Russia vs Ukraine Cagematch

[BB390fe]

2 days and no-one has commented on the Russians "Policing/Invasion" of the Crimea and the fact this could lead to a bit of trouble?

( I would mention that certain govt people are trying to get the military cut down below pre WWII levels but- I really guess I don't have to...)

 

I suppose we'll just wait and see what Tuesday brings.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

 

I suppose we'll just wait and see what Tuesday brings.

 

 

Tuesday? Fat Tuesday? Well we all know what THAT means...........

 

 

 

Paczkis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wikipedia page for Paczkis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See how that works? Distraction........oldest play in the book.

Uprising in Ukraine knocks Obamacare off the front pages.

Edited March 3, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[FiredMotorCompany]

Reading his comments immediately brought to mind a similar oratory.

See if you can recognize the similarities and then try to identify the two speakers.

 

 

 

Speaker A

“I think we can relate this back to education, and how we are continuing to try to strive … to …," she began, before pausing.
" .... figure out how to create jobs right now. That is the biggest problem and I think, especially the men are … um … seen as the leaders of this, and so we need to try to figure out how to create education better so that we can solve this problem. Thank you.”

Speaker B

“I think those who believe that two years ago, or three years ago, there was some swift resolution to this thing had we acted more forcefully, fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the conflict in Syria and the conditions on the ground there. … Over the last two years I have pushed our teams to find out what are the best options in a bad situation. … But I’ve looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem. And those who make that claim do so without a lot of very specific information.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaker A:

'Create education better': Miss Utah's rambling answer on gender pay gap

:June 18, 2013 Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaker B:

 

If He Believes It, It Must Be So-Obama's scary interview.

[Edstock]

RUSSIAN GAS SUPPLIERS MAP

 

That's quite a map of market forces.

 

As usual, things are more complicated than they appear, and that shows some big-buck considerations behind what a lot of Foreign Offices are doing and saying. Part of 3P: Putin's Power Play, is the fact that Russia has been keeping a lot of people from freezing at discounted prices, too. I'm not a Putin admirer, he's part of the Russian problem, and he may have stepped in a cow-pie with this. We'll know, soon enough.

[Imawhosure]

After getting rolled by the Syrians, Chinese, and Iranians; I have a vote of "no confidence' in Obama.

[cal50]

After getting rolled by the Syrians, Chinese, and Iranians; I have a vote of "no confidence' in Obama.

 

Obama thinks you can talk and get results Vs Putin that is old school Russia / KGB that twisted arms / killed people to get what they wanted.

 

Its about time for another vacation, he does less damage on the golf course than playing with the economy or foreign affairs.

[Hugh]

Well, it's a definite fly in the ointment for Ford's investments in Russia.

 

According to Russian Times, they have a case for this annexation of the Crimean region and frankly there's not a lot the western world can do at the moment. If Putin wants a split from the G8 and think he can create his own sphere of influence, go for it. We'll see how long he'll last.

 

Personally, I find this move repugnant but again, not a heck of a lot that can be done in a region which welcomed the Russians in.

[the_spaniard]

 

( I would mention that certain govt people are trying to get the military cut down below pre WWII levels but- I really guess I don't have to...)

 

 

The military should be cut back to pre-WWII levels. Democrats and republicans support this.

 

The military is quite possibly the most wasteful organization in the history of this country. As Sen.Tom Coburn pointed out, the $7-billion dollars spent destroying military hardware (rather than shipping it back or selling it) in Iraq/Afghanistan is just one example. Most of the highest ticket items in his annual book of wasteful government spending are linked to our military. I don't like the guy and rarely agree with him, but I think he is on to something here.

 

Total cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars currently estimated at $4-6 trillion, most of which has not been paid yet. They are the most expensive wars in US history. Future payments to injured and disabled veterans will be astronomical. To give you an idea on how bad it will be, payments to cover the medical costs of Vietnam and the first Gulf War veterans are still rising.

 

We are trying to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so we are drawing down our forces as we always do after a conflict. That is a good thing.

 

The face of warfare and international relations has changed since the cold war. It is generally accepted that large-scale conventional warfare is in no ones best interests (aside from the military contractors). Hence more reliance on small-scale covert special-operations missions and supposedly coordinated, accurate drone strikes.

