Boin-ney, did I say it right?

[Drich]

EDIT: I meant F-35 not F-22.

Does anyone ever ask if the United States can afford more war?

Let's ask france what happens when we take a 'live and let live' attitude towards radical islam. It only takes one group of hateful people to start a conflict/war, there doesn't have to be consent on both sides. Radical Islam decided there will be a war, the United States simply 'insisted' we have it on their land and in their cities killing their people instead of ours.. France and other countries like it seems to think it is acceptable to allow their people to be slaughtered on mass and seemingly at Radical Islam's will, in order to maintain their philosophical positions. Which they have every right to do, but at the same time if someone has it in their mind to burn a house down and they will no matter what you try and do, then I am all for making them burn their own houses scorch their own land and kill their own children before they come here after mine.

The other thing you need to consider if not for the US involvement and constant resitance of Radical Islam on their own soil, they would be alot more free to focus on nations like france/bringing the war to them.

Why is the Department of Defence not audited?

It is. Congress appoints oversite commities that audit everything. Here was last years itinerary: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm...8b24c938f1

Maybe if the United States stopped bullying other countries so much they could afford the things other Western countries can seem to afford just fine - and make the world a safer place too.

-OR If we stop acting like the world police then countries closer to the afflicted middle east would nut up and take a more active role, which would defund their give a ways programs but allow the US to start it's own. Either that, or the EU will allow Radical Islam to grow out of control and we in our life times will see Europe fall under Sharia Law.

F-35 is a big waste of money but it took billions to realize that.

Trillions. Do you think that money was just printed and burned? It was spent in this ecconomy. It provided Jobs, the creation of business and it provides valuable re-learning lesson on the limits of a multi role fighter. So that the next fighter we build does not repeat the same mistakes. the money spent here allowed people to Earn a living rather than be provided with one.

Iraq war was never a good idea, but it took hundreds of thousands of lives for the political elites to realize that. All that money spent on the Iraq war could easily have gone to decreasing income inequality. There are many developing countries that have a more equal distribution of wealth than the United States, supposedly the richest country on the Earth.

Do you know who Chris Kyle is? He wrote a book and after he was killed they did a Movie about him (American Sniper. He was a navy seal sniper with the most kills) In the book (wasn't in the movie) he tells of a mission he went on before his big sniper count and they/Seals US Navy stopped a freighter leaving Iraq headed towards Syria that was loaded from the Keel to the top of the cargo hold with 100lb bags of cement. The seal team was given the order to 'check the load'/make sure they were not smuggling anything out under the concrete. So they spent the next 14 hours unloading this cargo hold, near the bottom of the hold they found several shipping containers, they got in side and found Medium range Missiles and chemical war heads. (the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly did not exist.) Chris reports this was one of several 'cement' shipments that ran between Syria and Iraq. Once they reported what they found, they were taken off the ship, and he didn't know what happened to the cargo ship.

Just incase you don't understand what this all means, Saddam did indeed amass a weapons of mass destruction stock pile, and one only does that as a deterrent/assured mutual destruction, or they plan to use them. As Saddam did not have and neighbors with similar capabilities then the weapons would not be used as a deterrent. That means he planned to use them in another land/power grab. Or as some reports indicated at the time he was using them against the people in his northern provinces.

So if you are one of those who let the talking heads of CNN do all of your thinking for you, and you never look beyond the veil then I can understand how and why you think you are right. However if you get to the point to where you learn to think beyond what you are spoon fed you will begin to see a world not so black and white.

[Drich]

If college were free, maybe you would learn how to spell "college", Drich.

Ninja'd.

Also, it might help with your third grader's understanding of economics, your Faux News understanding of Bernie Sanders' proposals, and your frightening ignorance of how this country already works.

Then please, by all means explain. That is the whole purpose of this thread. I presented a very basic understanding of how I see sander's plan failing, and I am asking for someone to show me how it is supposed to work.

