So what would you do about foreign policy

[donttread]

I would gradually bring our troops home and recall diplomats in hostile regions. I would ask the nation to put on their big kid pants and start producing our own energy. I would ban imports and exports of oil and develop a refinery infrastructure designed to be phased out by sioar and wind over a 20-25 year period of time.
I would cut the federal budget across the board 10% per year until we were running a surplus, which would be earmarked to pay donm the debt.

what is your plan other than whatever the DNC or RNC tells you the plan of the day should be

[Mac-7]

Pull US troops out of Korea and Japan?

Thats not a good idea because they would soon fall within China's sphere of influence instead of ours.

[Peter1469]

I would look at see what US strategic interests really are. I would prioritize them. I would apply the various tools at my disposal to address them. I would seek regional balances of power to assist in managing foreign affairs and seek to get local allies to take responsibility locally. Back them up and support them.

I would not squander US assets in places of lesser strategic importance or get bogged down in peripheral matters. Spreading democracy at the point of a gun would be off the table. Military force would not be used for humanitarian reasons except for in extreme circumstances.

I would keep the navy strong enough to rule the oceans and ensure free and fair trade for all. The US after all is a historic naval power. I would support fair trade and not support "free trade" when products are illegally dumped on US markets.

I would ensure that my diplomats understood that they work for the US taxpayer and not for the country where they are stationed. I would have my intelligence services return to the business of collecting intelligence and leave the war fighting to the Department of Defense.

[donttread]

Pull US troops out of Korea and Japan?

Thats not a good idea because they would soon fall within China's sphere of influence instead of ours.

And?

[Captain Obvious]

And?

Then we don't get to play in their sandboxes.

[Mac-7]

Then we don't get to play in their sandboxes.

And those are very important sandboxes to play in.

China could become the dominant world power and play in our sandbox instead.

[Captain Obvious]

And those are very important sandboxes to play in.

China could become the dominant world power and play in our sandbox instead.

Like owning a lot of our debt?

Maybe we should invade a small southern Asian country, serve 'em up some democracy.

[Ransom]

I would gradually bring our troops home and recall diplomats in hostile regions. I would ask the nation to put on their big kid pants and start producing our own energy. I would ban imports and exports of oil and develop a refinery infrastructure designed to be phased out by sioar and wind over a 20-25 year period of time.
I would cut the federal budget across the board 10% per year until we were running a surplus, which would be earmarked to pay donm the debt.

what is your plan other than whatever the DNC or RNC tells you the plan of the day should be

=I would kill the US as a superpower both economic and military because I hate her.

[Ransom]

I would look at see what US strategic interests really are. I would prioritize them. I would apply the various tools at my disposal to address them. I would seek regional balances of power to assist in managing foreign affairs and seek to get local allies to take responsibility locally. Back them up and support them.

I would not squander US assets in places of lesser strategic importance or get bogged down in peripheral matters. Spreading democracy at the point of a gun would be off the table. Military force would not be used for humanitarian reasons except for in extreme circumstances.

I would keep the navy strong enough to rule the oceans and ensure free and fair trade for all. The US after all is a historic naval power. I would support fair trade and not support "free trade" when products are illegally dumped on US markets.

I would ensure that my diplomats understood that they work for the US taxpayer and not for the country where they are stationed. I would have my intelligence services return to the business of collecting intelligence and leave the war fighting to the Department of Defense.

Cause this democracy wasn't won at the point of a gun, huh?

oops.

[Mac-7]

Like owning a lot of our debt?

Maybe we should invade a small southern Asian country, serve 'em up some democracy.

When we gave away our manufacturing to china we gave away our ability to create wealth.

Trump and warren Buffett have said we need to return manufacturing to America.

[Captain Obvious]

When we gave away our manufacturing to china we gave away our ability to create wealth.

Trump and warren Buffett have said we need to return manufacturing to America.

I taught that concept to you actually, with my "you can't consume more than you produce" concept.

Has Rush adopted that yet? He usually follows my lead.

[Mac-7]

I taught that concept to you actually, with my "you can't consume more than you produce" concept.

Has Rush adopted that yet? He usually follows my lead.

You never taught me anything.

I've been pushing this line for many years.

but as long as you get it I don't care where you got it from.

[donttread]

Then we don't get to play in their sandboxes.

So? We have more than enough problems to fix right here at home. And between you and me we aren't very good at it anyway

[donttread]

And those are very important sandboxes to play in.

China could become the dominant world power and play in our sandbox instead.


Nonsense. If the entire strength of our military was right here at home along with our nukes no one will invade

[donttread]

Like owning a lot of our debt?

Maybe we should invade a small southern Asian country, serve 'em up some democracy.


China holds less of our debt than you have been led to believe

[donttread]

=I would kill the US as a superpower both economic and military because I hate her.

Nonsense, a true super power can provide for it's own needs. Otherwise ot was never a super power , more like a tick waiting to get picked off

[Captain Obvious]

China holds less of our debt than you have been led to believe

I wouldn't be insulted if you provided some validated data.

[Peter1469]

And those are very important sandboxes to play in.

China could become the dominant world power and play in our sandbox instead.

China is a land power. They are not able to become a dominate global power, and don't appear to be taking the steps to do so. They do, however, want to become the regional hegemon.

[Peter1469]

Cause this democracy wasn't won at the point of a gun, huh?

oops.

Apples and oranges. The American people largely wanted democracy (as a republic). Arabs are tribal and don't care about democracy (outside of some educated city centers).

[Peter1469]

China holds less of our debt than you have been led to believe

Without looking it up, I say about $3T.

[Peter1469]

Nonsense, a true super power can provide for it's own needs. Otherwise ot was never a super power , more like a tick waiting to get picked off

The US became a superpower by default and with the encouragement of our allies. They benefited from the deal as well. Likely more that us after the end of the Cold War.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Maybe we should invade a small southern Asian country, serve 'em up some democracy. Been there, done that. They never leave a tip.

[donttread]

=I would kill the US as a superpower both economic and military because I hate her.


It might stop is from being world bully, enriching megacorps at tax payer expense and force us to stop stealing other countries resources . But it would not kill anything, except maybe some greed.

[donttread]

The US became a superpower by default and with the encouragement of our allies. They benefited from the deal as well. Likely more that us after the end of the Cold War.

Fine line between "Superpower" and "Super Bully":

[donttread]

I wouldn't be insulted if you provided some validated data.

I think it's under 10%, but Google can tell you better than I

[Peter1469]

Fine line between "Superpower" and "Super Bully":

True. And the line is drawn with the interests of the mega multinational corporations.

[Mac-7]

China is a land power. They are not able to become a dominate global power, and don't appear to be taking the steps to do so. They do, however, want to become the regional hegemon.

You are completely mistaken.

China is a growing world power and intends to be number one economically and militarily.

If they continue to expand their economy they will have no trouble whatsoever expanding their navy to beat ours.

[donttread]

I wouldn't be insulted if you provided some validated data.

Google "how much of US debt is held by china" click on the second response and the graph shows about 8%, with Japan closing in if they have not already over taken China. If you have time though check out how much we owe the /Fed. Essentially debt owed to ourselves!

[Peter1469]

You are completely mistaken.

China is a growing world power and intends to be number one economically and militarily.

If they continue to expand their economy they will have no trouble whatsoever expanding their navy to beat ours.

First I am not mistaken. Second, you don't know what you are talking about.

Since you have not been paying attention to China (or likely much else outside of the US) you can skim this cliff notes version over.

China started to reform its economy with injections of capitalism several decades ago. It lead to a long period of economic growth at a very high rate. The numbers are not to be trusted, but it is fair to say that their growth has been above average globally. When China's economy started to turn around it was a low-end manufacturing powerhouse. That was the source of its GDP growth for decades. All export economies hit a growth ceiling at some point for several reasons to include competition from other low end manufacturing sectors (in China's case it is South East Asia and Mexico to a lesser degree).

When this happens, in order to grow, a shift needs to occur. The low-end manufacturing country needs to shift to a consumption economy. That is done with a robust middle class that has disposable income. Just think of the economic power of a couple billion Chinamen with disposable income! That would shift global investment income to China.

Anyway, it is not clear that China can make this shift. It is happening in several of the coastal mega cities. And happening extraordinarily well. But it is not happening in the interior. And it may never happen.

Regardless, China has not indicated that it has a desire for global military power. It has shown that it wants to be economically relevant in many parts of the world. It is creating ports and economic projects along the coast of the Indian Ocean and in eastern Africa. It has a different method of interaction with foreign nations. It does not send its military overseas to make the world safe for Chinese companies. It allows its businessmen to go overseas and make deals for land and business ventures that benefit both China and the locals.

Finally, China is in serious economic trouble. Since you have missed it, check out China's stock market. It is in a melt down. Also investigate China's real estate market, especially the commercial market. That may be the largest bubble in history.

That pretty much confirms point #2 above. :shocked:

[Mac-7]

First I am not mistaken. Second, you don't know what you are talking about.

Since you have not been paying attention to China (or likely much else outside of the US) you can skim this cliff notes version over.

China started to reform its economy with injections of capitalism several decades ago. It lead to a long period of economic growth at a very high rate. The numbers are not to be trusted, but it is fair to say that their growth has been above average globally.

When China's economy started to turn around it was a low-end manufacturing powerhouse.

That was the source of its GDP growth for decades. All export economies hit a growth ceiling at some point for several reasons to include competition from other low end manufacturing sectors (in China's case it is South East Asia and Mexico to a lesser degree).

When this happens, in order to grow, a shift needs to occur. The low-end manufacturing country needs to shift to a consumption economy. That is done with a robust middle class that has disposable income. Just think of the economic power of a couple billion Chinamen with disposable income! That would shift global investment income to China.

Anyway, it is not clear that China can make this shift. It is happening in several of the coast mega cities. And happening extraordinarily well. But it is not happening in the interior. And it may never happen.

