Uncle Sam: I have paid off the national debt with bitcoins. And then he figured out how to solve his problem and sound trendy and in a way that nobody could understand enough to argue with...
Then, just perhaps we do not need a military that is larger than the next 8 militaries of the world combined, and costs accordingly? Just perhaps, we do not need to be the world’s policeman? Perhaps, we could have the wealthy of these other countries actually defend themselves instead of competing with us for jobs because they can, as we already protect them?
How about not getting involved in expensive wars as they cost vast amounts logistically on the far side of the Earth. In which the logistics literally costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for each soldier we have in these unnecessary wars with fanatically religious people? All told, our bloated military could easily be cut by enough to give every man, woman, and child in this country decent health care.
And all of this without compromising our own safety in the slightest, and in fact being far less hated in the rest of the world. Heck, we could even revive such great ideas as JFK’s Peach Corps. And even use what military we have to actually help people in trouble throughout the world, like we recently did in the Philippine Islands. Good Grief, such acts might even bring back the respect that we once enjoyed in the greater world!!
In some respects I agree with you. However, police have to be accountable to a civil authority, or there is a risk that the police are used to advance the interests of those who can make profits. To whom is America accountable?Second, police get paid. Who is paying us to be the world’s police? The cost of keeping the peace has to be shared, and not just by the working class and the middle class of America. Neither should the cost be borne by all the classes of America. America bears a disproportionate burden.America should be proud of its role in World War II. America fought, helped other countries fight, and helped even the former Axis powers recover from the war. Some of what we’ve done since then, as a nation, is open to criticism.
Americans are indeed a generous and compassionate people. It’s too bad we are not always so to Americans. Patriotism should not alone be measured by service in war, or wearing a flag pin, but by investing in America, building infrastructure, creating lasting wealth through creating jobs in America. Then people could take care of themselves, and there would be fewer needing government help.
ConGov says: “Nice fantasy Toles, but both of you know that the only way to lower the debt is to stop spending so &$/! much!”Actually, that’s not true. Another way is to get people employed again so that tax revenues increase.
“Without our military Americans would all be dead and the Japs would be moving into Canada and Mexico and Germany would have taken over Europe and Russia.”
Now that is a really silly argument for maintaining a large and expensive military. The Japanese and Germans were beaten in spite of the fact that America in 1939 (when the war began) had a small, weak, ill-supplied army. It was smaller than Portugal’s, half the size of Poland’s. From 1787 until 1939 America did not believe in maintaining a large professional army: it was too expensive. THE Navy was enlarged under the progressive Republican administration of Theodore Roosevelt, and we became a world military power under the Democratic administrations of FDR and Truman. We won World War II by drafting and training large numbers of civilians. We have never gone back to what had always, until FDR, been considered normal peacetime armed forces since 1939, or ever really “brought the boys home.” In the 1950s to the 1970s we had large military spread round the globe, but manned as necessary by draftees. Only since then have we had a large strictly professional military of all professional or semi-professional soldiers.So you really don’t know what you’re talking about there. Now you think wefare accomplished nothing. One thing I might point out is that there is no such program as “welfare”: there are several programs that are collectively referred to under that name: like those which prevent poor children from being malnourished, aid the disabled, and those too old to work, and also, it is true, provide temporary help to the unemployed. Only the last of those might be said to discourage people from going to work, though there is little statistical evidence that it does. Yet, if, as you say, the military builds character, provides jobs, and educate people, how about this idea: if you are an able-bodied adult and lose you job and don’t find another one within one month, you will be automatically drafted. If the army doesn’t want you, you can be sent to a camp and put to work on nature conservation projects, planting trees, building hiking trails, nice healthful work in the great outdoors. Maybe we could arrange it that your kids could go with you, maybe could take a few of your personal belongings too (you’d have to give up the rest of course). You would wear a uniform, sleep in a barracks, so it would be kind of like military service. Of course this would be very expensive to arrange and maintain, given the millions who are out of work. And that would mean millions more government employees.Actually I am not being entirely facetious. Drafting the unemployed might be a little harsh, rather like slave labor, but the volunteer CCC in the 1930s did a great deal of good; and providing people jobs is better than providing them cash. Alas, the CCC and other such programs were killed by conservatives who thought they were too expensive, and who then helped create the welfare you decry as a substitute.