[Drich]

Does anyone ever ask if the United States can afford more war? Why is the Department of Defence not audited? Maybe if the United States stopped bullying other countries so much they could afford the things other Western countries can seem to afford just fine - and make the world a safer place too.

F-22 is a big waste of money but it took billions to realize that. Iraq war was never a good idea, but it took hundreds of thousands of lives for the political elites to realize that. All that money spent on the Iraq war could easily have gone to decreasing income inequality. There are many developing countries that have a more equal distribution of wealth than the United States, supposedly the richest country on the Earth.

I think that if you asked most people, they wouldn't want to fight another war.  Between the costs (both human and monetary) and our shitty recent track record, more war is really unpalatable.  Right now.  The problem is, people (for some reason) buy into the beat coming from the war drums whenever the government starts beating on them.  Plus, we're currently living in a climate where if you dare question anything to do with the military, you don't "Support the Troops™" and are thus a bad person.

Regarding military equipment, at least the F-22 is actual functional, and the idea is sound.  A multi-role platform with good-to-great performance and stealth.  It cost a ton, but it works.  

The F-35 has been a complete debacle, even more so because the entire idea behind it was to greatly reduce costs (l-o-fucking-l).  The idea, again, is sound: an air frame that is used in three branches of the military, with about ~75% of the construction and replacement parts identical across branch versions.  And the basic shape and systems based on the proven F-22, and made (supposedly) to be simpler.  Then, somehow, everything got fucked up, things didn't work, prices skyrocketed, and it's just this too-big-to-fail albatross, much like Donald Drumpf's many bankruptcies.  I mean, shit, they're having new problems with the radar software right now, which may delay certification again: http://arstechnica.com/information-techn...in-flight/

But, to address your larger point, yes, we need to stop giving the military a blank check.  We need to stop going into regions that hate us already, toppling regimes, and then doing fuckall to fix the instability (either by not going in to begin with, or having the testicular fortitude to stay for the generations necessary to see the job done).  We need to stop spying on our fellow citizens and force law enforcement at all levels to obtain warrants.  We need to demilitarize our police.  We need to enact sensible gun control.  We need to close tax loopholes so large employers like Walmart pay their fair share if they're going to pay wages low enough that make people apply for welfare.  And so much more.

To answer Drich's question, Bernie is the only one who will actually try to do those things.  His lifetime of work proves it.  Clinton panders to the left, but she's essentially a 1980's non-evangelical Republican.  Her track record belies her rhetoric.  Drumpf is just an idiot.

IDK where you guys have gotten you facts, but Obama has defunded the military down to levels we saw at the beginning of the iraq war... Yet we are facing a much larger and far more dangerous threat in ISIS

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalb...3-0-ab_gsb

[Drich]

Sure, companies can't survive if they have to pay a living wage.

https://www.facebook.com/LiberalMountain...=3&theater

That;s the thing if everyone has the same or high resources that value of that resource goes down, and it takes more of that resource (money) to buy the products we need to live because those who provide it are paid alot more.

Why do you think the british Pound is worth more than the dollar? There is about a 2:1 ratio between the pound and dollar. the brits certainly do not have a larger GDP than we do.. It's the fact that there are twice almost 2.5 times the printed dollar amount in circulation when compared to the pound.

More dollars= less worth.

Inturn if we pay people more, it is going to cost more to produce, because salaries are factored into a products over all price. which means the raise they got is worth a lot less because the exchange rate (goods to money) has gone up more than the raise they got. This 'echange rate/good to money' will always be higher than what people make because companies have to generate profits to stay in business.

[The Grand Nudger]

Way to completely avoid the issue while purporting to speak to the issue.  If you think that a raise in wages will -necessitate- an increase in price or remove profit entirely....then you're describing a situation not at all consistent with reality.

The real question, however, is whether or not this should surprise anyone?

