:: View topic - Tea Party position on military spending?

Taro doesn't realize how speaking in the 3rd person makes him sound like an asshole.

FWIW, I wouldn't mind becoming a bit more isolationist, but that's a bit of a gamble considering the state of affairs around the world. It certainly isn't an issue obvious enought to criticize those who are otherwise fiscal conservatives.

Taro doesn't realize how speaking in the 3rd person makes him sound like an asshole.

Uh...AFAIK, the "Tea Party" is a loose collection of people who generally agree on lower taxes and limited government.

It doesn't take positions or have a platform.
You'd have to ask each person individually.

Taro wonders why specific Tea Party candidates, like Sharron Angle (Nevada Senate candidate), Rand Paul (Kentucky Senate candidate), Marco Rubio (Florida Senate candidate), Rick Scott (Florida gubernatorial candidate), Joe Miller (Alaska Senate candidate), and Christine O’Donnell (Delaware Senate candidate) haven't addressed this issue, since fiscal responsibility and limited government are their keystone issues, as you point out.

Crosscheck wonders why Taro hasn't gotten off his disingenuous ass and gone to the respective candidates web sites and read their stance on military issues.

Taro says that rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.

Crosscheck wrote:

Crosscheck wonders why Taro hasn't gotten off his disingenuous ass and gone to the respective candidates web sites and read their stance on military issues.

Taro says, Baka wa shinanakya naoranai.

If we made money on "global defense" it would be one thing, but we don't. We borrow trillions of dollars from nations, then pledge billions of it in aide to various nations.

WTF?

I have no problem with our nation being a mercenary resource, if that's what our national product becomes. We don't make great cars, we export goods just as a measure of good faith to the "global economy" while importing the same goods we export, again for the "global economy"...

Crosscheck wrote:

Crosscheck wonders why Taro hasn't gotten off his disingenuous ass and gone to the respective candidates web sites and read their stance on military issues.

Taro says, Baka wa shinanakya naoranai.

Taro echoes a point Stu has made over and over again on this and the other site, that "Big Government" includes the military. Yet you never hear people who so often rail against "Big Government" bringing that up.

Author:	Taro Tsujimoto [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Tea Party position on military spending?
Taro likes that the Tea Partiers want more fiscal responsibility in Washington, but wonders why none of the Tea Party candidates talk about the massive amounts of tax payer money the U.S. spends on its military. The Tea Party folks point to the TARP bailout (which will cost taxpayers $50 billion) as an example of government waste, but what about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will cost taxpayers over $138 billion this year alone (over a trillion dollars total by the end of this year)? The U.S. spends more money on its military than the entire rest of the world COMBINED. Taro wants to know, where are the folks ready to throw some of that military tea into Boston harbor? Taro wonders, when he watches the Bills get spanked every week and the announcers say, "we would like to welcome American military personnel watching from 135 countries around the world," why exactly the United States has a military presence in 135 countries?

Author:	Sabresfansince1980 [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Taro doesn't realize how speaking in the 3rd person makes him sound like an asshole. FWIW, I wouldn't mind becoming a bit more isolationist, but that's a bit of a gamble considering the state of affairs around the world. It certainly isn't an issue obvious enought to criticize those who are otherwise fiscal conservatives.

Author:	YankeeInRaleigh [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Sabresfansince1980 wrote: Taro doesn't realize how speaking in the 3rd person makes him sound like an asshole. FWIW, I wouldn't mind becoming a bit more isolationist, but that's a bit of a gamble considering the state of affairs around the world. It certainly isn't an issue obvious enought to criticize those who are otherwise fiscal conservatives. Our single largest expense isnt an obvious enough issue to be on the agenda of 'fiscal conservatives'? Bullshit.

Author:	Sabresfansince1980 [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
It's obviously a large expense, but it's not obvious that defense spending is/isn't worth it.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Uh...AFAIK, the "Tea Party" is a loose collection of people who generally agree on lower taxes and limited government. It doesn't take positions or have a platform. You'd have to ask each person individually.

http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

Tea Party position on military spending? http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4588	Page 1 of 1

Author:	CriminallyVu1gar [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
I thought their platform was hating brown people. That's why they're the tea party and not the coffee party.

