• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US can 'no longer drive global growth'

Your obsession with military interventionism is appalling.

This is the wrong thread to profess your beliefs in the matter; the said topic is exogenous vs endogenous growth expectations.
 
The reason military spending is an obvious target as it is the most discretionary large cost we have. The social programs have been woven into the very fabric of our society. You might scale them back for future generations, but there really is very little things you can do with meaningful short-term results. Much like if you lose your job, cutting cable is easy, unloading the house is far more complex.

Ah, but what good does it do to cut the military down only to spend more money beefing them back up when you need them? Or worse, spending more on mercenaries to balance the lack of numbers and calling it Blackwater. Cutting Defense Industry costs doesn't mean cutting military costs. Unfortunately, the first thing politicians and civilians think of is cutting military costs. This is exactly why the military was in bad shape on 9/11 and why so much had to be spent to get it fixed. In the end, cutting the military to save money cost more.

What strikes me odd, is how people continue to insist that cutting military spending will give them their prize. I believe its because its simple and doesn't require any thinking to develop a good economical plan.
 
Your obsession with military interventionism is appalling.

This is the wrong thread to profess your beliefs in the matter; the said topic is exogenous vs endogenous growth expectations.

Well, the thread took a turn by others. I merely jumped in and followed the discusion. As you can see from the thread, nobody's really giving the thread topic any real substance.

Your obsession to pretend that military intervention has not been the only true fix to foriegn problems over the last couple hundred years is pathetic. I guess bombing out Iraq for a decade under Clinton wasn't military intervention? We were already intervening. Might as well do it right. I'm a student of history. Only those who are blind to its truths believe that peace and security comes with a well thought out hand shake and a treaty.

The question here, is why are you so threatened by my posts?
 
Last edited:
I think we can expunge in less time than that, I for one, do not want to hand this country to my kids in the current liberal give me give me condition.

So you'd rather give it to your children the way that Bush left it? I for one don't want to give GW the total blame, because Obama has done nothing to fix it by doling out billions to fix stuff. But, I don't think that this is all caused by liberals, as the right wants to portray. It is caused by the last several administrations to Carter, for deregulatizing Wall Street. This assumption that those that make money will not lie, steal, and cheat is a crock of crap.

I also don't see things getting fixed with the petty partisan bull s*** that is happening everyday. I love this country, I will die for this country, but this country is in trouble, and what's sad we have no leaders Right, Left, Dem, GOP, etc., to get us on track.
 
The reason military spending is an obvious target as it is the most discretionary large cost we have. The social programs have been woven into the very fabric of our society. You might scale them back for future generations, but there really is very little things you can do with meaningful short-term results. Much like if you lose your job, cutting cable is easy, unloading the house is far more complex.

But let's run with your ideas. Tell me exactly how you would cut social spending and what your remedy for its consequences will be. I am tired of this conservative polyanna view of the world. They have quick, but rarely very well thought out answers. I would much rather be a conservative as things are simple to them.

1) What would you cut? and how much?
2) What are the consequences of those cuts? (ie, if you eliminate social security and/or medicare, what happens to our elder population that has 65% of its retirement funding from social security, and what happens to the baby boomers that have no savings..... or do we just have 60% of the population over 65 homeless)
3) What are the remedies for those consequences (how do you deal with that type of social turmoil)?

It is very, very difficult to balance a budget in a recession, as by definition tax revenues are very low, so you are cutting the government below standard operating levels. That kind of drastic cut during a recession also tends to compound the problem, and is generally thought to be the wrong thing to do in recession. I am all for balancing a budget, but it needs to be balanced consistent with a normal run-rate.