[ReptilianPeon]

If Senator Sanders wins the Democratic ticket I will have a huge KFC to celebrate. I shall have another huge KFC if he wins the presidential. As for Dirch, he lives in fantasy land. "Radical Islam" is primarily spread by al-Saud, a Western ally. Dirch is really misinformed on the issues.

Majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi and they got a private jet home. George W. Bush is a noob. I want him tried for war crimes in The Hauge. Prince Allwaleed of Saudi owns part of Fox News so you won't see much criticism of the woman beaters on Fox. But yeah, lots of Iran bashing Fox News.

Lololol:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3cMlIsd0seo

[KevinM1]

I think that if you asked most people, they wouldn't want to fight another war.  Between the costs (both human and monetary) and our shitty recent track record, more war is really unpalatable.  Right now.  The problem is, people (for some reason) buy into the beat coming from the war drums whenever the government starts beating on them.  Plus, we're currently living in a climate where if you dare question anything to do with the military, you don't "Support the Troops™" and are thus a bad person.

Regarding military equipment, at least the F-22 is actual functional, and the idea is sound.  A multi-role platform with good-to-great performance and stealth.  It cost a ton, but it works.  

The F-35 has been a complete debacle, even more so because the entire idea behind it was to greatly reduce costs (l-o-fucking-l).  The idea, again, is sound: an air frame that is used in three branches of the military, with about ~75% of the construction and replacement parts identical across branch versions.  And the basic shape and systems based on the proven F-22, and made (supposedly) to be simpler.  Then, somehow, everything got fucked up, things didn't work, prices skyrocketed, and it's just this too-big-to-fail albatross, much like Donald Drumpf's many bankruptcies.  I mean, shit, they're having new problems with the radar software right now, which may delay certification again: http://arstechnica.com/information-techn...in-flight/

But, to address your larger point, yes, we need to stop giving the military a blank check.  We need to stop going into regions that hate us already, toppling regimes, and then doing fuckall to fix the instability (either by not going in to begin with, or having the testicular fortitude to stay for the generations necessary to see the job done).  We need to stop spying on our fellow citizens and force law enforcement at all levels to obtain warrants.  We need to demilitarize our police.  We need to enact sensible gun control.  We need to close tax loopholes so large employers like Walmart pay their fair share if they're going to pay wages low enough that make people apply for welfare.  And so much more.

To answer Drich's question, Bernie is the only one who will actually try to do those things.  His lifetime of work proves it.  Clinton panders to the left, but she's essentially a 1980's non-evangelical Republican.  Her track record belies her rhetoric.  Drumpf is just an idiot.

IDK where you guys have gotten you facts, but Obama has defunded the military down to levels we saw at the beginning of the iraq war... Yet we are facing a much larger and far more dangerous threat in ISIS

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalb...3-0-ab_gsb

Lowered military funding != ISIS

ISIS primarily comes from George W. Bush capitalizing on our post-9/11 fear and anger to invade Iraq, selling it as a quick and easy war ("They'll welcome us as liberators!  We'll use that sweet, sweet Iraqi oil to pay for it!") when anyone with even the vaguest notions of actual foreign policy knew it was doomed to fail.  

So, we remove a tyrant who kept the various sects in line through brutality, and, surprise, the people don't want us there.  They don't want us to prop up what they see is an illegitimate puppet government.  They don't want us interfering with their sectarian conflicts.  In order to keep the peace, we have the 'surge', which wasn't just more boots on the ground, but millions if not billions of dollars paid to the various warlords for them to play nice.

And things did cool down, but it was never a tenable solution.  Bribing people to behave doesn't address the underlying issues.  And after being there for over a decade, with our kids still getting killed with IEDs and the occasional attack, and the Iraqis begging us to leave, we did.  And all of the problems that come with toppling a regime (most notably a power vacuum) came roaring back and Iraq slipped back into instability.

