Perry in debate: Lets throw Science "OUT THE DOOR"

Do you deny anything they have said. Originally Posted by WTF

The "War Resisters League" analysis of "military spending" was "enough" for me. I wouldn't put much stock in Minnie Mouse's analysis either.

Does the word "bias" come to mind?

40 to 50 years ago I had to endure the likes of Jane Fonda and John Kerry, so I am not impressed with the WRL ... because in today's international environment it is unhealthy to maintain an inferior and degraded military. Just ask Gladafy.

The truth is that if this country didn't have a strong military historically, then the "WRL" ... Jane and John ... and you, btw, wouldn't be able to whine about all the dough that is spent in the U.S. maintaining the military through research, development, and manufacturing

for which I am opposed to outsourcing btw .. like "chips" from Japan and lids from China.

WTF, lets you and me agree on just one thing. I believe in deterrence through strength, readiness, and most importantly willingness, .... you don't. I believe that weakness and unwillingness cause conflict .. and you don't. The attacks yesterday in Kabul, IMO, demonstrate just that ... wimpie's downsizing and retreat ... in the face of substantial losses generates that kind of response from people who believe in power and strength and respect it.

"Charlestudor" that is so Rick Perry! Oh, and Social Security which was signed by President President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 is not a "Ponzi Scheme"! I mean come on 76 years in existence and now Perry says it's a "Ponzi Scheme"! Come on, it's been in existence for over 7 decades and it shall continue on.

... it's been in existence for over 7 decades and it shall continue on. Originally Posted by Ray007

He (Perry) said it would continue.

I wasn't actually present when Roosevelt signed it, but it is my understanding from "history" that it was never intended to be a piggy bank for Congress, and stuffed full of IOU's. That's the "ponzi" part of the scheme.

Can we agree to disagree on the Ponzi scheme description while I think it is accurate the argument accomplshes nothing. Can we agree that Congesses for the past 30 years have squandered the surplus and that Social Security will have to be changed as a result. Can we agree that it would be best to transition to a program where the taxes contributed for social security go into an account for you that Congress has no access to.

WTF

How much defense spending do you feel is appropriate. I believe you have had posts showing that we cannot go bak to the days of beating plowshare into swords due to the complexity of weapons. History has shown weakness invites wars. Given that how much do you feel is acceptable?

Not if you do not fear God, maybe this is where we part ways

I just finished reading , "Empire of the Summer Moon" , you would be a disgrace to your people. Originally Posted by WTF

Really? Go figure another eurotype correcting
me. I have to tread lightly here. As it is if my
SO stumbled across this bbs on her own
I would be fairly easy for her to figure out.
So I can't say too much more without
signing away all plausable deniability.

Heck my vocabulary alone has me sticking out
like a sore thumb. I just can't bubba it up.

There were only 3 true first nations.
A nation must have a capitol.
In the new world there were only 3 capitols.
Technotitlan
Cuzco
Palenque

You and the jungle rat who wrote that book
know nothing of my ancestors.
The majority of natives who call themselves
Children of the Sun are descendents of the very rats
my ancestors fed to their snake god.

I do not speak the tongue that my ancestors heard
as they were being decimated.

To the contrary I know my ancestors would be proud.
My sons are warrior priests in the tradition
of the Jaguars. My daughters are chaste maidens
of the Lord. They tell me I am evil but they
love me anyway.

As for the Lord Himself.
I can no more deny the sun in the sky,
or the nose on my face.
I have seen His hand at work right in front
of my eyes- many times. Lots of weird things.
I am never truly alone.
I am the wandering black sheep whom his
shepherd evidently loves dearly.

I have lost count of how many times
the path before me was swept clear.
Delivered from the hands of mine enemies.
Same enemies left in disarray and confusion.
Be it civies or cops.
A friend who thought I was overstating
coincidences was convinced when he
saw it happen in front of him.

You don't believe in Him; to me that says
He doesn't believe in you. The Lord doesn't
like everyone equally. He blesses whom He will.
I have no idea what He sees in me, nothing
that special, quite a sinner actually.
Doesn't matter thus far.