 

Intimidation with a large conventional force is pretty much unnecessary. Does anyone really think Putin is going to stand-down over threats of boots on the ground with China supposedly in agreement to his actions? It's a misstep for Putin, but he is no idiot. Sanctions are going to sting, but he has a lot of cards to play to be a pain in the ass while they do. The last thing the US wants is a Russia with no economic options given they are still sitting on thousands of nuclear weapons. Not that they would use them, but a fire-sale to any interested party in the region isn't exactly in our best interests either.

 

58% of the American people opposed direct action (boots on the ground) in Syria. I doubt that number would change much for any direct involvement in this Russian mess. Americans are tired of war, and rightfully so.

 

The military is no sacred cow. We will cut spending for the homeless, jobless, education and research before we touch military spending. That is a national disgrace.

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[BlackHorse]

 

The military should be cut back to pre-WWII levels. Democrats and republicans support this.

 

The military is quite possibly the most wasteful organization in the history of this country. As Sen.Tom Coburn pointed out, the $7-billion dollars spent destroying military hardware (rather than shipping it back or selling it) in Iraq/Afghanistan is just one example. Most of the highest ticket items in his annual book of wasteful government spending are linked to our military. I don't like the guy and rarely agree with him, but I think he is on to something here.

 

We are trying to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so we are drawing down our forces as we always do after a conflict.

 

The face of warfare and international relations has changed since the cold war. It is generally accepted that large-scale conventional warfare is in no ones best interests (aside from the military contractors). Hence more reliance on small-scale covert special-operations missions and supposedly coordinated, accurate drone strikes.

 

Intimidation with a large conventional force is pretty much unnecessary. Does anyone really think Putin is going to stand-down over threats of boots on the ground with China supposedly in agreement to his actions? It's a misstep for Putin, but he is no idiot. Sanctions are going to sting, but he has a lot of cards to play to be a pain in the ass while they do. The last thing the US wants is a Russia with no economic options given they are still sitting on thousands of nuclear weapons. Not that they would use them, but a fire-sale to any interested party in the region isn't exactly in our best interests either.

 

58% of the American people opposed direct action (boots on the ground) in Syria. I doubt that number would change much for any direct involvement in this Russian mess. Americans are tired of war, and rightfully so.

 

 

If you wan't to talk about billions of tax dollars wasted let us first look at the billions we waste on welfare and food stamps as we pay able bodied people who don't have a job BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT A JOB. They are perfectly content to leach off of the working class in this country while they trade food stamps for liquor. The fraud and waste in the food stamp / welfare arena dwarfs anything the military is guilty of wasting. At least the military gives us a viable service and provides a place for people to get a job. The only thing the food stamp / welfare waste has given us is a large number of lazy and pathetic parasites on our society.

[the_spaniard]

 

 

If you wan't to talk about billions of tax dollars wasted let us first look at the billions we waste on welfare and food stamps as we pay able bodied people who don't have a job BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT A JOB. They are perfectly content to leach off of the working class in this country while they trade food stamps for liquor. The fraud and waste in the food stamp / welfare arena dwarfs anything the military is guilty of wasting. At least the military gives us a viable service and provides a place for people to get a job. The only thing the food stamp / welfare waste has given us is a large number of lazy and pathetic parasites on our society.

 

Once again, the broad stroke simplification of a complex issue. What you need to realize is that many people on these programs want jobs, and would prefer to work as opposed to being given a handout. Have you ever met people in these programs? How many people do you know on government assistance? From Compton, CA to the pueblo in Zuni, AZ, the Appalachian people of Kentucky, to Southwest D.C. these people are not all leeches. Of the 15% of our population on food stamps, 47% are under the age of 18. How about all the college students and military families on food stamps? They leeches too?

 

Think of the damage done to the presidential campaign of little wooden boy Mitt Romney when he blanket labeled and denigrated the people on these programs. It can be argued it cost him the presidency. Yet you still continue with this tired rhetoric.

 

Is there waste and abuse of these programs? Absolutely. Do they need fixed? You bet. But please point to me the study that shows all (or even a majority) of the people that receive these benefits are fraudulent government leeches. Then ask yourself why these people had to get on these programs in the first place. It's not the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It has to be people want free stuff.

 

Those blanket statements you make do little to minimize your status a conservative extremist. Simplification of an issue for easy digestion, then repeat as spoon-fed.

 

Take food out of someone's mouth rather than cut military spending we don't need. Thank God you don't consider yourself a Christian.

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[cal50]

 

Take food out of someone's mouth rather than cut military spending we don't need. Thank God you don't consider yourself a Christian.

 

Exactly how many people have starved to death in the united states last year or perhaps the last decade ????

 

In all honesty if the person does not need the food and is committing fraud its actually worse than military spending. In general military spending does put people to work hopefully here domestically.