If there are seven nations with active militaries larger than America’s – a few of them, including the largest…China – are likely to be potential adversaries…Where is this list? Every source I can find says that we have the second largest number of active military in the world, behind China. In terms of actual capability, we outmatch any other nation by an absurd margin.We should embrace a leadership role in keeping the world safe, but the macho ‘go it alone’ attitude costs more than we can bear, & alienates potential allies.
You do not seem to realize that WWII was over almost 70 years ago (talk about blaming problems on just even the GW Bush administration!)? Our debt problem from WWII has been paid for long ago. And now we have a new debt problem. And no, it is NOT just because of anything that president Obama has done. It has been developing over the last thirty years or so. Our current Secretary of Defense has already stated that we could cut at least $100 billion per year from our Congress bloated defense budget, and still have the same level of security we now have. I would think that this is a very conservative estimate, and we probably could cut even more, but admittedly we probably should cut no more than $200 billion from that budget, and still be safe from direct military attack by any military in this world now, and in the future. The ONLY attack of any kind we have suffered in recent history was on 9/11/2001, and that attack was by a bunch of extreme religious fanatics on commercial aircraft that they had taken over with commercial box cutters! So, your specious arguments about cutting the military budget are simply not true.
By the way, it was the last truly excellent Republican president in Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had been the general in charge of liberating Europe from Hitler and his bunch of ultra conservative buddies, that warned future generations against the military/industrial complex. Just perhaps our “do nothing” Congress could pass a law that stated that companies should not have to lay off defense workers that no longer make military equipment that even our own military states it does not need. Then, these workers could and should at least be put to better use on maintaining and even improving the infrastructure of this country. After all, even the terrorists know they do not have to attack that infrastructure, all they have to do is to wait for it to collapse from our own stupid neglect of it!!
China is smart enough to go with their strengths. No military, but economic they still have some power.China isn’t a threat to our borders & won’t be one soon, if ever. The Chinese have realized that economic power fuels military power, not the other way around. They don’t seem to have the urge towards worldwide domination that the Soviets once had, either.I think China does intend to create the same sort of security umbrella in their region as we have with our neighbors. Being able to counter our military in their own backyard is part of the plan. Arming everyone in the region might make a lot of money for our military contractors, but it’s bad news in the long run. One of the things that is usually overlooked in American media coverage, is China is spooked by the specter of Japan’s re-armament. Hopefully, diplomacy will prevail.
Very good! A reasoned and reasonable response, please feel perfectly free to keep it up!! Further, not only did you actually come up with a very real problem, but I fully agree with you. But it isn’t just the Democrats that like to spend money, it is both parties, just for different purposes!
How about this as at least a place for Congress to start? As a part of increased taxes that and decreased spending (where it can reasonably be done) that results in increased revenues to the federal government. Congress passes law to guarantee that 50% of such increased revenue must go towards National Debt reduction, which I agree with most conservatives would be good for the future. And the other half must go towards areas that would be an actual investment in that same future. Such areas as scientific research and space exploration and technologies, either governmental direct such as NASA or pure private as well. How would that be for a reasonable way to use increased revenue? Heck, I would like to think that the more intelligent and far seeing wealthy such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would be more than happy to pay more in taxes it they knew it was going to be spent sensibly in such a manner. I know if I were so wealthy, I would think so!
Laugh away, I certainly can not expect you to even begin to understand anything military. Especially as I have not only studied such things military for the last 60 years or so, but I also served some 9 years (reaching a rank of E6, and an honorable discharge) in the California National Guard, and so have a relatively intimate understanding of things military. So, while I do not like the expense that the US government puts into its military, I obviously have far more respect and confidence in that military than you ever will. And, I would guess that to be a relatively conservative viewpoint, So, should I then call you some kind of a flaming liberal?
You are probably quite correct, but these discussions are not as if we actually have any real influence upon those that have the MONEY or the POWER anyway. However, the discussions are not only fun in themselves, but we can come up with interesting ideas at the same time. And then the discussions disappear somewhere into the great blank of cyberspace about midnight, freeing us up for more tomorrow!!
frodo1008 over 10 years ago
Then, just perhaps we do not need a military that is larger than the next 8 militaries of the world combined, and costs accordingly? Just perhaps, we do not need to be the world’s policeman? Perhaps, we could have the wealthy of these other countries actually defend themselves instead of competing with us for jobs because they can, as we already protect them?
