"How Is It Conservative To Add A Trillion Dollars In Military Spending?"

[idb]

Conservatives want to stop spending on welfare programs because there are still poor people.
Using the same logic...there are still wars so why keep funding the military?

 

[NoNukes]

How about this? We pay for increased military spending by cutting off welfare to illegals and other able-bodied parasites the Democrats rely on for votes?

Find jobs for these able bodied parasites and we can talk

 

[OKTexas]

How about this? We pay for increased military spending by cutting off welfare to illegals and other able-bodied parasites the Democrats rely on for votes?

Says the guy who has no idea how much of the budget military spending consists of...

I know what welfare spending consists of.

But not military spending, as you've just confirmed.

Well smarty pants, why don't you tell us if you're such an expert. BTW I know the answer and can back it up so be careful what you say.

 

[S.J.]

How about this? We pay for increased military spending by cutting off welfare to illegals and other able-bodied parasites the Democrats rely on for votes?

Find jobs for these able bodied parasites and we can talk

How about if they find their OWN jobs? I did.

 

[OKTexas]

I know what welfare spending consists of.

But not military spending, as you've just confirmed.

Why don't you enlighten us then? I could use a good laugh.

You honestly don't know what percentage of the budget goes to military spending, and you haven't a clue how to find out?

Waiting for you to enlighten us.

Here you go:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/FY15_Green_Book.pdf

Excuse me, we are in FY 2016.

 

[Interpol]

I think Rand's right. But even more so than him, I feel it's a gravy train. Defense budget is what? $625 billion? And all we keep doing is taking bad situations and insisting on making them worse in the Middle East. If Putin wants to get bogged down there for the next decade, I say hand it off to him. You can have it, bud!

The facts are that Americans have had enough of losing their young over a pointless military stalemate. Paul Ryan's budget calls for $50 billion in additional spending every year for 10 years. I say we ought to cut that much every year for 10 years and save a half trillion. We're not any safer or better off with the extra $2 trillion we've spent on defense the last 10 years, or the other $2 trillion we lost breaking Iraq.

Deficits are down to $400 billion now. Defense cuts bring it down to $350, so cut another $150 billion, and cut $200 billion in tax loopholes for the rich and corporate welfare, and we'll get back to the path of surpluses again where we can start making payments on the debt. These are clearly solvable with prudent, conservative budgeting that I'm afraid most Republicans reject today.

 

[sealybobo]

We would have cash for all if we would stop supporting all the planet's losers.

Meaning....?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Cash for all? Sounds like a socialist to me or commy.

He means if we didn't help poor people Wed have a bigger military.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is fact: $1 Trillion more in spending is not conservative.

I have been telling you guys that the GOP is a Progressive Statist party.

 

[Timmy]

What's the case for MORE military spending. 1/2 our tax dollar ain't enough?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Actually, what Rand says does not make much sense.

While it is true, perhaps, that we should PAY for any increases (and any other spending) we have in the realm of defense, it is kind of pointless to misuse the label "socialist" to address the way we currently "fund" without regard to the ability to pay for such things. that's true for military spending as well as welfare and so forth.

In the interim however, the proportion of the national "budget" (sorry, that term "budget" is obviously not quite accurate, but it will have to suffice) we spend on national defense is an important part. You liberals 9and many libertarians like Rand) DO tend to see it as a fat cow portion from which monies for OTHER things can be taken. But that is very short term and dangerously ignorant thinking.

WE are all safer when we have the military ability to fend off a wide array of present day enemies and probable future foes. And nobody said it would be cheap.

Yes, we SHOULD arrange our national affairs so that we actually PAY for it. But that's true of every other dollar in the entire budget. It is NOT true for only the military budget. Until we get a proper handle on that (zero based budgeting, tax reform, balanced budget amendment, and an actual commitment to doing all of the above), don't pretend that it is solely in the arena of the military portion of our budget that we must avoid socialism.

Rand does say lots of smart things. He tends (largely) to be consistent, too. But not always and not in this case.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The fact is fact: $1 Trillion more in spending is not conservative.

I have been telling you guys that the GOP is a Progressive Statist party.