I am tired of conservative criticism without a conservative solutions (real solutions, not high-level fantasy).... get off your high horse and get to work. You can start here:

Budget of the United States Government: Browse

Or, for a simple version:

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

post of the year!
that should be required reading
 
We can't get the hell out and future Presidents don't have a choice. Reagan denied our responsibilities and left them for Bush. Bush denied our responsibilities and left them for Clinton. Clinton looked for ways to depose of Hussein and wound up merely bombing him 4 times. And when 9/11 happened, people were actually shocked that our lack of responsibility came back to haunt us. What shall we deny today that will only kill more Americans later? From one president to the next, all they did was cater to the civilian's sense of "peace" by pretending that problems will fix themselves.

The military has never lost the will to fight. It's civilians that have done this and ruined every outcome since WWII. In this war, we weren't satisfied with just chasing the dictator's army back to his borders to contain him. We finished it so that it wouldn't linger into a political mess. But this is where we stopped finishing things. Korea was merely split in half and we deal with a nuclear rogue North Korea today. Vietnam was vacated only to usher in genocide. The Gulf War was half assed and merely put on hold for a later date. We vacated Somalia only to have to deal with Somali piracy in international waters later. Bosnia has been made safe for human trafficers and gun runners and merely awaits to commence round 2.

The greatest problem plaguing the Middle East and African nations is bad borders and corruption. As long as they remain, we will have to be involved. As long as the Kurds are split between 4 nations who encourage rebellion and uprising, we will have to be involved. As long as Saudi stability matters, we will have to be involved. As long as Israel remains, we will have to be involved. As long as Iran seeks nuclear power, we will have to be involved. And best believe that as soon as the tribes of the Middle East begin their nuclear "Cold War," the entire world will want us to be involved.

Everybody thinks in the now as if tomorrow will fix itself. It's like looking at your check engine light for months and waiting until the engine won't start to pull out the check book. In the end, its the military that pays in blood.

Agreed on all points...with Iraq. Afterall Iraq is the heart of the caliphate but Astan, is a different animal. To continue killing 1sies and 2sies with multimillion dollar machines because, the Taliban had bad house guests a couple of years ago will not any difference. AQ has left there a long time ago plus B Laden is dead.

Why continue this obsession of nation building in places like Astan where it won't do any good because nothing is going to be settled.

Seriously, anybody that thinks we are going to make a core or even seam state out of A-stan needs to re-think that idea. A high percentage of Americans don't give 2 ****s who governs A-stan just like AQ doesnt think either. Astan is not even a spec on the map of this war.

So, why are we still there?
 
Oh, and before you get teary-eyed on me. Call me cold hearted, but if I am to choose between a carrier battle group and helping fight AIDS in Africa...I'll take the carrier. Screw Africa

Says the person who thinks America should fuel world growth.
 
Well, the thread took a turn by others. I merely jumped in and followed the discusion. As you can see from the thread, nobody's really giving the thread topic any real substance.

You replied to a military expenditure comment with multiple reasons "we" should be thankful of the US armed forces. I find it odd that's all :shrug:

Your obsession to pretend that military intervention has not been the only true fix to foriegn problems over the last couple hundred years is pathetic.

Again, not my argument and not the appropriate thread.

I guess bombing out Iraq for a decade under Clinton wasn't military intervention?

When in this thread do you see me defending Clinton foreign policy, or labeling it as non interventionist?

We were already intervening. Might as well do it right. I'm a student of history. Only those who are blind to its truths believe that peace and security comes with a well thought out hand shake and a treaty.

Ok, so you are calling for armed invasions of both Iran and North Korea as well. Good to know, however highly off topic.

The question here, is why are you so threatened by my posts?

Threatened? I felt it was odd that's all.
 
Says the person who thinks America should fuel world growth.

I have no idea what that last bit has to do with anything. You're starting to sound like a lib.

I´m just sayin, we have no business setting up enormous bases and flooding thousands of troops in anywhere and quit, the notion of nation building in places where it won't do any good. It's counter-productive.

Thats all
 
Seriously, anybody that thinks we are going to make a core or even seam state out of A-stan needs to re-think that idea. A high percentage of Americans don't give 2 ****s who governs A-stan just like AQ doesnt think either. Astan is not even a spec on the map of this war.