Regardless, China has not indicated that it has a desire for global military power. It has shown that it wants to be economically relevant in many parts of the world. It is creating ports and economic projects along the coast of the Indian Ocean and in eastern Africa. It has a different method of interaction with foreign nations. It does not send its military overseas to make the world safe for Chinese companies. It allows its businessmen to go overseas and make deals for land and business ventures that benefit both China and the locals.

Finally, China is in serious economic trouble. Since you have missed it, check out China's stock market. It is in a melt down. Also investigate China's real estate market, especially the commercial market. That may be the largest bubble in history.

That pretty much confirms point #2 above. :shocked:

Ignoring the personal vitriol unworthy of someone trusted with higher authority to police excessive personal vitriol I will remind you that we took a low-end manufacturing base and parlayed that into the greatest economy in world history.

And we did it with a current population of 300 million people.

The Chinese are equally talented and there are 1 billion of them.

[Peter1469]

Google "how much of US debt is held by china" click on the second response and the graph shows about 8%, with Japan closing in if they have not already over taken China. If you have time though check out how much we owe the /Fed. Essentially debt owed to ourselves!

I believe we owe the Fed $4T. We should end the fed and make them eat that $4T loss. Order the Treasury to print Greenbacks interest free. That would be the first step to controlling our unsustainable debt.

[Peter1469]

Ignoring the personal vitriol unworthy of someone trusted with higher authority to police excessive personal vitriol I will remind you that we took a low-end manufacturing base and parlayed that into the greatest economy in world history.

And we did it with a current population of 300 million people.

The Chinese are equally talented and there are 1 billion of them.

You are mistaken, again.

The US did not become an economic powerhouse by being a low-end manufacturer for the world.....

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

[Mac-7]

You are mistaken, again.

The US did not become an economic powerhouse by being a low-end manufacturer for the world.....

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

For the world?

No.

unless you count the time we were the arsenal of democracy.

There was too much trade protectionism for America to depend on exports.

We supplied -and created - our own consumer market.

But we did it by building things just like the Chinese are doing today.

[Peter1469]

For the world?

No.

unless you count the time we were the arsenal of democracy.

There was too much trade protectionism for America to depend on exports.

We supplied -and created - our own consumer market.

But we did it by building things just like the Chinese are doing today.


For the love of God...

The term low end manufacturer has an actual meaning. You don't get to lump it in with any other term that pops into your skull....

Low end manufacturing is the manufacturing of cheap products. It is the opposite of manufacturing highly specialized and technical products.

[Mac-7]

For the love of God...

The term low end manufacturer has an actual meaning. You don't get to lump it in with any other term that pops into your skull....

Low end manufacturing is the manufacturing of cheap products. It is the opposite of manufacturing highly specialized and technical products.

We made cheap products.

Liberty ships were welded instead of riveted.

They were cheap in every sense of the word but they got the job done.

The same goes for Fords compared to Mercedes Benz.

[Peter1469]

Regarding China's navy, a nation does not just build boats, put men in naval uniforms and call it a navy. It takes lots of training to develop the seamen and the officers to create a real navy. China has one aircraft carrier. It has no battle group. It has no experienced sailors or officers. Essentially, China's aircraft carrier is a floating target.

[Mac-7]

Regarding China's navy, a nation does not just build boats, put men in naval uniforms and call it a navy. It takes lots of training to develop the seamen and the officers to create a real navy. China has one aircraft carrier. It has no battle group. It has no experienced sailors or officers. Essentially, China's aircraft carrier is a floating target.

How long did it take the Japanese to build a world class navy from scratch?

About 40 years.

[Peter1469]

How long did it take the Japanese to build a world class navy from scratch?

About 40 years.

If China tried it could create a world class navy in 40 years.

It isn't there today.

[Lineman]

They own 1.7 trillion or so.


Like owning a lot of our debt?

Maybe we should invade a small southern Asian country, serve 'em up some democracy.

[Mac-7]

If China tried it could create a world class navy in 40 years.

It isn't there today.

Its not starting from scratch either.

[donttread]

Meanwhile back at the thread how would you adjust foreign policy to reflect the actual limitations of what we can afford?

[Ransom]

Meanwhile back at the thread how would you adjust foreign policy to reflect the actual limitations of what we can afford?

What we can afford? We rake in over 3 trillion in taxes from We the People.....the current Defense Budget.....the military, homeland security.......I believe without looking up is under 700 billion. Social Security and Medicare alone.......near 2 trillion per year.

Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare.

Again, we have a colossal misunderstanding of what we can afford, but especially, what the primary roles of our government should be.

I'm gonna grade this last post by you donttread an oops and ask that you re-post after homework and more knowledge of this topic matter.

Not even a good try.

[Mac-7]

Libertarians and liberals want to spend zero on national defense.

[donttread]

What we can afford? We rake in over 3 trillion in taxes from We the People.....the current Defense Budget.....the military, homeland security.......I believe without looking up is under 700 billion. Social Security and Medicare alone.......near 2 trillion per year.

Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare.

Again, we have a colossal misunderstanding of what we can afford, but especially, what the primary roles of our government should be.

I'm gonna grade this last post by you donttread an oops and ask that you re-post after homework and more knowledge of this topic matter.

Not even a good try.

Three points
1) Common DEFENSE not common OFFENSE
2) The SS and Medicare WE PAID FOR separate from general fund taxes. That money is ours!
3) You appear to live under the delusion that throwing condescending insults out in virtually every post doesn't make you sound like a complete fucking hack

[Mac-7]

Three points
1) Common DEFENSE not common OFFENSE
2) The SS and Medicare WE PAID FOR separate from general fund taxes. That money is ours!
3) You appear to live under the delusion that throwing condescending insults out in virtually every post doesn't make you sound like a complete $#@!ing hack

Every soldier and football coach knows that the best defense is a good offense.

We want America to be so strong that no one will dare attack us.

And if they do attack we want the war to consist of us killing them not them killing us.

[donttread]

Every soldier and football coach knows that the best defense is a good offense.

We want America to be so strong that no one will dare attack us.

And if they do attack we want the war to consist of us killing them not them killing us.

You aren't making sense. Spreading our resources thin and pissing off the world will NOT make us safer. How can anyone even entertain such a notion?
Our military even at half today's strength, brought home to protect America and with our nukes: Who the hell would invade?

[OGIS]

Pull US troops out of Korea and Japan?

Thats not a good idea because they would soon fall within China's sphere of influence instead of ours.

Both SK and Japan are big boys and can take care of themselves.

However, if we were to get out of SK it might touch off a NK/SK war, when SK got tired enough of NK's shit to wipe the floor with them. Yes, you read that right. Any NK/SK conflict will - after possibly* some admittedly horrific civilian casualties in Seoul, result in the obliteration of both the NK military and regime.

* It is not at all certain that NK's vaunted Artillery of Doom will actually, you know, work.
Reasons:
(1) A good chunk of those 10,000 long range artillery pieces, and the ammo that they fire, are 40+ years old. They pose at least as much danger to the users as to the targets.
(2) SK has computerized rangefinders that can triangulate, within 60 seconds, and to literally within an inch or two, the precise location of incoming artillery shells.
(3) SK has massive counter-batteries set up and ready to fire based on that info. Response time: less than 3 minutes.

Aside from all that, the million man NK military has enough supplies for a week of field activity. After that they are on their own. SK military is better supplied, better trained and organized, and at least as motivated as their NK counterparts.

If SK (and the US) guarantees a neutral or a China-friendly United Korea to China a new war would be over very, very quickly.

If the US were to forego building just one floating target (Ford class supercarrier) for 15 billion dollars and pledge that money to a joint China-SK effort to rehabilitate the millions of Norks starving in labor camps, it would also solve the problem of what to do with millions of starving refugees.

NK is a looming nightmare for China. They need a way out.

[donttread]

Both SK and Japan are big boys and can take care of themselves.

However, if we were to get out of SK it might touch off a NK/SK war, when SK got tired enough of NK's shit to wipe the floor with them. Yes, you read that right. Any NK/SK conflict will - after possibly* some admittedly horrific civilian casualties in Seoul, result in the obliteration of both the NK military and regime.

* It is not at all certain that NK's vaunted Artillery of Doom will actually, you know, work.
Reasons:
(1) A good chunk of those 10,000 long range artillery pieces, and the ammo that they fire, are 40+ years old. They pose at least as much danger to the users as to the targets.
(2) SK has computerized rangefinders that can triangulate, within 60 seconds, and to literally within an inch or two, the precise location of incoming artillery shells.
(3) SK has massive counter-batteries set up and ready to fire based on that info. Response time: less than 3 minutes.

Aside from all that, the million man NK military has enough supplies for a week of field activity. After that they are on their own. SK military is better supplied, better trained and organized, and at least as motivated as their NK counterparts.

If SK (and the US) guarantees a neutral or a China-friendly United Korea to China a new war would be over very, very quickly.

If the US were to forego building just one floating target (Ford class supercarrier) for 15 billion dollars and pledge that money to a joint China-SK effort to rehabilitate the millions of Norks starving in labor camps, it would also solve the problem of what to do with millions of starving refugees.

NK is a looming nightmare for China. They need a way out.


The world is a big place. We can't protect everyone. Besides we been there for 60 years couldn't be have helped them build their own damned defenses by now?

[Chloe]

Libertarians and liberals want to spend zero on national defense.

The US will spend close to $600 billion this year on defense, that's more than half of all expenditures, and nothing else even remotely comes close with regards to spending. Our priorities are so far off when it comes to what we should be spending money on that it's actually highly irresponsible and dangerous what we are doing. What good does it serve to scare the pants off of all other countries and live in a WW3 mentality when between your own borders your infrastructure is crumbling, millions of tons of food is being wasted, you rely on liquid dinosaur for power, millions of citizens lack real affordable healthcare, government, major corporations, and top donors are practically one in the same, pollution continues, scientific research is left struggling due to the uber religious, we buy more than we create, we waste more than we save, we have the highest population of incarcerated people in the world, we value the right to own a gun more than we value the life of a homeless person, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'd bet that if they (meaning government) took just $6 billion out of the $600 billion meant for military spending and applied that towards building let's say 1000 new solar farms across the country and 1000 new wind turbines there would be a collective outrage about it and would be deemed wasteful spending, and I bet you'd lead the pack. If they took $10 billion, starting out, out of that $600 billion and put it towards the installation of more efficient sensor and solar based lighting systems along road ways and in cities there would be more collective outrage about wasteful spending. But spend $10 billion on planes that will never fly, or bases that have no need to be open anymore, or other military equipment then i'm certain you and others probably wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over that money.