Military contracts = skilled jobs in manufacturing and other support fields.

 

Waste is waste and corporate welfare waste is just as bad as social welfare waste. I do not want people to starve and I do not want to spend any money we do not have, on anything.

 

If you really want to cut some spending lets start with congressional staffing, travel , housing, transportation and offices for a start then move over to the house.

[Langston Hughes]

After getting rolled by the Syrians, Chinese, and Iranians; I have a vote of "no confidence' in Obama.

 

You mean after getting no support from republicans concerning Syria, as that was what happened. Congressional republicans made the US look weak because they wanted to damage Obama. They got it.

[Langston Hughes]

 

Exactly how many people have starved to death in the united states last year or perhaps the last decade ????

 

In all honesty if the person does not need the food and is committing fraud its actually worse than military spending. In general military spending does put people to work hopefully here domestically.

Military contracts = skilled jobs in manufacturing and other support fields.

 

Waste is waste and corporate welfare waste is just as bad as social welfare waste. I do not want people to starve and I do not want to spend any money we do not have, on anything.

 

If you really want to cut some spending lets start with congressional staffing, travel , housing, transportation and offices for a start then move over to the house.

 

I in 100,000 die from malnutrition (starvation).

 

Many more suffer developmental issues due to inadequate nutrition. The list of things that hunger and lack of complete nutrition can effect is long and although it mostly effects the young and the elderly it can affect grown middle aged adults.

[the_spaniard]

 

Exactly how many people have starved to death in the united states last year or perhaps the last decade ????

 

 

I love this argument. Please show me a study where it has been proven that isn't a result of social programs like SNAP. No one died of starvation? Maybe these programs DO work. See what I did there?

 

EDIT> Langston did the numbers above.

 

In all honesty if the person does not need the food and is committing fraud its actually worse than military spending. In general military spending does put people to work hopefully here domestically.

Military contracts = skilled jobs in manufacturing and other support fields.

 

Fraud is fraud in my mind. The problem is what percentage of people are actually committing the fraud? The problem is not the fraud, but the number of people on the program. 15% of the population is another national disgrace, and NOT what it was designed for. The cost of the program increased 135% over the last 4 years (CBO numbers). Why is that? Did one in seven people in this country just decide to be leeches or are we in the worst economic downturn than the Great Depression? BH would have you believe the former and ignore the latter.

 

BTW, what do you think of the cost of the F35? Seven years behind schedule and $167 billion over budget. That is one project that costs 25% of SNAP annual costs to taxpayers (current high of $80 billion). How much has V22 development cost? How about Ohio class boomers? I'm not saying we shouldn't have these things, but where do you draw the line at over-spending?

 

Upon completion of the F35 (which we do need to replace our crusty F-18s, etc) will there be a congressional audit to determine why this project was so late and horribly over budget? Will there be an accounting and repercussions for wrongdoing? Seriously?

 

How many top-level executives in the financial industry have been prosecuted for nearly destroying the entire country?

 

 

Waste is waste and corporate welfare waste is just as bad as social welfare waste. I do not want people to starve and I do not want to spend any money we do not have, on anything. If you really want to cut some spending lets start with congressional staffing, travel , housing, transportation and offices for a start then move over to the house.

 

And that is the attitude that is going to get us out of this mess. No sacred cows, and nothing is off the table. Military spending, taxes, social programs all need smart reforms, and all have some fat to trim. And don't get me started on our current representatives, I don't think anyone in office should stay in office with a 13% approval rating. I wouldn't last long if I had that approval rating with my clients,much less enjoy the benefits our representatives do for doing the universally shitty job they do..

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[fmccap]

 

Seriously? This from the same Secretary of State who pushed for the U.S. to fire cruise missiles on Damascus because of sarin gas that he “knew” was used by the Syrian government but later turned out could have been used by so called “rebels”? This statement from the same government that went to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. That kind of phony pretext?

Pretext aside, consider for a moment the overall U.S. foreign policy that has over 700 bases around the world and has a drone strike policy across the middle east and northern Africa. For the U.S. to have this policy and yet become enraged that Russia would cross a land border into an area of Russian speaking people in Ukraine, just rings of hypocrisy.

Read more: http://benswann.com/u-s-hypocrisy-telling-russia-to-stay-out-of-ukraine/#ixzz2v0rCa840

[Imawhosure]

The military should be cut back to pre-WWII levels. Democrats and republicans support this.