So, why are we still there?

Beacuse a corrupt government that denies Al-Queda and the Tali-Ban is better than a corrupt government that doesn't. Culture is fate. This region breeds corruption and it is largely due to the bad borders and tribal divides. This is there problem. Our problem is denying our enemies a home. Al-Queda is wrecked. All of their accounts are frozen. No Arab nation will entertain them. Other terrorist organizations won't go near them. And Iran could care less about the welfare of the Sunni organization. All they have is a handful of converts or outsider Muslims in Europe or America that ignorantly choose to occassionally use their broken image to prove loyalty to Islam. But the Tali-Ban's ability to persevere is a threat. No matter how corrupt or screwed up Afghanistan's government is, it can't be allowed to give them back power.
 
You replied to a military expenditure comment with multiple reasons "we" should be thankful of the US armed forces. I find it odd that's all :shrug:

I think this is because you don't understand what I stated. I thought I was clear. Cutting military expenditure throughout the 90s was more expensive come 9/11 when money had to be poured into fixing the military and replacing their lack of numbers with Blackwater mercenaries. How did all that work out? This was my point. I stated absolutely nothing about any of you being thankful for anything (you may try to prove otherwise since the posts are recorded for all to see). I merely followed the discussion. My posts centered around pulling your heads out of your asses in order to recognize that the default of raping the military between wars has been stupid and contradictory to the goal.

Ok, so you are calling for armed invasions of both Iran and North Korea as well. Good to know, however highly off topic.

Armed invasion of Iran and North Korea would be stupid. The diplomats have talked us past the point of invasion. We have a nuclear Cold War in the Middle East ahead of us now. Thank a politician and the dimwitted idea that the "military should be a last resort." The problem with this is that only ahandful of Washington suits even no when that last resort is. This is why we pass it repeatedly and make the situations harder for our military than they have tobe.

......But I stated nothing of invading Iran or North Korea. Who's off topic now? Most threads are off topic. That's what actual discussion does. Notice how you followed the discussion as I did before you took it upon yourself to referee? Back off.

Threatened? I felt it was odd that's all.

No, you felt it personal to referee my posts, which were in response to others, which you didn't referee.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what that last bit has to do with anything. You're starting to sound like a lib.

I´m just sayin, we have no business setting up enormous bases and flooding thousands of troops in anywhere and quit, the notion of nation building in places where it won't do any good. It's counter-productive.

Thats all

The "we broke it now we have to fix it" motto has been ridiculous. Nation building is senseless when dealing with divided populations based on tribe and religion.
 
.No matter how corrupt or screwed up Afghanistan's government is, it can't be allowed to give them back power.

If we pull out and they take over again, so what? The old regime comes back, they will not be in a hurry to help Al Qaeda. AQ ran out on them like ******s and left them to die and if they cause a problem, you hammer them again.

We've gone back many times before..
 
If we pull out and they take over again, so what? The old regime comes back, they will not be in a hurry to help Al Qaeda. AQ ran out on them like ******s and left them to die and if they cause a problem, you hammer them again.

We've gone back many times before..

Nuclear power is a Middle Eastern guarantee. Our security, and that of our allies, will be greatly diminished if the Saddam Husseins and the Tali-Bans have control. It's bad enough we have an Amenedejad and an Iranian Majlis about to have parades with nuclear missiles on display.

Tribes with guns have proven horribly deadly in this region. Imagine these tribes splitting atoms. No destruction is too great for God.
 
Last edited:
There are a handful of politicians (McCain, Gramm, Warner, Lieberman, and others) who routinely block the outdated Defense Industry programs while their select General or Admiral lobbies for the next toy. And President Obama obviously has somebody wise in his ear considering the quickness the F/A-22 went to bed. But, I don't see politicians admitting that they were wrong about cutting the military numbers. President Bush was all about killing our numbers. President Clinton was fond of it as well as he rode the backs of the military from one MOOTW to the next while promoting the privatization of the military. The result is President Bush's (Rumsfeld's really) Blackwater and a broken bank.