Spend spend spend on weaponry but save save save when it comes to our infrastructure and the well being of our citizens.

[Tahuyaman]

So, national defense is something we should not take seriously?

[Chloe]

So, national defense is something we should not take seriously?

$600 billion on defense isn't taking it seriously, it's defining us.

[OGIS]

The US will spend close to $600 billion this year on defense, that's....and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

All valid points.


I'd bet that if they (meaning government) took just $6 billion out of the $600 billion meant for military spending and applied that towards building let's say 1000 new solar farms across the country and 1000 new wind turbines...

Got an even better idea. A megaproject. Something that the politicians can (like Cyrus the Great) hang their legacies on.

We are soooooo close to the critical tensile strength. Just a little more reseach and they will have it. Have what? Well, caarbon nanofiber that is strong enough to build a 60,000 km cable for a space elevator.

Worst case cost estimates with 100% over-runs by real-life engineers place the cost of one beanstalk at $40 billion. THAT is the cost of three supertargets, er... supercarriers. Build 6 of them in a ring around the equator and the grand total cost would probably drop to $200 billion.

I note that the Forbes 2015 net worth of the world's 1826 billionaires is $7,052,880,000,000. That's about 3% of their net worth. Hell, set up a government/partnership corporation and let them buy stock. 20 years for a 1000% ROI, tops.

[texan]

I like the current plan:

1. Lie to everyone on a nuke deal
2. Let Russia and China do anything they want because they mean us no harm.
3. Pull out of everywhere and watch the world burn, because there will not be a price to pay for that later.
4. Piss off every ally and make friends with every enemy.
5. And finally, call everyone stupid that doesn't agree with you and if possible use the IRS, FBI and DOJ to ruin them.


Seems to be working.

[Redrose]

I would gradually bring our troops home and recall diplomats in hostile regions. I would ask the nation to put on their big kid pants and start producing our own energy. I would ban imports and exports of oil and develop a refinery infrastructure designed to be phased out by sioar and wind over a 20-25 year period of time.
I would cut the federal budget across the board 10% per year until we were running a surplus, which would be earmarked to pay donm the debt.

what is your plan other than whatever the DNC or RNC tells you the plan of the day should be


It would be easier for me to say what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Period.

If we think the ME has problems now, wait and see what happens when Iran gets the bomb.

[OGIS]

I like the current plan:

1. Lie to everyone on a nuke deal
2. Let Russia and China do anything they want because they mean us no harm.
3. Pull out of everywhere and watch the world burn, because there will not be a price to pay for that later.
4. Piss off every ally and make friends with every enemy.
5. And finally, call everyone stupid that doesn't agree with you and if possible use the IRS, FBI and DOJ to ruin them.


Seems to be working.


Excellent points. Two small comments, however:

>>>"2. Let Russia and China do anything they want because they mean us no harm."

The Chinese Communist Party leaders are also plutocrats. And there has been a HUGE incidence of marriage between their children and the kids of the first wave of crony-capitalist entrepreneurs. Their political power is closely tied to their economic ties. They are entering a period of very bad:
(1) social stress - an excess of young aggressive males due to former childbirth policies; and
(2) economic crash - (overbuilt and empty cities, debt-fueled over-expansion to keep everybody working.

They need to keep their people employed or they are dead meat. Probably personally. Unless we do something so monumentally stupid and insulting that honor requires them to attack the US, China will do absolutely NOTHING to endanger their largest trading partner and market.

>>>"3. Pull out of everywhere and watch the world burn, because there will not be a price to pay for that later."

I note with interest that ISIS seems to be acting like a giant, ruthless honeypot.

No, it must be my imagination. No one in the US government would be smart or ruthless enough to think of arranging that.

[donttread]

$600 billion on defense isn't taking it seriously, it's defining us.


It's about megacorps and imperialism. We could cut the military in half and still defend our borders.

[Tahuyaman]

$600 billion on defense isn't taking it seriously, it's defining us.

Without an effective and credible national defense system, you won't have anything else. Unfortunately, the people who would like to harm us and destroy our nation will not change their view because we tell them that we mean them no harm and relax our defenses.

[Peter1469]

Meanwhile back at the thread how would you adjust foreign policy to reflect the actual limitations of what we can afford?

That was my point.

[Chloe]

Without an effective and credible national defense system, you won't have anything else. Unfortunately, the people who would like to harm us and destroy our nation will not change their view because we tell them that we mean them no harm and relax our defenses.

So you honestly think $600 billion, more than half of our entire budget, is truly a responsible amount of money to budget towards and that it is truly being spent for OUR defense? How much money does it cost to protect us against some rogue people? How much do you think our military and our foreign policy plays into that hatred aimed towards us? Do you really think that we need to outspend the entire world and spend the majority of our own budget on weaponry? You don't think that half of that budget or even a quarter of that budget would still make us effective and credible?

[Tahuyaman]

So you honestly think $600 billion, more than half of our entire budget, is truly a responsible amount of money to budget towards and that it is truly being spent for OUR defense? How much money does it cost to protect us against some rogue people? How much do you think our military and our foreign policy plays into that hatred aimed towards us? Do you really think that we need to outspend the entire world and spend the majority of our own budget on weaponry? You don't think that half of that budget or even a quarter of that budget would still make us effective and credible?

National defense is the primary responsibility of government. You can't have anything else without that. If you want all of your social programs, you must first have a country to develop those programs.

No national defense, no country.

[Chloe]

National defense is the primary responsibility of government. You can't have anything else without that. If you want all of your social programs, you must first have a country to develop those programs.

No national defense, no country.

and with more than half of the budget going towards weapons it leaves us with the rest to keep the real country thriving and progressing. We can have the biggest baddest military in the world but it's at the expense of our infrastructure, our citizenry, and our future.

[Tahuyaman]

Again, without a strong defense, you have no country. If you want all of your social programs, one must first have a secure country.

[OGIS]

It would be easier for me to say what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Period.

If we think the ME has problems now, wait and see what happens when Iran gets the bomb.

Best guess (if we stand back and wash our hands): Iran invades the Arab nations and Israel, nukes ISIS, stabilizes the entire M.E. with brutal force, and re-establishes the Persian Empire? (Hey, it brought stability back in the Day.)

[OGIS]

Again, without a strong defense, you have no country. If you want all of your social programs, one must first have a secure country.

Yet it will never, somehow, ever be secure enough.

No one remembers Ike's warning.

And we are fooling ourselves, once again (as far as the Navy is concerned) fighting the last war.

[Tahuyaman]

I agree. We can never assume we are secure enough to relax our defense system.

[OGIS]

I agree. We can never assume we are secure enough to relax our defense system.

That is not what I said, and a solid national defense does not require having enough firepower to fight the entire world all at once.

I saw an analysis once, in Stratfor, I think. Assuming a national domestic political climate that would tolerate it, as of 2012, the US military could successfully conquer the whole freaking world, one chunk at a time. We have the logistics, reach and technological lead (estimated at 10 years from where everybody thinks we are) to do this without using ABC weapons. The analysis assumed balls-out scorched Earth with no regard for civilian casualties (i.e.: the old fashioned method of carving out an Empire).

That being said, we ARE putting a lot of eggs in very few baskets with the ungodly expensive supercarriers. Unless the PTB are confident that they can blunt either massed (>10,000) drone attacks or KE strikes from a Killsat, those are two gaping holes right there.

Given that these possibilities are under control, the estimate was 6 months to a year. People simply have no idea of the destructive power that is available to the US military.

[AeonPax]

Again, without a strong defense, you have no country. If you want all of your social programs, one must first have a secure country.
`
Wrong. That's the worst analogy ever.

1 - It erroneously assumes with live in a word populated by uncivilized brigand states, that just is not the case.
2 - the US's best protection isn't the billions we waste on killing people, it's called "The Oceans".
3 - The billions we waste on killing people is mainly done to protect Corporate USA's profitability overseas, not its citizens here.

[OGIS]

`
Wrong. That's the worst analogy ever.

1 - It erroneously assumes with live in a word populated by uncivilized brigand states, that just is not the case.
2 - the US's best protection isn't the billions we waste on killing people, it's called "The Oceans".
3 - The billions we waste on killing people is mainly done to protect Corporate USA's profitability overseas, not its citizens here.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on points 1 and 2.

>>>"1 - It erroneously assumes with live in a word populated by uncivilized brigand states, that just is not the case."

Actually, it is. At least that "least common denominator" assumption was the basis for virtually all IR Theory in certain (quite prestigious) schools of Political Science.

The situation is analogous to a cut-off, hidden valley of a hundred or so houses. Some are large, some small, some wealthy, some poor. Some have walled "compounds" and some are side-by-side town houses. They all make stuff which they trade to each other. Each house is (generally) run by a alpha male who seized the title of "Dad" by either proclamation or force or some other method.

There is no "overarching" police force that reports to a larger power. Or rather, there IS a police force, but it consists of whichever Dad is the biggest and baddest mofo in the valley.

And right now, we are the one playing cop.

