Come on Obama. We are fighting these monkeys in the middle east. The F22 raptor should have a son. One that dogfight and shoot the monkeys out of there caves.
We should keep making f-22s clearly. Why would you lower your defenses with rougue countries in existance as there are? Not only that, yes maby they are useless right now, but whenever Russia or China starts something with the U.S. or any other superpower we are going to wish we had those f-22s. Maby they were expensive, but what are they going to use the money for after they stop making them? Most likely some left wing agenda bullshit.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, it's meant to maintain the US's stronghold on the skies should we ever go to war with other superpowers such as Russia and China, both of whom are finishing their 5th generation fighters the F-22 was designed to compete with. Without further funding, they won't be able to adapt the F-22 to remain superior to newly emerging threats. As great as the F-35 will be, it doesn't fill the same role. We can spend 700 billion on a BS stimulus, but not 1.7 for f-22.
How do the troops lose when they have F-22 Raptors protecting them?? If I were on the ground fighting, I would love to have these wonderful pieces of machinery on my side. Are you telling me healthcare is more important than National Security?? Your agenda is out of whack. GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!! NATIONAL SECURITY FIRST, JOBS SECOND, HEALTHCARE THIRD!!! Why doesn't this guy start ACTING like the Commander in Chief?? More like Teleprompter in Chief lol!!!
yaEH!!! GOOD JOB OBAMA!!! lets take all the funding from this program and give it to the the black folk so THEY CAN BUY CRACK WITH IT!!! YeAH!!! and while ur at it!!!...lets give all to the illegal immigrants so they can have 30 kids per family!! YAY YAY!!!
The job of your Congress is to protect you from internal as well as external threats...Right now the situation demands for them to concentrate on the more important issues at hand...namely Economy....
Remember!!!
The job of a leader is not to make popular decisions but to make the right decisions..
And Pres Obama is doin a DAM FINE JOB of handling the mess.
U'll get ur "Ferrari Cake" later for now manage with an "Acura Cake"
We need more F-22 now. Lets kick out these political hacks who killed the program and get in men who will fund the USAF with what they need! The F-22 is the world's most capable air-superiority aircraft and is ready for production today! The F-35 is not a replacement for the F-22. Understand the "high-low" mix and you will learn why.
Our nation built tens of thousands of fighters in World War II. We built over 5000 F-4 Phantom II fighters. We should be able to build at least 850 F-22 Raptors.
Technology of f22 stealth cover is not ready yet. It simply distracts from the plane during flight so after several hours of flight plane stealth capabilities are lower than before it took off from the airport That's why this aircraft needs hours of ground service after flight... Sadly it's inferior to many russian aircraft's in close combat...This is the best example that money not always mean quality...
Does TRNN stand for TRash News Network? Does anyone know that Russia and China are both hoping The Chosen One will weaken our military to the point where they feel they can, lets say take Taiwan or retake former Soviet states? They are both tooling up for battle. And Antiworld23 you are right, ACORN needs cash to grow into a mighty socialist tree!
I personally think that we could have made it for 5 billion or under if we really wanted to, but it was such a perfect plane that you don't want to cut out too much equipment
Lol you dumbass. Everyone, including the pentagon said the F-22 program was a waste of time and money. So just be quiet you rightwing nut. And your last comment made me laugh. Put them on trial for treason?? You must've been asleep for the last 8 years to make a braindead statement like that. If anyone deserves to be put on trial it's the last administration.
@CaptEm1 I believe both last and the current administrations should be put on trail. But we may have to send Obama back to his home country to do so...
9/11 looks pretty pathetic in terms of terror compared to Clinton's bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, or his sanctions on Iraq which killed nearly 600 000 children.
This debate makes sense. If you want air superiority like what the f-22 is designed for, you could decimate a country's entire fighting force with 30 of these babies. 187 is almost overkill. But it's not needed for the war we are fighting. It makes the most sense to put production ON HOLD. It's not saying production could kick back up.
The do need some F-22s just incase something happens with Iran or Korea. We don't need them in Iraq because we took out their air-force in like one day lol.
We won't goto war with Iran. That country is actually a legit country that has a strong military. I don't see the US getting bogged down in something like that.
Few even in Congress understand that under this scheme, only 85 F-22 jets will be modern-Increment capable (i.e. Increment 3.2+ capable) to provide the future 2020+ strategic superiority deterrence. The rest of F-22s are early mods for training or were sadly not designed for future upgrades such as Stealthy communication (MALD), AIM-9x, AIM-120D and Multiple SDB Strike targeting.
The 85 figure needs to be debated and comprehended here.
And FYI, the F-35 not F-22 is budget unsustainable.
Thanks for reply and I appreciate your true open mindedness. I actually think I grasp the 'money games' as you say, as much or near to as planes.
Be it 9/11 relevant jet facts or F-22, and unsustainable budgets of today... I think I have a handle on it?
This budget crisis is an urgent national crisis to resolve - as past budgets can't be repeated. Programs such as persistent anti-insurgent wars and the massive F-35 MIC dream project can't be sustained. 60 more F-22 can.
This is a big bait and switch, for some PR purposes to appease progressives. This is only half the story. The Pentagon was going to tell the Navy to phase out the F-22 anyway. All small fighters in all the armed forces branches are being phased out and replaced by the joint-force Lockheed/Martin F-35. This is a whopping $200 billion plus project. So what about slashing $1.75 billion, in comparison?
Watch PBS/NOVA's "Battle of the X-Planes", which talks about it. YouTube:
This Lady seems to be reading off of a script... Has no background, knows nothing about aviation. Yes, the Raptor is Air Superiority, but the F-35 will be turned to shit when it is engaged!! On other Youtube videos, it has been proved that the F-35 is useless, unless it is only attacking ground targets. The F-22 should then back it up for air support, IMO, this isn't a good idea. Other opinions??
Our military empire is a WASTE OF FUCKING MONEY this money needs to be used HERE to create jobs and build / replace our infastructure and jump start manufacturing NOT on mantaining bases around the world which produce NOTHING.
Since the US only fights 3rd world nations.....the F-22 is a waste of money. The 3rd world cant stop the stuff we have now, and wont be able to for many years. The US spends approximately as much money on military as the next 20 largest nations combined. This will bankrupt us like it bankrupted the USSR.
US defence spending is bigger than the next 5 counties budgets combined. Does this sound like maintaining a defence capability? What did the founding fathers say about standing armies? Have you looked at the cash that flows into this vampirical system and can't be accounted for? Have you read reports about how auditors have been stone-walled or fired? I doubt that any of this matters to you because you're a TRUE PATRIOT (excuse me while I pick up my eyes which just rolled out of their orbits).
I think you're right about audits, and the dangers of a standing Army. Unfortunately, the US
-guarantees safety of the sea lanes worldwide
-subsidizes the defense of Europe
-allows Canada to spend very little on defense
-subsidizes the defense of Japan
-delivers most of the world's aid (by military transport)
and lots more.
The US does five times more, so it's spends five times as much. Which is not surprising. As a rich country, the US has more to lose. Common sense, really.
No, it's just a imperialistic and self-destructive foreign policy based on a diseased economic model. But I take your subtle point about the US no longer even trying to act like a republic, it's been quite clear for decades now.
And as for 'altruistic' foreign aid; the cat's out of the bag on that little chestnut.
No one said it's altruistic. Least of all I, who believes that US foreign policy should serve exclusively US interests. But, clearly, there are lots of free riders on US military spending. Most conspicuously, take Europe.
The US economic model was crafted by Progressives. It is diseased. We need individual economic liberty, not European-style economic fascism, nor neo-Marxism.
There is no characteristic of a republic that is at odds with US military policy.
If it were put to the popular vote in Europe, US military presence would disappear. US foreign policy is based on the priciple of 'full spectrum dominance', which implies exerting financial domination (through the US controlled WB and IMF), projecting military power (through military bases and naval power) and controlling space. This is nothing to do with an Adam Smith style free-market economy (he would be appalled). It is also a huge tax-burden, which the Republicans offset by borrowing from..