Author:	Taro Tsujimoto [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Sabresfansince1980 wrote: Taro doesn't realize how speaking in the 3rd person makes him sound like an asshole. Taro says that rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. Crosscheck wrote: Uh...AFAIK, the "Tea Party" is a loose collection of people who generally agree on lower taxes and limited government. It doesn't take positions or have a platform. You'd have to ask each person individually. Taro wonders why specific Tea Party candidates, like Sharron Angle (Nevada Senate candidate), Rand Paul (Kentucky Senate candidate), Marco Rubio (Florida Senate candidate), Rick Scott (Florida gubernatorial candidate), Joe Miller (Alaska Senate candidate), and Christine O’Donnell (Delaware Senate candidate) haven't addressed this issue, since fiscal responsibility and limited government are their keystone issues, as you point out.

Author:	Squanto [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
The only classification of a 'Tea Party Candidate' seems to be that they defeated an established Republican candidate in the primary. In fact, there are some races where the sides are arguing about who should be called the 'Tea Party' candidate.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Taro Tsujimoto wrote: Taro wonders why specific Tea Party candidates, like Sharron Angle (Nevada Senate candidate), Rand Paul (Kentucky Senate candidate), Marco Rubio (Florida Senate candidate), Rick Scott (Florida gubernatorial candidate), Joe Miller (Alaska Senate candidate), and Christine O’Donnell (Delaware Senate candidate) haven't addressed this issue, since fiscal responsibility and limited government are their keystone issues, as you point out. Crosscheck wonders why Taro hasn't gotten off his disingenuous ass and gone to the respective candidates web sites and read their stance on military issues. A spot check of 2 of them took me 30 seconds and yielded results. Give it a try.

Author:	Taro Tsujimoto [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Crosscheck wrote: Crosscheck wonders why Taro hasn't gotten off his disingenuous ass and gone to the respective candidates web sites and read their stance on military issues. Taro says, Baka wa shinanakya naoranai.

Author:	fly as hale [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Taro Tsujimoto wrote: Taro says that rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. lol idk why but this made me laugh

Author:	Stuuuuuuu [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Taro echoes a point Stu has made over and over again on this and the other site, that "Big Government" includes the military. Yet you never hear people who so often rail against "Big Government" bringing that up.

Author:	slesh [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Taro Tsujimoto wrote: Crosscheck wrote: Crosscheck wonders why Taro hasn't gotten off his disingenuous ass and gone to the respective candidates web sites and read their stance on military issues. Taro says, Baka wa shinanakya naoranai. Baka Tada Na And on to your questions. 1. Why have the T.E.A party candidates not addressed this particular issue is a very good question. 2. 135 countries, a majority of them are post WW2 relationships and are no longer needed, however, there are 17 nations around the resource rich Middle East that were either created following WW2 and/or were expanded on or created in the subsequent 65 years since the end of the war. 3. There is some pros and some cons to our nations expenditures on defense on a global scale, I guess it depends on what era or time frame of people you ask and what the outcome was for those expenditures. For example, if you ask South Koreans if its worth the roughly 35 thousand US troops and military equipment support with monatary support, the free peoples of South Korea would say yes, it is worth the USA spending that money. Especially the older generation in that country. If you ask older Phillipinos if Subic Bay naval base was worth it all those years and then shut down, they would answer yes to both questions. Of course, those individuals who suffered economically due to the shut down of that naval base may answer differently. And the list goes on, but you get the point. With great power comes great responsibility. But I do agree with your questioning. I too, would like to know why we need to spend the money we do on "GLOBAL DEFENSE". It doesn't appear to make any sense and is actually only increasing the wealth of a few. And as we all know, the needs of the many out way the needs of the few, or the one.

