• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poster that says it all about Gov MIC spending, and 11 years of war waste

But in many cases it is "taken" from hedge funds and used to fund more teachers or rebuild infrastucture. Both of which are far more beneficial to our economy than another trillion speculating in commodities could be. The top 5% have amassed a total net worth of over $40 TRILLION dollars, quintupling their fortunes in only 30 years. This cannot continue or there will be ruin. Growth is the way out and the closer we get to full employment the more the maldistribution of wealth will correct itself.

So we need to redistribute wealth? What is the standard? Who gets what? What would one have to do to earn their "distributed" portion of "wealth"? Does everyone get a home with running water, internet, and a cellphone? What happens when the masses decide that's not enough? Do we take more from the rich? Build an addition on everyone's "redistributed" home? Install a hot-tub? That is ridiculous...

How do you not understand that the very notion of wealth redistribution will devalue the currency? It's funny you mention teachers... Let me guess, not enough is invested in education? This has been a rally-cry for decades, more money has been thrown at education, and it has only gotten worse.

Growth is the way to get closer to full employment, correct... But, if the government was really able to grow the economy, would we not be booming with growth? Here is something we haven't tried in almost 100 years... Get the government out of the economy!
 
So we need to redistribute wealth? What is the standard? Who gets what? What would one have to do to earn their "distributed" portion of "wealth"? Does everyone get a home with running water, internet, and a cellphone? What happens when the masses decide that's not enough? Do we take more from the rich? Build an addition on everyone's "redistributed" home? Install a hot-tub? That is ridiculous...

How do you not understand that the very notion of wealth redistribution will devalue the currency? It's funny you mention teachers... Let me guess, not enough is invested in education? This has been a rally-cry for decades, more money has been thrown at education, and it has only gotten worse.

Growth is the way to get closer to full employment, correct... But, if the government was really able to grow the economy, would we not be booming with growth? Here is something we haven't tried in almost 100 years... Get the government out of the economy!

All Income tax is "wealth redisribution" to you I guess. The Govt. takes from the people and gives it to the Govt. to spend for the common good. We take more from those that have alot and none from those with none to spare. That seems wrong to you? Taking money from those that have it? Do you have a clue about what common good means? You may think our military or our roads, bridges and tunnels or even our children are not important but that is wrong.
 
All Income tax is "wealth redisribution" to you I guess. The Govt. takes from the
people and gives it to the Govt. to spend for the common good. We take more from those that have alot and none from those with none to spare. That seems wrong to you? Taking money from those that have it? Do you have a clue about what common good means? You may think our military or our roads, bridges and tunnels or even our children are not important but that is wrong.

Is the phrase "common good" in the Constitution ?

And who are you to scold or lecture someone on the "common good" when American middle class families all over the US are struggling to make ends meet because the least knowledgable elected the least qualified in the last two elections ?

And demagoging the issue doesn't add any credibillity to your argument.

The welfare clause in the preamble never gave the federal Govt the power to legislate for general welfare of its citicenz. That's always been a states rights issue.

But whats worse is when the left talks about increasing the scope and cost of the general welfare clause, it's never for the benefit of the people.

Its for the benefit of their party, at the expense of the people.
 
Is the phrase "common good" in the Constitution ?
the following is the preamble with the emphasis mine. please share with us why that highlighted portion is not referring to the common good:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And who are you to scold or lecture someone on the "common good" when American middle class families all over the US are struggling to make ends meet because the least knowledgable elected the least qualified in the last two elections ?
you have made a bold assertion; please back it up with something factual, such as showing us why the previous president did not contribute to the present financial struggles of a significant portion of those in the middle class

And demagoging the issue doesn't add any credibillity to your argument.
please point out the demagoguery that you believe was employed

The welfare clause in the preamble never gave the federal Govt the power to legislate for general welfare of its citicenz. That's always been a states rights issue.
please share with us where the general welfare provision applies exclusively to the states and not the federal

But whats worse is when the left talks about increasing the scope and cost of the general welfare clause, it's never for the benefit of the people.
offer us instances which would exemplify your stated belief that legislation executed under the general welfare provision has never benefited the typical citizen

Its for the benefit of their party, at the expense of the people.
show us why this is true, that the party always benefits while the typical citizen never does

i look forward to reading your responses
 
Is the phrase "common good" in the Constitution ?

And who are you to scold or lecture someone on the "common good" when American middle class families all over the US are struggling to make ends meet because the least knowledgable elected the least qualified in the last two elections ?

And demagoging the issue doesn't add any credibillity to your argument.

The welfare clause in the preamble never gave the federal Govt the power to legislate for general welfare of its citicenz. That's always been a states rights issue.