(cont)..the people who really control your nation, the internationalist, privately owned, opaque and nebulous, unconstitutional bankers behind that Republic-smashing institution, the Federal Reserve. And yes, these same people run the show in Europe too. By the way, workers aren't in charge of production in Europe, so that O'Reilly soundbight 'marxism' doesn't really apply. We are witnessing a merging of business and government, so fascism is closer to the mark, just like in the US.
Put to a popular vote in the US, US military presence in Europe would disappear, too. The fact is, European governments vote down NATO drawbacks every time the US proposes them.
Full-spectrum dominance is an approach to winning wars. It's a very successful approach, as the US war record shows. If a war were aimed at protecting private property from communal or religious thieves - I think Adam Smith would quite be in favor of full-spectrum dominance.
European governments vote these proposals down either because of fear of economic reprisals from the US or because they are servants to the same Internationalists who have usurped the US. You have a very ambivalent view of the world. You state that the US economic system is warped (ie government) yet are steadfast in your support of how those compromised bunch of puppets project power abroad. This is strange. As for Smith cosying up to the neo-mercantilists, he didn't come from 16th C. Venice
As for the goal of the US to be continuously winning wars (of it's own design and chosing) I think that this is myopic. Avoiding costly wars is a more intelligent approach. Defence spending (both in terms of direct and indirect (inflation) cost brought down the Roman, Austrian-Hungarian, Soviet and British Empires (to name a few) and it has brought down the American Empire too. The American version was the briefest.
No. European government vote down US troop drawbacks, because it allows them to spend much less on defense and more on social programs. Thus, the US indirectly subsidizes European socialism. that's why European governments like US troops there. US citizens don't like it one bit.
Yes, we are not Capitalist in the US, contrary to the prevailing view. We have a hybrid socialist-market system. I want to see a return to laissez-faire capitalism and limited (not necessarily small) government. cont'd
Like Jefferson, I understand the need for preemptive warfare (remember the Barbary Wars). This in no way implies a mercantilist bent.
In general, I favor reducing and withdrawing US forces. But any good defense is defense in depth. Power projection is a vital component of national defense. The military is only one instrument of national power, and the most blunt and lest useful. But the other instruments tend not to work without it. He who desires peace, must prepare for war.
The US hasn't merely prepared for war, it has been waging war ever since the end of WWII, mainly dirty small proxy wars in South and Central America, the Levant, the Caucasus and Africa, but with a few biggies thrown in for good measure. These have led to a complete erosion of soft-power. This has simply led to a snowballing of military expenditure and threats of economic or physical destruction.
Anyway, you are missing the point entirely. The US is to all intents and purposes not a sovereign nation, much less a republic. Your officials answer to the CFR members and the international bankers behind the Fed. A couple of waves of the Stars'n'stripes and people become deaf, dumb and blind. Why did Dubya make the god awful mess he made, and why is Obama continuing the same policies (forget the window dressing)? The rot set in a long time ago, and you are simply watching the grand finale.
This is another example of a leftist fallacy, a very common and brutish one. It portrays American citizens, who love their country and worry about its future, as dumb.
This is no new. Even in the Federalist papers, we see Madison dealing with European snobbery. The modern leftist form derives from Heidegger's Nazi critiques of America.
It' just not true that Americans are deaf, dumb, and blind, if that means they are less deaf dumb, and blind than Europeans.
But you leave out who the US was fighting. When a Soviet Premier stands in the UN says for all to hear: "We will bury you." The only prudent course of action is to take it seriously, and attempt to contain the threat through geo-political means, including small proxy wars. It's better than nuclear confrontation.
This an example of an elementary fallacy. The idea is to see the US as the prime move in everything. It's not true.
Again, US military spending is not snowballing. It's under 3% GDP.
This is another tendency of the left: drop context. denbenenki, perhaps you would not have been scared of 2o0,000 Soviet tanks on the European border, threats of "We will bury you" from a nuclear power - but thank goodness more prudent people did worry about it.
this isn't the cold war era. This is the age of globalized society. We need to put an end to making the US into this giant fortress, and get back to being a proper country.
The money is better spent elsewhere. Since leftists only apply the Geneva conventions to the USA, and Europe is run by leftists, then the USA needs ultra-precision ground strike aircraft.
They need to be easy to ship, supply, and maintain. (Recall Russia's attack on US logistics in Georgia.) The new aircraft need be remotely piloted to preserve valuable pilot expertise and to multiply their effectiveness.
The F-22 is a great air to air combat plane. but, there is not much challenge in this arena. They will use the money in the direction of remote drones. This is not a good thing ether. War through a video screen is chicken shit, and takes away from the judgment a pilot would have. I play video games and never fear death through the screen. neither would they. A picture of mass killing is always easier to ignore then the real thing.
Remotely piloted vehicles have the advantage of preserving the life of the pilot in case of mission failure. IF you're fighting a war, they are a very valuable capability.
Robotics introduced into war, Is yet another form of consolidation of power from the bottom to the top. from the many to just a few. In every aspect of this consolidation brings more power to fewer and fewer people at the top of the monetary system. We are being taken over by a select few elites at the top. The more technology they acquire, the fewer minions they need to run things. Soon the Globalist can carry out there 80% reduction in population plan. Research before you criticize what I say.
But neo-Marxists are the real globalists. Technology has not developed they way Marx thought it would. Technology has empowered the individual. It has not resulted in the top-down structure you write of.
I can bet that the military industrial complex are at least 10 years in advance of anything we have heard of. If Marshall law was enacted right now. Who would have the power? The people? The masses? I think your wrong. It would only take a few military personnel to maintain a large population using such things as sonic, thermal, electromagnetic soft kill weapons to heard people into camps. How many police are needed per million of population to maintain order? Think about it...
what modern air force is the us going to go to war against, anyway? no other country that we would fight anytime soon has anywhere near a functioning modern air force. most military spending is just an efficient scam to funnel public funds to the private sector.
poop121, war is probabilistic. You prepare for possibilities not just obvious threats.
The US must be able to (1) fight and win a two theater war; (2) preempt invasion of the homeland; (3) transfer the battle to enemy countries so they suffer the ravages of war, not the US; (4) provide 'tripwire' diplomacy to specific strategic allies; (5) globally preempt use of WMD with conventional forces; (6) maintain theater-level raid capabilities for limited an unlimited military intervention.
We don't need global military empire. We diplomacy and a strong defense HERE AT HOME. This shit is a WASTE OF MONEY! Trust me BANKRUPTCY is a greater threat than the ability to "wage war" ever was but you fail to understand that. the US is totally on the verge of bankruptcy and when there is a RUN ON THE DOLLAR and our printed paper is worth nothing - then you will see what being poor is.
I agree that the Raptor should be scrapped, but not because we don't need a warfighting capability. The F-22 just didn't give us the RIGHT capabilities.
60% of the US budget is entitlement spending. That's where we need to be cutting. I shouldn't even have to write this: it's imprudent to cut defense spending during a war.
I agree that the dollar has been mismanaged. I favor a gold standard, taking control of the money supply out of the hands of government.
fifty percent of that entitlement spending was paid for by the people receiving it. The US have 'borrowed money they should have never touched from this fund' It is the biggest ponzi scheme imaginable. They take out roughly two hundred a week from my check. Yes ,i paid into it so I am entitled to it if I need it. You work your butt off they take half away and you call it entitlement money ,well it is .If they never borrowed from this fund it would not represent sixty percent spending Peace
So many times people respond to my comment with the answer. Yes fiscal responsibilty. If the government did not touch the contributions made by people through their paychecks entitlement payments would not be sixty percent of the budget. They use these funds for other obligations which is against the law. It is like you using your kids money to pay your electric bill when your short, teling yourself i will return it in the futre but never do. Thats how the govt seees it as well with this fund.
Indeed, if the citizenry likes it so much, they should be prepared to pay for it with higher taxes, or cut spending. After all, the cold war has been over for almost a decade now, then again the permanent war economy is the biggest socialist jobs programs the US has. If we as a country are going to support overwhelmingly a socialist jobs program perhaps the citizenry would enjoy seeing it's money go to more productive pursuits like a sustainable energy future, rather than bombs.