>>>"2 - the US's best protection isn't the billions we waste on killing people, it's called "The Oceans". "

That end of that protection was signaled by the development of air power, and then the ICBM. This will be further eroded by the concept of Killsats that can drop KE projectiles on anything with virtually zero warning. Finally, IMHO, the era of the "common soldier" is shortly to return. Except that he/she will be wearing a version of Heinlein's Mobile Infantry suit, will command hand-held drones and robots that can soak up fire otherwise directed at him/her, and will be capable of individual flight of thousands of miles. Add future jet fighters with onboard AI and "meld" capability with the human "partner" and "small and plentiful" becomes the watchword in a combat environment where large stuff (like supercarriers) are simply target practice for the small, nimble and individually low-value opposition. Our borders will become a sieve.

Defense IS important. But we should be thinking small, nimble and individually low-value rather than throwing billions as phallic substitutes.

[Peter1469]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on points 1 and 2.




>>>"2 - the US's best protection isn't the billions we waste on killing people, it's called "The Oceans". "

That end of that protection was signaled by the development of air power, and then the ICBM. This will be further eroded by the concept of Killsats that can drop KE projectiles on anything with virtually zero warning. Finally, IMHO, the era of the "common soldier" is shortly to return. Except that he/she will be wearing a version of Heinlein's Mobile Infantry suit, will command hand-held drones and robots that can soak up fire otherwise directed at him/her, and will be capable of individual flight of thousands of miles. Add future jet fighters with onboard AI and "meld" capability with the human "partner" and "small and plentiful" becomes the watchword in a combat environment where large stuff (like supercarriers) are simply target practice for the small, nimble and individually low-value opposition. Our borders will become a sieve.

Defense IS important. But we should be thinking small, nimble and individually low-value rather than throwing billions as phallic substitutes.


As far as point 2 goes, the oceans are still our great defense. Of course there are ICBMs and more advanced weapons (Russia has them and China is working on them) but those can only destroy you, not invade you.

The oceans still protect the US from land invasion and will for a long time to come. No other nation has the ability to project force and sustain it anywhere near the degree that the US can. We can put the equivalent of several divisions anywhere in the world and sustain full combat operations effectively indefinitely.

No other nation could project even one division 1000 miles from its border and sustain combat operations for any appreciable length of time today, and they could only even consider this against a force on their border as opposed to across the world from their territory.

In this environment the carrier battle group is the best power projection option for a naval power such as the United State.

The mobile infantry of Starship Troopers is a long way off- beyond the service life of the upcoming Ford Class aircraft carriers.

[AeonPax]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on points 1 and 2.>>>1 - It erroneously assumes with live in a word populated by uncivilized brigand states, that just is not the case."Actually, it is. At least that "least common denominator" assumption was the basis for virtually all IR Theory in certain (quite prestigious) schools of Political Science. The situation is analogous to a cut-off, hidden valley of a hundred or so houses. Some are large, some small, some wealthy, some poor. Some have walled "compounds" and some are side-by-side town houses. They all make stuff which they trade to each other. Each house is (generally) run by a [/FONT][/SIZE]alpha male who seized the title of "Dad" by either proclamation or force or some other method. There is no "overarching" police force that reports to a larger power. Or rather, there IS a police force, but it consists of whichever Dad is the biggest and baddest mofo in the valley.And right now, we are the one playing cop.>>>2 - the US's best protection isn't the billions we waste on killing people, it's called "The Oceans". "That end of that protection was signaled by the development of air power, and then the ICBM. This will be further eroded by the concept of Killsats that can drop KE projectiles on anything with virtually zero warning. Finally, IMHO, the era of the "common soldier" is shortly to return. Except that he/she will be wearing a version of Heinlein's Mobile Infantry suit, will command hand-held drones and robots that can soak up fire otherwise directed at him/her, and will be capable of individual flight of thousands of miles. Add future jet fighters with onboard AI and "meld" capability with the human "partner" and "small and plentiful" becomes the watchword in a combat environment where large stuff (like supercarriers) are simply target practice for the small, nimble and individually low-value opposition. Our borders will become a sieve.Defense IS important. But we should be thinking small, nimble and individually low-value rather than throwing billions as phallic substitutes.
`
`
Here's my point, you can keep your theories. They aren't worth a hill of beans in the REAL world. Theoretically, anything is possible....however the probabilities are so small as to make such a huge expenditure on defense, or more accurately "offense", unjustifiable. Spending trillions based on fear of unlikely probabilities is stupidity beyond belief, especially in light of the need to spend such money such money internally.

By far, the biggest expenditure in Defense is not hardware per se, it's people and up-keep/maintenance. Check out the figures yourself; US Defense Spending (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_defense_spending_30.html) and Defense Budget (https://www.cbo.gov/taxonomy/term/53/budget-options) to maintain over a million people scattered across the globe. At this point, there are NO nations in this world that are a "clear and present danger" to the US continent. None. Not China, Russia, Canada or Mexico. To that extent, we are secure. Even belligerent nations pose no threat to us. You mistake nations who may want to cause us HARM, with nations who wish to engage up in world-wide combat and logistically, those are two different animals. 9/11 proved that. The latter does not exist. War mongers and chicken hawks love to point out that it's because of the irrational amount money we spend on the military, we have not been attacked. That is simplistic and cannot be proven.

The US is not the world's policeman. There is no Constitutional, UN or moral edict that maintains we should be or gives us the authority that assumes we must be. We have become a nation with a military that exists primarily for the corporations and their profitability.

With all due respect, nothing you stated justifies such things as a trillion dollar aircraft that is barely air worthy. A navy surface fleet that given current technology are sitting (or moving) ducks. We need these defense dollars to stay at home...infrastructure, education, health and job creation.

[Green Arrow]

I would gradually bring our troops home and recall diplomats in hostile regions. I would ask the nation to put on their big kid pants and start producing our own energy. I would ban imports and exports of oil and develop a refinery infrastructure designed to be phased out by sioar and wind over a 20-25 year period of time.
I would cut the federal budget across the board 10% per year until we were running a surplus, which would be earmarked to pay donm the debt.

what is your plan other than whatever the DNC or RNC tells you the plan of the day should be

How do you do that?

[donttread]

How do you do that?

I would just bring the troops home. As for the energy independence , we build refineries , ban oil imports and exports and cap fossil fuel use. We tame the megacorps and support local energy economies and let the long dormant free market wake up and do the rest

[donttread]

Again, without a strong defense, you have no country. If you want all of your social programs, one must first have a secure country.


Social programs are much better managed at the state level. However, there is one pool of money. Less federal tax, more state tax but better programs, more models to choose from and less overall tax because of the inherent inefficiency of sending money to Washington only to have them send much of it back with strings attached.
As for a national defense, we could literally do that with half our current military budget.

[donttread]

`
Wrong. That's the worst analogy ever.

1 - It erroneously assumes with live in a word populated by uncivilized brigand states, that just is not the case.
2 - the US's best protection isn't the billions we waste on killing people, it's called "The Oceans".
3 - The billions we waste on killing people is mainly done to protect Corporate USA's profitability overseas, not its citizens here.

Post of the day nominee.

[Mac-7]

and with more than half of the budget going towards weapons

it leaves us with the rest to keep the real country thriving and progressing. We can have the biggest baddest military in the world but it's at the expense of our infrastructure, our citizenry, and our future.

Half the budget does not go to defense.

Its less than 20%.

[donttread]

Half the budget does not go to defense.

Its less than 20%.

A number furnished to you by.... the trustworthy federal government?

[Mac-7]

A number furnished to you by.... the trustworthy federal government?

Since my number is correct I got it from a more reliable source than you and Chloe got yours.

[Chloe]

Half the budget does not go to defense.

Its less than 20%.

The amount was correct but I was looking at discretionary spending which was over 50%. Overall yes it's more around 20%, but my points still stand as accurate. Over $600 billion is an unreasonable, irresponsible, and wasteful and should be dramatically reduced so that more money can go towards more important things within our borders that will affect us far greater than an imaginary world war.

[Tahuyaman]

`
Wrong. That's the worst analogy ever.
2 - the US's best protection isn't the billions we waste on killing people, it's called "The Oceans

No, that's the stupidest comment I've seen.

Without the the ability to defend our shores, you would not be able to institute your liberal social experimentation systems.

[Tahuyaman]

As for a national defense, we could literally do that with half our current military budget.

no we couldn't.

[AeonPax]

No, that's the stupidest comment I've seen. Without the the ability to defend our shores, you would not be able to institute your liberal social experimentation systems.
`
Duh!

[Tahuyaman]

`
Duh!


So you agree. Without a strong national defense, you can't have all the uneccessary things you require?

[Peter1469]

Half the budget does not go to defense.

Its less than 20%.
I assumed he meant cutting current defense spending in half.

[AeonPax]

So you agree. Without a strong national defense, you can't have all the uneccessary things you require?
`
How many kinds of naive are you? The war of 1812 aside, how many times has this country been invaded? None. Want to know why? The Oceans serve as a natural barrier. Case closed.

[Peter1469]

The amount was correct but I was looking at discretionary spending which was over 50%. Overall yes it's more around 20%, but my points still stand as accurate. Over $600 billion is an unreasonable, irresponsible, and wasteful and should be dramatically reduced so that more money can go towards more important things within our borders that will affect us far greater than an imaginary world war.

Not to defend it, but we didn't get to that level of defense spending out of the blue or by stumbling into it on our own. Since the end of WWII our allies (and some non-allies) made deals with the US that called for the US to play world cop in exchange for certain benefits. The biggest benefit was the USD becoming the global reserve currency and the petro-dollar. Those two things have allowed the US to spend vast sums of money over our ability to normally repay and grow our economy to heights greater than seen in history.

Yes, in essence we are acting as a mercenary. We play world cop and much of the world agrees to play by our economic rules- which greatly favor us. But our allies get to spend much less on defense and put it into social spending. That is why they are so nervous with Obama pulling back in the world. Now they will have to shift money to defense and they can't afford it.

The problem is the foundation of our power (unlimited credit) is sand. If enough of the international community turns away from the USD our economy would turn into something resembling that of the Weimar Republic after WWI (http://www.businessinsider.com/weimar-germany-hyperinflation-explained-2013-9). It would be a total economic collapse greater than what we experienced in the Great Depression. We could come out of it OK, if we took the correct measures, but it would suck for a while. And knowing the clowns that we call politicians today (the Establishment (D) and (R)), we likely would not take the measures needed to recover from such a crash.

[donttread]

no we couldn't.

Of course we could , we spend more on military than the next ten countries or more combined. Half our military along with our nukes could easily prevent invasion.

[donttread]

`
How many kinds of naive are you? The war of 1812 aside, how many times has this country been invaded? None. Want to know why? The Oceans serve as a natural barrier. Case closed.


That and the for the past 70 nears we've had nukes and countries with nukes simply don't get invaded.

[Tahuyaman]

`
How many kinds of naive are you? The war of 1812 aside, how many times has this country been invaded? None. Want to know why? The Oceans serve as a natural barrier. Case closed.

Would we be as safe and secure without an effective and credible national defense system?

If you think the atlantic and pacific oceans are enough of a deterrent, you are hopeless.

[Tahuyaman]

Of course we could , we spend more on military than the next ten countries or more combined. Half our military along with our nukes could easily prevent invasion.

We develop nuclear weapons with the hope that we never need to use them.

[OGIS]

The oceans still protect the US from land invasion and will for a long time to come.

True. Unless, of course, they come from the north or the south. Red Dawn, anyone?


In this environment the carrier battle group is the best power projection option for a naval power such as the United State.

Until a killsat drops a rock on one. A $15 billion dollar object that has 5,000 to 6,000 highly trained personnel, takes years to build, and the obliteration of which would be a major blow to moral and prestige is a very attractive target.


The mobile infantry of Starship Troopers is a long way off- beyond the service life of the upcoming Ford Class aircraft carriers.

DARPA is working on them as we write. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_exoskeleton

It is a good bet that we are 10 years ahead of where the reporting press says we are.

But what we do, so can others.

[AeonPax]

That and the for the past 70 nears we've had nukes and countries with nukes simply don't get invaded.
`
The obvious answer here is that logistically and cost wise, an armed invasion of the continental US is highly unlikely, with or without nukes. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the primary purpose of a nuclear weapons program is basically to deter any first attempt nuclear strikes....that's what MAD was all about.

[Mac-7]

The amount was correct but I was looking at discretionary spending which was over 50%. Overall yes it's more around 20%, but my points still stand as accurate. Over $600 billion is an unreasonable, irresponsible, and wasteful and should be dramatically reduced so that more money can go towards more important things within our borders that will affect us far greater than an imaginary world war.

$600 billion is not an unreasonable amount to spend.

I wondered what the net worth or value of the United States is and it is apparently incalculable.

The gross domestic product is just under $17 trillion.

But the actual value of the country is far higher than that.

$17 trillion times a thousand?

times a million?

Who knows?

The average homeowner spends about .5% of the value of their home on insurance.

If we did that for defense based on the value of America our defense budget would be much more than $600 billion.

But my standard is that we spend as much as we need to make our ability to kill the enemy 10 times greater than his ability to kill us.

Meaning that in war we will lose the fewest number of American lives as humanly possible.

When you see a wounded warrior or visit the dead at a national cemetery you will know why being the best is important.

[Chloe]

600% is not an unreasonable amount to spend.

I wondered what the net worth or value of the United States is and it is apparently incalculable.

The gross domestic product is just under $17 trillion.

But the actual value of the country is far higher than that.

$17 trillion times a thousand?

times a million?

Who knows?

The average homeowner spends about .5% of the value of their home on insurance.

If we did that for defense based on the value of America our defense budget would be much more than $600 billion.

But my standard is that we spend as much as we need to make our ability to kill the enemy 10 times greater than his ability to kill us.

Meaning that in war we will lose the fewest number of American lives as humanly possible.

When you see a wounded warrior or visit the dead at a national cemetery you will know why that being the best is important.

and meanwhile our infrastructure is crumbling, millions of tons of food is being wasted, we rely on liquid dinosaur for power, millions of citizens lack real affordable healthcare, government, major corporations, and top donors are practically one in the same and are totally corrupt, pollution of our waterways continues, scientific research is left struggling due to the uber religious, we consume more than we produce, we waste more than we save, we have the highest population of incarcerated people in the world, we value the right to own a gun more than we value the life of a homeless person, we place the individual above the whole, we are stagnant on scientific progress, we are stagnant on education, and so much more. But as long as we have new fighter jets that will never fly, contracts with military focused corporations that ensure power to politicians through the giving of money and backdoor handshakes, and as long as we can continue to buy fear around the world it's all good.

[Mac-7]

and meanwhile our infrastructure is crumbling, millions of tons of food is being wasted, we rely on liquid dinosaur for power, millions of citizens lack real affordable healthcare, government, major corporations, and top donors are practically one in the same and are totally corrupt, pollution of our waterways continues, scientific research is left struggling due to the uber religious, we consume more than we produce, we waste more than we save, we have the highest population of incarcerated people in the world, we value the right to own a gun more than we value the life of a homeless person, we place the individual above the whole, we are stagnant on scientific progress, we are stagnant on education, and so much more. But as long as we have new fighter jets that will never fly, contracts with military focused corporations that ensure power to politicians through the giving of money and backdoor handshakes, and as long as we can continue to buy fear around the world it's all good.

So you don't care if American soldiers get slaughtered in the next war because the have inferior weapons as long as you can spend more money on windmills?

[whatukno]

So you don't care if American soldiers get slaughtered in the next war because the have inferior weapons as long as you can spend more money on windmills?

Inferior weapons? By what fucking standard? Are you high?

[Mac-7]

Inferior weapons? By what $#@!ing standard? Are you high?

We have good weapons today.

But if liberals gut the defense but so you can build more high speed rail we won't have the best weapons in some future war.

[whatukno]

We have good weapons today.

But if liberals gut the defense but so you can build more high speed rail we won't have the best weapons in some future war.

Have a bake sale then. Start a go fund me page.

Ohhh, I got an idea! How bout don't start another pointless useless expensive WAR!?

[Chloe]

So you don't care if American soldiers get slaughtered in the next war because the have inferior weapons as long as you can spend more money on windmills?

Where did I say that?

All I am saying is that you do not need $600 billion dollars, which is more than like the next 10 countries combined, in order to have an effective defense force. Technology ever changing and when we spend billions of dollars on weaponry that may not ever even work let alone be used in our defense then there is something wrong with that in my opinion. I would rather our country look to the future and spend tax dollars in a way that highlights the probabilities and possibilities of peace and true progress than to have such an unreasonable focus on someone elses future death and destruction. We cannot continue to invest more money for war than we do for our nation's progress, we just can't. Our nation can achieve more greatness through technological advancements created and applied here at home and to our infrastructure and our society than any war machine ever will.

[donttread]

`
The obvious answer here is that logistically and cost wise, an armed invasion of the continental US is highly unlikely, with or without nukes. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the primary purpose of a nuclear weapons program is basically to deter any first attempt nuclear strikes....that's what MAD was all about.

Two world wars in 25 years then the nuke comes along and none for 70 years. Countries with nukes simply don't get invaded

[Mac-7]

Have a bake sale then. Start a go fund me page.



We may not need the tin cup.

I think we will elect a conservative republican who loves America and respects the military and who will spend more on defense.

[Mac-7]

Where did I say that?

All I am saying is that you do not need $600 billion dollars, which is more than like the next 10 countries combined, in order to have an effective defense force. Technology ever changing and when we spend billions of dollars on weaponry that may not ever even work let alone be used in our defense then there is something wrong with that in my opinion. I would rather our country look to the future and spend tax dollars in a way that highlights the probabilities and possibilities of peace and true progress than to have such an unreasonable focus on someone elses future death and destruction. We cannot continue to invest more money for war than we do for our nation's progress, we just can't. Our nation can achieve more greatness through technological advancements created and applied here at home and to our infrastructure and our society than any war machine ever will.

If we spend less American soldiers will pay for your stinginess with their lives.

[Peter1469]

True. Unless, of course, they come from the north or the south. Red Dawn, anyone?

That would require a long build up of forces and material that would not go unnoticed by our intelligence services. It still does not solve the logistics train issue- it only makes it easier. We could take out log-trains fairly easy as they move in from either the north or the south. As we could if they come over the sea or by air.

And no nation except for the US has experience in long-term massive logistics operations.... That is the key to our defense- nobody else can do what we can do.






Until a killsat drops a rock on one. A $15 billion dollar object that has 5,000 to 6,000 highly trained personnel, takes years to build, and the obliteration of which would be a major blow to moral and prestige is a very attractive target.

I don't have any information that our enemies have this capability. The only ones that may are Russia and China. They understand that if one of our aircraft carrier battle groups is neutralized by such a weapon the US nuclear response would be immediate and complete.



DARPA is working on them as we write. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_exoskeleton

It is a good bet that we are 10 years ahead of where the reporting press says we are.

But what we do, so can others.

I know that they are working on them and wish they field them ASAP. I don't see it force-wide for at least half the service life of the new Ford Class super carriers.

http://images.machinedesign.com/images/archive/ideas01jpg_00000044048.jpg

And, any invasion of North America would only be successful if the enemy can control the skies. The likelihood of that is close to zero.

[Chloe]

If we spend less American soldiers will pay for your stinginess with their lives.

no they wont

[Mac-7]

no they wont

You are clueless.

If the enemy has military parity with America it will cost many more American lives to defeat them.

If we can defeat them.

[Chloe]

You are clueless.

If the enemy has military parity with America it will cost many more American lives to defeat them.

If we can defeat them.

Again, we spend more on our military than the next seven countries combined, that includes big scary china, russia, and so on. We'll be fine. What you are advocating for though will put millions of citizens at risk in the future by ignoring the infrastructure of the country our military supposedly defends. Oh and also, if you want to protect our soldiers then stop sending them around the world to police everybody and stop using the military to define our nation. Just because we are the biggest bully on the block doesn't mean it's great being the bully.