The Shepherd guards His wandering sheep.
The wolves never come close.

WTF

How much defense spending do you feel is appropriate. I believe you have had posts showing that we cannot go bak to the days of beating plowshare into swords due to the complexity of weapons. History has shown weakness invites wars. Given that how much do you feel is acceptable? Originally Posted by Laz

That would depend on how much we want to spend. You do realize that warring nation lose their way when the cost of war exceeds it loot. In other words that is a philosophical question. I am only dealing with the math portion. I am showing people where the money is going.

Take for instance.....if the role were reversed. Say the SS tax was actually a military tax. Set up solely for the Defense Department. Now say that it had run a huge surplus and we had been funding SS through Federal Tax's every year but not taxing near enough to cover the bill. We had taken money from the military tax and left IOU's. . Would anyone in their right mind not say that we need to raise taxes on SS or cut benefits or both?

Or would we do like most are doing now....which is blaming the military tax that has been running in the black as the culprit. That is WTF people are doing with SS. They are blaming the wrong thing IMHO. We have put the military spending on credit.

Think outside the box my brother!

That would depend on how much we want to spend. You do realize that warring nation lose their way when the cost of war exceeds it loot. In other words that is a philosophical question. I am only dealing with the math portion. I am showing people where the money is going.

Take for instance.....if the role were reversed. Say the SS tax was actually a military tax. Set up solely for the Defense Department. Now say that it had run a huge surplus and we had been funding SS through Federal Tax's every year but not taxing near enough to cover the bill. We had taken money from the military tax and left IOU's. . Would anyone in their right mind not say that we need to raise taxes on SS or cut benefits or both?

Or would we do like most are doing now....which is blaming the military tax that has been running in the black as the culprit. That is WTF people are doing with SS. They are blaming the wrong thing IMHO. We have put the military spending on credit.

Think outside the box my brother! Originally Posted by WTF

For the sake of this discussion I will concede that the SS surplus was spent by the military. However, some portion of that amount was the most important function of the Federal Government. National Defense. The question that needs to be answered then is what portion of the military spending was appropriate. If the excess military spending is the only thing that used up the surplus you might have a valid argument. But if it not then you need to acknowledge that military spending is not the only problem. This discussion does not even address the deficit spending above and beyond the SS surplus and there is no way that can all be placed at the foot of the military.

As far as loot I wish we would start insisting that the nations we assist respect us enough to give as an advantage in business negotiations within their borders. I am tired of us spending billions of dollars in an attempt to leave them better off when we leave than they were when we arrived and getting no respect for it. As much as I believe in trying to help those that cannot accomplish freedom without assistance I am starting to question the wisdom of providing the assistance.

We have put the military spending on credit. Originally Posted by WTF

One must separate developement and maintenance from "war" expenditures. One can "budget" for developing and improving weapon systems in anticipation of conflicts, along with maintaining the existing personnel and materiel, but one cannot accurately "anticipate" a war, and particularly one that has an extended time frame.

So the "war" is funded through special appropriations based on short term predictions, which necessarily requires credit to fund. Having made adequate budget appropriations for development and maintainance can reduce the unexpected special appropriations. Anti-war/military folks, as yourself, already complain (with the help of the media) when "war plans" are discovered regarding particular countries or areas of the world that were not seen as hostile. If one started a build up with excessive funding in the budget it can be (and is) seen internationally as hostile and a preparation for an intended initiative that is misinterpreted perhaps.

For the sake of this discussion I will concede that the SS surplus was spent by the military. However, some portion of that amount was the most important function of the Federal Government. National Defense. The question that needs to be answered then is what portion of the military spending was appropriate. If the excess military spending is the only thing that used up the surplus you might have a valid argument. But if it not then you need to acknowledge that military spending is not the only problem. This discussion does not even address the deficit spending above and beyond the SS surplus and there is no way that can allbe placed at the foot of the military.

