BF2S Forums $3B taxpayer’s money down the drain.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Try to keep up.

ok sorry ya lost me, so, go ahead with your point, you think no one in the military produces and to prove this you cite BRazil....no continue with your point.

We're talking about per capita defence spending - pay attention.

Were you like this when your sister was home-schooling you?

Well the second Europe turns to Brazil for guidance and leadership in military rolls, you get back with me and we can discuss why the US spends more.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

We're talking about per capita defence spending - pay attention.

Were you like this when your sister was home-schooling you?

Well the second Europe turns to Brazil for guidance and leadership in military rolls, you get back with me and we can discuss why the US spends more.

The point is to not be in a military role at all......

In a perfect world yes, that would be true. However there will never be such a thing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

We're talking about per capita defence spending - pay attention.

Were you like this when your sister was home-schooling you?

Well the second Europe turns to Brazil for guidance and leadership in military rolls, you get back with me and we can discuss why the US spends more.

The point is to not be in a military role at all......

Fine, the second nations of the world do not have a need a for a military, get back with me, until then the second Europe turns to Brazil for military leadership and guidance, will have to do.

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?

If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs.  We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world.  We don't even have an NHS.

So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.

How many people do you think benefit from defense spending?

Since he views it as a form of welfare, approximately 3 million adults. It doesn't benefit the lot of us, it's simply there to be a jobs program.

Honestly, I figured you did as well.

Turquoise wrote:

Shocking wrote:

I haven't really followed the last few pages of the debate but just to be sure, what in the defense industry do you have a problem with? Every aspect of it, or just some projects?

As I said before I do believe a defense industry is necessary to some extent, and fighter jet contracts and the like are bound to haul in massive revenue for a company, effectively making them dependant on the gov. It's a bit unavoidable.

I have a problem with defense spending that exceeds domestic defense.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I would address that post, but it seems to contradict some of your other posts.  We go back and forth on this without much progress.

I'll just ask this.  Are we agreeing that temporary help for people actively trying to help themselves and for people literally unable to help themselves is acceptable?

yes we agree.

Now let me ask this. Do we agree that all others can fuck off?

also, what are my contradictions?

If it's possible to truly limit welfare to only those who can't help themselves and those who help themselves, then yes.  I'm not sure how you could go about that though.

Piece of cake, first through birth certificates establish US citizenship. Then through medical records, tax returns, education history, work history and criminal records ( or lack of any ) you can easily determine who is worthless and who just needs a hand up.

Would really like to know what I have contradicted myself on by the way.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-30 06:47:27)

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How many people do you think benefit from defense spending?

Since he views it as a form of welfare, approximately 3 million adults. It doesn't benefit the lot of us, it's simply there to be a jobs program.

Honestly, I figured you did as well.

Not in the slightest.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmar wrote:

GE pays no taxes, fires workers, offers their jobs over seas, and Obama appoints CEO to chair the counsel on Jobs and Competitiveness.

...and people still call Obama a "leftist."

Since when does corruption have political allegiance?

How ridiculously partisan of you, Turq.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmar wrote:

GE pays no taxes, fires workers, offers their jobs over seas, and Obama appoints CEO to chair the counsel on Jobs and Competitiveness.

...and people still call Obama a "leftist."

Since when does corruption have political allegiance?

How ridiculously partisan of you, Turq.

Corruption isn't partisan.  Corporatism is.  He's a corporatist, not a leftist or socialist.  Hell, most Americans don't have a clue what a socialist actually is.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

...and people still call Obama a "leftist."

Since when does corruption have political allegiance?

How ridiculously partisan of you, Turq.

Corruption isn't partisan.  Corporatism is.  He's a corporatist, not a leftist or socialist.  Hell, most Americans don't have a clue what a socialist actually is.

Bullshit. Corporatism is another name for political corruption. And all parties do it, because that's where the money is.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Since when does corruption have political allegiance?

How ridiculously partisan of you, Turq.

Corruption isn't partisan.  Corporatism is.  He's a corporatist, not a leftist or socialist.  Hell, most Americans don't have a clue what a socialist actually is.

Bullshit. Corporatism is another name for political corruption. And all parties do it, because that's where the money is.

I'm not going to argue with you over semantics.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Corruption isn't partisan.  Corporatism is.  He's a corporatist, not a leftist or socialist.  Hell, most Americans don't have a clue what a socialist actually is.

Bullshit. Corporatism is another name for political corruption. And all parties do it, because that's where the money is.

I'm not going to argue with you over semantics.

I think anyone would agree that a valid definition of corruption would be a leader acting against their own established principles in the guise of self benefit.

Blue Herring wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bullshit. Corporatism is another name for political corruption. And all parties do it, because that's where the money is.

I'm not going to argue with you over semantics.

I think anyone would agree that a valid definition of corruption would be a leader acting against their own established principles in the guise of self benefit.

Sure, but that shows someone isn't truly supportive of said principles.

Our government is primarily composed of corporatists who represent neither the left nor right but just represent whoever is paying them off.

Very few of them consistently support any particular ideology (other than corporatism) beyond rhetoric and shallow gestures.

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-03-30 08:38:01)

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How much is needed for domestic defense vs "other?" Where do you draw the line? And do you apply the same criteria to other forms of government spending, since at that level it comes down to security interests? You use the military instrument of power instead of the economic instrument...or in concert with the diplomatic...or the informational...or pick your favorite combination. Whatever. Point being, you're spending national resources outside the US to protect our interests abroad. And you object to those interests being protected? Or you just think you know better?

I think I know enough to realize that most interventionism is more expensive than it's worth.

Every country goes through an imperialist phase -- ours just happens to be more expansive (and expensive) than most.

You can come up with every excuse under the sun to get involved in whatever conflicts you like, but at the end of the day, it's not for the benefit of the people.  It's for the benefit of war profiteers and multinational corporations.

When you join the military, you aren't serving your country -- you're serving elite interests.  Only a purely defensive military serves the interests of its people in a consistent manner.

I had to delete what I first wrote. I realized you didn't mean to demean those who serve...

Our military isn't used by policy makers in a consistent manner, but those who serve always serve their nation and it's interests, just as those who serve in a purely defensive force (if such a creature even exists) do.

I'd say the current conflict (Libya) is benefiting Russia more than anyone. As long as the flow of oil from Libya remains in question, they are the supplier of choice for Europe. It's in their interest for this conflict to continue--probably why they are starting to balk at the expansion beyond the NFZ, as it tips things beyond a stalemate.

Interventionism without clear purpose is generally more expensive than it's worth--since without a clear purpose, you don't know why you're intervening to begin with. That, and constantly changing goals lead to quagmires and money pits--the end result of most Western interventions over the past several decades.