Republicans: The Cocaine Monkeys of Defense Spending

[Ulaven_Demorte]

They talk nice about cuts, but Republicans won’t say no to the Pentagon, and in the end, they’ll cut a deal that ups domestic spending too.

Republicans claim that they, unlike Democrats, are the fiscally responsible party and often preach about the dangers of the growing national debt and the need to reduce the size of government. The reality is quite different, however. Apart from wanting to trim food stamps, foreign aid, and Medicaid, Republicans simply aren’t willing to specify the programs they are truly willing to axe—especially the Republicans now out on the campaign trail.

Exhibit A is defense spending. Republicans love it. In fact, they love it so much that they can’t get enough of it. Ever. For all their complaints about government inefficiency, many of them seem to think that it doesn’t apply to the Department of Defense, and that every additional dollar spent on projects like the F35—a supposedly nuclear-capable fighter jet that defense contractor Lockheed Martin has been working on since 2001 and is long overdue and over budget and still not fully operational—or the super-expensive and unnecessary Abrams Tank translates into increased national security.

The opening battle in Congress over the fiscal 2016 budget is illustrative. Ever since Congress and the Obama Administration capped the defense budget under the 2011 Budget Control Act – the so-called “sequester” agreement that allowed the debt ceiling to increase – Republican military hawks and their conservative backers have been chomping at the bit to undo the so-called “damage.” It was actually quite funny --for a while -- to watch Republicans become full-blown Keynesians, arguing that defense cuts would destroy the economy and threaten jobs.

...

So for all the talk about smaller government and fiscal responsibility, it appears that once again congressional Republicans are more interested in showering the Pentagon with taxpayer dollars while refusing to ever resist the lure of war. They’re the cocaine laboratory monkeys of useless defense spending, and they just can’t stop self-administering. And once again conservatives are about to find out that you’ll never get smaller government at home if you insist on big government abroad.

More here: The Daily Beast

 

[BotanyBoy]

I also bet not a single one of the litcon's except maybe the good Col. will own even the slightest shred of it either....LOL nothing except "Butt....butt....Obama!"

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well if Obama hadn't capped the military, the Middle East would be perfect. Putin is moving because Obama's a pussy who doesn't back our allies. Nazism is on the rise in Germany again because they know the fraud won't lift a finger to stop them. The Decepticons have set up a base on the dark side of the moon. China is pushing it's four corners strategy and it's because Obama hates this country. If he loved it Israelis wouldn't be able to leave their borders, not out of fear but because everything outside their borders would be glowing green. Putin would have been publicly executed, Osama's corpse would have been wrapped in bacon, fed to pigs, the shit gathered, poured into pigs blood before flying over Mecca and spraying the pilgrims.

 

[sr71plt]

Of course the Republicans don't really fund up the defense budget because of concerns for national defense. They are funding up defense contractors--heavy lobby business. Dick Cheney and all that.

 

[Setanta84]

Um, this isn't a GOP thing. Corporate Dems, including President Obama, love war and love funding it.

Are we forgetting President Obama dedicated his fucking Nobel Peace Prize lecture to arguing for the necessity of war and taking the "bless their hearts" approach to dismissing Gandhi, King, and advocates of non-violence in general? Or that blowing up a 16-year-old in a desert with a flying robot of death gives him an erection that Michelle could never hope to inspire?

 

[sr71plt]

U
Are we forgetting . . . that blowing up a 16-year-old in a desert with a flying robot of death gives him an erection that Michelle could never hope to inspire?

Why would I need to remember something you made up?

 

[Setanta84]

Why would I need to remember something you made up?

So you can momentarily forget about your weak style and grasp of basic sentence and paragraph structure? It might help with the delusion you're a writer of some kind.

 

[sr71plt]

I'd hate to get your bills for high blood pressure pills and anger management classes.

I guess it's your turn to have your brilliant contribution history to this Web site indexed:

https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=1213997&page=submissions

 

[Setanta84]

I'd hate to get your bills for high blood pressure pills and anger management classes.

I guess it's your turn to have your brilliant contribution history to this Web site indexed:

https://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=1213997&page=submissions

I'd hate to get the bills for your venereal disease treatments and psychiatric bills. Stealing money from your mom's purse to buy rent boys and rough trade is a taxing business.