But whats worse is when the left talks about increasing the scope and cost of the general welfare clause, it's never for the benefit of the people.

Its for the benefit of their party, at the expense of the people.

Where's your outrage at Congress? A president can't spend a dime without Congress approving it. So if you want to place blame on the outrageous spending you need to put it where it belongs.
 
the following is the preamble with the emphasis mine. please share with us why that highlighted portion is not referring to the common good:

First, why are you answering for iguanaman ? Trust me, he's perfectly capable of posting irreverent Liberal data and ignoring reality.

Second, why don't you just call it what it is ? The reason I questioned your use of the phrase "common good" is Libz are notorious for corrupting the actual meaning of the phrase " promote the General Welfare " You know, like when they use it to justify building voter farms by institutionalizing generational dependence, or when they do something completely ridiculous like Obama's running food stamp "how to" add's on Mexican Tv Stations....
The Obama Administration Works With Mexico To Increase Food Stamp Usage - Investors.com


you have made a bold assertion; please back it up with something factual, such as showing us why the previous president did not contribute to the present financial struggles of a significant portion of those in the middle class

The last time I tried to explain this to you you hacked a Krugman article that tried to mitigate the undeniable and easily provable point that the market that enabled the sub-prime collapse was manufactured by Clinton and his Liberal politicians.

For Example..In 1992 an Affordable Housing Mandate was put on Fannie and Freddie ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30% , then 40% and 50% under Clinton and then 55% under Bush.

From 1993 to 1998 Clinton replaced all of the GSEs higher ups with his own people....Franklin Reigns....and they made millions in bonus's as the GSEs bought low quality loans, bundled those low quality loans with good loans and then pushed them out into the market as AAA Securities onto the investors.....but you folks blame the banks, nice.

Your a Krugman fan so here, from 1997......From the NYT,
...." “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo in 2000 pledged two trillion to the affordable housing...
"Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why."

Cuomo gets elected NY's Governor for his hand in nearly collapsing our economy. Typical Washington corruption. If you run a pyramid scam in NY and defraud investors out of 18 billion, you die in jail. You become a critical component of a policy that ultimately defrauded people out of their homes, the market out of close to 6 trillion in wealth and nearly collapse the national economy and they give you a Governorship.

And....“In 1994, at the President’s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts.” - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research website

Your Bush Blame ? There is empirical data upon data that shows he tried to corral the GSE's as he knew early on that they were effectively financing the crisis and the next housing bubble. You guys don't realize, or you refuse to realize that without the GSE's being mandated to buy up crap from the banks there would have been zero sub-prime collapse. Proof ? Obama and Holder actually made the CRA compliance laws stronger. Now banks can be investigated by the Justice Department for failing to comply. I'll post a few, but I've got pages of these by the way..

April: 2001 The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

They go up to 2007. Bush's continued effort throughout his Presidency to reign in the disaster were met with Democrat cries of "discrimination" and nothing was done until it was to late. Liberal's went into damage control, the GSE heads made off with millions in bonus's and the American tax payer get's the shaft.


please point out the demagoguery that you believe was employed
"We take more from those that have alot and none from those with none to spare. That seems wrong to you? Taking money from those that have it? " He doesn't understand the increasing tax's on the rich, investors or corporations usually has detrimental effects on the economy, causes revenue to drop and the poor to incur hardship due to chronic unemployment.


please share with us where the general welfare provision applies exclusively to the states and not the federal

You think the preamble establishes rights ? It's just a generic description of what's to follow.

The General welfare clause establishes restrictions on the Fed, not giving them arbitrary power to first isolate as not part of the power layed out in Article 1 Section 8 and then use it to justify new legislation.

Any additional powers not enumerated by the Constitution fall directly under States Authority. The 10th amendment.

offer us instances which would exemplify your stated belief that legislation executed under the general welfare provision has never benefited the typical citizen

show us why this is true, that the party always benefits while the typical citizen never does

i look forward to reading your responses

It's how the Federal Government instituted social welfare legislation that through further legislation caused or enabled generational dependency, poverty, crime and the destruction of the black family. Places like Cabrini Green, QUeensbridge, Robert Taylor Homes, The Dearborn Homes etc.

I don't disagree with a social safety net. But when the Libs refuse to make any changes to a entitlement system that has caused a incalculable amount of suffering, then I have a problem with it. QUOTE
 
First, why are you answering for iguanaman ? Trust me, he's perfectly capable of posting irreverent Liberal data and ignoring reality.

