]

[quote=meadandale]One of the few responsibilities given to the federal government in the Constitution is national defense.[/quote]
So you agree that Democrats in Congress should not let Gates cut defense spending (i.e., put heroes on the street) and should call for his resignation?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html

[svelte]

[quote=pri_dk]DataAgent:

When you were in the military, did you negotiate your pay, or did the government just tell you what your salary was?

Did you get to shop around for your equipment, choose what you wanted to use? Or did the government just tell you what weapon to carry, or what pack to wear on your back?

When I served, pay was based on rank, plus a few fixed adjustments (e.g. I got hazardous duty pay for airborne.) No negotiations. The government decided what equipment we used, what healthcare we got, even what food we ate.

From an economic perspective, the military I served in had much in common with socialism. [/quote]

Unless you went in prior to 1975 and were drafted, then you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.

[svelte]

[quote=pri_dk]DataAgent:

When you were in the military, did you negotiate your pay, or did the government just tell you what your salary was?

Did you get to shop around for your equipment, choose what you wanted to use? Or did the government just tell you what weapon to carry, or what pack to wear on your back?

When I served, pay was based on rank, plus a few fixed adjustments (e.g. I got hazardous duty pay for airborne.) No negotiations. The government decided what equipment we used, what healthcare we got, even what food we ate.

From an economic perspective, the military I served in had much in common with socialism. [/quote]

Unless you went in prior to 1975 and were drafted, then you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.

[svelte]

[quote=pri_dk]DataAgent:

When you were in the military, did you negotiate your pay, or did the government just tell you what your salary was?

Did you get to shop around for your equipment, choose what you wanted to use? Or did the government just tell you what weapon to carry, or what pack to wear on your back?

When I served, pay was based on rank, plus a few fixed adjustments (e.g. I got hazardous duty pay for airborne.) No negotiations. The government decided what equipment we used, what healthcare we got, even what food we ate.

From an economic perspective, the military I served in had much in common with socialism. [/quote]

Unless you went in prior to 1975 and were drafted, then you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.

[svelte]

[quote=pri_dk]DataAgent:

When you were in the military, did you negotiate your pay, or did the government just tell you what your salary was?

Did you get to shop around for your equipment, choose what you wanted to use? Or did the government just tell you what weapon to carry, or what pack to wear on your back?

When I served, pay was based on rank, plus a few fixed adjustments (e.g. I got hazardous duty pay for airborne.) No negotiations. The government decided what equipment we used, what healthcare we got, even what food we ate.

From an economic perspective, the military I served in had much in common with socialism. [/quote]

Unless you went in prior to 1975 and were drafted, then you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.

[svelte]

[quote=pri_dk]DataAgent:

When you were in the military, did you negotiate your pay, or did the government just tell you what your salary was?

Did you get to shop around for your equipment, choose what you wanted to use? Or did the government just tell you what weapon to carry, or what pack to wear on your back?

When I served, pay was based on rank, plus a few fixed adjustments (e.g. I got hazardous duty pay for airborne.) No negotiations. The government decided what equipment we used, what healthcare we got, even what food we ate.

From an economic perspective, the military I served in had much in common with socialism. [/quote]

Unless you went in prior to 1975 and were drafted, then you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.

[Anonymous]

[quote=svelte][…] you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.[/quote]

I did volunteer, and have no complaints. I actually made out pretty well in my military career.

I have no issue with small amounts of socialism when applied in the right way. The military should be run as a command economy. But we have too much military spending, and for the wrong reasons. In other words, we have too much socialism.

Any government spending that has no value is a bad thing. Giving it the label of “defense” spending doesn’t change this. Using taxpayer funds to build stuff that nobody wants is throwing money away, period.

Lots of people today are griping about government programs, calling them “socialist.” But many of these same people don’t seem to have a problem with growing military spending. The biggest part of the federal budget is getting bigger – for the wrong reasons.

We have a huge component of defense spending that exits just to subsidize the economy. Remember when the USSR claimed 100% employment? How did they pull that off? By making everyone a government employee (many of them military) and paying them to do things that brought no economic value. How did that work out for them in the long run?

We are doing the same thing today in the defense industry. Taxing the public and redistributing the wealth through the military-industrial complex. It is no different than the socialist systems of the USSR and North Korea, but some folks can’t see it that way because they’ve been duped into thinking that labeling the government-controlled defense economy as socialist would somehow be un-American.

The purpose of the military should be defense, not economic stimulus. Our military spending is comparable to the rest of the world combined (including or allies.) There is no conceivable way that this amount of spending is necessary for our protection. The only explanation is that most of it is simply a glorified worker/welfare program.

Many try to rationalize defense spending by exaggerating the terrorist threat. “Hey, we found a lone amateur with a propane bomb in his car – we better build another aircraft carrier to keep us safe!”

Look at the breakdown of the federal budget. There is no mathematical way we can reduce the deficits long-term without massive cuts in defense spending.

I’m glad to see that at least Gates has a clue.

[Anonymous]

[quote=svelte][…] you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.[/quote]

I did volunteer, and have no complaints. I actually made out pretty well in my military career.

