The GOP, the military industrial complex's most effective lobby group.

Watching the GOP presidential candidates speak, you will notice that all of them claim that the US military is weak and underfunded.

Meanwhile, America outspends everyone by vast amounts.

Instead of trying to be CONSERVATIVE and save money, they are proposing to further expand military spending which is already over half of America's discretionary budget.

Furthermore, the military is in fact supported and directed by the pentagon and a huge amount of BIG GOVERNMENT agencies that are included in that budget.

I wonder why conservatives accept increasing the largest discretionary spending, GROW GOVERNMENT and further increasing the national deficit to do so?

Aren't such proclamations stating in so many words,

1. We are gonna grow government
2. We are gonna increase the deficit
3. We are the military industrialists greatest proponents.

What says you ATS? Do any of you see the extreme contradiction in this position?

Can't argue with that.

The GOP is more in concerned with increasing profits for the defense contractors than they are getting the military the training and equipment it needs.

originally posted by: projectvxn
Can't argue with that.

The GOP is more in concerned with increasing profits for the defense contractors than they are getting the military the training and equipment it needs.

The secondary effect is all the alphabet agencies that gather intelligence to support the government are part and parcel
with military expansion.

I don't understand how someone can support the agenda of the politicians when it inflames the problems the voting base claim to abhor.

a reply to: yesyesyes

That's why they wanted Rand Paul out of the debate. In that way they could stay on the topic of bomb, dominate the globe, merika, yea.

a reply to: yesyesyes

The GOP is the lesser of two evils. I served under Clinton and Bush, the democrats cut funding so much we didn't have enough ammo for some of our weapons. Everyone wants a new fancy jet or bomber. You can bomb it, strafe it, but it ain't yours till you walk on it

Would be nice if we just spend smart instead of throwing more and more money at it

originally posted by: EightTF3
Would be nice if we just spend smart instead of throwing more and more money at it

I think saving money is not really as important as vocalizing they are against spending money.

There is huge profits to be made in military spending, domestic surveillance, and blowing up and rebuilding places.

Funny ...cause in the last 8 years we have gone from a small regional conflict in Iraq into a full blown cold war.
I'D say THAT is the presidents WHO IS SITTING IN the office NOW's job unless I'm mistaken and he uses the military to arm his favorite team.
He's a nasty as any RINO,more actually since he doesn't do at ALL correctly

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Funny ...cause in the last 8 years we have gone from a small regional conflict in Iraq into a full blown cold war.
I'D say THAT is the presidents WHO IS SITTING IN the office NOW's job unless I'm mistaken and he uses the military to arm his favorite team.
He's a nasty as any RINO,more actually since he doesn't do at ALL correctly

It was the longest and most expensive war in US history, what are you talking about?

In your opinion, how much spending in Iraq would of cut the muster? 3 trillion, 4 trillion?

That war was the stupidest foreign policy mistake in the history of America. Saddam regularly killed and dismantled
radical jihadi networks in his country. He may of been a tyrant, but he was a firm stabilizing force which was completely overlooked by the last administration.

ISIS is the military industrial complex's biggest and best cash cow. Free business for perpetuity, your tax money being shot out a barrel, your money being used in order to rebuild.

a reply to: yesyesyes

I'm taking about occupying Iraq.
Minimal forces and after Bush went for the Nerve agent,the Russian Spetz ran it into Syria.
Unfortunately Cheney wanted the war.
That "FIRM stabilizing force" was a security issue for Saudi,not to mention the mass graves.
ISIS doesn't make them squat,in case you haven't noticed we are going for China who we owe MASSED amounts of debt
to the and once a war is arranged it will be dismissed.
It's too obvious.

a reply to: yesyesyes



Since 2002 America has outspent itself. I already have no say in how my tax dollars are spent.. But why are both parties spending more than they are taking in?

I may have issues with how the federal government spends my money, but the real problem is that both sides spend my money on things they can't afford.

And both sides whine that we need to spend more!

I wouldn't hire an accountant that couldn't balance my budget, yet we elect the same idiots that think printing more dollars will solve everything.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: yesyesyes

I'm taking about occupying Iraq.
Minimal forces and after Bush went for the Nerve agent,the Russian Spetz ran it into Syria.
Unfortunately Cheney wanted the war.
That "FIRM stabilizing force" was a security issue for Saudi,not to mention the mass graves.
ISIS doesn't make them squat,in case you haven't noticed we are going for China who we owe MASSED amounts of debt
to the and once a war is arranged it will be dismissed.
It's too obvious.

Well how many billions did Cheney get from the war, let's be real and consider that his business positions made war doubly exciting and the liquid gold added even more incentive.

I think ISIS is a huge marketing tool because their activity creates call a call to action, which can lead to a change in policy, leading to new contracts and drastically increased revenue.

If ISIS pulls us into a massive international conflict, the people who produce the arms with not be fighting, they will be be raking in the big bucks, the bigger the conflict the better. If you are not fighting the battle, it is very easy to see the cost of that battle in a detached fashion.

In my opinion, Obama's policies are very hard to pin point what the hell he does or why he is doing it. Bush was very easy to discern, will Obama's charades are cryptic as all hell.

a reply to: yesyesyes

Not if he's pulling off Cloward and Piven strategy.
It's ALL he is doing and HE is NOT loyal to the US ,he's already bought a house in Dubai so he can run.
WHAT IS obvious is that this guy is a lie in all ways.
THE FIRST thing we should do is go after who ever backed his traitorous butt.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: yesyesyes

Since 2002 America has outspent itself. I already have no say in how my tax dollars are spent.. But why are both parties spending more than they are taking in?