Second, why don't you just call it what it is ? The reason I questioned your use of the phrase "common good" is Libz are notorious for corrupting the actual meaning of the phrase " promote the General Welfare " You know, like when they use it to justify building voter farms by institutionalizing generational dependence, or when they do something completely ridiculous like Obama's running food stamp "how to" add's on Mexican Tv Stations....
The Obama Administration Works With Mexico To Increase Food Stamp Usage - Investors.com




The last time I tried to explain this to you you hacked a Krugman article that tried to mitigate the undeniable and easily provable point that the market that enabled the sub-prime collapse was manufactured by Clinton and his Liberal politicians.

For Example..In 1992 an Affordable Housing Mandate was put on Fannie and Freddie ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30% , then 40% and 50% under Clinton and then 55% under Bush.

From 1993 to 1998 Clinton replaced all of the GSEs higher ups with his own people....Franklin Reigns....and they made millions in bonus's as the GSEs bought low quality loans, bundled those low quality loans with good loans and then pushed them out into the market as AAA Securities onto the investors.....but you folks blame the banks, nice.

Your a Krugman fan so here, from 1997......From the NYT,
...." “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo in 2000 pledged two trillion to the affordable housing...
"Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why."

Cuomo gets elected NY's Governor for his hand in nearly collapsing our economy. Typical Washington corruption. If you run a pyramid scam in NY and defraud investors out of 18 billion, you die in jail. You become a critical component of a policy that ultimately defrauded people out of their homes, the market out of close to 6 trillion in wealth and nearly collapse the national economy and they give you a Governorship.

And....“In 1994, at the President’s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts.” - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research website

Your Bush Blame ? There is empirical data upon data that shows he tried to corral the GSE's as he knew early on that they were effectively financing the crisis and the next housing bubble. You guys don't realize, or you refuse to realize that without the GSE's being mandated to buy up crap from the banks there would have been zero sub-prime collapse. Proof ? Obama and Holder actually made the CRA compliance laws stronger. Now banks can be investigated by the Justice Department for failing to comply. I'll post a few, but I've got pages of these by the way..

April: 2001 The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

They go up to 2007. Bush's continued effort throughout his Presidency to reign in the disaster were met with Democrat cries of "discrimination" and nothing was done until it was to late. Liberal's went into damage control, the GSE heads made off with millions in bonus's and the American tax payer get's the shaft.



"We take more from those that have alot and none from those with none to spare. That seems wrong to you? Taking money from those that have it? " He doesn't understand the increasing tax's on the rich, investors or corporations usually has detrimental effects on the economy, causes revenue to drop and the poor to incur hardship due to chronic unemployment.




You think the preamble establishes rights ? It's just a generic description of what's to follow.

The General welfare clause establishes restrictions on the Fed, not giving them arbitrary power to first isolate as not part of the power layed out in Article 1 Section 8 and then use it to justify new legislation.

Any additional powers not enumerated by the Constitution fall directly under States Authority. The 10th amendment.



It's how the Federal Government instituted social welfare legislation that through further legislation caused or enabled generational dependency, poverty, crime and the destruction of the black family. Places like Cabrini Green, QUeensbridge, Robert Taylor Homes, The Dearborn Homes etc.

I don't disagree with a social safety net. But when the Libs refuse to make any changes to a entitlement system that has caused a incalculable amount of suffering, then I have a problem with it. QUOTE

just as i expected
a lot of jibberish and nonsense - but you actually have nothing factual to offer in support of your assinine proclamations, despite my very specific challenge to do so
that will teach me for daring to again read one of your posts in the hope that something other than highly partisan stupidity might finally be found
 
Yep. But we are #1 in the world for "defense" spending, while also #2 in the world for welfare spending (Luxembourg is #1 for that). Borrow and spend is not limitted to the military (and its contractors) we have a huge welfare state as well - now supporting 15% of the US population on the wages of others.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf

US Welfare Spending for 2013 - Charts

the USA ended welfare in 1996. Stop talking about things that dont exist.

Prove me wrong and go apply........see what you get! LMAO

$200 month SNAP. ANd you cant even wipe your butt!

No healthcare
no shelter
no nothing
 
Of the 46 MILLION that SHOULD get full welfare........... so that means you are screwing 42 million.

42 million to start building the gillotines..........Viv la revolution!

I'm not screwing anyone but how do you figure 46 million should get it?
 
Of the 46 MILLION that SHOULD get full
welfare........... so that means you are screwing 42 million.

42 million to start building the gillotines..........Viv la revolution!

Guillotines are not that hard to build. Theyr'e a simple contraption.

When you start yours will you post pics ?
 
the USA ended welfare in 1996. Stop talking about things that dont exist.


Prove me wrong and go apply........see what you get! LMAO

$200 month SNAP. ANd you cant even wipe your butt!

No healthcare
no shelter
no nothing

And for good reason.
 
just as i expected
a lot of jibberish and nonsense - but
you actually have nothing factual to offer in support of your assinine proclamations, despite my very specific challenge to do so
that will teach me for daring to again read one of your posts in the hope that something other than highly partisan stupidity might finally be found


LOL !!! Gibberish !