How about not getting involved in expensive wars as they cost vast amounts logistically on the far side of the Earth. In which the logistics literally costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for each soldier we have in these unnecessary wars with fanatically religious people? All told, our bloated military could easily be cut by enough to give every man, woman, and child in this country decent health care.
And all of this without compromising our own safety in the slightest, and in fact being far less hated in the rest of the world. Heck, we could even revive such great ideas as JFK’s Peach Corps. And even use what military we have to actually help people in trouble throughout the world, like we recently did in the Philippine Islands. Good Grief, such acts might even bring back the respect that we once enjoyed in the greater world!!
Or am I asking for too much logic here?
piobaire over 10 years ago
In some respects I agree with you. However, police have to be accountable to a civil authority, or there is a risk that the police are used to advance the interests of those who can make profits. To whom is America accountable?Second, police get paid. Who is paying us to be the world’s police? The cost of keeping the peace has to be shared, and not just by the working class and the middle class of America. Neither should the cost be borne by all the classes of America. America bears a disproportionate burden.America should be proud of its role in World War II. America fought, helped other countries fight, and helped even the former Axis powers recover from the war. Some of what we’ve done since then, as a nation, is open to criticism.
piobaire over 10 years ago
Americans are indeed a generous and compassionate people. It’s too bad we are not always so to Americans. Patriotism should not alone be measured by service in war, or wearing a flag pin, but by investing in America, building infrastructure, creating lasting wealth through creating jobs in America. Then people could take care of themselves, and there would be fewer needing government help.
lonecat over 10 years ago
ConGov says: “Nice fantasy Toles, but both of you know that the only way to lower the debt is to stop spending so &$/! much!”Actually, that’s not true. Another way is to get people employed again so that tax revenues increase.
Doughfoot over 10 years ago
Actually, Con Gov, history demonstrates the opposite.
todyoung over 10 years ago
Where does ‘he’ buy ‘his’ bitcoins? Last I looked it would cost ‘him/us’ $200USD per coin.
Doughfoot over 10 years ago
“Without our military Americans would all be dead and the Japs would be moving into Canada and Mexico and Germany would have taken over Europe and Russia.”
Now that is a really silly argument for maintaining a large and expensive military. The Japanese and Germans were beaten in spite of the fact that America in 1939 (when the war began) had a small, weak, ill-supplied army. It was smaller than Portugal’s, half the size of Poland’s. From 1787 until 1939 America did not believe in maintaining a large professional army: it was too expensive. THE Navy was enlarged under the progressive Republican administration of Theodore Roosevelt, and we became a world military power under the Democratic administrations of FDR and Truman. We won World War II by drafting and training large numbers of civilians. We have never gone back to what had always, until FDR, been considered normal peacetime armed forces since 1939, or ever really “brought the boys home.” In the 1950s to the 1970s we had large military spread round the globe, but manned as necessary by draftees. Only since then have we had a large strictly professional military of all professional or semi-professional soldiers.So you really don’t know what you’re talking about there. Now you think wefare accomplished nothing. One thing I might point out is that there is no such program as “welfare”: there are several programs that are collectively referred to under that name: like those which prevent poor children from being malnourished, aid the disabled, and those too old to work, and also, it is true, provide temporary help to the unemployed. Only the last of those might be said to discourage people from going to work, though there is little statistical evidence that it does. Yet, if, as you say, the military builds character, provides jobs, and educate people, how about this idea: if you are an able-bodied adult and lose you job and don’t find another one within one month, you will be automatically drafted. If the army doesn’t want you, you can be sent to a camp and put to work on nature conservation projects, planting trees, building hiking trails, nice healthful work in the great outdoors. Maybe we could arrange it that your kids could go with you, maybe could take a few of your personal belongings too (you’d have to give up the rest of course). You would wear a uniform, sleep in a barracks, so it would be kind of like military service. Of course this would be very expensive to arrange and maintain, given the millions who are out of work. And that would mean millions more government employees.Actually I am not being entirely facetious. Drafting the unemployed might be a little harsh, rather like slave labor, but the volunteer CCC in the 1930s did a great deal of good; and providing people jobs is better than providing them cash. Alas, the CCC and other such programs were killed by conservatives who thought they were too expensive, and who then helped create the welfare you decry as a substitute.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
If there are seven nations with active militaries larger than America’s – a few of them, including the largest…China – are likely to be potential adversaries…Where is this list? Every source I can find says that we have the second largest number of active military in the world, behind China. In terms of actual capability, we outmatch any other nation by an absurd margin.We should embrace a leadership role in keeping the world safe, but the macho ‘go it alone’ attitude costs more than we can bear, & alienates potential allies.
