I guess the obvious question is "Who then, does?"

 

And the follow-up "How can I use that information for voting guidance?"

How about, Sanders? He's a member of the Senate Budget committee. It should not be that hard to provide specifics, if that is in fact something he said. Again, its not on his website so I'm not even sure that military cuts are something he has ever promised to do.

Maybe I imagined that.

 

Forget that part......that was 1/10 of my entire post, but concentrating on that, rather than the actual point, that's a good strategy to divert the conversation.

 

Maybe I imagined that.

 

Forget that part......that was 1/10 of my entire post, but concentrating on that, rather than the actual point, that's a good strategy to divert the conversation.

 

Except that really is a huge thing.  No one, on either side of the aisle, is advocating what is the most obvious place we should be getting our house in order.  Hell, when I read your post my first thought was "Wait...Sanders is saying he'd do that?  How the hell did I miss that...."  

 

It's the rarity of that stance that caught my eye.  And some of what Sanders is promoting is about free stuff - his approach on education is to protect the Big Banks of higher education.  Just those big banks have been lefty supporting for so long he's lost the forest for the trees.

There's a section titled Reduce the Defense Budget on Bernie's feelthebern website, under the Federal Budget and Nation Debt webpage; the relevant section is about two thirds of the way down.  I don't know that Bernie's been stumping about cutting the military, but it looks like its part of his platform in some way, so I doubt that Mike simply imagined it.  

 

There's a section titled Reduce the Defense Budget on Bernie's feelthebern website, under the Federal Budget and Nation Debt webpage; the relevant section is about two thirds of the way down.  I don't know that Bernie's been stumping about cutting the military, but it looks like its part of his platform in some way, so I doubt that Mike simply imagined it.  

 

He appears to be philosophically open to the idea, but the complete lack of specifics indicates it pretty much ends there.  Which makes sense, it's still very politically dangerous, but he's not planning to cut spending by any of what is posted there.

Levi you are wrong. Rand Paul was pretty clear when address budgetary issues. Problem is, that special interests are the ones that benefit from government spending, and it's hard to keep their dollars out of politics.

 

Levi you are wrong. Rand Paul was pretty clear when address budgetary issues. Problem is, that special interests are the ones that benefit from government spending, and it's hard to keep their dollars out of politics.

 

I was on the Rand Paul bandwagon for exactly that reason.  He has some other untenable positions, but that one issue would be enough to get my vote.

 

Start cutting defense and I'm on your bandwagon.

*I think I'm in the wealthy group, I don't get why people who aren't hate unions, hate education, and hate taxes on the wealthy who don't need this much money. I don't get it.

Modern conservatism is built upon the premise of the majority voting against their own interests.

 

It's fascinating the scale in which the GOP has accomplished this goal. Truly breathtaking.

Modern conservatism is built upon the premise of the majority voting against their own interests.

 

It's fascinating the scale in which the GOP has accomplished this goal. Truly breathtaking.

The poor and lower middle class tend to be less educated/less intelligent overall, so thus the GOP is able to paint a picture of boogeymen such as (welfare, liberals, Muslims, Mexicans, abortion, gay marriage) are the reasons why their lives aren't that great. How anyone barely making ends meat can think that unions are evil are just mind blowing.

 

The poor and lower middle class tend to be less educated/less intelligent overall, so thus the GOP is able to paint a picture of boogeymen such as (welfare, liberals, Muslims, Mexicans, abortion, gay marriage) are the reasons why their lives aren't that great. How anyone barely making ends meat can think that unions are evil are just mind blowing.

 

Unions aren't evil, but they come with a host of their own issues. Anyone on the left end of the political spectrum that doesn't buy that I have one word for you: Police.

 

But the larger point I agree with, voting for Republicans is generally not in anyone's interest at this point.

Yeah I agree, public sector jobs: police, teachers, firemen, etc should NOT have unionsX

http://img.ifcdn.com/images/0a439599ac4de484cb7b652dc762ca300bf1d936d03cdfc6dab7dc67091276a3_1.jpg

 

Sorry for the interruption.

 

Carry on.

Okay, this is a long read, but there's a lot of insight, at least I thought so.

 

Language may not be appropriate for all age groups.

 

http://www.stirjournal.com/2016/04/01/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/03/politics/donald-trump-john-kasich-2016-election/index.html

 

Trump says Kasich should be forced to drop out since he's mathematically eliminated from reaching the needed number of delegates. Frankly, I could care less what's happening with this side show, I just found this quote so very amusing:

 

"Kasich shouldn't be allowed to run. Honestly, Kasich should not be allowed to run," Trump told reporters Sunday while visiting a diner in Milwaukee, adding, "He hurts Trump much more than he hurts (Ted) Cruz."

 

Yup, now he's referring to himself in the third person. I hope that's not a one off reference, I would love to see him keep that up. I also would enjoy if he picked Rickey Henderson as his running mate.

I've think it'd be great if he referred to himself as "The Donald".

I just can't wait until i don't have to hear about his ****ing bull**** on a daily basis.

It seems to me that we should cap our military budget at twice the combined military budgets of China and Russia, which would save a lot.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

Our only real competitor seems to be China, and it would seem wiser/cheaper in the long run to negotiate the contested issues with China and its neighbors, like oil rights to the South China Sea. Both China and the U.S. would benefit from lower military spending and more spending on people.

 

It seems to me that we should cap our military budget at twice the combined military budgets of China and Russia, which would save a lot.

 

I mean that sounds great, reasonable, smart etc in theory, but I don't see how it happens, cutting 400 BILLION won't come easy, I think we are too far down the path for that to happen.