 

The military is quite possibly the most wasteful organization in the history of this country. As Sen.Tom Coburn pointed out, the $7-billion dollars spent destroying military hardware (rather than shipping it back or selling it) in Iraq/Afghanistan is just one example. Most of the highest ticket items in his annual book of wasteful government spending are linked to our military. I don't like the guy and rarely agree with him, but I think he is on to something here.

 

Total cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars currently estimated at $4-6 trillion, most of which has not been paid yet. They are the most expensive wars in US history. Future payments to injured and disabled veterans will be astronomical. To give you an idea on how bad it will be, payments to cover the medical costs of Vietnam and the first Gulf War veterans are still rising.

 

We are trying to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so we are drawing down our forces as we always do after a conflict. That is a good thing.

 

The face of warfare and international relations has changed since the cold war. It is generally accepted that large-scale conventional warfare is in no ones best interests (aside from the military contractors). Hence more reliance on small-scale covert special-operations missions and supposedly coordinated, accurate drone strikes.

 

Intimidation with a large conventional force is pretty much unnecessary. Does anyone really think Putin is going to stand-down over threats of boots on the ground with China supposedly in agreement to his actions? It's a misstep for Putin, but he is no idiot. Sanctions are going to sting, but he has a lot of cards to play to be a pain in the ass while they do. The last thing the US wants is a Russia with no economic options given they are still sitting on thousands of nuclear weapons. Not that they would use them, but a fire-sale to any interested party in the region isn't exactly in our best interests either.

 

58% of the American people opposed direct action (boots on the ground) in Syria. I doubt that number would change much for any direct involvement in this Russian mess. Americans are tired of war, and rightfully so.

 

The military is no sacred cow. We will cut spending for the homeless, jobless, education and research before we touch military spending. That is a national disgrace.

I can agree with some of what you say Spaniard. There was a bi-partisan study done that said, "over 200 billion dollars a year is wasted in the federal budget." That is a lot of American taxpayer money, and I am confident that a decent chunk is in the military.

 

On your assertion that, "as large a force is no longer needed." That is an opinion, I don't think I am convinced of that 100% as of yet, but it could very well be true.

 

But one thing I do want to point out to you is this----------> we have a volunteer military. If they cut the manpower and something goes wrong in your reasoning where we need more, you will then see a draft if the need is relatively quick.

 

I know, I know; your first reaction to that statement is probably incredulity, the second is probably I am trying to use fear mongering to change your/someone elses opinion. That is not true at all, and before you draw either of these conclusions, I urge you to think if we needed extra military, where we would get them from quickly.

 

I am positive that someone is now going to chime in, "the reserves." Fine and dandy, until you understand we are already using a boatload of them now, and every month that passes, more and more are reaching they age where they no longer will be called or have to serve. And then, with the feds messing with benefits and pay, (regardless of which party you think that is) you are going to have less, and less, interested.

 

Your opinion Spandiard, may very well be drawn on good research; and I am not here to say it is or is not. What I am saying is----------> if what you believe is in error, or the people you have drawn this conclusion from are.......and something goes wrong; even for a few months.......there could very well be a bunch of younger adults, who never wanted anything to do with the military, very, very, unhappy indeed.

 

 

I in 100,000 die from malnutrition (starvation).

 

Many more suffer developmental issues due to inadequate nutrition. The list of things that hunger and lack of complete nutrition can effect is long and although it mostly effects the young and the elderly it can affect grown middle aged adults.

Are you sure you want to stick with 1 in 100,000 die from starvation in the United States?

[cal50]

 

I love this argument. Please show me a study where it has been proven that isn't a result of social programs like SNAP. No one died of starvation? Maybe these programs DO work. See what I did there?

 

EDIT> Langston did the numbers above.

 

 

Fraud is fraud in my mind. The problem is what percentage of people are actually committing the fraud? The problem is not the fraud, but the number of people on the program. 15% of the population is another national disgrace, and NOT what it was designed for. The cost of the program increased 135% over the last 4 years (CBO numbers). Why is that? Did one in seven people in this country just decide to be leeches or are we in the worst economic downturn than the Great Depression? BH would have you believe the former and ignore the latter.

 

BTW, what do you think of the cost of the F35? Seven years behind schedule and $167 billion over budget. That is one project that costs 25% of SNAP annual costs to taxpayers (current high of $80 billion). How much has V22 development cost? How about Ohio class boomers? I'm not saying we shouldn't have these things, but where do you draw the line at over-spending?