Military spending is only 3% GDP. We don't need new taxes to support it. Unemployment is highest in socialist societies. The government cannot create jobs but only move jobs form one sector to another. This is elementary.
The sustainable energy vs. bombs dichotomy is nonsense. It's economic liberty vs. economic tyranny.
Actually it's ~4.5% of the economy, and 21% of the federal budget, not including the interest from former defense related spending which accounts for ~4% more. Frankly I'm not proposing increasing the defense budget if anything it should be reduced as soon as possible and the funds redirected to more useful social jobs programs.
Actually it's not a dichotomy at all as you mistakenly stated, it's a matter of spending and societal priorities.
No. You're confusing the defense budget with defense spending. That figure also includes the civilian intelligence gathering budget. The Pentagon's budget is much less. But let's take 4.5%. That's historically low, especially in wartime.
Cutting the defense budget in the middle of a war is just dumb.
The most important priority for any society is defense. IT's why societies are formed in the first place.
Oh please, the supplementals are just there to mask the true cost of the wars. Spare me the BS.
"Cutting the defense..."
You missed the "as soon as possible" bit didn't you...
Defense from whom? The cold war is over the vast majority of 4th and all of 5th gen. fighters are in the hands of NATO countries, same with aircraft carriers...
The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony in various parts of the world, an empire is not a desirable state to be in.
The civilian intelligence infrastructure is part of civilian law enforcement, too. But, as I wrote before, I'll stipulate the 4.5%. I noted that it's historically low in wartime.
I didn't miss the "as soon as possible," but maybe you've missed the last four years in which American liberals have called for immediate defense reductions. They still are, in wartime.
Justify this statement: "The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony."
Historically, the entire world was at war either busy slaughtering hundreds of millions of individuals or rigged to explode at the touch of a button. Who gives a fùck about historically?
Oh I see we have to beat off to the flag with the rest of the war mongers and not talk about overall policy right?
Justify? That's the reason not to have such a large force, hurr durr. Think.
You seem to strike a strange balance between "small government" and a constant hard on for all things war.
The issue of private armies is a red herring. I'm not an anarchist. I'm for limited government, not the absence of government.
Since you mention it, I'll comment. I can see no difference between a private army like the French Foreign Legion and a government force. Entities like Blackwater seem to be just as legal, in fact more legal, than the Islamist insurgents in Iraq.
I've yet to read a condemnation of Islamist war crimes, from a leftist. It gives you folks a credibility problem.
Do you think its ethical to have an income of over $1 000 000 while children in poor countries starve to death? That money could probably save hundreds of lives, but you would rather spend it on superfluous luxuries.
Yes, it is ethical. What's unethical is the way socialist and fascist government reduce their peoples to poverty.
Paganini, you err by assuming that economic growth occurs as a zero-sum process. People in poor countries can become wealthy even as people in other countries become wealthy.
You also fail to account for recent history. Massive trillion-dollar aid programs distribute food and other wealth to poor countries. It doesn't work because it doesn't address he problem: socialism.
So next time I'm deciding between buying an 8000 square foot summer beach house and feeding thousands of starving African children I'll chose the former because the latter would kill people, despite appearing to save thousands of lives.
Paganini, yes that's exactly what you should do. You should also work tirelessly to promote in Africa the same economic freedom you have.
the money you would send to "African children" won't reach them. Instead, it will prop up despotic, specialist regimes that caused the dire poverty in the first place.
African aid is a state subsidy for tyrants. And, by the way, the US gives over 25% of all aid.
Also, extending my comments below, consider the example of Zimbabwe. It was a food exporting country - under capitalism.
Now, under socialism, Zimbawe's peoples starve right on top of the most productive farm land in the world! The same thing happened in Ethiopia. Socialism kills.
We have to account for the problems of socialism when considering whether to adopt a socialist policy.
We know of no other system to secure abundance and life, other than capitalism.
Again, you wrote 'terror state' but the ICJ doesn't say that. Yet, you cite the ICJ as evidence for your terror state claim. It's now clear you've mischaracterized the ICJ. Shame on you for lying like that.
A terror state is a state which commits international terrorism, the ICJ agreed the US was guilty of attacking undefended civilian targets, coercion, etc. Things which we call terrorism when other people commit them.
We call terrorism unlawful violence by unlawful combatants. The Contras were not unlawful combatants. And, besides the US doesn't accept ICJ jurisdiction. It shouldn't because the ICJ is anti-American.
I guess nearly the every country in the world that doesn't submit to u.s. hegemony is 'anti-american.'
In the Nicaragua vs. United States case, two judges from France and judges from Italy, India, Algeria, Poland, Senegal all found U.S. guilty on all 16 counts.
They're judgement of course was clouded by their raving 'anti-americanism.'
Nigeria, Argentina, China and Brazil found the U.S. guilty on 15 counts.
Posner and De Figueiredo show consistent, empirically verifiable bias in the ICJ. Later, Posner documents the decline of the ICJ, because most member states find the ICJ biased and ignorant of geopolitical reality.
This was predictable at the outset, because international law is not law. What we call international law is merely a collection of interlocking, voluntary treaty obligations. That is very different from sovereign law.
Do you think the UN sanctions were the fault of the UN? Do you think the UN should have allowed multi-national forces to topple Saddam rather than impose sanctions on Iraqi children? Do you think Russia and Europe extended the suffering of the Iraqi people by their illegal oil deals during the UN sanctions regime?
You're blaming the wrong organization. The UN screwed it up.
All member nations were obligated to implement the sanctions regime. The US wanted to finish Saddam the first time, but couldn't. The UN mandate didn't authorize it.
The UN, and the UN alone, screwed it up. The UN, and the UN alone, created the conditions for the sanctions regime.
Europe, Russia, and the US provided military aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Iran sought to expand its Islamic Revolution to Iraq, seizing Iraqi oil fields and strategic offshore oil platforms.
to prevent the collapse of Iraq, the US provided military intelligence, observation helicopters, and dual use materials, but no weapons.
The policy aim was simple: maintain a balance of power in the region and contain Iran's ambitions for Islamic conquest.
Well, at various times and places, yes. So? International relations are much like relations among men in the absence of sovereign law. Sometimes, states must deal with nasty people. There's no way around it. For example, are we to cease dealing with the nasty regimes in Saudi Arabia and China?
The US, UK and Australia sought good relations with Indonesia and gave political and economic support. But supporting genocide? Not so.
In that case you better work fast to convince the 70-80% of people who favor this kind of healthcare reform.
Except it calls into question what kind of society we want, one where force is privatized and driven by profit motives or one where force is democratized and driven by the will of the people. Hmm, which one sounds better...
Maybe because you never asked for it and because it's completely ancillary to the "conversation" were having. Oh yes the secular left loves fundamentalism mm, hmm!
In the US, there is nowhere near 60% support for socialized medicine.
In a capitalist system, exchanges are voluntary. This means that there is no force and the exchange always works for the good of both parties.
In a socialist system, exchanges are coerced. This means that at least one party can be forced into an exchange that isn't beneficial for both parties.
In democracies, the majority can tyrannize the minority. Hence the need to strictly limit government.
Durr hurr, Obama's initiative isn't socialized medicine. The VA is socialized, not the public option.
Hah! What BS, tell that to the people of the Niger Delta and many more. Take your overly simplistic tosh to more gullible folk. Over there, I see some Objectivists, they like that sort of thing.
Yes, that's why we have things like constitutions, it's not a pure democracy. More overly simplistic BS that ignores present realities. Step out of your faux ivory tower for a moment.
The public option gives government control of the means of medical services production. That's socialism.
To the peoples of the Niger Delta: your government keeps you poor, liberate yourselves, imitate the capitalist countries and support individual economic liberty.
Do please justify this: "The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony"
Do you think that in WWII the US should have used conventional forces to invade Japan, with casualty estimates as high as 4 million? Do you think Japan should have surrendered when we warned the civilian population to evacuate Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Actually Tense, the Japanese had already put forward a surrender proposal with only one condition, to keep the Emperor. Since Allied policy was to only accept unconditional surrenders this overture by the Japanese was ignored and the bombings went forward. After the surrender the Japanese Emperor was allowed to stay.