 

[sr71plt]

I'd hate to get the bills for your venereal disease treatments and psychiatric bills. Stealing money from your mom's purse to buy rent boys and rough trade is a taxing business.

Lame. My jab could be demonstrated from your posts. Yours is just silly and juvenile--and reflects yet again your anger management issues. But then that's you.

 

[Setanta84]

Lame. My jab could be demonstrated from your posts. Yours is just silly and juvenile--and reflects yet again your anger management issues. But then that's you.

Your "jab" is based on being unfamiliar with anything the handsome man in the suit that you rub one out to every night at five doesn't tell you about the greater world, not any posting history.

My jab is base on the general air of being a delusional douche with a taste for kids that everything you write here exudes.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm sure you believe both of those things. Which, again, brings up that need for anger management classes (and maybe a brain would help as well).

Do you really believe that someone with the posting history you have is going to rattle me? Now, that's funny.

 

[Setanta84]

I'm sure you believe both of those things. Which, again, brings up that need for anger management classes (and maybe a brain would help as well).

Do you really believe that someone with the posting history you have is going to rattle me? Now, that's funny.

Nope, I think the only thing that "rattles you" is the sight of a particularly chubby five-year-old boy bending over slowly in front of you to pick up dropped candy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

They talk nice about cuts, but Republicans won’t say no to the Pentagon, and in the end, they’ll cut a deal that ups domestic spending too.

Republicans claim that they, unlike Democrats, are the fiscally responsible party and often preach about the dangers of the growing national debt and the need to reduce the size of government. The reality is quite different, however. Apart from wanting to trim food stamps, foreign aid, and Medicaid, Republicans simply aren’t willing to specify the programs they are truly willing to axe—especially the Republicans now out on the campaign trail.

Exhibit A is defense spending. Republicans love it. In fact, they love it so much that they can’t get enough of it. Ever. For all their complaints about government inefficiency, many of them seem to think that it doesn’t apply to the Department of Defense, and that every additional dollar spent on projects like the F35—a supposedly nuclear-capable fighter jet that defense contractor Lockheed Martin has been working on since 2001 and is long overdue and over budget and still not fully operational—or the super-expensive and unnecessary Abrams Tank translates into increased national security.

The opening battle in Congress over the fiscal 2016 budget is illustrative. Ever since Congress and the Obama Administration capped the defense budget under the 2011 Budget Control Act – the so-called “sequester” agreement that allowed the debt ceiling to increase – Republican military hawks and their conservative backers have been chomping at the bit to undo the so-called “damage.” It was actually quite funny --for a while -- to watch Republicans become full-blown Keynesians, arguing that defense cuts would destroy the economy and threaten jobs.

...

So for all the talk about smaller government and fiscal responsibility, it appears that once again congressional Republicans are more interested in showering the Pentagon with taxpayer dollars while refusing to ever resist the lure of war. They’re the cocaine laboratory monkeys of useless defense spending, and they just can’t stop self-administering. And once again conservatives are about to find out that you’ll never get smaller government at home if you insist on big government abroad.

More here: The Daily Beast

^^^^^OFFICIAL TRANSLATION: I was too scared to join the army.

 

[sr71plt]

Nope, I think the only thing that "rattles you" is the sight of a particularly chubby five-year-old boy bending over slowly in front of you to pick up dropped candy.

Check back with me when you decide to post as an adult.

 

[sr71plt]

^^^^^OFFICIAL TRANSLATION: I was too scared to join the army.

You missed the point, James. It doesn't have that much to do with either soldiers (god knows the Republicans have shown they don't have any concern for individual soldiers) or national defense. It has to do with weapons and equipment manufacturing and bases located in voting districts.

 

[Setanta84]

Check back with me when you decide to post as an adult.

But then you'd completely lose interest in me. Like when your cousin started getting hair in "funny places."

 

[sr71plt]

OK, so don't decide to post as an adult. I don't mind you exhibiting this way.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Um, this isn't a GOP thing. Corporate Dems, including President Obama, love war and love funding it.

Are we forgetting President Obama dedicated his fucking Nobel Peace Prize lecture to arguing for the necessity of war and taking the "bless their hearts" approach to dismissing Gandhi, King, and advocates of non-violence in general? Or that blowing up a 16-year-old in a desert with a flying robot of death gives him an erection that Michelle could never hope to inspire?