 

Upon completion of the F35 (which we do need to replace our crusty F-18s, etc) will there be a congressional audit to determine why this project was so late and horribly over budget? Will there be an accounting and repercussions for wrongdoing? Seriously?

 

How many top-level executives in the financial industry have been prosecuted for nearly destroying the entire country?

 

 

 

And that is the attitude that is going to get us out of this mess. No sacred cows, and nothing is off the table. Military spending, taxes, social programs all need smart reforms, and all have some fat to trim. And don't get me started on our current representatives, I don't think anyone in office should stay in office with a 13% approval rating. I wouldn't last long if I had that approval rating with my clients,much less enjoy the benefits our representatives do for doing the universally shitty job they do..

 

 

There is no argument, starvation is not a problem in the USA. Anyone that suggest otherwise needs to eat more protein.....( brain food).

 

As to the cost of an F35 or any other new or improved military system I can not say if its worth it or not becasue I do not know the facts & capabilities compared to what is currently in use.

The cost of one advanced aircraft is high but if it can safeguard lives or structures that price could be a bargain.

 

It matters little what you spend money on if you do not have that money to spend.

Its a mistake spending it on social programs OR military projects.

[Imawhosure]

I in 100,000 die from malnutrition (starvation).

 

Many more suffer developmental issues due to inadequate nutrition. The list of things that hunger and lack of complete nutrition can effect is long and although it mostly effects the young and the elderly it can affect grown middle aged adults.

I am sooooooo tired of the propaganda, really. You sure you aren't a union official somewhere?

 

For everyone, I am going to post a link to dozens of pictures of inner city schools, and there are some with President Obama in them.

 

Please look at these poor, inner city children. Yes, let us feel badly for their circumstance, but find me one that looks hungry to you. Find one, just one! As a matter of fact, they look a little over weight, most smiling, dressed well, some doing sports in the inner city. This is your REASON and proof? Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

 

Now, if one of our progressives have pictures with American children looking like they are starving, please post them. If not, stop the lousy propaganda! And if you can find one, just one, post the link to the picture. I betcha before the week is out, one of us will discover the reason the poor kid is skinny is because------->his parent(s) are drug addicted or drunks, and sold all the freebies we gave them to support their habit while neglecting the kid!

 

By the way.....should that be the case it is YOUR fault for the poor kid, because you guys created this monster, and then won't watch over it.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+classroom+inner+city+schools&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SzQWU9PuBMjMyQHYtoG4Cg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=855

Edited March 4, 2014 by Imawhosure

[BlackHorse]

 

Once again, the broad stroke simplification of a complex issue.

 

 

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that accusing the military of being a wasteful organization just because you said so was NOT a broad stroke simplification of a complex issue. Oh, wait a second, in fact it is. Everything you said after that point I didn't bother to read because it's just more of your typical liberal nonsense.

[the_spaniard]

 

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that accusing the military of being a wasteful organization just because you said so was NOT a broad stroke simplification of a complex issue. Oh, wait a second, in fact it is. Everything you said after that point I didn't bother to read because it's just more of your typical liberal nonsense.

 

Wow, you should have read the whole post.

 

Then you may have realized that the "broad stroke" reference was not directed to the military, but your negative characterization of all people on social welfare programs.

READ a post, digest it, and then respond...regardless of your personal view of the OP. If you just can't stand the OP, don't get involved with the discussion. You are far less likely to make an embarrassing mistake of misinterpreting the post, and relying on yet another ad-hominem attack as your only response.

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

But one thing I do want to point out to you is this----------> we have a volunteer military. If they cut the manpower and something goes wrong in your reasoning where we need more, you will then see a draft if the need is relatively quick.

 

 

Actually Ima you bring up a good point, and one I possibly overlooked due to my own support of the draft. I think a smart downsizing is what we need, closely monitoring reserves and maintaining an acceptable level of readiness. Bear in mind too, that when I say military I wasn't thinking of just troops, but the numbers of vehicles, aircraft, bases, etc as well.

 

Again, I am no fan of all of Coburns ideas - particularly when he talks about cutting veterans financial support, but check out some of his ideas that even the hard-left leaning Mother Jones have called "Draconian" in comparison to Obamas proposed cuts:

 

- Shrinking the US nuclear arsenal "to levels within the START treaty limits" to save $79 billion over the next decade.

- Cutting overall intelligence spending by 3 percent, then freezing it for the next decade, to save $26 billion.

- Eliminating 10 percent of the Pentagon's R&D budget, a savings of $79 billion.

