BF2S Forums Occupy Wall Street

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Lowing being a helicopter repairman. Jay going to school on a military scholarship. FEOS still working the in the air force...

Why are the people most in favor of small government on this forum the same ones that rely the most on the government funded military industrial complex? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Dil may be trolling but I agree that our military is as much a jobs program as it a military.

Small government is about the government doing what it is supposed to do, as stated in the Constitution, vice what social scientists think it should do, via expansionist policies. One of the few things expressly stated as a role of the federal government is national defense.

There's no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. At least, not if one has a clue what small government means and what the Constitution actually says. When you swear an oath to give your life to defend something, you tend to pay attention to what that thing is.

Not that I would expect you to have a clue about anything like that.

So troll harder.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you believe so strongly in small govt and reducing military spending why not quit your job on principle and see how you go in the private sector?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Right, so railing against big government and military spending don't preclude you from taking advantage of both.

OK.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Right, so railing against big government and military spending don't preclude you from taking advantage of both.

OK.

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Right, so railing against big government and military spending don't preclude you from taking advantage of both.

OK.

If you read the constitution, national defense is one of the few powers specified for the federal government: first point debunked.

Lowered military spending still requires a military, of which I am a part, the majority of reduced spending coming from killing wasteful weapons programs: second point shot down.

So yeah. Totally OK.

"wasteful weapons programs" are like earmarks, a useful talking point but a very small piece of the overall picture. The vast majority of military spending costs is in salary and 'essential' equipment like the Navy's massively overpriced and worthless surface fleet.

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Right, so railing against big government and military spending don't preclude you from taking advantage of both.

OK.

Railing against oil doesn't stop you from driving a car.

FEOS wrote:

If you read the constitution, national defense is one of the few powers specified for the federal government: first point debunked.

US Constitution (emphasis mine) wrote:

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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

FEOS wrote:

I'm sorry that you can't grasp the very simple tenets of the US Constitution. Those powers not explicitly provided for the federal govt (like national defense) belong to the states. It is arranged that way to keep the scope (and power) of the federal government minimal.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm sorry that you can't grasp the very simple tenets of the US Constitution. Those powers not explicitly provided for the federal govt (like national defense) belong to the states. It is arranged that way to keep the scope (and power) of the federal government minimal.

Where in the constitution does it say 1/3rd of the govt budget should be spent on a military and private defence companies which thereby become so powerful that they are the govt?