I may have issues with how the federal government spends my money, but the real problem is that both sides spend my money on things they can't afford.

And both sides whine that we need to spend more!

I wouldn't hire an accountant that couldn't balance my budget, yet we elect the same idiots that think printing more dollars will solve everything.

It is a weird situation because if you think about it, US money is essentially phony money when it is created. The only thing that ensures it is real is the way we perceive the money. I think we see money as being something valuable because we work for it and our life is spent collecting it. The financial elite however, do not really have to earn it in the same way we do because they do not really work for it or live in the same reality as most of us.

Our economy most likely constantly pushed beyond it's nature limits, or intentionally kept out of balance, so that the elite business interests can have a larger pool to pull from.

In their eyes the more money we spend, the more money they can capture so, there is very little use in reducing the output of spending. Plus the same elites are able to elect candidates who remove their tax liability which only further increases the debt to income ratio. They win from both angles because both parties have their various pet issues.

Anyways, I am of the mind that the national debt may seem important to many, that the few people who truly understand the global economy realize that we the people are brainwashed and immune to the real nature of our economy. We the people actually care because we face financial ruin, destitution, while that is never in the cards for some,their liability is much more esoteric.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: yesyesyes

Not if he's pulling off Cloward and Piven strategy.
It's ALL he is doing and HE is NOT loyal to the US ,he's already bought a house in Dubai so he can run.
WHAT IS obvious is that this guy is a lie in all ways.
THE FIRST thing we should do is go after who ever backed his traitorous butt.

Well, if he intends to let ISIS invade America, he is running out of time.

I have no idea about his motives, which is unnerving, but I think he is far behind the curve if he is intact trying to
turn emperor and commandeer the naval fleet to float ISIS across the Atlantic. Otherwise, I cannot say that I get
his objectives.

a reply to: yesyesyes

I look at the economy the same way I look at scientific theory.

The simplest answer is probably the most accurate.

what has government done to our money

It's a long read but well worth it.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: yesyesyes

I look at the economy the same way I look at scientific theory.

The simplest answer is probably the most accurate.

what has government done to our money

It's a long read but well worth it.

The money goes the same people it always goes to, even when the government spends it, money ultimately goes to the banks, whether I buy a donut, or the Pentagon contracts a new bomb designed.

I shall read

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: yesyesyes

I look at the economy the same way I look at scientific theory.

The simplest answer is probably the most accurate.

what has government done to our money

It's a long read but well worth it.

The money goes the same people it always goes to, even when the government spends it, money ultimately goes to the banks, whether I buy a donut, or the Pentagon contracts a new bomb designed.

I shall read

Only the government would give money to banks that failed.

The opposite of capitalism.

Please do.

GOP=Big goverment in a diffrent way.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: yesyesyes

I look at the economy the same way I look at scientific theory.

The simplest answer is probably the most accurate.

what has government done to our money

It's a long read but well worth it.

The money goes the same people it always goes to, even when the government spends it, money ultimately goes to the banks, whether I buy a donut, or the Pentagon contracts a new bomb designed.

I shall read

Only the government would give money to banks that failed.

The opposite of capitalism.

Please do.

We might disagree as to who controls who, I would digress and say that the banks control the government by initially bribing the politicians who constitute government. The banks gave the money to themselves two fold by controlling the governmental policy that initiated the bailout and then necessitating the response reaction of the bailout itself.

Unfortunately, I also think capitalism is not possible in the current moral free environment, morality being a necessary component to capitalism according to Adam Smith.

I think capitalists failed to realize that the people with the most capital will always find a way to rig the system, just as communists government officials will alway rig their system. The federal reserve, was the brain child of the owners of capitalism largest success cases. The bankers who used capitalistic means to acquire vast fortunes use the same competitive measures to extract wealth from alleged capitalist and communist societies alike. This is evidenced in the fact that family names like Rothschild used capitalism to great effect and are of the most successful capitalists in history.
These elites, and even less dramatically wealthy parties dominate the private sector AND the dominate the "public sector"/government with equal efficiency. I think recent history and past history shows that capitalists, competitive based accumulation is always apt to stray into immoral power grabs into the administration of laws that government their behavior in society. The government and it's policy is shaped by power and money, not sanity or morality. FREE MARKET is not possible because the nature of capitalism is to dominate, and this domination is as routine as a communist dictator shooting off the freedom loving rebels and imposing immense control. Free market capitalism is the inverse fantasy of communist utopian society. Both the capitalist and the communist societies are destined to be tyrannized by the few power hungry "leaders" who rig the system without fail.

The same banks (which are actually just a group of people) sold fantasy based products, based upon fantasy based capital and "converted" those to fake assets, based upon contracts that were bound to fail. The irresponsibility and discriminant intent of these actions shows that the best capitalists in America are actually successful because they lack scruples or any desire to play by rules of free, free market or any such thing. The conundrum is so deep I think it is fatal to capitalism, the best capitalists will always rig the system to benefit their position
because it is simply the best for business. The ultimate form of competition, AKA gaining control of the government who make the rules is the normal progression of capitalist competition, a so called cornering of the market.

I will read and you think about the actual prospects of achieving a free market given the consistent manipulative and dishonest actions of America's best capitalist endeavors. Even the Federal Reserve is essentially a privately held capitalist endeavor that has managed to cease a supposed free country by the balls... Capitalism is limping to graveyard where lies Communism.