"We must rebuild the military" ... but how do we pay for it???

A fundamental right to be protected? WTF are you talking about? You're just saying words for the sake of saying words. You don't know what they mean.

 

When there was money for it, what did the two biggest Blue states do?


[video]http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513[/video]

 

No cup a soup it's not enough and here is why.

CHINA’S SUBMARINE FLEET NOW LARGEST IN WORLD?
stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/chinas-submarine-fleet-now...Cached

The first link below (sent to me by an alert reader) is an important analysis of the capabilities of the Chinese military by Defense News. I recommend it to all ...

Most are diesel subs, but are very quiet. One serviced close to an American carrier group and wasn't detected by any of the ships in the group.



China's New Fighter Jet Could Pose'Terrifying'..
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01...r-jet...Cached

Jan 06, 2011 · ... of what appears to be a jet fighter designed using ... Fighter Jet Could Pose 'Terrifying ... China having a fifth generation fighter, ...




China's Most Dangerous Missile (So Far) - War on...
warontherocks.com/2014/07/chinas-most-dangerous-missile...Cached

The U.S. Navy’s Big New Missile Mod: ... China’s Most Dangerous Missile (So Far ... the YJ-12 is the most dangerous anti-ship missile China has produced ..




The Military’s New Monster Truck for Afghanistan

The U.S. Marine Corps has made it official: Oshkosh Corporation will build a new blast-proof truck for service in Afghanistan. The company beat out several competitors to win a $1.06 billion contract to build the all-terrain trucks, which go by the cumbersome name Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected All Terrain Vehicle, or M-ATV for short. The initial order provides for 2,244 M-ATVs.

Roadside bombs remain a major threat in Afghanistan, but the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles first fielded in Iraq often proved too heavy for Afghanistan’s primitive roads and mountainous terrain. The military wanted a lighter, more nimble truck that would still provide serious protection for troops.

All told, the Pentagon may procure up to 5,244 M-ATVs, as funding becomes available



Russian military are rebuilding - www.slideshare.net/.../russian-military-are-rebuilding...Cached

Mar 16, 2015 · Russian military are rebuilding 1. CdW Share in Confidence Russia's Military Will Get Bigger, Better, Equipped and Trained. Military spending is set to .SlideShare

 

China is 30 years behind us militarily. We could cut military spending in half and still be way ahead of them

 

Funny they have the largest sub fleet in the world and a new fighter the Pentagon says is as good as our newest. They think China might even have stolen the plans for it. They have a new anti ship missile that could be a real threat to our navy ships.

 

Then let's spend what they spend on the military. That would cut us more than half!

 

So you want to take the money people paid into their retirement for most of their lives and buy more war toys. Good plan!

 

Adm. Jon Greenert said two years ago that sequestration, if not repealed, could force the Navy to trim its fleet to 255 or 260 active ships by 2020. That would be the lowest number since the end of 1916.

Greenert, the chief of Naval operations, said during Senate testimony earlier this year that the Navy would do its best to shield ship building and restoration from sequestration by trying to find savings from other parts of its budget. He said the 255-ship figure was no longer valid, but didn’t provide an updated figure.

 

After an arsonist caused $450 million in damage to the USS Miami on March 2012, the U.S. Navy considered scrapping the submarine. The eventual decision to repair the Miami and return it to service in 2015 means that the Navy will not have to add to a rather short but fateful list – ships lost since WWII. Between December 1941 and September 1945, over 350 U.S. Navy warships and patrol craft were sunk or damaged beyond repair. In the nearly seven decades since, fewer than 30 ships have been lost directly due to enemy action or accidents. These are a few of the notable incidents:

That's more ships than we have today.

 

It's a shame that many didn't learn the lessons that were learned during the mid and late 1970's when the "New Left" neglected our national defense and the military and allowed it to become a hollow force. That it took the Reagan administration to rebuild our military and almost all of the deficit spending that liberals always pointed out about Reagan until Obama became President was spent repairing the damages that were inflicted on our military during the 1970's.