frodo1008 over 10 years ago
You do not seem to realize that WWII was over almost 70 years ago (talk about blaming problems on just even the GW Bush administration!)? Our debt problem from WWII has been paid for long ago. And now we have a new debt problem. And no, it is NOT just because of anything that president Obama has done. It has been developing over the last thirty years or so. Our current Secretary of Defense has already stated that we could cut at least $100 billion per year from our Congress bloated defense budget, and still have the same level of security we now have. I would think that this is a very conservative estimate, and we probably could cut even more, but admittedly we probably should cut no more than $200 billion from that budget, and still be safe from direct military attack by any military in this world now, and in the future. The ONLY attack of any kind we have suffered in recent history was on 9/11/2001, and that attack was by a bunch of extreme religious fanatics on commercial aircraft that they had taken over with commercial box cutters! So, your specious arguments about cutting the military budget are simply not true.
By the way, it was the last truly excellent Republican president in Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had been the general in charge of liberating Europe from Hitler and his bunch of ultra conservative buddies, that warned future generations against the military/industrial complex. Just perhaps our “do nothing” Congress could pass a law that stated that companies should not have to lay off defense workers that no longer make military equipment that even our own military states it does not need. Then, these workers could and should at least be put to better use on maintaining and even improving the infrastructure of this country. After all, even the terrorists know they do not have to attack that infrastructure, all they have to do is to wait for it to collapse from our own stupid neglect of it!!
lonecat over 10 years ago
I agree that the government should not spend a single penny more than is necessary. But how do we decide what is necessary?
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
China is smart enough to go with their strengths. No military, but economic they still have some power.China isn’t a threat to our borders & won’t be one soon, if ever. The Chinese have realized that economic power fuels military power, not the other way around. They don’t seem to have the urge towards worldwide domination that the Soviets once had, either.I think China does intend to create the same sort of security umbrella in their region as we have with our neighbors. Being able to counter our military in their own backyard is part of the plan. Arming everyone in the region might make a lot of money for our military contractors, but it’s bad news in the long run. One of the things that is usually overlooked in American media coverage, is China is spooked by the specter of Japan’s re-armament. Hopefully, diplomacy will prevail.
frodo1008 over 10 years ago
Very good! A reasoned and reasonable response, please feel perfectly free to keep it up!! Further, not only did you actually come up with a very real problem, but I fully agree with you. But it isn’t just the Democrats that like to spend money, it is both parties, just for different purposes!
How about this as at least a place for Congress to start? As a part of increased taxes that and decreased spending (where it can reasonably be done) that results in increased revenues to the federal government. Congress passes law to guarantee that 50% of such increased revenue must go towards National Debt reduction, which I agree with most conservatives would be good for the future. And the other half must go towards areas that would be an actual investment in that same future. Such areas as scientific research and space exploration and technologies, either governmental direct such as NASA or pure private as well. How would that be for a reasonable way to use increased revenue? Heck, I would like to think that the more intelligent and far seeing wealthy such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would be more than happy to pay more in taxes it they knew it was going to be spent sensibly in such a manner. I know if I were so wealthy, I would think so!
frodo1008 over 10 years ago
Laugh away, I certainly can not expect you to even begin to understand anything military. Especially as I have not only studied such things military for the last 60 years or so, but I also served some 9 years (reaching a rank of E6, and an honorable discharge) in the California National Guard, and so have a relatively intimate understanding of things military. So, while I do not like the expense that the US government puts into its military, I obviously have far more respect and confidence in that military than you ever will. And, I would guess that to be a relatively conservative viewpoint, So, should I then call you some kind of a flaming liberal?
frodo1008 over 10 years ago
You are probably quite correct, but these discussions are not as if we actually have any real influence upon those that have the MONEY or the POWER anyway. However, the discussions are not only fun in themselves, but we can come up with interesting ideas at the same time. And then the discussions disappear somewhere into the great blank of cyberspace about midnight, freeing us up for more tomorrow!!