Author:	NYIntensity [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
If we made money on "global defense" it would be one thing, but we don't. We borrow trillions of dollars from nations, then pledge billions of it in aide to various nations. WTF? I have no problem with our nation being a mercenary resource, if that's what our national product becomes. We don't make great cars, we export goods just as a measure of good faith to the "global economy" while importing the same goods we export, again for the "global economy"...

Author:	Sabresfansince1980 [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Anything the gov't gets involved in or spends money on includes a ridiculous amount of waste, oversight, red tape, etc. Fiscal conservatives would like to see this reduced as much as possible. There are still necessary expenditures though, including defense spending, that will include wasted taxpayer money. I wouldn't put that category near the top of where the budget needs to be cut, aside from the thousands of offices and facilities that are filled with overpriced, opulent furniture, flooring, baths, etc. The same can be said for where members of congress "work". Nancy Pelosi comes to mind, and now I have to try and scrub her out of it.

Author:	slesh [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
NYIntensity wrote: If we made money on "global defense" it would be one thing, but we don't. We borrow trillions of dollars from nations, then pledge billions of it in aide to various nations. WTF? I have no problem with our nation being a mercenary resource, if that's what our national product becomes. We don't make great cars, we export goods just as a measure of good faith to the "global economy" while importing the same goods we export, again for the "global economy"... Ah Grasshopper, but we do make money on Global Defense, and we have for many decades now. Look at like this, the US Navy ensures the safety of commerce by sea. Granted, piracy is very limited, even by Somalia's standards of high-jackings, but it is much safer for merchants now than at any time in history. Lets look at the shield of Japan from the Soviets post WW2 as well as the shock absorber of western Germany from Soviet expansion (bare in mind, Japan was meant to be a shield, ground that would not only absorb an attack, but repel it and be a launching ground for a counter attack, Western Europe is a far different story altogether, it is only meant as a delaying tactic as Soviet doctrine was massive armor attacks. There was never near enough forces in Western Europe to stop the onslaught and it was well known and documented. The idea was a delaying tactic, sacrificial forces as it were, to give time for NATO to build up forces in Western France or England.) Japan will always be in our defensive fold for more than obvious reasons. Western Europe however, is a different story altogether and garners almost 22% of our foriegn defense budget. I would most certainly like to point to a true expert and insider on the issue of Defense Spending. Former SHAEF Commander during WW2 and the 34th President of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower. As President, Eisenhower concluded negotiations with China to end the Korean War. He maintained pressure on the Soviet Union during the Cold War, gave priority to inexpensive nuclear weapons and reduced the other forces to save money. On January 17, 1961, Eisenhower gave his final televised Address to the Nation from the Oval Office.[62] In his farewell speech to the nation, Eisenhower raised the issue of the Cold War and role of the U.S. armed forces. He described the Cold War saying: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." Though he said that "we recognize the imperative need for this development," he cautioned that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Bare in mind and keep constantly vigilant of those corporate entities that would take for granted the citizens of this nation. It is, as I stated in another thread, our sacred duty as citizens to ensure against this, and in recent history, we have failed. An Awakening is coming, how long it will take and what form it will show itself as is still to be determined. What once was great, shall be great again, if we, the people, do our sacred duty. The Untied States is not nor never has been a nation of priviledge, we the citizens have had to work at it, and by the looks of it in recent times, we've neglected our work.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Crosscheck [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Taro Tsujimoto wrote: Crosscheck wrote: Crosscheck wonders why Taro hasn't gotten off his disingenuous ass and gone to the respective candidates web sites and read their stance on military issues. Taro says, Baka wa shinanakya naoranai. Wrong person, wrong day. Ta ta.

Author:	Crosscheck [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Tea Party position on military spending?
Stuuuuuuu wrote: Taro echoes a point Stu has made over and over again on this and the other site, that "Big Government" includes the military. Yet you never hear people who so often rail against "Big Government" bringing that up. Actually, you do...they're called Libertarians. No one takes them seriously.