Obama and Hagel (the least competent Secretary of Defense in history) are
willing to sacrifice our freedom in order to keep on spending for "free
stuff" to buy votes to keep them in power.This will be seen in
history as the time when our will to preserve our existence as a nation was
sacrificed for partisan political advantage, leading to our eventual defeat and
domination by a foreign enemy.Unless, of course, our inability to
keep up unsustainable spending for "free stuff" causes collapse from
within by revolt by those denied their accustomed handouts, or the producers
becoming fed up with confiscation of the fruits of their labors to give to
others.It is a sad time for our country, although some people are
oblivious to the threats posed in the dangerous world today by various rogue
nations, insane dictators, or evil emperors.Worst, the single over
riding duty of the federal government WAS intended to be to provide for the
national defense. Not give away "free stuff."
I consider myself a conservative. I want my fellow conservatives who feel we
need to spend all this money to look at the graph in the article and tell me
with a straight face that we're spending a "conservative" amount on
the military. This is a chance to make some actual process on budget issues.Here's a simple guideline: If you say you care about the national
debt but insist that not one penny be cut from our enormous defense spending,
you don't actually care about the debt.
If Hagel, as DN Sub claims, is so incompetent, then did Sub oppose his election
as a Republican senator? How would his competence stack up against, say, Hatch?
Or Lee? And just when will this big defeat of the USA happen?
Quite the contrast between the first two conservative posters.DN
subscriber is blind to the fact that much of Military spending IS USED to
"buy votes and keep them in power"Mr King gets it. One can carp about entitlement spending. And those of reason, can make a
convincing argument for their viewpoint. But entitlement spending has nothing
to do with defense spending (and vise versa)When our congressmen are
willing to forgo their pet projects (Abrams tanks are one great example) and
defense "jobs programs" then we will know they are serious about budget
issues.And, it would help if more conservatives were honest and/or
logical about this issue, as Mr King above.To reiterate his point
"tell me with a straight face that we're spending a
"conservative" amount on the military."
These military cuts were long overdue. Anytime you have overkill, you have an
inefficiency. Asymmetrical threats from religious terrorists and hacker networks
are more likely scenarios than a land invasion by sovereign state. Recruiting
and training personnel who are linguistic in foreign languages as well as
cultural nuances is probably where more funds need to be spent. I would
personally rather see some funds redirected and jointly spent by our allies to
create a defensive network that would protect us from incoming asteroids and
comets that can wipe out civilization. We now know that the biggest threat to
humanity are the idle hands and minds of the religious fanatic, space rock,
climate change, and super-volcanoes. We can do something about three out of
@ David King. Do you honestly believe these spending cuts for the military will
be used to decrease the national debt? If you do, you are in for a real
Well said David!If you believe in government waste, you must believe
the 'waste' is everywhere!Cut the waste!
David King and all others...Maybe you didn't read the whole article.
Obama is cutting defense, but raising the freebees and goodies and givaways to
the unproductive part of our population. However he is willing to cut the jobs,
and benefits, and retirement of the people who work to defend the country. The
entitlements are what run the debt up to the 17 trillion level. They should be
cut dollar for dollar with the military. Actually two dollars for every defense
dollar. Defense is no where near the percentage of the budget that all those
entitlements are. However, I believe that every one of you Obama supporters
does not want ONE dollar cut from the entitlements. And the fat there is in the
freebees and handouts. Yet I'd bet that there is no limit to how much you
would like to see cut from the military. So tell us, what should the defense
budget be. 50 billion? That is what Ted Turner said it should be. Give us a
SCFANOf what you consider "entitlements" the vast majority
are Social Security and Medicare.And, these programs (mostly
Medicare) WILL be the driving force to bankruptcy if not addressed. The
population is aging, living longer and retiring and health care costs are
skyrocketing. I have a very right wing friend. He complains
constantly about Obama and entitlements. But he is retired. When I ask him,
how much of his SS or Medicare he would be willing to forgo, the answer is quick
and easy for him. ZERO, because he paid for it.Well, I am not yet
retired, but have paid in all my life. Today young workers are also paying into
the system.Don't I, and today's young workers have the
same argument?I suspect that you are not collecting SS or Medicare.
Cause I have yet to see anyone who wants to give up what they get.
The lies that this administration are able to get away with is amazing. They
said that "Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has
dogged much of his presidency". What austerity has Obama had to deal with?
He incrased spending for unemployment. He has increased spending for food
stamps. He has spent trillions on stimulus projects. The new Obamacare is
falling short of the minimum number of people to make it affordable, so the
government will have to step in there. He has spent billions on all sorts of
social welfare programs. The only thing he is ever willing to cut is military
spending.Since when is expanding the government handouts austerity?
JoeYou stumbled onto the important truth. Your friend PAID for it.
Now, I know that if he lives a certain number of years he will take out more
than he put in, but that has been the system as designed from the beginning.
Current workers pay for retired. But, and both political parties are at fault
with this, there was supposed to be a seperate SS acount set aside and not to be
touched for anything but its purpose, paying out SS. Remember Al Gores
"lockbox" idea? Well, the real trajedy is that our elected officials in
D.C. saw this huge vat of money sitting there and took it to pay for other
programs. Now there is really nothing left of SS but a bunch of IOU notes and
those will be paid for with borrowed money when your and my time come. I
believe that those that contribute to this country, whether by military service,
and or paying into the SS system deserve to get back what the government program
promised them. After all, it was not a voluntary program, but a compulsive one.
People who have given nothing to the country should be last in line.
We don't need a million man army... not even a half million man one. Our
days of the foot soldier on the ground with a rifle and bayonet are over. The
next wars will be with powerful lasers and drones which are operated far from
the battle front.Let's get the military reduced. Let's
get our national debt under control.Of course, the reason for the
recent troop reduction announcement by Obama is to garner votes for the
Democrats in the upcoming mid-term election. Everything to politician Obama is
@SCfan:"Obama is cutting defense, but raising the freebees and goodies
and givaways to the unproductive part of our population."He's pre-positioning the Democrats for the mid-term election coming up.
Notice, he said in the State of the Union address that women are being paid less
than men and he plans to do something about it. This will secure the women
vote. The Hispanic vote is locked in since amnesty was given to the so-called
'dreamers.' And he's secured the unemployed vote by extending to
115 months payment of unemployment benefits. And to suck much of the rest of
the voters in he is cutting the military to free up funds for more give-away
programs. The guy is no dummy when it comes to buying votes.