Your lack of reading comprehension doesn not make actual historical events and quotes from real people "gibberish".

What it makes you is WRONG.

You blamed Bush, I gave you just a fraction of information thats out there on the democrat mandated bubble to prove to you you were full of ****.

What are you gonna do next ? Quote Krugman again ?
 
Why should all 46 million be eligible for every program?

because every one is the same and needs the same basic things. (like all other western nations do it)

Woman with child needs the same shelter a single man does.

food $200 month not enough
TP
tooth paste etc etc (all not allowd under Current bourgeois laugh at the poor program)
shelter
job training for changing jobs
healthcare
 
The national debt clock shows how much is being spent on the military as compare to the rest of government.

You will note entitlements ...SS, medicare and medicaid and security income, are 2 1/2 times as more costly then our military.

add about another 200 billion for discretionary spending for the military, bring it to about 866 billion.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2013-02-27 at 8.57.33 PM.webp
    Screen shot 2013-02-27 at 8.57.33 PM.webp
    21.7 KB · Views: 33
  • Screen shot 2013-02-27 at 8.59.17 PM.webp
    Screen shot 2013-02-27 at 8.59.17 PM.webp
    14.2 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
Why should all 46 million be eligible for every program?

Why should programs exist that do not include everyone? In fact why should government programs exist at all? Why shouldn't our federal government defend the country, deal and treat with other countries and settle inter state disputes and not much else?
 
The national debt clock shows how much is being spent on the military as compare to the rest of government.

You will note entitlements ...SS, medicare and medicaid and security income, are 2 1/2 times as more costly then our military.

add about another 200 billion for discretionary spending for the military, bring it to about 866 billion.

You should also note that SS and Medicare are fully paid for by payroll taxes.
Not so much with defense, in fact without the defense expenditures we would not have any debt at all. We have spent $10 Trillion on defense since 2000. It is boggling to think all those trillions wasted on wars, death and destruction. Ike was certainly right about the military industrial complex.
 
you should also note that ss and medicare are fully paid for by payroll taxes.
Not so much with defense, in fact without the defense expenditures we would not have any debt at all. We have spent $10 trillion on defense since 2000. It is boggling to think all those trillions wasted on wars, death and destruction. Ike was certainly right about the military industrial complex.

you will also note, that money goes into the general fund, since lbj.

You will also not that ----->total government revenues<---- (have been) about 2.3 trillion dollars, it is expected this year to be about 2.7 trillion, because of the jan 1st tax increases.

From the figures of the chart you will see,............. Entitlements, and ------->security income ( ssi ,eic, unemployment compensation,nutrition assistance, welfare, foster care, making work pay) ...........total almost ------> 2 trillion by itself.

Since america has been spending over 1 trillion dollars over revenues,.............and we are not spending 1 trillion dollars on the military, and we cant totally get rid of the military, then where do we cut government spending?

If we cut say half of the military, say 400 billion, which would be (huge) and not realistic, we would still have to cut HUNDREDS of billion more dollars, ......where would the left want to cuts to come from?........where since they refuse to stop any redistribution of wealth.
 
Yep. But we are #1 in the world for "defense" spending, while also #2 in the world for welfare spending (Luxembourg is #1 for that). Borrow and spend is not limitted to the military (and its contractors) we have a huge welfare state as well - now supporting 15% of the US population on the wages of others.

In my opinion, if our generals can't win a war when we're spending more than the next 13 countries, most of whom are our ALLIES, then we need new commanders. The folks you're talking about on welfare and foodstamps are mostly WORKING people. Lets raise minimum wage.
 
I think what's missing in this discussion is the role military spending has had in technological advances that the general public benefits from long after the military advantage may have been lost - GPS is an example, microwave technology, more recently a lot of prosthetics advancements are directly related to the military. Similarly, a lot of technological advancements came from NASA and the space program.

I guess it depends on your "bent" what you support - people who don't support research and development related to the military and space are ok with Obama spending billions of taxpayer dollars on "clean energy" research and development.
Sure. I mean you're bound to get advancement when you pump as much $$$ into something like we do with military.
 
You get what you pay for though. The $700 million plane can drop that $50 thousand bomb more accurately and efficiently than anything else.

Regardless, the US military budget is bloated. The United States is maintaining a military excessively large for the realtive peacetime we live in today.

Most bitch about spending cuts. I see a #1 culprit here that can use some major trimming.



Its also quite telling that all those Reps that are calling for spending cuts, voted unanimously to spend all most as much on the military in 2013 as the rest of the world combined.
 
Back
Top Bottom