Unconditional surrender was important, because the US wanted to prevent another war with Japan. Remember Japan had been in several terrible wars just a few years earlier Russia and China. The emperor was allowed to stay under specific conditions. The Japanese surrender offer didn't have had those conditions.
What were these conditions? Wresting political control from the Emperor and the establishment of democratic rule.
The point was they made no attempt to clarify the conditions of retention which they later allowed anyway. Instead they simply ignored the overture and dropped the bombs anyway.
It isn't medicine, it's insurance. Do ignore the fact that it's voluntary and democratic as well.
Ignore the fact that the capitalist exchange was between two stake holders, both profit, at the expense of a third party which is out of the loop.
Do actually read what I've already written.
It's really, really sad how you're ruled by a sacred cow which has very dramatically shown not to bring the benefits it pretends to bring. So these are the types of people Rand & Friedman appeal to...
Single payer is ownership of the means of production. Insurance is a voluntary hedge against risk. Obviously, they are not the same. Nor can one opt out of the taxation for single payer. It's not gotten by voluntary exchange. Single payer is not voluntary exchange. This is obvious.
Who is this the party? What is their expense?
I still don't have your justification for this claim: "The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony"
I'm curious, how does the phrase "means of production" apply to health care? What is being produced? Illness?
This is one example of the problem of trying to apply "free market" manufacturing principles to things like health care. Some industries dont work in the "free market."
Others are: energy, telecommunications, education, defense, and weapons manufacturing. ALL OF THESE SHOULD BE NATIONALIZED. It would make them more efficient, save money, and eliminate obvious conflicts of interest.
Services are just as much a free market commodity as any other.
If it doesn't work in the free market, it isn't an industry. Industries make things for sale.
There's no evidence that nationalized energy or telecommunications is more efficient by the standards of service provisioning or profit. Education is different. We KNOW that government education is inferior.
OK. Let's give the government a monopoly on war. I buy that.
Healing people of their illnesses, is not a supply/demand commodity. You can actually REDUCE DEMAND, by running a more efficient system.
In energy and telecommunications, the government already invests BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in infrastructure, which BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYER. Why should the taxpayer not benefit from the investment he has made? Why should he be happy to see BILLIONS skimmed off the top by super-wealthy corporate pigs?
Healing most definitely is a scarce good. I agree, you can reduce demand by running a more efficient system. Single payer is not that system, though. A market system will reduce demand by pricing scarce healing services at the equilibrium price.
I'm not arguing that the taxpayer should lose profit from infrastructure. But there was never a need to build most of it in the fir
This has been flagged as spam show
Come on Obama. We are fighting these monkeys in the middle east. The F22 raptor should have a son. One that dogfight and shoot the monkeys out of there caves.
Basketball64271 2 months ago
fucking democrats... if this isnt a one term president im moving to canada
jmpg538 6 months ago 2
We should keep making f-22s clearly. Why would you lower your defenses with rougue countries in existance as there are? Not only that, yes maby they are useless right now, but whenever Russia or China starts something with the U.S. or any other superpower we are going to wish we had those f-22s. Maby they were expensive, but what are they going to use the money for after they stop making them? Most likely some left wing agenda bullshit.
AngrySwampManStudios 6 months ago
So many yankees crying about it, just design the f24 cheaper and better, as if USA couldnt do it better...
Foxtrop13 10 months ago
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, it's meant to maintain the US's stronghold on the skies should we ever go to war with other superpowers such as Russia and China, both of whom are finishing their 5th generation fighters the F-22 was designed to compete with. Without further funding, they won't be able to adapt the F-22 to remain superior to newly emerging threats. As great as the F-35 will be, it doesn't fill the same role. We can spend 700 billion on a BS stimulus, but not 1.7 for f-22.
Afterburner289 1 year ago 3
Obama made way for the russian PAK-FA T-50 to take down all 187 F-22s not to mention China, US are so screwed now!!
JVson001 2 years ago
How do the troops lose when they have F-22 Raptors protecting them?? If I were on the ground fighting, I would love to have these wonderful pieces of machinery on my side. Are you telling me healthcare is more important than National Security?? Your agenda is out of whack. GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!! NATIONAL SECURITY FIRST, JOBS SECOND, HEALTHCARE THIRD!!! Why doesn't this guy start ACTING like the Commander in Chief?? More like Teleprompter in Chief lol!!!
SammyBoyATP 2 years ago
WE NEED THESE PLANES.
Nazim1495 2 years ago
yaEH!!! GOOD JOB OBAMA!!! lets take all the funding from this program and give it to the the black folk so THEY CAN BUY CRACK WITH IT!!! YeAH!!! and while ur at it!!!...lets give all to the illegal immigrants so they can have 30 kids per family!! YAY YAY!!!
britishareawesome69 2 years ago
What u guys gona do vs su-27-33-34fullback-35-37terminator and mig-29-29ovt-35?????
eretuev 2 years ago
Comeon Americans....
You guys are the strongest nation in the world...
The job of your Congress is to protect you from internal as well as external threats...Right now the situation demands for them to concentrate on the more important issues at hand...namely Economy....
Remember!!!
The job of a leader is not to make popular decisions but to make the right decisions..
And Pres Obama is doin a DAM FINE JOB of handling the mess.
U'll get ur "Ferrari Cake" later for now manage with an "Acura Cake"
duker1231 2 years ago
We need more F-22 now. Lets kick out these political hacks who killed the program and get in men who will fund the USAF with what they need! The F-22 is the world's most capable air-superiority aircraft and is ready for production today! The F-35 is not a replacement for the F-22. Understand the "high-low" mix and you will learn why.
Our nation built tens of thousands of fighters in World War II. We built over 5000 F-4 Phantom II fighters. We should be able to build at least 850 F-22 Raptors.
ReconTeam111 2 years ago
Technology of f22 stealth cover is not ready yet. It simply distracts from the plane during flight so after several hours of flight plane stealth capabilities are lower than before it took off from the airport That's why this aircraft needs hours of ground service after flight... Sadly it's inferior to many russian aircraft's in close combat...This is the best example that money not always mean quality...
WroclawMojeMiasto 2 years ago
Does TRNN stand for TRash News Network? Does anyone know that Russia and China are both hoping The Chosen One will weaken our military to the point where they feel they can, lets say take Taiwan or retake former Soviet states? They are both tooling up for battle. And Antiworld23 you are right, ACORN needs cash to grow into a mighty socialist tree!
vincentkjones1 2 years ago
Logic decision-
the F-22 was anyway high-priced Fastfood for SU's and MIG's.
MrKamuffel 2 years ago
Sukhoi and MiGs rules!!!
gio31brasil 2 years ago
is this the f-22 craptor, im sorry raptor the americans been bragging about?
i knew it was shit
chan0chap 2 years ago
Of course Obama killed this plane.
Why spend 7-10 Billion on planes that actually contribute to our nation's defense, not too mention jobs that the messiah wanted to "save or create."
I guess ACORN needs it more. It's a much better ideal to spend 6 billion on green federal buildings so we can save $0.11 a day on electricity.
When this is over we need to put these traitor liberals on trial for treason. There needs to be a reckoning for this.
Antiworld23 2 years ago
I personally think that we could have made it for 5 billion or under if we really wanted to, but it was such a perfect plane that you don't want to cut out too much equipment
TheSlyther 2 years ago
Lol you dumbass. Everyone, including the pentagon said the F-22 program was a waste of time and money. So just be quiet you rightwing nut. And your last comment made me laugh. Put them on trial for treason?? You must've been asleep for the last 8 years to make a braindead statement like that. If anyone deserves to be put on trial it's the last administration.
CaptEm1 2 years ago 3
Moonbat libtard moron.
ReconTeam111 2 years ago
@CaptEm1 I believe both last and the current administrations should be put on trail. But we may have to send Obama back to his home country to do so...
Xleptix 1 year ago
Great Vid:)
TheToltec 2 years ago
In Soviet Russia, F-22 fly You!
fostereric 2 years ago
The reagan administration sold chemical weapons, biological viruses etc. to Saddam which he used against the kurds.
