Re: Balancing The Budget



On 2/5/2011 6:55 PM, Dave Head wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:04:02 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:05:59 -0500, Dave Head<rally2xs@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:21:38 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Actually I want to hear your explanation that we've won the Iraq war.
I suppose this was done by changing the goal to something we've
achieved.

Actually, I asked the 1st question, and that was that I wanted to see
_you_ balance the budget. I want to see you get even a little bit
close. I've already posted my attempt. What is your solution? Its
something that has to be done, or our country is going to suffer an
economic collapse, and probably not recover within our lifetimes.


It can't be done right now and its foolish to try.

It can always be done, all that is necessary is to stop spending.


Trying to do it
will make the economic crisis worse.

Only if you go about it wrong.

I've already posted that.

And you are of course wrong.


You have not previously posted your explanation of how we've won in
Iraq.


Wanna cut the DoD? How much? We absolutely need the Navy, and can't
get along without that. Wanna take the Army / Air Force down by 99%?
OK, that means that _citizens_ have to be part of the defense - each
and every one would be obligated, between ages 17 and 65, to be part
of the homeland defense militia,


Uh, Dave, this actually shows the problem. The US "defense"
organization has primarily not been involved in defense of the US.
For the most part, it isn't configured or equipped for defense. Its
configured and equipped for offensive operations.

Yep, we "project power globally." This is because we are filling the
role of "world cop" and protecting other nations that are saving their
own money from not having to have much of a military, and instead
taking that money, using it for their industry, and beating us to
death with it.


So, as I've suggested before, what we need is to charge for it.

No, we need to get out of the business of protecting everybody else.
The best I would do would be to allow the US Gov't to equip actual
Mercenaries, like the Blackwater folks, with actual war weapons like
tanks (but only if they can pay for them). It should not be a matter
of joining the US miliatary and ending up in some 3rd world s***hole
for some money that the soldiers do not get.

A
mercenary military. On your defintion, we already have that. We're
just not charging for it.

We're giving it away, alright. We need to stop it.

OTOH, if they DID have to beef up their military 'cuz we leave, will
they then use that military to start another world war, or use it
against us? They might be pissed enough at us for leaving, and
costing them an ass-load of money that they have to spend on their
military, that they'll not think there's any need to be fair with us.

Now, if the US military is going to continue to be involved in
offensive operations, then we ought to admit that's what its for, and
recover the expense by charging for its services.

Good idea. However, I only went so far as to zeroize foreign aid in
the budget balance attempt that I provided. Again, what's your
solution? Get on the net, look at the budget, decide what you'd cut.
Don't know how you'd match the $358 billion extra $$$ provided by
migrating to the Fair Tax, or the $90 billion we'd save from not
having to pay so much unemployment insurance because of the prosperity
>from the Fair Tax, or the $63 billion we'd save in food stamps again
as a result of the savings due to prosperity from the Fair Tax. The
Fair Tax would absolutely supercharge our economy, as our domestic
products would fall in price, while import prices would not, and our
export prices would fall in price, due to not having a lot of income
tax expenses that our industries have to pay.

The only thing I
see in the way of this is that the US military has lost four if its
last five wars.

Like hell. We've won Iraq. Technically, we won it the day we rolled
into Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein - we defeated their military
and occupied their land. That's the definition of winning in all
history of war.

When you're still getting shot at, you haven't SUCCESSFULLY occuppied
their land.

Nazis occupied France, and still got shot at. By your definition,
nobody has ever occupied anyone's land. Invaders always get shot at
for a long time.

But our own definition of winning, nation-building,
is also a win, as Iraq is a bastion of political stability now.

GUFFAW.

You haven't been paying attention. The Madi Army is no longer a
factor, M'tada As Sadr is recently returned form exile in Iran, and is
becoming a part of the gov't, and the place is stable as can be. The
Iranians have failed to start much in the way of trouble, and the oil
fields are producing again. Iraq stands to be the shining example of
what Democracy can do in the Middle East.

We
_can_ leave any time we want to, or they want us to, and blessedly,
they want us to by the end of this year. Hey, they say they can
handle their security from here on, I believe 'em, and am very happy
to have our guys come back home. Hopefully they will take all their
oil money and buy F-22's from us.


What the US has done.

1) Traded one government that will oppress minorities for another that
will oppress minorities.

Its a democracy. If it attempts to oppress anyone, the people there
have firearms like we do, and will shove them up the gov't's ass and
pull the trigger if they feel oppressed. Or, just vote 'em out.

2) Removed Iraq's ability to project power beyond its borders, meaning
the US, not Iraq, now must act as the deterrent to Iran.

They have to build up to an Air Force again. I'm sure it'll happen.

3) Made a lifetime enemy of the friends and family of all of the
100,000 or so Iraqis that the US has killed.

I don't think so. We already killed about a million kids with US-lead
economic sanction, so if that didn't do it, 100,000-odd (unverified
number, BTW) soldiers sure won't.

Ah- missed this one. No, the kids were fed during the sanctions - those sanctions left the Iraqi population over 50% kids by the time the invasion began. Those soldiers' deaths you're referring to? Outstripped by those of the women and children we killed.
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Balancing The Budget
    ... that means that _citizens_ have to be part of the defense - each ... own money from not having to have much of a military, ... from the Fair Tax, or the $63 billion we'd save in food stamps again ... products would fall in price, while import prices would not, and our ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Balancing The Budget
    ... that means that _citizens_ have to be part of the defense - each ... own money from not having to have much of a military, ... from the Fair Tax, or the $63 billion we'd save in food stamps again ... products would fall in price, while import prices would not, and our ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Ideal Developer Computer
    ... There is a different "dream machine" at every price point. ... I mistakenly left out my budget information. ... I know I can build a new Windows machine ... amount of money. ...
    (comp.databases.filemaker)
  • Re: GOP created a global economic crisis
    ... Defense is probably one of the largest chunks of the budget ... person denies that Social Security and Medicare are net drains on the ... money that they paid into it. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Commentary: US health costs out of control
    ... What percent is the "defense" budget? ... not magic money that fell out of the air. ... cutting defense is not the answer. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)