 

Maybe aim for cutting 50 billion over the next 4-5 years is a decent start/something that could potentially happen?

I don't know, our wars are pretty darn effective, seems like money well spent seeing as they've now bought a new level of world peace and cooperation.

I don't know, our wars are pretty darn effective, seems like money well spent seeing as they've now bought a new level of world peace and cooperation.

And they say money can't buy happiness.....psshaw.

I don't know, our wars are pretty darn effective, seems like money well spent seeing as they've now bought a new level of world peace and cooperation.

and jobs!

 

I mean that sounds great, reasonable, smart etc in theory, but I don't see how it happens, cutting 400 BILLION won't come easy, I think we are too far down the path for that to happen.

 

Maybe aim for cutting 50 billion over the next 4-5 years is a decent start/something that could potentially happen?

If you check out the link that I posted it looks like the reduction would be in the range of $100-200 billion per year, which would pay for a lot of public college and vocational education, as well as some roads and bridges.

 

I also like the idea of re-tasking some of the military to humanitarian use.  For example, aircraft carriers could treat poor people in their medical bays when they are at a port, and bombers could practice dropping food and medical supplies instead of bombs.  This would keep the forces ready while spreading goodwill.

 

The stakes seem too high to just go along with military escalation around the world because companies that make weapons control Congress. I suspect that we could feed every starving person every day if every country retasked its military to public works.  I also fear that the day is coming when angry extremists will do very bad things on a very large scale unless we do a better job of winning hearts and minds.

 

I mean that sounds great, reasonable, smart etc in theory, but I don't see how it happens, cutting 400 BILLION won't come easy, I think we are too far down the path for that to happen.

 

Maybe aim for cutting 50 billion over the next 4-5 years is a decent start/something that could potentially happen?

Military spending is out of control. At some point, we have to be reasonable. The world will be ok if we're not micromanaging it.

If you check out the link that I posted it looks like the reduction would be in the range of $100-200 billion per year, which would pay for a lot of public college and vocational education, as well as some roads and bridges.

 

I also like the idea of re-tasking some of the military to humanitarian use. For example, aircraft carriers could treat poor people in their medical bays when they are at a port, and bombers could practice dropping food and medical supplies instead of bombs. This would keep the forces ready while spreading goodwill.

 

The stakes seem too high to just go along with military escalation around the world because companies that make weapons control Congress. I suspect that we could feed every starving person every day if every country retasked its military to public works. I also fear that the day is coming when angry extremists will do very bad things on a very large scale unless we do a better job of winning hearts and minds.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here, I just can't see any way realistically where they are able to cut that much that quickly. Maybe I am just too pessimistic on that issue, but a large set of Americans (the uneducated southerners) would flip if they cut the defense budget that much, the right would be trotting out fear tactics left and right.

 

Basically I don't trust our elected leaders enough to be adults about the situation and figure out a solution, that includes Bernie and Hilary both.

 

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here, I just can't see any way realistically where they are able to cut that much that quickly. Maybe I am just too pessimistic on that issue, but a large set of Americans (the uneducated southerners) would flip if they cut the defense budget that much, the right would be trotting out fear tactics left and right.

Basically I don't trust our elected leaders enough to be adults about the situation and figure out a solution, that includes Bernie and Hilary both.

 

And I see your point.  I think that the solution would be for our leaders to be honest and help educate people.  Sadly, only Bernie seems willing to take this on,

I gotta admit, I'm losing faith in the USA experiment right now. All this anti LGBT legislation and hatred of immigrants and this week's evil religion is depressing. It's like the 60s and 70s never happened.

 

I don't understand the fear, I don't understand the hate, and I don't understand why governments that claim to be about small government turn out to be the most oppressive. 

I gotta admit, I'm losing faith in the USA experiment right now. All this anti LGBT legislation and hatred of immigrants and this week's evil religion is depressing. It's like the 60s and 70s never happened.

 

I don't understand the fear, I don't understand the hate, and I don't understand why governments that claim to be about small government turn out to be the most oppressive.

 

It's not like this is a uniquely American problem. As a species, we've been working out better ways to hate and kill one another since before recorded history. The archaeological record shows that.

 

Maybe it's time to hand it all over to the whales. Or the Golden Retrievers.

 

And I see your point.  I think that the solution would be for our leaders to be honest and help educate people.  Sadly, only Bernie seems willing to take this on,

Bernie has come under fire from the left for flip flopping on his defense record. As mayor of Burlington, VT, he ordered the police to arrest protesters at a GE plant where they were building guns (allegedly) for use in a South American conflict. As Senator he backed the F-35 project which, coincidentally, keeps a base in Vermont. That project finished some 70% overbudget. Why should he stand up to the nationwide pressure to keep people employed, business afloat, etc?

A full quarter of the defense budget is spent employing over 2 million active and reserve personnel. I mean, the country is surrounded on all sides by either an ocean or an ally. What do we need 2 million (mostly soldiers) for? Maybe its my own naivete on the subject but in the age of drones and ICBMs and remote everything, that seems like the most obvious place to make cuts. And the least politically palatable.

 

It's not like this is a uniquely American problem. As a species, we've been working out better ways to hate and kill one another since before recorded history. The archaeological record shows that.

Maybe it's time to hand it all over to the whales. Or the Golden Retrievers.

 

Agreed, it is not a unique problem, but we are supposedly the freedom country, that's our thing.

 

really, we are the "work for those born into money" country, but that's not a real popular slogan, I'd think.