Lessons learned, it's cheaper in the long run to spend the money maintaining a strong military than having years down the road spending four times more money repairing the damage for not maintaining a strong military.

It's no different from owning a car. Spending money on prevented maintenance (oil changes, tune ups, wheel alignments, changing the fluids, etc.) is a lot cheaper than paying for a major repair bill that could have been prevented.

Look at the damage Obama has done to our military in the past seven years. How many trillions of dollars will it cost to repair the damage ?

How about that 46% of Americans who file an income tax return every year but don't pay any income taxes were to be required to pay a minimum $100 tax for the common defense of America ?

Back during the old days tariffs were established to pay for our national defense. Technically under the Constitution the main purpose of the federal government was to defend the union from bad guys.

Why not tax Mexico and Canada since we have been protecting their sovereignty for over a hundred years, especially Mexico.

It's time for Mexico to start digging deep in to their pockets and start paying for our military and the wall that has to be built.

 

We have more admirals in today's Navy than we have ships in the U.S. Navy. I (*)(*)(*)(*) you not.

 

Note that Dayton3 conveniently forgot to answer my previous question if he wants to have his own SS and Medicare cut. Often, the ones who advocate for these cuts are actually on SS and Medicare themselves. But of course their own SS cannot be cut because they paid into it and, thus, deserve the benefits. However, they are always keen to cut someone else's SS, as they are on spilling other people's (i.e. foreigner's) blood.

 

So, you want another arms race with China, just like the one we had with the Soviet Union? Be careful what you wish for, because this one we can't win. And why would we even have it, when most of our consumer products come from China? China would be nuts to go to war with us, since this would immediately tank their economy, which is fully relying on us for exports.

 

Of course I have no problem with the retirement age for Social Security being raised to 72 give or take which would eventually save billions upon billions from the program.

 

Hell, why not make it 92, t hen most of those who paid into it would be dead. That would save trillions. Why should someone be able to collect benefits at 65 after only paying into the system for a measly 47 years? You guys are really something special.

 

Why should people get 15 years of benefits after only paying in for 47 years?

 

First we need to apply whatever diplomatic pressure is necessary to make nations send troops and supplies to pull their weight in a given conflict. If they don't then we need to tabulate the cost that our forces will incur as a result of their lack of participation (Complete with a very very large sum of money charged for any of our troops loosing their lives and paid to their families) and bill that nation for it. If they don't pay then we cease trade with them, freeze their foreign assets and levy sanctions until they comply. The international community will throw a fit but eventually countries will learn that it is wrong to make another county fight, die, and go into debt because other nations shirked their responsibilities.


Our defence budget is more than the rest of the worlds combined, does that sound lean to you? Lean is not having more than twice as many nuclear weapons as main battle tanks. That ratio makes no sense, what on earth do we need those for? Lean doesn't mean having approximately 800 US bases around the world, many in the middle of friendly nations especially when we can land troops on the ground anywhere in the world within hours or could park an aircraft carrier off the coast of a country that could defeat most nations by itself. Lean also means that we need to cut the ties between the military industrial complex and the government and make smarter use of taxpayer money.

 

Uh....because they earned it

 

Because that was the deal they bought into, retire at 65 and collect your benefits.Changing it to 72 is theft.

 

What have the elderly and disabled done to tick you off?

 

We have to protect 'Merica, dammit! So pawn Grannie's wheel chair and put Pop-Pop's dusty ass back on the assembly line. We need that money because...uh...erm...oh, because China! How can we expect to repel their inevitable invasion by only outspending them five-fold? We're practically naked out here!!!111!

 

No they didn't. Americans that retire at 65 usually draw out the equivalent of everything they paid in plus interest within just a few years.

 

We have as many nuclear weapons as we do to target the nuclear weapons in Russia. That is the essence of nuclear deterrence.

In regards to the number of American bases and aircraft carriers, if you've been following the military spending discussion you would know that carriers is one thing so many that want to cut military spending have targeted.

 

How old are you? Would be interesting to know considering your fiscally hawkish position on SS.

 

I'll be 49 in May.