*military

YAY!

Adding video to channels (Military) - requested by blankfist.

It's a wonderful idea, which is precisely why it will never happen. I'll let Ike take it from here:

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, May 23rd, 2010 7:20pm PDT - promote requested by kronosposeidon.

That's a great speech by Eisenhower.

slick s.o.b, Obama's wars lol, makes sense that a republican puts this forward then blame Obama for taxing the middle and lower class.

Holy shit that music overlay is annoying.

>> ^Mi1ler:

slick s.o.b, Obama's wars lol, makes sense that a republican puts this forward then blame Obama for taxing the middle and lower class.


Alan Grayson is a bigtime Democrat.

This legislation completely ignores all the quantifiable benefits of pouring our wealth into self-escalating conflicts ten thousand miles from our borders!

So what's up?

Canadafag here. What's the prob with this U.S.? Oh yeah... your system of capitalism fosters such intense greed and that the billionaires don't give a shit about the poor.

And why should they! A lot of them got where they are playing by the same rules you're playing by, so you know what?

Too fucking bad. Fuck the poor. Fuck change. And fuck you and your poverty steeped family.

AMERICA, FUCK YA!

>> ^Mi1ler:

slick s.o.b, Obama's wars lol, makes sense that a republican puts this forward then blame Obama for taxing the middle and lower class.


Except that Rep. Alan Grayson is a Democrat.

Today, I like Grayson. Tomorrow, who knows?

I admit I just made an ass of myself.

>> ^Mi1ler:

I admit I just made an ass of myself.


So, you'll be lyao?

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Holy shit that music overlay is annoying.


Wow...ya. I've heard that Eisenhower speech a million times, but I had to play the vid just to see what would make someone comment. my god...so awful.

I take it that a lot of soldiers would be taken off active duty then? What would they do with no wars to fight? Don't get me wrong - the wars should stop - but this is republican grandstanding from a democrat.

@lampishthing I think the main cost savings would be in terms of supplies -- ammo, food, fuel, base construction and maintenance, replacing destroyed vehicles and other equipment, etc.

I'm not really worried about what will happen to the military with no wars to fight. That should be their normal state. As it is, all the stories I hear are that the soldiers fighting now have done more combat tours than almost any military in US history, so I'd be more than happy to give them the opportunity to retire.

This will never pass. Military spending is wwaaaaay higher on the political priority list than cutting taxes. But with any luck, a few of those tea bagging morons will get the clue that the republicans have incompatible political positions. Not to let the dems off the hook. They vote for war, too. If there was a hell, every one of them would be headed there.

At least his anti-military idiocy is consistent no matter who is in office... It isn't the war making us poor. It is the government. Before we cut the military - which serves a Constitutionally mandated role - we should cut our social spending (which has no constitutional justification) before it breaks the bank like it's doing to Europe.

This article from the NY Times pegs the issue perfectly...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html

Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net

Even IF we cut military spending it wouldn't help. Government would just take the money and pour it into a whole new set of social spending entitlements. And of course these entitlements would be just like all the others we currently have... Bloated bureaucracies that help almost no one, accomplish almost nothing, and strip away freedoms.

Europe is right now in the process of showing the world just how ineffective and destructive the 'big government' Kenseyian socialized approach to governance is. And it is this failed model that the American left is seeking to emulate with Obamacare, Cap & Trade, bailouts galore, huge unions, and unfunded liabilities. Before one cent of the military gets cut there should be a 50% cut in the budgets of every U.S. social program across the board. Bar none. The answer is small government at the state, county, and municipal level.

@NetRunner: The point I was getting at is that the soldiers wouldn't have anything to do. Given that most of them are relatively young, proper retirement seems a bit strange. On the other hand most of them (open to correction...) would be unskilled outside of army life and the economy isn't really supplying a lot of unskilled jobs these days. I think Grayson would be doing more good by focussing on education or alternative employment programs first. On the other other hand, maybe his bill might not be a waste of time and actually pass after it's been watered down. A reduction in military spending would certainly be a good thing.

@lampishthing, by "retire" I meant "from the military". Military service usually is pretty positive on your resume (provided you were honorably discharged), and right now every Iraq/Afghanistan vet gets to go to college on Uncle Sam's dime. Some probably would wind up struggling to find a job right now, but that's no reason to continue the war.

Grayson's bill won't get anywhere. It's political posturing, but it's good political posturing. Activists will get to use votes against it to beat up their Reps.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Tired of hearing people talk about "entitlements" when things like medicare are enormously successful and are paid for by a fund that everyone pays into. If any of these things are "unfunded liabilities" it's because the programs are robbed of funds to pay for the Pentagon, or cut from budgets for political points to generate a "surplus" when we borrow from China against our kids' futures every day.

Any article that talks about low birthrates in a world with 6 billion people and rising is automatically intellectually bankrupt. There's nothing wrong with populations stabilizing after the post-WWII boom. There's nothing inherently wrong with an aging population in a world filled with new medical technologies. The problem is paying for it all.

It's all really a failure of that post-WWII generation to control the culture of excess they've generated. Why do you think "sustainability" is such a huge buzzword? It's because the past 60 years have had nothing to do with thinking ahead. The financial crisis and the BP oil spill punctuate that...corporations obsessed with nothing but profit causing huge unintended blowback into financial and ecological systems alike...all because of lack of meaningful and enforced regulation.

It's funny how conservatives will fight for smaller government, but then, to try and score political points, they'll complain that our government isn't acting quickly or comprehensively enough to stop a giant disaster. Reagan said gov't is part of the problem, but today's conservatives seem to go back and forth on that point, depending what serves them best. Laissez-Faire is just another subject in a long list of naive extreme ideologies.

We need thoughtful balance, not extremes.

I would have liked to see a "the war is making tens of thousands of already poor people dead" act

You just do not see.. The extra is over and above the budget... and is not for the wars in the middle east it for an "emergency war", it is for the national guard. Anyone else notice the National Guard is advertising more? They are expecting a revolt from the american people soon... the tax money is about to be used againt you.
If you think the oil spill is bad, just wait.