I have no issue with small amounts of socialism when applied in the right way. The military should be run as a command economy. But we have too much military spending, and for the wrong reasons. In other words, we have too much socialism.

Any government spending that has no value is a bad thing. Giving it the label of “defense” spending doesn’t change this. Using taxpayer funds to build stuff that nobody wants is throwing money away, period.

Lots of people today are griping about government programs, calling them “socialist.” But many of these same people don’t seem to have a problem with growing military spending. The biggest part of the federal budget is getting bigger – for the wrong reasons.

We have a huge component of defense spending that exits just to subsidize the economy. Remember when the USSR claimed 100% employment? How did they pull that off? By making everyone a government employee (many of them military) and paying them to do things that brought no economic value. How did that work out for them in the long run?

We are doing the same thing today in the defense industry. Taxing the public and redistributing the wealth through the military-industrial complex. It is no different than the socialist systems of the USSR and North Korea, but some folks can’t see it that way because they’ve been duped into thinking that labeling the government-controlled defense economy as socialist would somehow be un-American.

The purpose of the military should be defense, not economic stimulus. Our military spending is comparable to the rest of the world combined (including or allies.) There is no conceivable way that this amount of spending is necessary for our protection. The only explanation is that most of it is simply a glorified worker/welfare program.

Many try to rationalize defense spending by exaggerating the terrorist threat. “Hey, we found a lone amateur with a propane bomb in his car – we better build another aircraft carrier to keep us safe!”

Look at the breakdown of the federal budget. There is no mathematical way we can reduce the deficits long-term without massive cuts in defense spending.

I’m glad to see that at least Gates has a clue.

[Anonymous]

[quote=svelte][…] you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.[/quote]

I did volunteer, and have no complaints. I actually made out pretty well in my military career.

I have no issue with small amounts of socialism when applied in the right way. The military should be run as a command economy. But we have too much military spending, and for the wrong reasons. In other words, we have too much socialism.

Any government spending that has no value is a bad thing. Giving it the label of “defense” spending doesn’t change this. Using taxpayer funds to build stuff that nobody wants is throwing money away, period.

Lots of people today are griping about government programs, calling them “socialist.” But many of these same people don’t seem to have a problem with growing military spending. The biggest part of the federal budget is getting bigger – for the wrong reasons.

We have a huge component of defense spending that exits just to subsidize the economy. Remember when the USSR claimed 100% employment? How did they pull that off? By making everyone a government employee (many of them military) and paying them to do things that brought no economic value. How did that work out for them in the long run?

We are doing the same thing today in the defense industry. Taxing the public and redistributing the wealth through the military-industrial complex. It is no different than the socialist systems of the USSR and North Korea, but some folks can’t see it that way because they’ve been duped into thinking that labeling the government-controlled defense economy as socialist would somehow be un-American.

The purpose of the military should be defense, not economic stimulus. Our military spending is comparable to the rest of the world combined (including or allies.) There is no conceivable way that this amount of spending is necessary for our protection. The only explanation is that most of it is simply a glorified worker/welfare program.

Many try to rationalize defense spending by exaggerating the terrorist threat. “Hey, we found a lone amateur with a propane bomb in his car – we better build another aircraft carrier to keep us safe!”

Look at the breakdown of the federal budget. There is no mathematical way we can reduce the deficits long-term without massive cuts in defense spending.

I’m glad to see that at least Gates has a clue.

[Anonymous]

[quote=svelte][…] you volunteered for that environment where those parameters (fixed pay, healthcare, etc) were well known going in.[/quote]

I did volunteer, and have no complaints. I actually made out pretty well in my military career.

I have no issue with small amounts of socialism when applied in the right way. The military should be run as a command economy. But we have too much military spending, and for the wrong reasons. In other words, we have too much socialism.

Any government spending that has no value is a bad thing. Giving it the label of “defense” spending doesn’t change this. Using taxpayer funds to build stuff that nobody wants is throwing money away, period.

Lots of people today are griping about government programs, calling them “socialist.” But many of these same people don’t seem to have a problem with growing military spending. The biggest part of the federal budget is getting bigger – for the wrong reasons.

We have a huge component of defense spending that exits just to subsidize the economy. Remember when the USSR claimed 100% employment? How did they pull that off? By making everyone a government employee (many of them military) and paying them to do things that brought no economic value. How did that work out for them in the long run?

We are doing the same thing today in the defense industry. Taxing the public and redistributing the wealth through the military-industrial complex. It is no different than the socialist systems of the USSR and North Korea, but some folks can’t see it that way because they’ve been duped into thinking that labeling the government-controlled defense economy as socialist would somehow be un-American.

The purpose of the military should be defense, not economic stimulus. Our military spending is comparable to the rest of the world combined (including or allies.) There is no conceivable way that this amount of spending is necessary for our protection. The only explanation is that most of it is simply a glorified worker/welfare program.

Many try to rationalize defense spending by exaggerating the terrorist threat. “Hey, we found a lone amateur with a propane bomb in his car – we better build another aircraft carrier to keep us safe!”

Look at the breakdown of the federal budget. There is no mathematical way we can reduce the deficits long-term without massive cuts in defense spending.

I’m glad to see that at least Gates has a clue.

[Author]

Posts