The CIA helped put Saddam in power to begin with.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
One of the reasons Iraq was considered part of the axis of evil was gassing the Kurds.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Colombia had the worst human rights record in the Western hemisphere in the 1990s, while being the leading recipient of US military aid.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
The only judges left were from Japan, U.S. and U.K.
The U.K. found the U.S. guilty on 7 counts.
Japan found the U.S. guilty on 5 counts.
Even the U.S. judge found the U.S. guilty on 4 counts.
So I guess even the U.S. judge was 'anti-american' wasn't he?
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
9/11 looks pretty pathetic in terms of terror compared to Clinton's bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, or his sanctions on Iraq which killed nearly 600 000 children.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
She has dreadlocs :D
lordblazer 2 years ago
dont we spend more on defense now?
blulokus 2 years ago
No, we don't spend more on defense now.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
This debate makes sense. If you want air superiority like what the f-22 is designed for, you could decimate a country's entire fighting force with 30 of these babies. 187 is almost overkill. But it's not needed for the war we are fighting. It makes the most sense to put production ON HOLD. It's not saying production could kick back up.
hoosier3060 2 years ago
lol at the title.
GetTheCans 2 years ago
We don't need that stupid plane, we need to cut spending.
pedroquintero 2 years ago
The do need some F-22s just incase something happens with Iran or Korea. We don't need them in Iraq because we took out their air-force in like one day lol.
owchywawa 2 years ago
We won't goto war with Iran. That country is actually a legit country that has a strong military. I don't see the US getting bogged down in something like that.
lordblazer 2 years ago
-"We won't goto war with Iran. That country is actually a legit country that has a strong military"
Yeah, and it was even an "ally" back in the 70's.
/sarcasm off.
Germany was also a "legit" country back in the early 30's.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
em745aa 2 years ago
Ok it is an astonishing plane...
but is it really necessary?
It has never been used in Iraq nor in Afghanistan
and in case of a nuclear war with russia in the future it will be completely useless against intercontinental missiles
citallevi 2 years ago
this was a plane for israel.
jaba987 2 years ago
Few even in Congress understand that under this scheme, only 85 F-22 jets will be modern-Increment capable (i.e. Increment 3.2+ capable) to provide the future 2020+ strategic superiority deterrence. The rest of F-22s are early mods for training or were sadly not designed for future upgrades such as Stealthy communication (MALD), AIM-9x, AIM-120D and Multiple SDB Strike targeting.
The 85 figure needs to be debated and comprehended here.
And FYI, the F-35 not F-22 is budget unsustainable.
gigisup 2 years ago
In the present and future economic climates - sustainable budgets are impossible. You know far much more about planes
than the money games..... Whoever controls the debt, controls the debtor .
Best hurry with all that spending, robbing and pillaging to keep up with the interest rates!
TranquilKaos 2 years ago
TranquilK,
Thanks for reply and I appreciate your true open mindedness. I actually think I grasp the 'money games' as you say, as much or near to as planes.
Be it 9/11 relevant jet facts or F-22, and unsustainable budgets of today... I think I have a handle on it?
This budget crisis is an urgent national crisis to resolve - as past budgets can't be repeated. Programs such as persistent anti-insurgent wars and the massive F-35 MIC dream project can't be sustained. 60 more F-22 can.
gigisup 2 years ago
this is good stuff, too bad the real news isnt watched by that many :(
Ullbritt 2 years ago
This is a big bait and switch, for some PR purposes to appease progressives. This is only half the story. The Pentagon was going to tell the Navy to phase out the F-22 anyway. All small fighters in all the armed forces branches are being phased out and replaced by the joint-force Lockheed/Martin F-35. This is a whopping $200 billion plus project. So what about slashing $1.75 billion, in comparison?
Watch PBS/NOVA's "Battle of the X-Planes", which talks about it. YouTube:
watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw
tobiasaurusrex 2 years ago
if you can shoot down anything with a satellite in space why do you need an f-22 & why not just use the satellites? hmm
drmondman1 2 years ago
its not a plain its a jet & how many do you need?
drmondman1 2 years ago
Lancaster, California YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!
--2001 to 2005, "16 or 17 major weapons systems flunked" operational tests
--only met 2 of 22 key requirements / 351 deficiencies
--flunked on suitability measures -- availability, reliability, and maintenance
--$350 million apiece
187 to be built by 2010
denbenenki 2 years ago
--F-22's 1 hr flight = 34 hrs repair = $44,259 --$49,808 (per flying hour)
--F-15 ( #hrs unknown) cost $30,818 per flying hour
F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan
They build them then park them. Pilots refuse to fly them.
They failed to do anything on 911..
denbenenki 2 years ago
a mere drop in the ocean for the military industrial complex, they have Obama's two wars to tide them over.
andystokie 2 years ago
Obama shoots down F-22
Man Obama is good I thought those things where all stealth and stuff and Obama shoots down F-22
Hierophant2 2 years ago
This Lady seems to be reading off of a script... Has no background, knows nothing about aviation. Yes, the Raptor is Air Superiority, but the F-35 will be turned to shit when it is engaged!! On other Youtube videos, it has been proved that the F-35 is useless, unless it is only attacking ground targets. The F-22 should then back it up for air support, IMO, this isn't a good idea. Other opinions??
beroth1 2 years ago
damn that title was misleading. I though obama got in air force one for a joyride and blew up an f-22 for fun.
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago 2
WHO CARES?????
680 Billion dollars for the military is a WASTE OF MONEY.
Oh wow! Whopp-Dee-do! Obamba saved 1.75 billion to WASTE 680 billion!!
Our military empire is a WASTE OF FUCKING MONEY this money needs to be used HERE to create jobs and build / replace our infastructure and jump start manufacturing NOT on mantaining bases around the world which produce NOTHING.
LeftLiberalSoCal 2 years ago 7
the US government is a waste of money.
DeraJa 2 years ago 3
Truth!!!!!!!
phylosophycalwisdom 2 years ago
Why bother creating jobs at all...
If you're down to waste that much money just buy everyone a house and call it a day...
JSparkleZ2 2 years ago 2
680 billion is worth killing for.
flyhead2 2 years ago
...why doesn't defense use the money they earn from selling arms to the rest of the world and fund the F-22?????????.
MajNorberg 2 years ago
Since the US only fights 3rd world nations.....the F-22 is a waste of money. The 3rd world cant stop the stuff we have now, and wont be able to for many years. The US spends approximately as much money on military as the next 20 largest nations combined. This will bankrupt us like it bankrupted the USSR.
nikto2000 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not true. US defense spending is less than 3% GDP. The Soviet Union spent upwards of 40% GDP.
Now, ENTITLEMENT spending is over 60% of the federal budget. That's what's going to bankrupt us, just like it bankrupted the Soviet Union.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
That is not true, it was between 15-17 percent, which is still a staggering amount.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
US defence spending is bigger than the next 5 counties budgets combined. Does this sound like maintaining a defence capability? What did the founding fathers say about standing armies? Have you looked at the cash that flows into this vampirical system and can't be accounted for? Have you read reports about how auditors have been stone-walled or fired? I doubt that any of this matters to you because you're a TRUE PATRIOT (excuse me while I pick up my eyes which just rolled out of their orbits).
flyhead2 2 years ago
I think you're right about audits, and the dangers of a standing Army. Unfortunately, the US
-guarantees safety of the sea lanes worldwide
-subsidizes the defense of Europe
-allows Canada to spend very little on defense
-subsidizes the defense of Japan
-delivers most of the world's aid (by military transport)
and lots more.
The US does five times more, so it's spends five times as much. Which is not surprising. As a rich country, the US has more to lose. Common sense, really.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
No, it's just a imperialistic and self-destructive foreign policy based on a diseased economic model. But I take your subtle point about the US no longer even trying to act like a republic, it's been quite clear for decades now.
And as for 'altruistic' foreign aid; the cat's out of the bag on that little chestnut.
flyhead2 2 years ago
No one said it's altruistic. Least of all I, who believes that US foreign policy should serve exclusively US interests. But, clearly, there are lots of free riders on US military spending. Most conspicuously, take Europe.
The US economic model was crafted by Progressives. It is diseased. We need individual economic liberty, not European-style economic fascism, nor neo-Marxism.