It's not all Dubya's fault.  We did the same thing in Libya under Obama, and Syria has been going on for years.  But the thing that underpins it all is a lack of post-regime toppling planning, our seemingly incessant need to meddle in the area every generation, and an utter ignorance about the various political and religious sects in play and their attitudes.  We have made the region worse and more dangerous just about every time we've been involved, settling for quick, near term solutions rather than looking at the bigger picture.  And more military funding isn't the magic bullet that addresses those issues.

[Drich]

But ignorance is strength, is it not? That's what Dirch is basically arguing for. Apparently is get an education you'll be unemployed. It doesn't compute. I thought we were supposed to reward strivers.

If this were true you'd be the incredible hulk of AF.

What I'm arguing is the a collage education for everyone floods the market with educated people with knowledge and skills they can not use to get a job. Let's say there are a 100 million jobs that require a collage education currently available in the US. Now lets say the 350 million people living in the US all have a collage education.. Now this education was not free, someone some where had to pay for it, yet because there are only 100 million job openings avaiable and the market is saturated with qualified people one of two things will happen. the jobs themselves will be devalued/pay goes down. Or the requirement goes up, meaning the job that once needed a bachelors in Science now requires a masters or doctorate in the same subject. If the later happens then the standard 4 year bachelors degree becomes the equilvant of a high school diploma, and the high school diploma becomes a certificate of attendance. Which mean to work at Mc Donald's your going to need a 4 year degree.

Now tell me their won't be out rage in the community if 4 years of collage buys you a job at or just above $8.00 an hour.. How long before the 'educated' humps get 20.00 per hour to flip burgers? (uneducated humps are now currently asking for 15.00 per hour) What do you think this will do to the price of food? Or are you all so foolish to think companies forced to pay 20.00 per hour will just take that hit to keep all prices the same?

How about this instead. Rather than lying to stupid people and pretending the fix all to all social problems is 4 years of liberal indoctrination hiding behind english and math, we teach people to truly think and act for themselves, we give them the tools to seek out and take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. How about we approach the country with a less government/governmental control and regulation, and let people have a stable country/platform to make their own way? We teach hard work and ethics, we teach people according to their capacities and potential skill set, so that they can become the best they can personally be. In doing so we will ingrain contentment and true happiness, rather than setting the bar impossibly high and not being able to make good on the promises clearing that bar (collage) is supposed to allow them. In the process we save trillions.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't think that those college degrees will lead to job creation?  You assume that there will always be only so many marbles in the jar and that this number is forever described by a hypothetical snapshot in time of your choosing?

[Drich]

Vermont

Median income: $52,977
Poverty rate: 11.2%
Child poverty rate: 15%
Commonwealth Fund overall healthcare ranking: 1

Florida
Median income: $44,250
Poverty rate: 16.5%
Child poverty rate: 24%
Commonwealth Fund overall healthcare ranking: 37

Texas
Median income: $53,105
Poverty rate: 18%
Child poverty rate: 25%
Commonwealth Fund overall healthcare ranking: 40

Of course, those are two outlier red states you mentioned; most red states are abysmal in pretty much every relevant category.

The reason I picked those two states is because their isn't a state tax. Which again drives business to those states when other states error on the side of socialism.

I truly believe the reason Fl's Median income is lower than vermont is for the fact it's primary industry is hospitality and food service related. (tourism) which tends to be min wage jobs. that said Fl has experienced a big boom in higher paying industrial/areospace jobs with the refunding of the space program.

Eitherway the point stands in that if this country decides to Tax industry as they do in vermont. Industry that can leave will leave. things like the Auto industry, Technology based industries, really anything that can be shipped or provided on line can now leave. which leaves only infrastructure companies. The bare bones of business, food, service, construction etc.. Again look at what a crazy tax plan has done to vermont. They have 1 major company in the whole state that is there that does not have to be there/Not infrastructure.

Verses the hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into Tx and Fl ecconomies because of their tax policies.