And you are merely mouthing your Democrat Parody propaganda. Seriously, Fakey. You might as well give it up.

You are NEVER taken seriously since every facet of your presence here is KNOWN to be buttressed by what a phony you are.

 

[MarcATL]

We would have cash for all if we would stop supporting all the planet's losers.

Meaning....?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Seems pretty straightforward to me. What don't you understand?

Spell it out. I'm truly lost buddy.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

He doesn't specify who "the planet's losers" are. But obviously, he wants to shut down USMB.

See...? You're guessing too.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

How about this? We pay for increased military spending by cutting off welfare to illegals and other able-bodied parasites the Democrats rely on for votes?

How is that CONSERVATIVE though?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

How about this? We pay for increased military spending by cutting off welfare to illegals and other able-bodied parasites the Democrats rely on for votes?

Says the guy who has no idea how much of the budget military spending consists of...

I know what welfare spending consists of.

Yep, a full-blown Neo-Con.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[NYcarbineer]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Tell that to these people!

Russia Reveals Secret Nuclear-Armed Drone Sub
High-speed harbor buster shown on TV Russia Reveals Secret Nuclear-Armed Drone Sub

Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough
8:16 PM ETBY PATRICK TUCKER
Planes and warships just got a lot harder to see with microwave radar.
A group of scientists from China may have created a stealth material that could make future fighter jets very difficult to detect by some of today’s most cutting-edge anti-stealth radars. Chinese Scientists Unveil New Stealth Material Breakthrough

ISIS-Linked Terror Cell Was Committed to Attack in Spain: Cops
An ISIS-linked group that was committed to carrying out a jihadist attack in Madrid was broken up on Tuesday, Spanish police said.

Should we greet them this way??? Think they'll just join arms and break out in "Kumbaya" ?
View attachment 54522

We have 5000 or however many nuclear weapons. Any country that tries to destroy us will disappear.

What more do you want?

 

[rdean]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

We don't have money for infrastructure they want to build bombs.

We should let the free market decide. Citizens can donate however much they want to pay towards defense.

And Democrats should filabuster and demand tax increases on the rich or no military spending. We should tea bag the GOP.

I'm a liberal and that doesn't make any sense. The free market should decide our defense?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The warmonger right always wants more military spending.

Ask these people, you want more spending, how much will be enough? Give us the number.

None of them can answer, because none of them believe there can ever be enough.

 

[MarcATL]

"You cannot be a conservative if you're gonna keep promoting new programs that you're not gonna pay for."

One of the few things that Rand Paul makes any sense about.

Do you agree with him or the Neo-Cons like Marco Rubio and the rest of them?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Man where the hekk have you been?
Interesting, since i like em both.
Rand ya don't have to worry about
Rubio, I don't know how ya stop it. Tell him we don't need another bush. I guess

My business has picked up this year and I'm struggling to keep up, hence no time for USMB. You'll note I've been posting almost exclusively from my cell for several months and only in small spurts of time. Yes, God is good.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

We would have cash for all if we would stop supporting all the planet's losers.

Meaning....?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

If you can't figure it out, shut off your pc, sell it & use the money for education.

Another full-blown Neo-Con.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

I think Rand's right. But even more so than him, I feel it's a gravy train. Defense budget is what? $625 billion? And all we keep doing is taking bad situations and insisting on making them worse in the Middle East. If Putin wants to get bogged down there for the next decade, I say hand it off to him. You can have it, bud!

The facts are that Americans have had enough of losing their young over a pointless military stalemate. Paul Ryan's budget calls for $50 billion in additional spending every year for 10 years. I say we ought to cut that much every year for 10 years and save a half trillion. We're not any safer or better off with the extra $2 trillion we've spent on defense the last 10 years, or the other $2 trillion we lost breaking Iraq.

Deficits are down to $400 billion now. Defense cuts bring it down to $350, so cut another $150 billion, and cut $200 billion in tax loopholes for the rich and corporate welfare, and we'll get back to the path of surpluses again where we can start making payments on the debt. These are clearly solvable with prudent, conservative budgeting that I'm afraid most Republicans reject today.

That's what the Neo-Cons did to your party. All war, all the time. Circa the Bushes.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk