• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Military Spending

fuheel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
4,366
Reaction score
174
Location
Greensboro
No words necessary.

20110611_WOC883.gif
 
[insert obligatory chart showing entitlement spending dwarfing defense spending here]
 
[obligatory "all the other countries spend so little b/c we spend so much" comment]
 
[insert obligatory chart showing entitlement spending dwarfing defense spending here]

Let me guess -- you wish we could spend even more on the military but the entitlements gobbled up all the damn money. Have I got that right?
 
Let me guess -- you wish we could spend even more on the military but the entitlements gobbled up all the damn money. Have I got that right?

Entitlements in their current form are driving our country into insolvency. They are completely unsustainable and are criminal acts of intergenerational theft. I think that's a problem, mainly because I am opposed to stealing things from the defenseless.

Further, what clause in our Constitution justifies spending one dime on entitlements? I can point to the authorization to spend money on defense.
 
Not trying to be a jerk, but that is really simple con law question: taxing and spending

(see also necessary and proper)
 
Entitlements in their current form are driving our country into insolvency. They are completely unsustainable and are criminal acts of intergenerational theft. I think that's a problem, mainly because I am opposed to stealing things from the defenseless.

Further, what clause in our Constitution justifies spending one dime on entitlements? I can point to the authorization to spend money on defense.

QFT

This type of reckless behavior will ruin our country. What a shame that we can't even elect people that are honest and with a reasonable moral compass. I can tolerate political differences of opinion, but I can't handle this type of behavior from either side of the aisle. Entitlements are straight out theft.
 
It's easier to argue that a dollar spent on entitlements directly benefits the well-being of Americans than it is to make that argument about defense, particularly our foreign wars. Killing A-rabs vs. Healing Americans.

No contest.

We need to reform spending but calling entitlements theft while putting a halo on defense spending makes no sense.
 
We need to reform spending but calling entitlements theft while putting a halo on defense spending makes no sense.

I don't disagree with you. I got sidetracked on entitlements, wasn't necessarily speaking to defense spending.
 
Not trying to be a jerk, but that is really simple con law question: taxing and spending

(see also necessary and proper)

There is no such thing as a "taxing and spending" clause that would stretch far enough to impoverish our country and threaten its national security to the degree that our entitlements do. If that's the case, then why not just call it the "blank check" clause?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;..."

There's nothing about bankrupting our country buying E.D. drugs for old people that will fit in that box.
 
There is no such thing as a "taxing and spending" clause that would stretch far enough to impoverish our country and threaten its national security to the degree that our entitlements do. If that's the case, then why not just call it the "blank check" clause?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;..."

There's nothing about bankrupting our country buying E.D. drugs for old people that will fit in that box.

taking care of old folks would fall under the "general welfare" category.
 
taking care of old folks would fall under the "general welfare" category.

Incorrect in both spirit, meaning and application.

Voting to borrow money and burdening our grandchild with repayment is a) taxation without representation, and b) "specific", rather than "general" welfare. Please keep reading, until you get to the point about requiring "uniformity." "Uniformity" could just as easily be read to apply to "time" as well as "space."

Further, any time our spending gets so excessive it threatens our solvency as a country, we've achieved neither "specific" nor "general" welfare: indeed, it is to our general detriment.
 
Not trying to be a jerk, but that is really simple con law question: taxing and spending

(see also necessary and proper)


I will assume you are kidding and on that ground won't respond.
 
Incorrect in both spirit, meaning and application.

Voting to borrow money and burdening our grandchild with repayment is a) taxation without representation, and b) "specific", rather than "general" welfare. Please keep reading, until you get to the point about requiring "uniformity." "Uniformity" could just as easily be read to apply to "time" as well as "space."

Further, any time our spending gets so excessive it threatens our solvency as a country, we've achieved neither "specific" nor "general" welfare: indeed, it is to our general detriment.

You can interpret it however you want, more power to you. However, the Supreme Court disagrees. (see United States v. Butler and all the ensuing cases.)
 
Incorrect in both spirit, meaning and application.

Voting to borrow money and burdening our grandchild with repayment is a) taxation without representation, and b) "specific", rather than "general" welfare. Please keep reading, until you get to the point about requiring "uniformity." "Uniformity" could just as easily be read to apply to "time" as well as "space."

Further, any time our spending gets so excessive it threatens our solvency as a country, we've achieved neither "specific" nor "general" welfare: indeed, it is to our general detriment.

But building schools and hospitals in foreign countries (when ours are deteriorating), paying off warlords(known criminals who are fleecing us), and paying private contractors tremendously more than our volunteer warriors isn't?
 
Last edited:
But building schools and hospitals in foreign countries (when ours are deteriorating), paying off warlords(known criminals who are fleecing us), and paying private contractors tremendously more than our volunteer warriors isn't?

No, but defense spending isn't on track to expand geometrically and bankrupt the country. Entitlements are on a collision course to do just that.

The morbidly obese person in line for a third time at Surf and Turf night at the Golden Trough isn't doing himself any favors by distracting himself from his clear and present health dangers by worrying about finding the right contractor to paint his house (and deluding himself into thinking that "then", all will be right with the world).

Let's at least focus on the right problem.
 
Last edited:
Dollars are dollars. All spending is on track to bankrupt the country.
 
I hope everyone on this thread that is concerned about government spending is a Ron Paul supporter.

He's the only candidate on either side that has shown any commitment to legitimately downsizing government.
 
I hope everyone on this thread that is concerned about government spending is a Ron Paul supporter.

He's the only candidate on either side that has shown any commitment to legitimately downsizing government.

How about downsizing the military-industrial establishment?
 
Back
Top