[donttread]

If we spend less American soldiers will pay for your stinginess with their lives.

If we stop our fucking imperialism less soldiers will die. At least own up tp the fact that you willingly sacrifice our young for megacorp glory!

[Green Arrow]

I would just bring the troops home.

How?

[donttread]

How?

On ships mostly

[whatukno]

We may not need the tin cup.

I think we will elect a conservative republican who loves America and respects the military and who will spend more on defense.

I think we can do with a few billion more in cuts. Especially if we want to build that border wall. I say we take 3/4 of the defense budget away permanently for that.

[Green Arrow]

On ships mostly

So, you have no plan for how to "bring the troops home"?

[donttread]

So, you have no plan for how to "bring the troops home"?


What part of "on ships mostly" don't you understand? Some by plane of course . It would be done gradually of course

[Green Arrow]

What part of "on ships mostly" don't you understand? Some by plane of course . It would be done gradually of course

How gradually?

[Mac-7]

I think we can do with a few billion more in cuts. Especially if we want to build that border wall. I say we take 3/4 of the defense budget away permanently for that.

That would be a very bad idea.

Better to take the money from social programs like section 8 housing or the unEarned Income Tax Credit.

[AeonPax]

Two world wars in 25 years then the nuke comes along and none for 70 years. Countries with nukes simply don't get invaded
`
Especially countries surrounded by two oceans.

[donttread]

How gradually?

In friendly territory like Germany a year. In hostile territory we go more slowly buy once we get to a certain point the rest will all have leave at one time fir safety, so maybe two years. Anything longer than that is just mental masturbation.

[donttread]

`
Especially countries surrounded by two oceans.

I don't disagree that the seas help, but nobody with nukes ever gets invaded

[whatukno]

That would be a very bad idea.

Better to take the money from social programs like section 8 hounding or the unEarned Income Tax Credit.

Wouldn't get a "classy wall" like Trump wants with that kind of money. LOL. Better take it from the Defense budget, after all, isn't the wall for defense of the United States?

[Mac-7]

Wouldn't get a "classy wall" like Trump wants with that kind of money. LOL. Better take it from the Defense budget, after all, isn't the wall for defense of the United States?

Dont worry about the money.

i think we'll manage.

[whatukno]

Dont worry about the money.

i think we'll manage.

Oh that's right, when the right wing spends money, deficits, and debts don't matter, if the left does it to help AMERICANS, then all of a sudden we're spending too much. Right.

[Private Pickle]

Dont worry about the money.

i think we'll manage.

Why do you think that? Because Trump is a good business man? Hard to do business when no one will do business with you...

Americans like Trump because they want to believe in what he is saying... That America is a powerhouse that doesn't have to play nice... That America can be an industrial force again through the means of protectionism and isolationism. We've tried that before. It led to the Great Depression.

Trump will lead us alright. Trump will lead us straight into a major conflict with a real enemy. China, despite him saying he likes them, will not react kindly to posturing and ultimatums. That's how business works but that isn't how the world works.

I want to give everyone an example:

You think the world is going to bow down to Trump because "he says so"? Actually the exact opposite will occur. If what he says is true, the rest of the world, "smart as they are", will consolidate and rise against. Whether that be economically or militarily. He is sword rattling both economically and militarily to the world and while I appreciate his correct insights on politicians, pollsters and having someone that "talks straight" without having to consult who will or will not like what he said, he has to have some inkling of what he is getting into and the repercussions for his actions.

They don't just affect him regardless of how many awards he has won....

[Private Pickle]

Oh that's right, when the right wing spends money, deficits, and debts don't matter, if the left does it to help AMERICANS, then all of a sudden we're spending too much. Right.

Whatever man. Two wrongs don't make a right! Wake up and admit that both are wrong. Then we Americans as a whole will make a difference.

[OGIS]

That would be a very bad idea.

Better to take the money from social programs like section 8 housing or the unEarned Income Tax Credit.

That would definitely work. These you could use all those wonderfully phallic military toys on the tens of millions of violent, nihilist, city-burning insurrectionists you have just created. I'll get the marshmallows!

Remember Guido's Proscription.

[Mac-7]

That would definitely work. These you could use all those wonderfully phallic military toys on the tens of millions of violent, nihilist, city-burning insurrectionists you have just created. I'll get the marshmallows!

Remember Guido's Proscription.


A typical liberal.

You have a lower opinion of people on welfare than I do.

You think they would kill to get money and I think they would find jobs and work.

[Peter1469]

Oh that's right, when the right wing spends money, deficits, and debts don't matter, if the left does it to help AMERICANS, then all of a sudden we're spending too much. Right.

How so?

[OGIS]

A typical liberal.

You have a lower opinion of people on welfare than I do.

You think they would kill to get money and I think they would find jobs and work.

I've lived with homeless people for a year, dude. I think I have a clearer picture of poor people - and the conditions they face - than you do. Kill to get money? No, but they would kill to survive.

There are less and less jobs everyday. Now if you want to eliminate entry barriers to entrepreneurship, then yeah, they could find jobs. But I suspect that the elimination of those barriers would cause much conservative pearl-clutching.

[Mac-7]

I've lived with homeless people for a year, dude. I think I have a clearer picture of poor people - and the conditions they face - than you do. Kill to get money? No, but they would kill to survive.

There are less and less jobs everyday. Now if you want to eliminate entry barriers to entrepreneurship, then yeah, they could find jobs. But I suspect that the elimination of those barriers would cause much conservative pearl-clutching.

This is the Internet where liars reign supreme.

You could claim to be king of the homeless and no one could prove otherwise.

Why don't you just admit that poor people in the slum would work if they absolutely had no other way to feed themselves?

[OGIS]

This is the Internet where liars reign supreme.

You could claim to be king of the homeless and no one could prove otherwise.

Why don't you just admit that poor people in the slum would work if they absolutely had no other way to feed themselves?

Doing what? Living where?

Let's assume that there are an infinite number of minimum wage jobs at, say, $8 per hour. OK, so $8 x 40 hrs = $320 per week. Times 4.334 weeks per month = $1,386.88 per month. Oh, wait, most of those jobs are part time, so as to avoid the legal need to pay benefits. Make that 30 hrs per week x $8 = $240 / week, or $1,040.16 per month.

But let's go with the full time $1,386.88, just because.

But wait! that's Gross. What about withholdings? That's about 10%, so let's shave off 138.88, for a net of $1,248.00

Hmmmm.... How much to pay for rent? Most sources would say no more than 25% of your income. But let's be really frugal, and say 50%. So how many apartments are available in Orange County for $624 per month?

According to Apartment Guide (http://www.apartmentguide.com/) here in Orange County there are no apartments under $700 per month.

Well, OK, how about 75%, or $936 per month? Apartment Guide, selected for $700 to $900, says there are 2 apartment complexes in the county. One starts at $847, and the other at $750 (a trailer park).

So for 60% of your net wage you can afford a spot in a trailer park. What? You don't have a trailer? Too bad. But the one starting at $847 is only 68% of your net. You will have a whole $400 per month left to pay for food, clothing, medicine, utilities, transportation (car pmt and gas and repairs; or a monthly bus pass @ $69 per month (17% of that $400), and all the other misc. costs associated with, you know, surviving. Yaaaaay!

And remember, there's no public assistance for any of that.

And, of courser, every single person will be able to get an apartment at those two complexes.

You see the point of all this? The system does not work.

And at some point people will get tired of the BS and act.

[Mac-7]

doing what?

The jobs that 11 to 30 million illegal aliens are doing now.

[whatukno]

How so?

Two wars, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Two unpaid for wars, that were put on the national credit card. Afghanistan was only fought to secure the poppy fields.

[Peter1469]

Two wars, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Two unpaid for wars, that were put on the national credit card. Afghanistan was only fought to secure the poppy fields.

Those two wars cost about as much as Obama's deficit in his first two years in office.

[Mac-7]

Doing what? Living where?

Let's assume that there are an infinite number of minimum wage jobs at, say, $8 per hour. OK, so $8 x 40 hrs = $320 per week. Times 4.334 weeks per month = $1,386.88 per month. Oh, wait, most of those jobs are part time, so as to avoid the legal need to pay benefits. Make that 30 hrs per week x $8 = $240 / week, or $1,040.16 per month.

But let's go with the full time $1,386.88, just because.

But wait! that's Gross. What about withholdings? That's about 10%, so let's shave off 138.88, for a net of $1,248.00

Hmmmm.... How much to pay for rent? Most sources would say no more than 25% of your income. But let's be really frugal, and say 50%. So how many apartments are available in Orange County for $624 per month?

According to Apartment Guide (http://www.apartmentguide.com/) here in Orange County there are no apartments under $700 per month.

Well, OK, how about 75%, or $936 per month? Apartment Guide, selected for $700 to $900, says there are 2 apartment complexes in the county. One starts at $847, and the other at $750 (a trailer park).

So for 60% of your net wage you can afford a spot in a trailer park. What? You don't have a trailer? Too bad. But the one starting at $847 is only 68% of your net. You will have a whole $400 per month left to pay for food, clothing, medicine, utilities, transportation (car pmt and gas and repairs; or a monthly bus pass @ $69 per month (17% of that $400), and all the other misc. costs associated with, you know, surviving. Yaaaaay!

And remember, there's no public assistance for any of that.

And, of courser, every single person will be able to get an apartment at those two complexes.

You see the point of all this? The system does not work.

And at some point people will get tired of the BS and act.

How do illegal aliens manage to live in America on what you call less than a living wage?

[whatukno]

Those two wars cost about as much as Obama's deficit in his first two years in office.

The vast majority of that deficit was due to fiscal obligations signed into law by George Bush. Please, don't be intellectually dishonest. The Afghanistan, and Iraqi wars weren't necessary. Afghanistan was really only fought for two reasons, to secure the poppy fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan), and so that KBR/Haliburton could run a natural gas pipeline through the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline). Intelligence had indicated that OBL had already fled the country to Pakistan prior to the start of the war.

