Enviromental Pollution Agency

[*michaelsean*]

(08-18-2015, 02:05 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I thought that might the case, however I'm still not following you.

Unless I misread it, Fred is calling the purchasing of equipment for the military aid to the corporations from which  the equipment is purchased. (How about that grammar?)

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-17-2015, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Finally the government spends billions more in aid to corporations that it does in aid to the poor.  Half of our budget goes to the military and we contract out a major portion of our military spending to private corporations.  The government also handed out $700 billion to millionaires to help save the private market finance industry in 2008.  Corporate loopholes in the tax code have allowed many top corporations with billions in profit to pay zero taxes.  U.S. Corporations pay a lower percentage of all income taxes than at any time in our history.  All of this corporate welfare costs the taxpayers much more than poor.  But the Republican party have done a great job demonizing the poor to create a smoke screen for what they are handing out to corporations. 

This is the paragraph that I thought you were referring to.  If you were referring to something different, please quote it and there won't be this misunderstanding.

(08-18-2015, 02:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Unless I misread it, Fred is calling the purchasing of equipment for the military aid to the corporations from which  the equipment is purchased. (How about that grammar?)

Because in the Paragraph that I quoted, there is no mention of purchasing military aid or equipment.  (How about that quote function/and reading comprehension skillz yo?)

[*michaelsean*]

(08-18-2015, 02:21 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: This is the paragraph that I thought you were referring to.  If you were referring to something different, please quote it and there won't be this misunderstanding.

Because in the Paragraph that I quoted, there is no mention of purchasing military aid or equipment.  (How about that quote function/and reading comprehension skillz yo?)

"Finally the government spends billions more in aid to corporations that it does in aid to the poor.  Half of our budget goes to the military and we contract out a major portion of our military spending to private corporations."

[fredtoast]

(08-18-2015, 01:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think you can call purchasing military equipment from corporations in and of itself aid.  They are purchasing something.

The problem is that we are spending and wasting much more than we need to on military spending.  It is a much bigger slush fund than the small amount we spend on helping out the poor.

To many conservatives want to balance the budgetr by cutting out a few million we give to people who are desperate and need the help instead of the billions that we waste on military spending.

The United States military is more than twice as powerful as any other nation on earth, yet Republicans just added $36 billion a year in "emergency" military spending to get around the rules they set in the sequester. They want to scream about the poor eating food other than bread and water, but at the same time they won't to increase by billions the amount they are pouring into the pockets of Lockheed Martin and other private companies for stuff we don't even need.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-plays-budget-games-increase-defense-spending

[*michaelsean*]

(08-18-2015, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that we are spending and wasting much more than we need to on military spending.  It is a much bigger slush fund than the small amount we spend on helping out the poor.

To many conservatives want to balance the budgetr by cutting out a few million we give to people who are desperate and need the help instead of the billions that we waste on military spending.  

The United States military is more than twice as powerful as any other nation on earth, yet Republicans just added $36 billion a year in "emergency" military spending to get around the rules they set in the sequester.  They want to scream about the poor eating food other than bread and water, but at the same time they won't to increase by billions the amount they are pouring into the pockets of Lockheed Martin and other private companies for stuff we don't even need.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-plays-budget-games-increase-defense-spending

That's what I meant by in and of itself.  Just selling military equipment isn't aid.  I have no problem cutting the military.  I'll bet there are billions that can be cut without anyone even noticing.  then you make some harder decisions.  Maybe i don't know enough, but it really doesn't seem necessary to have bases all over the world. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-18-2015, 03:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: "Finally the government spends billions more in aid to corporations that it does in aid to the poor.  Half of our budget goes to the military and we contract out a major portion of our military spending to private corporations."

(08-18-2015, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that we are spending and wasting much more than we need to on military spending.  It is a much bigger slush fund than the small amount we spend on helping out the poor.

To many conservatives want to balance the budgetr by cutting out a few million we give to people who are desperate and need the help instead of the billions that we waste on military spending.  

The United States military is more than twice as powerful as any other nation on earth, yet Republicans just added $36 billion a year in "emergency" military spending to get around the rules they set in the sequester.  They want to scream about the poor eating food other than bread and water, but at the same time they won't to increase by billions the amount they are pouring into the pockets of Lockheed Martin and other private companies for stuff we don't even need.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-plays-budget-games-increase-defense-spending

(08-18-2015, 03:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's what I meant by in and of itself.  Just selling military equipment isn't aid.  I have no problem cutting the military.  I'll bet there are billions that can be cut without anyone even noticing.  then you make some harder decisions.  Maybe i don't know enough, but it really doesn't seem necessary to have bases all over the world. 

Well it took a minute to get here, but I think we all agree that we spend too much on our military. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

The waste in military spending comes from mostly R&D. Now granted, we have to have some R&D, but I have two uncles that both work for military contractors and they have both told me that probably upwards of 90% of things they work on never see the light of day, and they both believe that it's not a coincidence. These are both career military guys and conservative people but they both hate the amount of waste and abuse that goes on in the system.

As for bases around the world, it's a cost involved of being a world leader and superpower. People can say it's waste if they want, but the ability to project power and get anywhere in the world in a short time logistically has IMO kept the world relatively safe in comparison to what it would have looked like over the last 50 years with an isolationist America.

I'm against big bloated government in every sense, which is why the arguments about welfare here bore me, because the bulk of people on the liberal side of discussion just want to point to military spending and the nonsensical position that we don't spend that much on welfare.