There is no characteristic of a republic that is at odds with US military policy.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
If it were put to the popular vote in Europe, US military presence would disappear. US foreign policy is based on the priciple of 'full spectrum dominance', which implies exerting financial domination (through the US controlled WB and IMF), projecting military power (through military bases and naval power) and controlling space. This is nothing to do with an Adam Smith style free-market economy (he would be appalled). It is also a huge tax-burden, which the Republicans offset by borrowing from..
flyhead2 2 years ago
(cont)..the people who really control your nation, the internationalist, privately owned, opaque and nebulous, unconstitutional bankers behind that Republic-smashing institution, the Federal Reserve. And yes, these same people run the show in Europe too. By the way, workers aren't in charge of production in Europe, so that O'Reilly soundbight 'marxism' doesn't really apply. We are witnessing a merging of business and government, so fascism is closer to the mark, just like in the US.
flyhead2 2 years ago
Put to a popular vote in the US, US military presence in Europe would disappear, too. The fact is, European governments vote down NATO drawbacks every time the US proposes them.
Full-spectrum dominance is an approach to winning wars. It's a very successful approach, as the US war record shows. If a war were aimed at protecting private property from communal or religious thieves - I think Adam Smith would quite be in favor of full-spectrum dominance.
You're confusing ends and means.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
European governments vote these proposals down either because of fear of economic reprisals from the US or because they are servants to the same Internationalists who have usurped the US. You have a very ambivalent view of the world. You state that the US economic system is warped (ie government) yet are steadfast in your support of how those compromised bunch of puppets project power abroad. This is strange. As for Smith cosying up to the neo-mercantilists, he didn't come from 16th C. Venice
flyhead2 2 years ago
As for the goal of the US to be continuously winning wars (of it's own design and chosing) I think that this is myopic. Avoiding costly wars is a more intelligent approach. Defence spending (both in terms of direct and indirect (inflation) cost brought down the Roman, Austrian-Hungarian, Soviet and British Empires (to name a few) and it has brought down the American Empire too. The American version was the briefest.
flyhead2 2 years ago
But defense spending is less than 3% GDP. What you're saying is plainly false.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
No. European government vote down US troop drawbacks, because it allows them to spend much less on defense and more on social programs. Thus, the US indirectly subsidizes European socialism. that's why European governments like US troops there. US citizens don't like it one bit.
Yes, we are not Capitalist in the US, contrary to the prevailing view. We have a hybrid socialist-market system. I want to see a return to laissez-faire capitalism and limited (not necessarily small) government. cont'd
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Like Jefferson, I understand the need for preemptive warfare (remember the Barbary Wars). This in no way implies a mercantilist bent.
In general, I favor reducing and withdrawing US forces. But any good defense is defense in depth. Power projection is a vital component of national defense. The military is only one instrument of national power, and the most blunt and lest useful. But the other instruments tend not to work without it. He who desires peace, must prepare for war.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
The US hasn't merely prepared for war, it has been waging war ever since the end of WWII, mainly dirty small proxy wars in South and Central America, the Levant, the Caucasus and Africa, but with a few biggies thrown in for good measure. These have led to a complete erosion of soft-power. This has simply led to a snowballing of military expenditure and threats of economic or physical destruction.
(Cont)
flyhead2 2 years ago 2
Anyway, you are missing the point entirely. The US is to all intents and purposes not a sovereign nation, much less a republic. Your officials answer to the CFR members and the international bankers behind the Fed. A couple of waves of the Stars'n'stripes and people become deaf, dumb and blind. Why did Dubya make the god awful mess he made, and why is Obama continuing the same policies (forget the window dressing)? The rot set in a long time ago, and you are simply watching the grand finale.
flyhead2 2 years ago
This is another example of a leftist fallacy, a very common and brutish one. It portrays American citizens, who love their country and worry about its future, as dumb.
This is no new. Even in the Federalist papers, we see Madison dealing with European snobbery. The modern leftist form derives from Heidegger's Nazi critiques of America.
It' just not true that Americans are deaf, dumb, and blind, if that means they are less deaf dumb, and blind than Europeans.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
But you leave out who the US was fighting. When a Soviet Premier stands in the UN says for all to hear: "We will bury you." The only prudent course of action is to take it seriously, and attempt to contain the threat through geo-political means, including small proxy wars. It's better than nuclear confrontation.
This an example of an elementary fallacy. The idea is to see the US as the prime move in everything. It's not true.
Again, US military spending is not snowballing. It's under 3% GDP.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
it is 2009 sir,
that old scare: we will bury you" was not a threat to anyone who heard it firsthand.
but we-me-mericants hear four words and they start killing anyone around.
if yiu scare that easy-- you are a liar.
why are you a liar?
cant you submit a true fear?
denbenenki 2 years ago
This is another tendency of the left: drop context. denbenenki, perhaps you would not have been scared of 2o0,000 Soviet tanks on the European border, threats of "We will bury you" from a nuclear power - but thank goodness more prudent people did worry about it.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
this isn't the cold war era. This is the age of globalized society. We need to put an end to making the US into this giant fortress, and get back to being a proper country.
lordblazer 2 years ago 2
Diseased, excellent.
phnixlady 2 years ago
Don't need them , using to the new F-35.
gdernie 2 years ago
halimah abdullah lol a muslim
NiteAngel 2 years ago
Nite Angel lol an Idiot
zakovich 2 years ago
Good thing they cut the F-22.
But, bad thing that the annual military budget is still increasing...
Do American public not question the increase of military budget during a finical crisis?
mkfk1 2 years ago 6
The money is better spent elsewhere. Since leftists only apply the Geneva conventions to the USA, and Europe is run by leftists, then the USA needs ultra-precision ground strike aircraft.
They need to be easy to ship, supply, and maintain. (Recall Russia's attack on US logistics in Georgia.) The new aircraft need be remotely piloted to preserve valuable pilot expertise and to multiply their effectiveness.
As usual, the USMC is way ahead of the curve.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Unmanned aircrafts are cheaper and in extreme measures the perfect flying bomb.
14842 2 years ago
Absurd. The money will still be spent on funding war.
josemanuelsalgado 2 years ago
The F-22 is a great air to air combat plane. but, there is not much challenge in this arena. They will use the money in the direction of remote drones. This is not a good thing ether. War through a video screen is chicken shit, and takes away from the judgment a pilot would have. I play video games and never fear death through the screen. neither would they. A picture of mass killing is always easier to ignore then the real thing.
Peace first!
Everyone knows what the second is. Right?
nasanction 2 years ago 2
Remotely piloted vehicles have the advantage of preserving the life of the pilot in case of mission failure. IF you're fighting a war, they are a very valuable capability.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
basically a robot fighter plane. Many things from science fiction are coming true. :?
grodenbarg 2 years ago
Robotics introduced into war, Is yet another form of consolidation of power from the bottom to the top. from the many to just a few. In every aspect of this consolidation brings more power to fewer and fewer people at the top of the monetary system. We are being taken over by a select few elites at the top. The more technology they acquire, the fewer minions they need to run things. Soon the Globalist can carry out there 80% reduction in population plan. Research before you criticize what I say.
nasanction 2 years ago
But neo-Marxists are the real globalists. Technology has not developed they way Marx thought it would. Technology has empowered the individual. It has not resulted in the top-down structure you write of.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
I can bet that the military industrial complex are at least 10 years in advance of anything we have heard of. If Marshall law was enacted right now. Who would have the power? The people? The masses? I think your wrong. It would only take a few military personnel to maintain a large population using such things as sonic, thermal, electromagnetic soft kill weapons to heard people into camps. How many police are needed per million of population to maintain order? Think about it...
nasanction 2 years ago
what modern air force is the us going to go to war against, anyway? no other country that we would fight anytime soon has anywhere near a functioning modern air force. most military spending is just an efficient scam to funnel public funds to the private sector.
poop121 2 years ago 2
poop121, war is probabilistic. You prepare for possibilities not just obvious threats.