You'll be much happier if you admit you're a Republican you know. This IS a GOP thing. Not saying Dems are doves in this country because they aren't. We don't have a liberal party in this country. We have a Center Right and a CRAZY Right. But Clinton managed to shrink the military, and Obama quite probably would have made similar moves if he'd been in any position to do so.

No I don't remember Obama dedicated his Nobel Peace price to arguing the necessity of war. I'd like a citation. I'm not a fan of his drone use, mind you. I don't remember any 16 year olds but I'm sure he's racked up a few. Again, America doesn't have a left leaning party.

But all this both sides do it is bullshit and it needs to stop from all you Republicans (cus only Republicans ever claim that bs) who are ashamed to call yourselves Republicans because your party has grown so foul that you don't want to associate with them. So you call yourselves independents (a thing that doesn't exist in any true quantity) or Libertarians (but when pressed on issues libertarians have on their platform or generally do you're like. No, we basically like their taxes and regulations stance but none of their social things.)

 

[Setanta84]

You'll be much happier if you admit you're a Republican you know. This IS a GOP thing. Not saying Dems are doves in this country because they aren't. We don't have a liberal party in this country. We have a Center Right and a CRAZY Right. But Clinton managed to shrink the military, and Obama quite probably would have made similar moves if he'd been in any position to do so.

No I don't remember Obama dedicated his Nobel Peace price to arguing the necessity of war. I'd like a citation. I'm not a fan of his drone use, mind you. I don't remember any 16 year olds but I'm sure he's racked up a few. Again, America doesn't have a left leaning party.

But all this both sides do it is bullshit and it needs to stop from all you Republicans (cus only Republicans ever claim that bs) who are ashamed to call yourselves Republicans because your party has grown so foul that you don't want to associate with them. So you call yourselves independents (a thing that doesn't exist in any true quantity) or Libertarians (but when pressed on issues libertarians have on their platform or generally do you're like. No, we basically like their taxes and regulations stance but none of their social things.)

If you think I'm a Republican, you're duller than I thought.

Also, try reading orimary sources yourself every once and again. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-lecture_en.html

 

[neci]

If you think I'm a Republican, you're duller than I thought.

Also, try reading orimary sources yourself every once and again. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-lecture_en.html

this is a big post for you.

#tarot

 

[The_Trouvere]

^^^^^OFFICIAL TRANSLATION: I was too scared to join the army.

What does that have to do with the points Ulaven_Demorte was raising?

 

[The_Trouvere]

Republicans have still not learned from the failure of supply side economics. They still think it is possible to cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget without cutting or eliminating domestic spending programs the vast majority of Americans and most Republicans insist on keeping.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you think I'm a Republican, you're duller than I thought.

Also, try reading orimary sources yourself every once and again. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-lecture_en.html

Only Republicans talk like you. You guys all smell the same.

It's nice speech actually but no Obama didn't dedicate his speech to arguing the necessity of war. He dedicated his speech to declaring the tragedy of war and how it must be avoided as much as humanly possible and that peace is more than just the absence of war. To claim that he was arguing the necessity of war in that speech is a gross characterization of what is being said. So you're still liar.

But hey you did learn to link, congrats. Honestly you should have quoted something relevant to your argument. I might have made the mistake I often make and assumed you weren't a liar and just read what you posted instead of the entire fucking thing.

 

[Setanta84]

Only Republicans talk like you. You guys all smell the same.

It's nice speech actually but no Obama didn't dedicate his speech to arguing the necessity of war. He dedicated his speech to declaring the tragedy of war and how it must be avoided as much as humanly possible and that peace is more than just the absence of war. To claim that he was arguing the necessity of war in that speech is a gross characterization of what is being said. So you're still liar.

But hey you did learn to link, congrats. Honestly you should have quoted something relevant to your argument. I might have made the mistake I often make and assumed you weren't a liar and just read what you posted instead of the entire fucking thing.

Well, you demonstrated your reading skills are on par with your critical thinking skills--but thanks for being honest and admitting you're the kind of mouth-breathing fucktard who normally doesn't click through to a primary source himself.

I'm a Democrat--an actual one, i.e. I have social and economic liberal values that don't depend on who is in office or the flavor of the month. Not all of us are yellow dogs who wouldn't know an original thought if it bit him in the ass.