Military Spending

**jockeys** · 07-28-2009, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bruno

Having a stable society with low crime figures is also helpful for society.
But my point was not only about the amount. Efficiency also comes into play. I know from experience how much money is used to grease the wheels and pay exec overhead in space projects. I assume military spending works the same.

With the close ties between politicians, the military and the industry, I am willing to bet that a significant % of money could be saved.

oh yeah. my company has it's own set of lobbyists... just the cost of doing business.

**AussiePostie** · 07-29-2009, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by Mandrake

I do not have a problem with the military budget, but I would like the Military Forces of my country to focus now in what is more needed, other than the defence of the country which I understand is still necessary, but having thousands of people just doing training for most of all their lifes as soldiers does not make sense when there are other needs that could be covered by the military, like they do now in fighting fires, but there are more they could do, like increase safety in areas within the country that are quite dangerous, like big cities (collaborating with police, not just as a separate power) , or any other task they could do, as they are trained for many different things.

This is of course a completely different approach that the "traditional" vision of the military, but I think will benefit everybody, both taxpayers and the military (doing tasks that everybody will no doubt appreciate).

Just my opinion, of course...

I once thought as you do, but as my father told me, "we have police that is their job. We have fire fighters that is their job. If the Federal Government got the power to send in the troops to do civillian jobs even if it is to just help we would only be one step from martial law"
So when we had the bushfires in Victoria last summer the military did help out but only after the state government requested their help from the Federal Government and even then the majority of these personal were reservists not full timers.

Just a thought, in the U.S.A you produce nearly all your own military items so in a way does this spending actually have a benifit to the economy of the country in providing thousands of civillian jobs in all the industries supplying this all consuming organisation, even in this economic down turn?

**xman** · 07-29-2009, 05:11 AM

Just 50 years ago ...

YouTube - Eisenhower on the Military Industrial Complex

**jockeys** · 07-29-2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Just a thought, in the U.S.A you produce nearly all your own military items so in a way does this spending actually have a benifit to the economy of the country in providing thousands of civillian jobs in all the industries supplying this all consuming organisation, even in this economic down turn?

it sure does!

**honedright** · 07-29-2009, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by gugi

the job of the government is whatever tasks the society decides to entrust them with. the constitution doesn't say it's their job to allocate electromagnetic frequencies either, but somehow they have assumed those as a property so it's become their job to manage it.
as american citizens have wanted social programs the government has started to provide those.
to me this seems perfectly fair. i have to live with the government in my lifetime so i'd rather it reflect more or less the values of my peers, not of several generations behind (or forward for that matter).

No, the job of the government is whatever the Constitution enumerates it to be. Just because the people want it doesn't mean the people just get it. There has to be a process first. There are two ways written into the Constitution to amend it. Anything done outside of that process, and contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, is unconstitutional and illegal.

A "living" constitution that can mean anything, at anytime, depending on the whim of the current administration or the people, is a flimsy constitution that really means nothing at all.

**slt5103** · 07-29-2009, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by honedright

No, the job of the government is whatever the Constitution enumerates it to be. Just because the people want it doesn't mean the people just get it. There has to be a process first. There are two ways written into the Constitution to amend it. Anything done outside of that process, and contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, is unconstitutional and illegal.

A "living" constitution that can mean anything, at anytime, depending on the whim of the current administration or the people, is a flimsy constitution that really means nothing at all.

Ah ha! This is the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic. This my friends is why the Founding Fathers set up a Democratic Republic (the first one in the world) and not a strict democracy. The strict democracy is what had France in flames.

**gugi** · 07-29-2009, 09:30 PM

Yes, and any new technology which came from government funding outside of the military spending came to existence as illegally as the social programs of the new deal.

I most certainly understand that a lot of laws have been added beyond the scope of the provisions of the constitution without first amending it. Yet I don't see many people willing to challenge that. I say if you're so convinced your FICA taxes are unconstitutional why not stop paying them and when the government comes after you let the constitution protect you? I guess everybody can talk as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.

As far as 'living' constitution being worthless, there are 27 amendments so far and the first ten were done just 4 years after the original. So that averages making changes every dozen years. Last one was 1992 i.e. there have been 17 years w/o any changes, which is 50% longer than the average.

**honedright** · 07-30-2009, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by gugi

I say if you're so convinced your FICA taxes are unconstitutional why not stop paying them and when the government comes after you let the constitution protect you?

Now, we all know that two wrongs don't make a right...

**gratewhitehuntr** · 07-30-2009, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by gugi

I say if you're so convinced your FICA taxes are unconstitutional why not stop paying them and when the government comes after you let the constitution protect you? I guess everybody can talk as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.

the secret is not letting them know you stopped

**gugi** · 07-30-2009, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by honedright

Now, we all know that two wrongs don't make a right...

wait, don't tell me you don't approve of the tea parties some 200 years ago

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

the secret is not letting them know you stopped

and don't you just love the government inefficiency... i say you better not be paying the portion that goes to law enforcement too

Thread: Military Spending

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

The Following User Says Thank You to xman For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to jockeys For This Useful Post:

Posting Permissions