The US must be able to (1) fight and win a two theater war; (2) preempt invasion of the homeland; (3) transfer the battle to enemy countries so they suffer the ravages of war, not the US; (4) provide 'tripwire' diplomacy to specific strategic allies; (5) globally preempt use of WMD with conventional forces; (6) maintain theater-level raid capabilities for limited an unlimited military intervention.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
We don't need global military empire. We diplomacy and a strong defense HERE AT HOME. This shit is a WASTE OF MONEY! Trust me BANKRUPTCY is a greater threat than the ability to "wage war" ever was but you fail to understand that. the US is totally on the verge of bankruptcy and when there is a RUN ON THE DOLLAR and our printed paper is worth nothing - then you will see what being poor is.
LeftLiberalSoCal 2 years ago
I agree that the Raptor should be scrapped, but not because we don't need a warfighting capability. The F-22 just didn't give us the RIGHT capabilities.
60% of the US budget is entitlement spending. That's where we need to be cutting. I shouldn't even have to write this: it's imprudent to cut defense spending during a war.
I agree that the dollar has been mismanaged. I favor a gold standard, taking control of the money supply out of the hands of government.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
"60% of the US budget is entitlement spending. That's where we need to be cutting. "
The US citizenry disagree with you.
Gold is not magical, and if we did return to that standard there wouldn't be enough price flexibility and unemployment would rise even higher.
studio7manga 2 years ago
fifty percent of that entitlement spending was paid for by the people receiving it. The US have 'borrowed money they should have never touched from this fund' It is the biggest ponzi scheme imaginable. They take out roughly two hundred a week from my check. Yes ,i paid into it so I am entitled to it if I need it. You work your butt off they take half away and you call it entitlement money ,well it is .If they never borrowed from this fund it would not represent sixty percent spending Peace
vasiliosrigos 2 years ago
"fifty percent of that entitlement..."
This is an argument for fiscal responsibility, not against immensely popular social programs in a liberal democracy.
studio7manga 2 years ago
So many times people respond to my comment with the answer. Yes fiscal responsibilty. If the government did not touch the contributions made by people through their paychecks entitlement payments would not be sixty percent of the budget. They use these funds for other obligations which is against the law. It is like you using your kids money to pay your electric bill when your short, teling yourself i will return it in the futre but never do. Thats how the govt seees it as well with this fund.
vasiliosrigos 2 years ago
Very true, vasiliorigos.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
"So many times people respond to my comment with the answer. "
That should be a clue to you that there is something wrong with your argument.
Protip: The citizenry is sovereign, there is no distinction between the governors and the governed..
studio7manga 2 years ago
Great last line. And completely true.
"Government of the people, by the people and for the people..." Who was it said that? Karl Marx, wasnt it?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Heh, sounds like it doesn't it.
studio7manga 2 years ago
no, it was Lincoln. It was said in the Gettysburg address.
hoosier3060 2 years ago
10 points hoosier!!
Want to go for 20?
Who said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." --? Hint: it wasnt George W. Bush.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
it was Roosevelt in WWII. wow, your a winner.
arrdvark3 2 years ago
Francis Bacon
CharlieWhitesWig 2 years ago
And defense spending is an argument for fiscal responsibility, not against the immensely popular defense forces of the US.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Indeed, if the citizenry likes it so much, they should be prepared to pay for it with higher taxes, or cut spending. After all, the cold war has been over for almost a decade now, then again the permanent war economy is the biggest socialist jobs programs the US has. If we as a country are going to support overwhelmingly a socialist jobs program perhaps the citizenry would enjoy seeing it's money go to more productive pursuits like a sustainable energy future, rather than bombs.
studio7manga 2 years ago 2
Military spending is only 3% GDP. We don't need new taxes to support it. Unemployment is highest in socialist societies. The government cannot create jobs but only move jobs form one sector to another. This is elementary.
The sustainable energy vs. bombs dichotomy is nonsense. It's economic liberty vs. economic tyranny.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Actually it's ~4.5% of the economy, and 21% of the federal budget, not including the interest from former defense related spending which accounts for ~4% more. Frankly I'm not proposing increasing the defense budget if anything it should be reduced as soon as possible and the funds redirected to more useful social jobs programs.
Actually it's not a dichotomy at all as you mistakenly stated, it's a matter of spending and societal priorities.
studio7manga 2 years ago
No. You're confusing the defense budget with defense spending. That figure also includes the civilian intelligence gathering budget. The Pentagon's budget is much less. But let's take 4.5%. That's historically low, especially in wartime.
Cutting the defense budget in the middle of a war is just dumb.
The most important priority for any society is defense. IT's why societies are formed in the first place.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Oh please, the supplementals are just there to mask the true cost of the wars. Spare me the BS.
"Cutting the defense..."
You missed the "as soon as possible" bit didn't you...
Defense from whom? The cold war is over the vast majority of 4th and all of 5th gen. fighters are in the hands of NATO countries, same with aircraft carriers...
The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony in various parts of the world, an empire is not a desirable state to be in.
studio7manga 2 years ago
The civilian intelligence infrastructure is part of civilian law enforcement, too. But, as I wrote before, I'll stipulate the 4.5%. I noted that it's historically low in wartime.
I didn't miss the "as soon as possible," but maybe you've missed the last four years in which American liberals have called for immediate defense reductions. They still are, in wartime.
Justify this statement: "The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony."
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
The U.S. is a terror state.
Look up "nicaragua vs. united states"
where the U.S. is charged with international terrorism.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Historically, the entire world was at war either busy slaughtering hundreds of millions of individuals or rigged to explode at the touch of a button. Who gives a fùck about historically?
Oh I see we have to beat off to the flag with the rest of the war mongers and not talk about overall policy right?
Justify? That's the reason not to have such a large force, hurr durr. Think.
You seem to strike a strange balance between "small government" and a constant hard on for all things war.
studio7manga 2 years ago
U.S. military spending is almost equal to the rest of the world's military spending combined.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Indeed.
studio7manga 2 years ago
And another thing, I'm sure privatized armies wouldn't have a profit motive for constant warfare, no that would neeever happen...
studio7manga 2 years ago
The issue of private armies is a red herring. I'm not an anarchist. I'm for limited government, not the absence of government.
Since you mention it, I'll comment. I can see no difference between a private army like the French Foreign Legion and a government force. Entities like Blackwater seem to be just as legal, in fact more legal, than the Islamist insurgents in Iraq.
I've yet to read a condemnation of Islamist war crimes, from a leftist. It gives you folks a credibility problem.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Do you think its ethical to have an income of over $1 000 000 while children in poor countries starve to death? That money could probably save hundreds of lives, but you would rather spend it on superfluous luxuries.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Yes, it is ethical. What's unethical is the way socialist and fascist government reduce their peoples to poverty.
Paganini, you err by assuming that economic growth occurs as a zero-sum process. People in poor countries can become wealthy even as people in other countries become wealthy.
You also fail to account for recent history. Massive trillion-dollar aid programs distribute food and other wealth to poor countries. It doesn't work because it doesn't address he problem: socialism.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Wow! You're right!
So next time I'm deciding between buying an 8000 square foot summer beach house and feeding thousands of starving African children I'll chose the former because the latter would kill people, despite appearing to save thousands of lives.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Paganini, yes that's exactly what you should do. You should also work tirelessly to promote in Africa the same economic freedom you have.
the money you would send to "African children" won't reach them. Instead, it will prop up despotic, specialist regimes that caused the dire poverty in the first place.
African aid is a state subsidy for tyrants. And, by the way, the US gives over 25% of all aid.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Also, extending my comments below, consider the example of Zimbabwe. It was a food exporting country - under capitalism.
Now, under socialism, Zimbawe's peoples starve right on top of the most productive farm land in the world! The same thing happened in Ethiopia. Socialism kills.
We have to account for the problems of socialism when considering whether to adopt a socialist policy.
We know of no other system to secure abundance and life, other than capitalism.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Again, remember that the U.S. is a terror state, according to the international court of justice.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
I've read the ICJ case several times. I find no reference to "terror state." Got a reference?
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Again, look up 'Nicaragua vs. United States"
it's pretty clear.
Terrorism is "using force and threat of force against Nicaragua'
and "killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of Nicaragua"
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Is that what terrorism is? Doesn't all that happen in lawful war, too?