- Taking the Army back down to pre-Iraq surge levels, a force reduction of 65,000 soldiers, or 12 percent. This would save $92 billion.

If we actually had some people in office that could compromise, maybe we could get some of this done. I have to reiterate I don't like Coburn (particularly his stance on social issues, etc) but just because you don't like someone on principle doesn't mean they don't have some good ideas that you can work with. Not everyone there is what the media portrays, as not every republican is a "wing nut" nor every democrat a "tree-hugger", not TP'er an "extremist", nor independent a "fence-rider", etc. I would hope someday we could all get over the rhetoric of trying to use political affiliation as an insult. Sorry, my train of thought jumped-tracks.

 

Are you sure you want to stick with 1 in 100,000 die from starvation in the United States?

 

 

I would say that starvation isn't the same as malnutrition, which causes more serious medical issues in this country. And yes, I do bear in mind malnutrition can not only denote a lack of food, but plenty of food of poor quality. Doing my own quick research I couldn't find any cases where someone had actually starved to death (here in the US) that wasn't connected to secondary factors (mental illness,etc.) So yeah, you got me on that one.

[the_spaniard]

 

There is no argument, starvation is not a problem in the USA. Anyone that suggest otherwise needs to eat more protein.....( brain food).

 

As I mentioned above, I agree. Malnutrition is more the enemy.

 

As to the cost of an F35 or any other new or improved military system I can not say if its worth it or not becasue I do not know the facts & capabilities compared to what is currently in use.

The cost of one advanced aircraft is high but if it can safeguard lives or structures that price could be a bargain.

 

I guess my point came from the unexpected costs. I'm ignorant to how military/congressional reviews/audits work, but if you were contracted to produce something at a set price and a set amount of time, are there repercussions for failing to do that, or do you just get a blank check? If there are no repercussions, where is the incentive to not engage in fraud/wasteful spending? That is counterproductive to budgeting and saving cash, and why I mentioned the lack of high level prosecutions in the economic meltdown..not to mention the removal of safety features after the fact that would help prevent another financial crisis. Where is the incentive to change?

 

It matters little what you spend money on if you do not have that money to spend.

Its a mistake spending it on social programs OR military projects.

 

Bingo. That's why both need reforms.

[BlackHorse]

 

Wow, you should have read the whole post.

 

Then you may have realized that the "broad stroke" reference was not directed to the military, but your negative characterization of all people on social welfare programs.

READ a post, digest it, and then respond...regardless of your personal view of the OP. If you just can't stand the OP, don't get involved with the discussion. You are far less likely to make an embarrassing mistake of misinterpreting the post, and relying on yet another ad-hominem attack as your only response.

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

 

I didn't need to read any further. Your point is that when I say "all people on welfare is a waste of money" is a broad stroke generalization but somehow you calling the military a waste of money is not a broad stroke generalization. For the record I never claimed that everyone on welfare is a waste of money. What I said is that many people on welfare are a waste of money. Some of the people on welfare need to be on welfare. But many of them are just on welfare because they don't want to get a job and everyone who has ever spent five minutes looking into the topic knows this.

 

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

Edited March 5, 2014 by BlackHorse

[BlackHorse]

Logic according to the spaniard

 

 

If you wan't to talk about billions of tax dollars wasted let us first look at the billions we waste on welfare and food stamps as we pay able bodied people who don't have a job BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT A JOB.

 

 

 

This is a broad stroke generalization.

The military is quite possibly the most wasteful organization in the history of this country.

 

This however is apparently not a broad stroke generalization because it's okay when he says it.

Here endeth the lesson

PS, The annual military budget is about half what we spend on social welfare programs.

Edited March 5, 2014 by BlackHorse

[the_spaniard]

Oh how I love the way you change my words around! Too bad, it's not really what I said. Please READ my post.

 

I said:

The military is quite possibly the most wasteful organization in the history of this country.

 

 

You think I said:

... the military a waste of money is not a broad stroke generalization.

 

 

See the difference there?

 

Comparing the amount spent on these programs is not an indicator of the waste in these programs, but I'm sure you know that right? It is the reason I said "quite possibly" because I didn't go into hard numbers, as there is no objective measure of waste in total military expenses. Tell me, is there a total objective measure of waste in social programs? What is the percentage? How many able bodied people out there don't want a job, but fraudulently collect benefits? Oh, there isn't one? I guess it's a good thing I said "quite possibly" instead of "It is..."

 

And yet you know it's more. Interesting.

 

Please read my post before responding.

Edited March 5, 2014 by the_spaniard