Iraq was a war fought for no legitimate reason whatsoever. We were told lies in order to oust Saddam, a puppet dictator that WE installed, that turned on us. All our ousting and hanging of Saddam did was destabilize Iraq, allowing for the growth of groups like ISIS.

Trillions of dollars wasted, servicemen's lives ended, and in the end, it made the world LESS safe for our trouble.

And your trying to tell me that deficits signed into law under Bush, are somehow Obama's fault? Yes, Obama has done his fair share of increasing the budget deficit, there is no doubt, especially when he caved in on continuing the Bush era tax cuts to appease conservatives who promised that if he did so it would help create jobs, (but of course it didn't, tax cuts don't create jobs).

Our middle eastern foreign policy is a disaster, a disaster that has gone on for nearly a hundred years. The problems began shortly after World War I, when France and England decided to divide up the Ottoman Empire and create a bunch of new countries, that they couldn't keep under their imperial control. Instead of supporting the new more democratic Ottoman government, after the end of WWI it was divided up, ending the Caliphate, and creating a host of problems that continue to this day.

[Mac-7]

How do illegal aliens manage to live in America on what you call less than a living wage?

I see that OGIS has taken a powder without answering my question.

[Peter1469]

The vast majority of that deficit was due to fiscal obligations signed into law by George Bush. Please, don't be intellectually dishonest. The Afghanistan, and Iraqi wars weren't necessary. Afghanistan was really only fought for two reasons, to secure the poppy fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan), and so that KBR/Haliburton could run a natural gas pipeline through the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline). Intelligence had indicated that OBL had already fled the country to Pakistan prior to the start of the war.

What fiscal obligations from Bush do you feel caused Obama to go several years with $!T+ deficits? The war spending was separate from the normal budget process.

Afghanistan was initially about punishing the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda and in targeting al Qaeda inside Afghanistan. The error was the occupation of the country along with the democracy fetish.

Iraq could be seen as a legitimate target as it is the perfect location to project power throughout the Middle East. Afghanistan is certainly not good for that. Again the occupation and the democracy fetish was the real mistake.

And in both cases, the occupation along with democracy fetish is what cost the most money. Without that the missions would be seen as largely successful and relatively inexpensive.





And your trying to tell me that deficits signed into law under Bush, are somehow Obama's fault? Yes, Obama has done his fair share of increasing the budget deficit, there is no doubt, especially when he caved in on continuing the Bush era tax cuts to appease conservatives who promised that if he did so it would help create jobs, (but of course it didn't, tax cuts don't create jobs).



I only hold Obama accountable for his deficit spending. I hold Bush and the GOP accountable for their deficit spending. I left the GOP in 2006 because they were spending like drunken democrats.

The tax cuts increased tax revenue. But Congress still spent more than they took in. See chart below.





Our middle eastern foreign policy is a disaster, a disaster that has gone on for nearly a hundred years. The problems began shortly after World War I, when France and England decided to divide up the Ottoman Empire and create a bunch of new countries, that they couldn't keep under their imperial control. Instead of supporting the new more democratic Ottoman government, after the end of WWI it was divided up, ending the Caliphate, and creating a host of problems that continue to this day.

I agree that the current problems in the Middle East stem from the Sykes Picot Agreement signed by England, France, and Russia. The Arab Spring and Islamist uprisings that we have seen are the natural end of that cycle. Funny that the US believes that imposing another Western solution on the Middle East is the smart move..... It isn't.

[donttread]

The jobs that 11 to 30 million illegal aliens are doing now.

Do we have enough jobless people fit enough to do those jobs?

[donttread]

Two wars, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Two unpaid for wars, that were put on the national credit card. Afghanistan was only fought to secure the poppy fields.


It's all about oil, crude oil and poppy oil. But rest assured Afghani opium production is up under our watchful eye. We thought taking control of Russia;s heroin supply might help with the " re-warmed cold war"

[Mac-7]

Do we have enough jobless people fit enough to do those jobs?

If we don't Thats when we adjust the numbers for the guest worker program.

What bleeding heart liberals and cold hearted chamber of commerce conservatives are doing is creating a big surpluses of labor through open borders and that drives down wages.

If there is an under supply of labor because Juan and Pedro are not here anymore wages for all workers will rise.

[donttread]

If we don't Thats when we adjust the numbers for the guest worker program.

What bleeding heart liberals and cold hearted chamber of commerce conservatives are doing is creating a big surpluses of labor through open borders and that drives down wages.

If there is an under supply of labor because Juan and Pedro are not here anymore wages for all workers will rise.


Your repubs are just as responsible for allowing illegal immigration to keep labor prices unnaturally low.

[Ransom]

It's all about oil, crude oil and poppy oil. But rest assured Afghani opium production is up under our watchful eye. We thought taking control of Russia;s heroin supply might help with the " re-warmed cold war"

Products the consumer has 'no other option' but to purchase is what it's all about? This theory of yours demand or supply side economics? Oops.

[Peter1469]

Do we have enough jobless people fit enough to do those jobs?

After we find out, we can manage an orderly inflow of foreign workers to take the needed jobs.

[Ransom]

Your repubs are just as responsible for allowing illegal immigration to keep labor prices unnaturally low.

Must cede correct points when they're deserved, we GOPers have no defense for this charge by donttread.

Well played, Sir.

[Ransom]

Do we have enough jobless people fit enough to do those jobs?

Seen the latest riots on TV? Yes, is your answer.

[donttread]

Seen the latest riots on TV? Yes, is your answer.


Once again Ransom what would your plan be?

[OGIS]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mac-7 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1227587#post1227587)

How do illegal aliens manage to live in America on what you call less than a living wage?




I see that OGIS has taken a powder without answering my question.

Sorry, didn't see it. At least I have an excuse. what is yours, when you evade a question with RW platitudes?

Assuming your question was not just snark, illegal aliens manage to live in America via several methods:

(1) rent is the single biggest expense, so clown houses/clown apartments. The good old Moscow Method, where you pack in a bunch of families into a one-family dwelling. (It is a sad, sad commentary on this nation that the Soviet method is needed by some of the people living here.)

(2) in many cases, that clown house is filled with male, working age members only, who all chip in on the rent and send money back to their families in Mexico.

(3) food stamps, of course. You must be a citizen in some states, of course, but fake ID (also used to get apartments) is relatively cheap.

(4) and all of the other government programs to "help" destitute people.

So what was the point of your question?

[Mac-7]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mac-7 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1227587#post1227587)

How do illegal aliens manage to live in America on what you call less than a living wage?





Sorry, didn't see it. At least I have an excuse. what is yours, when you evade a question with RW platitudes?

Assuming your question was not just snark, illegal aliens manage to live in America via several methods:

(1) rent is the single biggest expense, so clown houses/clown apartments. The good old Moscow Method, where you pack in a bunch of families into a one-family dwelling. (It is a sad, sad commentary on this nation that the Soviet method is needed by some of the people living here.)

(2) in many cases, that clown house is filled with male, working age members only, who all chip in on the rent and send money back to their families in Mexico.

(3) food stamps, of course. You must be a citizen in some states, of course, but fake ID (also used to get apartments) is relatively cheap.

(4) and all of the other government programs to "help" destitute people.

So what was the point of your question?

My point was that Obama voters in the hood should have their welfare cut and be forced to live the same way illegals do.

Working, cutting corners, and packed in privately paid apartments like sardines.

If its good enough for illegal alien Mexicans its good enough for Obama voters on welfare.

[Ransom]

Once again Ransom what would your plan be?

Number one, secure the border. First things first before deciding on those here illegally is to stop the illegal traffic of people, drugs, crime, guns, and poverty into this country. What does Mexico do for example with illegal immigrants from Central America?

Deports them.

We should build a wall for some of the border regions, use aircraft and border patrol for the remainder...... everyone of them caught crossing....... see ya.

[Ransom]

Once again Ransom what would your plan be?

And could you start asking hard questions? Your last two so second grade easy to answer....... tighten up, donttread. I compliment and agree with you when you're correct, stop asking silly questions. Easy peasy lemon squeasy.

[Mac-7]

Your repubs are just as responsible for allowing illegal immigration to keep labor prices unnaturally low.

What part of this sentence did you not understand?



What bleeding heart liberals and cold hearted chamber of commerce conservatives are doing is creating a big surpluses of labor through open borders and that drives down wages.

[donttread]

Number one, secure the border. First things first before deciding on those here illegally is to stop the illegal traffic of people, drugs, crime, guns, and poverty into this country. What does Mexico do for example with illegal immigrants from Central America?

Deports them.

We should build a wall for some of the border regions, use aircraft and border patrol for the remainder...... everyone of them caught crossing....... see ya.


So you really think we can win the war on drugs ? I thought you were a supposed student of history? Now how about the ME. What would you do there?

[donttread]

What part of this sentence did you not understand?

But yet you still mock those that oppose the Donkephant?

[Ransom]

So you really think we can win the war on drugs ? I thought you were a supposed student of history? Now how about the ME. What would you do there?

Who said anything about any war on drugs? No I do not think that war is winnable, the worst drug is sold and sanctioned and taxed by the state. Drugs are as much a demand side issue as they are a supply side issue, many drugs are habitual, demand remains steady.

I don't think you'll influence the trade though, I believe closing the border makes it much more difficult for drugs, guns, criminals, illegal immigrants, or illegal tacos to enter the US. We may indeed see a spike in cost for illegal drugs pricing some out of the market, never a bad thing.

Closing the border making drugs more expensive though....is a consequence of the main theme. We must stop illegal immigrants that include drug dealers, drug users, gang members, criminals, and unwanted elements into this country, or at least seriously curb this activity. Here we have infiltration tactics used by enemies such as al-Qaeda and ISIS, how about merely walking across the border, paying a coyote to take you across, we have a border security issue, we need it tightened up. Agree?

[Mac-7]

But yet you still mock those that oppose the Donkephant?