Until they acknowledge how wrong they have been the problem will persist. Unfortunately, Washington has become a non-military member's club. How can people - who have deemed themselves too good to serve - know anything about what to fix in these regards? All they hear is some civilian in a suit or some General about to retire telling them that "nothing is too good for our troops." This is true of course, but what they give us isn't good enough. They have a history of providing toys for wars they want us to fight rather than the wars we are going to fight. Money gets wasted and China still hasn't attacked. In the mean time, our troops needed body armor and NBC suits in 2003. No money for such things, but here's another 10 F/A-22s that won't be used in either Iraq or Afghanistan (because they are too expensive to risk).
It come back to allowing corporations to directly lobbying our govt instead of making these corporations and lobbyists have too educate and lobby the electorate. The people who vote on these things stand to profit from their votes w/o regard to the effects upon the nation as whole or in the long term.
Much easier to buy a select few people in particular positions of influence than to sell bad ideas in the public marketplace of ideas.
 
Thats all nice when you have a true leader behind the troops, but with Obama, the limited rules of engagement that are forced on our troops in Astan is sending men to fight without authorizing them the tools to fight with is just losing lives needlessly. In order to win there our government has to want to win no matter what the costs. Thats why, I believe it is best to pull out the ground troops and bomb the holy crap of every position where a Taliban is believed to be embedded. Many civs will die, buts thats war....You kill until the enemy suffers so many losses they just give up and give up without conditions.
That plan worked very well for the Soviets. Why wouldn't we want to pursue the same glorious victory that the USSR achieved?
 
It come back to allowing corporations to directly lobbying our govt instead of making these corporations and lobbyists have too educate and lobby the electorate. The people who vote on these things stand to profit from their votes w/o regard to the effects upon the nation as whole or in the long term.
Much easier to buy a select few people in particular positions of influence than to sell bad ideas in the public marketplace of ideas.

Absolutely and there is just no fix. I see a social class system with this. Washington used to be full of WWII and Korean War vets. So was Hollywood. Today there is a very bold line of separation drawn between Washington and the military. Hollywood makes sappy "woe is me" films about the destroyed military psyche or the Washington's disassociation of what is and is not good for our defense.

Let's save 500,000 dollars by not paying the salaries of 5,000 professional troops, but spend 50 billion dollars on another toy we don't need. Not enough troops to fight in Iraq now? Let's spend another 50 million dollars on a Black Water organization to offer the illusion of numbers. Didn't save any money by cutting down the military did we? All because people don't know the difference between the military and the Defense Industry. It's frustrating and intellectually retarded.
 
Last edited:
I think this is because you don't understand what I stated. I thought I was clear. Cutting military expenditure throughout the 90s was more expensive come 9/11 when money had to be poured into fixing the military and replacing their lack of numbers with Blackwater mercenaries. How did all that work out? This was my point. I stated absolutely nothing about any of you being thankful for anything (you may try to prove otherwise since the posts are recorded for all to see). I merely followed the discussion. My posts centered around pulling your heads out of your asses in order to recognize that the default of raping the military between wars has been stupid and contradictory to the goal.

In a thread about US and world economic growth, someone says military budgets should be cut, and instantly you build a massive soap box to spew speculations such as "the budget cuts in the 1990's caused 911", etc....

Armed invasion of Iran and North Korea would be stupid. The diplomats have talked us past the point of invasion. We have a nuclear Cold War in the Middle East ahead of us now. Thank a politician and the dimwitted idea that the "military should be a last resort." The problem with this is that only ahandful of Washington suits even no when that last resort is. This is why we pass it repeatedly and make the situations harder for our military than they have tobe.

