As we have often noted, one of the giant logs stuck in the eye of many conservatives, people who typically argue for smaller government, is that they often defend military spending with little reservation. Defense, we are told is enumerated in the Constitution and as such is a legitimate expenditure. And yes, defense, is enumerated in the Constitution. Massive unchecked spending, undeclared wars, and bases around the world are not however enumerated in the Constitution.
Nobody knows where all the money went. The guy running the program said he just approved projects without having any idea how much they were going to cost.
Nothing like having a pile of taxpayer money to play with I say. No need to be exact. Hell, no need to even be remotely competent apparently. Just write those checks and dump them into that giant hole in the Kandahar Desert.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) is supposed to be about smaller government, not social issues.
It is a refrain we will continue to repeat. Government, though necessary in a very limited sense, should be much much smaller than it is today for any number of reasons. But particularly because government is the catalyst for crony capitalism. If there weren’t agencies to hijack (And they aren’t always hijacked; some agencies were created specifically for the industries they “regulate,”
I don’t even think it has a car wash.
We have a massive military. We have bases around the world. We have by far and away the largest military in the world. And the main reason this is is not because of threats to “American interests” but because defense spending is how Republicans (and Democrats too) distribute tax money to their constituents. It’s an ugly truth, but it is the truth.
Yes the “defense” of the country is expressly enumerated in the Constitution. DEFENSE. Not empire. Empires are costly for the citizenry of a country,
Look, I’m a sucker for many of these films. Top Gun for instance is still one of my favorite movies ever. I grew up with F-14s screaming over my head and the whine of a Tomcat banking before landing is a memory which sits (pleasantly) deep in my grey matter. The Hunt for Red October? Another classic. Red Dawn? Just great. But even as a kid I kind of wondered about how it was that the military and the Hollywood studios worked together.
There was a time when good “liberals” in the United States railed against military spending. Granted it wasn’t because they wanted to reduce the size of government or to cut taxes, but because they wanted more money for social programs.
But that general disposition seems to have disappeared. Now, many big welfare state people are also big warfare state people. Military spending you see is a form of “stimulus.” Bombs, guns,whatever. Just get that money into the system.
So apparently there’s going to be “search” which will remain Google, and then everything else which will be under Alphabet. I like it. Get it? ALPHA – BET. And it’s probably a pretty good bet given Apple’s recent stumbles.
Google is one of the USA’s largest military contractors by the way. Or I guess Alpha-Bet soon will be. Whatever, they’ll be making these along with God only knows what else..(Boston Dynamics is owned by Google.)
This isn’t the end of the world. But given that I can’t find a cap gun anywhere, but this stuff is apparently available at the local Target gives one a sense of what our society has become.
Yeah, Senator Graham somehow inserted himself into this story.
This has been one weird day in the Senate and this is the 3rd post we’ve done today on Rand Paul and his military funding proposal.
Though we have said that we were not pleased with Rand Paul’s amendment, at least it called for cuts (if future cuts) to other spending. Rubio just wanted to spend money on defense whatever the cost to taxpayers and future generations.
Nick Gillespie is a great writer and advocate for liberty. Here he analyzes Rand Paul’s proposal in the Senate which will increase military spending by billions. Something which has disappointed many small government conservatives and libertarians.
I am disappointed to see this, but presidential politics are presidential politics. Overall what he is proposing is a large overall net decrease in expenditures which is excellent. His amendment reduces the size of government which is the point. Still, I hate to see more bloat at the Pentagon.
To bad the country is so torn by war. It looks beautiful.
No big deal. What could terrorists possibly do with $500 million in US weapons?
I’ve noticed a pattern and it goes like this:
We engage in some desert state chock full of terrorists and soon to be terrorists. We engage militarily via different means. Sometimes we invade. Sometimes we arm the local “government” army. Sometimes we start droning bad guys from the sky. Usually it’s a combination.
Some within the GOP will always want more military spending. Whether in peace or during times of war their bias is always toward MORE. This disposition is not good for the Republic as President Eisenhower in his farewell speech explained.
Remember, this guy led our forces in World War II as a five star general, was a Republican president, and has an aircraft carrier named for him.