The chamber of commerce is not the entire Republican Party.

[OGIS]

Number one, secure the border. First things first before deciding on those here illegally is to stop the illegal traffic of people, drugs, crime, guns, and poverty into this country. What does Mexico do for example with illegal immigrants from Central America?

Deports them.

We should build a wall for some of the border regions, use aircraft and border patrol for the remainder...... everyone of them caught crossing....... see ya.

That sounds expensive and ultimately futile.

Consider walls, and all the other paraphernalia of the Drug War State. We can even keep hard drugs out of supermax facilities. If walls, and searches, and video, and guns, and all the other things "They" do to try and keep drugs out of totally-controlled areas fail - and fail in every single instance - they how effective do you think they will be against people trying to break IN to an area, over a much longer distance?

How many trillions of taxpayer dollars do you wanna spend on that?

OK, so you deport them. And the same people get caught again a month later, And a month after that. What do you do with repeaters? Shoot them?

Get creative.

How about....

The corrupt Thief Plutocracy known as the government of Mexico is still screwing over the Indians in the southern part of the country. This all started, as I recall, as one of the many thefts of peasant land that have occurred with regularity over the decades.

The Mexican government is actually complicit in this flood of illegals. It works something like this: legally loot the people, impoverish them, make it impossible for them to live. Then look the other way as the abandon their looters and go north.

We should be supporting those people rather than the 7 families that rule Mexico and "own" (have stolen) 90+ percent of the wealth.

We could tell the Mexican government - and back it up with action - that for every illegal alien that comes into the US the US government will send in a drone loaded with military weapons and ammunition to the guerrillas in southern Mexico. 2000 illegals enter the US in a month = 2000 loads of munitions delivered to the guerrillas.

I think that either our illegal alien problem, or the Mexican government, would evaporate very quickly. This would be considerably cheaper than turning the entire US into a walled reverse-prison.

(Oh yes, and what reverse psychological effect do you think such a wall would have on both US citizens and the government thugs manning the wall?)

To give you some perspective on Mexico's problems, here is a very interesting series on its history. We are SO lucky that the Founding Fathers were the people they were, and that we did not have a strong Spanish influence.

These are, of course, heavily propagandized, and a couple of the "historians" (Buckley is, I think, the most obvious) are just total Tools. But it is instructive, nonetheless, for discerning minds who can cut through the rather obvious BS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLrPQlSQiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyZ0FzJ73n4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXUrarqmchE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0SuCn0HH-Q

[Mac-7]

OSIS asked me a question but now is ignoring the answer.


So what was the point of your question?


My point was that Obama voters in the hood should have their welfare cut and be forced to live the same way illegals do.


Working, cutting corners, and packed in privately paid apartments like sardines.


If its good enough for illegal alien Mexicans its good enough for Obama voters on welfare.

[OGIS]

OSIS asked me a question but now is ignoring the answer.

No, Mac. I'm ignoring you.

And it is OGIS, not OSIS.

Get back to me when you sober up.

[Mac-7]

No, Mac. I'm ignoring you.



Ok.

Just leave your white flag at the door for the next lib panhandler to use.

[donttread]

Who said anything about any war on drugs? No I do not think that war is winnable, the worst drug is sold and sanctioned and taxed by the state. Drugs are as much a demand side issue as they are a supply side issue, many drugs are habitual, demand remains steady.

I don't think you'll influence the trade though, I believe closing the border makes it much more difficult for drugs, guns, criminals, illegal immigrants, or illegal tacos to enter the US. We may indeed see a spike in cost for illegal drugs pricing some out of the market, never a bad thing.

Closing the border making drugs more expensive though....is a consequence of the main theme. We must stop illegal immigrants that include drug dealers, drug users, gang members, criminals, and unwanted elements into this country, or at least seriously curb this activity. Here we have infiltration tactics used by enemies such as al-Qaeda and ISIS, how about merely walking across the border, paying a coyote to take you across, we have a border security issue, we need it tightened up. Agree?

Guns? We have 300,000,000 right here. I think the traffic largely goes in the other direction , remember "fast and Furious?"

[Ransom]

Guns? We have 300,000,000 right here. I think the traffic largely goes in the other direction , remember "fast and Furious?"

4 of them mine! 5 if you're counting my concealed carry permit. You cannot see the difference between a legal weapon owned by a law abiding US Citizen with a permit to carry it concealed and an illegal immigrant bringing a gun illegally across our borders?

Are you high?

[donttread]

4 of them mine! 5 if you're counting my concealed carry permit. You cannot see the difference between a legal weapon owned by a law abiding US Citizen with a permit to carry it concealed and an illegal immigrant bringing a gun illegally across our borders?

Are you high?

What....I ....am ..... saying....is ....that ..... they..... can.... get .....guns......here and ..... many guns .... in Mexico ..... came .....from ....here. Did I say that slow enough for you?

[Ransom]

What....I ....am ..... saying....is ....that ..... they..... can.... get .....guns......here and ..... many guns .... in Mexico ..... came .....from ....here. Did I say that slow enough for you?

And......when.....you...bring....an.....illegal... .gun.....into Mexico.....they confiscate.....and send you back......to your country of origin. You.....get...that.....right?

Mexico's responsibility to decide and control immigration or border traffic. They want to build a wall to keep American guns out. I'm all for it.

You're one of the reasons I don't think pot should be made legal.

[Ransom]

Remember what happened to the American soldier who took a gun into Mexico. A gun legally owned by it's carrier here in the US?

Jailed.

Toke up, D.

[Ransom]

That sounds expensive and ultimately futile.

Consider walls, and all the other paraphernalia of the Drug War State. We can even keep hard drugs out of supermax facilities. If walls, and searches, and video, and guns, and all the other things "They" do to try and keep drugs out of totally-controlled areas fail - and fail in every single instance - they how effective do you think they will be against people trying to break IN to an area, over a much longer distance?

How many trillions of taxpayer dollars do you wanna spend on that?

OK, so you deport them. And the same people get caught again a month later, And a month after that. What do you do with repeaters? Shoot them?

Get creative.

How about....

The corrupt Thief Plutocracy known as the government of Mexico is still screwing over the Indians in the southern part of the country. This all started, as I recall, as one of the many thefts of peasant land that have occurred with regularity over the decades.

The Mexican government is actually complicit in this flood of illegals. It works something like this: legally loot the people, impoverish them, make it impossible for them to live. Then look the other way as the abandon their looters and go north.

We should be supporting those people rather than the 7 families that rule Mexico and "own" (have stolen) 90+ percent of the wealth.

We could tell the Mexican government - and back it up with action - that for every illegal alien that comes into the US the US government will send in a drone loaded with military weapons and ammunition to the guerrillas in southern Mexico. 2000 illegals enter the US in a month = 2000 loads of munitions delivered to the guerrillas.

I think that either our illegal alien problem, or the Mexican government, would evaporate very quickly. This would be considerably cheaper than turning the entire US into a walled reverse-prison.

(Oh yes, and what reverse psychological effect do you think such a wall would have on both US citizens and the government thugs manning the wall?)

To give you some perspective on Mexico's problems, here is a very interesting series on its history. We are SO lucky that the Founding Fathers were the people they were, and that we did not have a strong Spanish influence.

These are, of course, heavily propagandized, and a couple of the "historians" (Buckley is, I think, the most obvious) are just total Tools. But it is instructive, nonetheless, for discerning minds who can cut through the rather obvious BS.



Someone asking this question must know what were spending today trying to deal with this, how mush of a drain it currently has on our society.

And I'd like to know how much Kate Steinle's life is worth, some might argue a trillion plus dollars.

Current immigration policy is costing us trillions now, costing legal US citizens their lives and jobs........your alarm clock has gone off several times, you continue to hit snooze.

What up with that?

[OGIS]

Someone asking this question must know what were spending today trying to deal with this, how mush of a drain it currently has on our society.

And I'd like to know how much Kate Steinle's life is worth, some might argue a trillion plus dollars.

Current immigration policy is costing us trillions now, costing legal US citizens their lives and jobs........your alarm clock has gone off several times, you continue to hit snooze.

What up with that?

Rather than just answering my observation and proposal by hyperventilating over a white girl killed by an illegal, do you think you could actually address what I said?

Given that we have lots of evidence that Walls simply do not work, do you seriously suggest just building another one?

Given that Walls have unfortunate psychological effects on the people manning them, do you think that a Wall on the border would be a, you know, pro-liberty thing?

Given that history of Mexico and the self evident rule of it by Looters that make anything in Atlas Shrugged seem laughably easygoing, do you think that addressing the ROOT CAUSE of the problem (the Looters) might actually work to solve the problem?

Finally, a wall is a BAND AID that addresses a symptom. We need to address the disease.

It's so sad that conservatives seem to have abandoned reason and logic.
Conservatives used to be the adults in the room.

[Mac-7]

Rather than just answering my observation and proposal by hyperventilating over a white girl killed by an illegal, do you think you could actually address what I said?



Its a waste of time to argue with lefties.

They just want to know when the welfare check will arrive.

[donttread]

And......when.....you...bring....an.....illegal... .gun.....into Mexico.....they confiscate.....and send you back......to your country of origin. You.....get...that.....right?

Mexico's responsibility to decide and control immigration or border traffic. They want to build a wall to keep American guns out. I'm all for it.

You're one of the reasons I don't think pot should be made legal.

Where did the Fast and furious guns go?

[whatukno]

Where did the Fast and furious guns go?

To fine upstanding importers of alternative medicine?

[donttread]

And......when.....you...bring....an.....illegal... .gun.....into Mexico.....they confiscate.....and send you back......to your country of origin. You.....get...that.....right?

Mexico's responsibility to decide and control immigration or border traffic. They want to build a wall to keep American guns out. I'm all for it.

You're one of the reasons I don't think pot should be made legal.

Fucking Google it genius. A quarter of a million guns flow from America to Mexico each year. BTW, how many famous Mexican gun manufacturers can you name?