. Originally Posted by Laz

Laz, you are not reading the fine print in the link I provided. It does not the blame on the military, place all just the ratio we spend on the military. That seems fair. After all , why should interest from war be charged to general fund. I love transparency. Try and break it down and then have an honest discussion on costs. It is a fair question, Do we want to help seniors or do we want a bunch of poor elderly folks marching on Washington like the WWI vets did. Poor as fuc but lookie, we have a strong Defense!


*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated.

As far as loot I wish we would start insisting that the nations we assist respect us enough to give as an advantage in business negotiations within their borders. I am tired of us spending billions of dollars in an attempt to leave them better off when we leave than they were when we arrived and getting no respect for it. As much as I believe in trying to help those that cannot accomplish freedom without assistance I am starting to question the wisdom of providing the assistance. Originally Posted by Laz

Now you are starting to understand just wtf a military is for. If we are not going to loot other countries, then we will go broke policing the world for free.

As it is...our military benifits a small segment of society. We could have a tenth of what we have and nobody would invade us. I sure the flip ain't worried about Mexico or Canada.

So I can't say too much more without
signing away all plausable deniability.


You and the jungle rat who wrote that book
know nothing of my ancestors.
The majority of natives who call themselves
Children of the Sun are descendents of the very rats
my ancestors fed to their snake god.

I do not speak the tongue that my ancestors heard
as they were being decimated.

. Originally Posted by anaximander

No your tongue is forked and speak's out both sides of your ass.

If your wife stumbled on this site and could not know it was you from wtf you posted, then you got more trouble than convincing honest folks to give to your favorite charity nation.

Without us, there would be no country for you to worship.

All I care about is the oil over there.

I worship no land.
Just pussy and God.
I know He isn't pleased.
I will answer to Him alone.

The US didn't create Israel.
Unless you're a transplanted Brit,
that comment like so many others
made little sense.

Oil? To hell with opec oil.
The US has greater reserve potential
than saudi and iraqi holdings combined.
Fuggin democrap-econazi's won't
let this generation develop it.

This is the 21st century.
A nation with a good economy and solid
industrial base can afford war footing
almost indefinitely depending on types
of conflicts involved.
On a certain level our hardware costs
as much just to have it as it does to use it.
The cost of a combat active carrier task group
over a similar task force just sailing is little
more than a rounding error.

You spend as much wind getting our enemies
to disarm then I might consider you more than
a crypto-marxist blatherskite.

Others who believe the US military should be
scaled back
Commonwealth of Independent States
Peoples Republic of China
Venezuela
Cuba
Iran
Syria
North Korea
Yeah birds of a feather

Perry is not alone in doubting the current "popular theory" of "global warming".

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1664901#post1664901

We didn't create it, we maintain it.

It is the proverbial fuc'n tail that wags the dog.


As to all your other nonsense...to police the world we need to get paid or we will go broke, just like every other Empire before us or any that come after.

It is basic math 101

Laz, you are not reading the fine print in the link I provided. It does not the blame on the military, place all just the ratio we spend on the military. That seems fair. After all , why should interest from war be charged to general fund. I love transparency. Try and break it down and then have an honest discussion on costs. It is a fair question, Do we want to help seniors or do we want a bunch of poor elderly folks marching on Washington like the WWI vets did. Poor as fuc but lookie, we have a strong Defense!


*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated.


Now you are starting to understand just wtf a military is for. If we are not going to loot other countries, then we will go broke policing the world for free.

As it is...our military benifits a small segment of society. We could have a tenth of what we have and nobody would invade us. I sure the flip ain't worried about Mexico or Canada. Originally Posted by WTF

What I am trying to get to is what is reasonable for the military budget. 100% is too high but 10% is way too low. I am not worried about defending attacks from Mexico or Canada. It is the rest of the world that concerns me especially since I have a son in the army. I want him to have plenty of support.

The historical blame of why we are where we are today may be interesting but it does not solve anything. What is important is where do we go from here. It will be interesting if a liberal and a conservative can agree.