Just following the line of logic you employed in previous posts. Don't want to allow Iran and NK to stir up WWIII now do we? Preemptive war discussions are for a different thread/sub-forum.

......But I stated nothing of invading Iran or North Korea. Who's off topic now? Most threads are off topic. That's what actual discussion does. Notice how you followed the discussion as I did before you took it upon yourself to referee? Back off.

How about you stop acting like a weirdo every time someone begins discussing military budget cuts?

No, you felt it personal to referee my posts, which were in response to others, which you didn't referee.

Nobody else goes on super rants every time a "conflict of interest" arises and turns a discussion about global growth into a discussion regarding military conflict. Like i said before, not only is it odd, its ****ing weird....
 
As a red-blooded American I must say I'm so glad we spent $300million on an airshow airplane. And $300million x 186 on a set of paperweight/Red Flag Cheat Mode planes
 
Billions can be saved by stream lining the Defense Industry. Putting the brakes on the F/A-22 was a start.

I think being light years ahead of the world in air defense/attack is well worth the money. Americans have lived so long under the protection of an invincible Navy and Air Force that they cannot comprehend looking to the seas and skies with fear or apprehension.

NASA, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, all of them should get more money. Peace through strength.
 
That plan worked very well for the Soviets. Why wouldn't we want to pursue the same glorious victory that the USSR achieved?

The Taliban are getting better and better at guerrilla warfare. They are adapting to our tactics, techniques and procedures much faster than we can change them.

Sending more US troops will only give them more targets while providing more opportunities for incidents that turn the population in their favor?

Even without tincidents nobody....I mean NOBODY wants MORE foreign troops in their backyard.

We should just pull out and see what happens.
 

OK, that's a given, but not earth shattering news. There is a huge difference between the 1990's, when the US was the only major superpower, and today, which features a multipolar paradigm. We are going to have to give and receive cooperation with the Eurozone, Russia, China, South America, and all the other powers, and emerging powers out there. The fact that we can't go it alone any more is an understatement.
 
Right now it does.

And with improvements in technology (innovation does fairly well in relatively free markets) this will change. Either way, I'd rather have a little more pollution and global warming than over a billion people living on less than $1 a day, and drinking out of cholera infected streams. If the planet is going down the toilet, it will be far easier to deal with when you are developed.

Capitalist economies are still the lynch pin.

And the Soviet Union also used a lot of energy. Even if capitalists are the lynch pin now, they at least have more running water.
 
Absolutely and there is just no fix. I see a social class system with this. Washington used to be full of WWII and Korean War vets. So was Hollywood. Today there is a very bold line of separation drawn between Washington and the military. Hollywood makes sappy "woe is me" films about the destroyed military psyche or the Washington's disassociation of what is and is not good for our defense.

Let's save 500,000 dollars by not paying the salaries of 5,000 professional troops, but spend 50 billion dollars on another toy we don't need. Not enough troops to fight in Iraq now? Let's spend another 50 million dollars on a Black Water organization to offer the illusion of numbers. Didn't save any money by cutting down the military did we? All because people don't know the difference between the military and the Defense Industry. It's frustrating and intellectually retarded.
A good start on fixing things would be to prohibit artificial persons from directly lobbying our govt. If they have a case to make, have them make it to the electorate.
The defense industry is a big one, but it's not the only pig at that trough. Along with American business corporations, multiple foreign interests have Washington lobbying arms. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress is a famous example of the potentially terrible consequences of the system as is.

This particular systemic issue will do more harm to our country than any internal political group or external enemy.
 
I got a better idea Simon. Since SCOTUS effectively stated that non-person entities have 1st amendment rights, why not let the vote or hold office?

Microsoft for Governor of Washington! Why not? After all, they pay taxes and have rights of people. I say we either ban them entirely, or let them act like people.

C'mon, it would be funny at least as a satirical attack as to why to let such entities influence elections.
 
Back
Top Bottom