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
lawful?
Again, the ICJ found the united states had seriously violated international law, in the case of Nicaragua vs the united states and many other cases.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Again, you wrote 'terror state' but the ICJ doesn't say that. Yet, you cite the ICJ as evidence for your terror state claim. It's now clear you've mischaracterized the ICJ. Shame on you for lying like that.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
A terror state is a state which commits international terrorism, the ICJ agreed the US was guilty of attacking undefended civilian targets, coercion, etc. Things which we call terrorism when other people commit them.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
We call terrorism unlawful violence by unlawful combatants. The Contras were not unlawful combatants. And, besides the US doesn't accept ICJ jurisdiction. It shouldn't because the ICJ is anti-American.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
yes 'anti-american.'
I guess nearly the every country in the world that doesn't submit to u.s. hegemony is 'anti-american.'
In the Nicaragua vs. United States case, two judges from France and judges from Italy, India, Algeria, Poland, Senegal all found U.S. guilty on all 16 counts.
They're judgement of course was clouded by their raving 'anti-americanism.'
Nigeria, Argentina, China and Brazil found the U.S. guilty on 15 counts.
They're just Anti-Americans too though.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
You lack basic knowledge.
Posner and De Figueiredo show consistent, empirically verifiable bias in the ICJ. Later, Posner documents the decline of the ICJ, because most member states find the ICJ biased and ignorant of geopolitical reality.
This was predictable at the outset, because international law is not law. What we call international law is merely a collection of interlocking, voluntary treaty obligations. That is very different from sovereign law.
The ICJ is a giant category mistake.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Do you think starving 567 000 Iraqi children - making Saddam more powerful, incidentally- is ethical?
How about supporting Saddam's atrocities against the Kurds?
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Do you think the UN sanctions were the fault of the UN? Do you think the UN should have allowed multi-national forces to topple Saddam rather than impose sanctions on Iraqi children? Do you think Russia and Europe extended the suffering of the Iraqi people by their illegal oil deals during the UN sanctions regime?
You're blaming the wrong organization. The UN screwed it up.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
U.N sanctions implemented by the U.S. and U.K.
The U.N. is definitely flawed in many respects, it too is quite obsequious when it comes to dealing with U.S.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
All member nations were obligated to implement the sanctions regime. The US wanted to finish Saddam the first time, but couldn't. The UN mandate didn't authorize it.
The UN, and the UN alone, screwed it up. The UN, and the UN alone, created the conditions for the sanctions regime.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
How do you explain support for Saddam?
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
And support of Turkey's atrocities against its Kurdish population?
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Define 'support.'
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
military aid.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Europe, Russia, and the US provided military aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Iran sought to expand its Islamic Revolution to Iraq, seizing Iraqi oil fields and strategic offshore oil platforms.
to prevent the collapse of Iraq, the US provided military intelligence, observation helicopters, and dual use materials, but no weapons.
The policy aim was simple: maintain a balance of power in the region and contain Iran's ambitions for Islamic conquest.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
The U.S. supported Suharto, Saddam, Noriega and many other dictarorships militarily.
They literally supported genocide in East Timor.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Well, at various times and places, yes. So? International relations are much like relations among men in the absence of sovereign law. Sometimes, states must deal with nasty people. There's no way around it. For example, are we to cease dealing with the nasty regimes in Saudi Arabia and China?
The US, UK and Australia sought good relations with Indonesia and gave political and economic support. But supporting genocide? Not so.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
The U.S. provied Indonesia with 90% of their weaponry in their invasion of East Timor in 1975.
Many consider what occurred in East Timor to be genocide, including most of all the Timorese.
The invasion killed 200 000 people.
There were masscres, starvations, rape, torture etc.
The U.S. ensured that the international community was ineffective in trying to prevent or stop the invastion.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
In that case you better work fast to convince the 70-80% of people who favor this kind of healthcare reform.
Except it calls into question what kind of society we want, one where force is privatized and driven by profit motives or one where force is democratized and driven by the will of the people. Hmm, which one sounds better...
Maybe because you never asked for it and because it's completely ancillary to the "conversation" were having. Oh yes the secular left loves fundamentalism mm, hmm!
studio7manga 2 years ago
In the US, there is nowhere near 60% support for socialized medicine.
In a capitalist system, exchanges are voluntary. This means that there is no force and the exchange always works for the good of both parties.
In a socialist system, exchanges are coerced. This means that at least one party can be forced into an exchange that isn't beneficial for both parties.
In democracies, the majority can tyrannize the minority. Hence the need to strictly limit government.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Durr hurr, Obama's initiative isn't socialized medicine. The VA is socialized, not the public option.
Hah! What BS, tell that to the people of the Niger Delta and many more. Take your overly simplistic tosh to more gullible folk. Over there, I see some Objectivists, they like that sort of thing.
Yes, that's why we have things like constitutions, it's not a pure democracy. More overly simplistic BS that ignores present realities. Step out of your faux ivory tower for a moment.
studio7manga 2 years ago
The public option gives government control of the means of medical services production. That's socialism.
To the peoples of the Niger Delta: your government keeps you poor, liberate yourselves, imitate the capitalist countries and support individual economic liberty.
Do please justify this: "The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony"
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Do you think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified as well?
The U.S. is the only state ever to have used a nuclear weapon.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Do you think that in WWII the US should have used conventional forces to invade Japan, with casualty estimates as high as 4 million? Do you think Japan should have surrendered when we warned the civilian population to evacuate Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
You're blaming the wrong organization, again.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Actually Tense, the Japanese had already put forward a surrender proposal with only one condition, to keep the Emperor. Since Allied policy was to only accept unconditional surrenders this overture by the Japanese was ignored and the bombings went forward. After the surrender the Japanese Emperor was allowed to stay.
You're missing important chunks of history.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Unconditional surrender was important, because the US wanted to prevent another war with Japan. Remember Japan had been in several terrible wars just a few years earlier Russia and China. The emperor was allowed to stay under specific conditions. The Japanese surrender offer didn't have had those conditions.
What were these conditions? Wresting political control from the Emperor and the establishment of democratic rule.
Now we see who's really dropped context. You.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
The point was they made no attempt to clarify the conditions of retention which they later allowed anyway. Instead they simply ignored the overture and dropped the bombs anyway.
studio7manga 2 years ago
It isn't medicine, it's insurance. Do ignore the fact that it's voluntary and democratic as well.
Ignore the fact that the capitalist exchange was between two stake holders, both profit, at the expense of a third party which is out of the loop.
Do actually read what I've already written.
It's really, really sad how you're ruled by a sacred cow which has very dramatically shown not to bring the benefits it pretends to bring. So these are the types of people Rand & Friedman appeal to...
studio7manga 2 years ago
Single payer is ownership of the means of production. Insurance is a voluntary hedge against risk. Obviously, they are not the same. Nor can one opt out of the taxation for single payer. It's not gotten by voluntary exchange. Single payer is not voluntary exchange. This is obvious.
Who is this the party? What is their expense?
I still don't have your justification for this claim: "The only practical uses for such a huge force is protection of regional hegemony"
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
I'm curious, how does the phrase "means of production" apply to health care? What is being produced? Illness?
This is one example of the problem of trying to apply "free market" manufacturing principles to things like health care. Some industries dont work in the "free market."
Others are: energy, telecommunications, education, defense, and weapons manufacturing. ALL OF THESE SHOULD BE NATIONALIZED. It would make them more efficient, save money, and eliminate obvious conflicts of interest.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
What's being produced? Health care services.
Services are just as much a free market commodity as any other.
If it doesn't work in the free market, it isn't an industry. Industries make things for sale.
There's no evidence that nationalized energy or telecommunications is more efficient by the standards of service provisioning or profit. Education is different. We KNOW that government education is inferior.
OK. Let's give the government a monopoly on war. I buy that.
TenseAlcyoneus 2 years ago
Healing people of their illnesses, is not a supply/demand commodity. You can actually REDUCE DEMAND, by running a more efficient system.
In energy and telecommunications, the government already invests BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in infrastructure, which BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYER. Why should the taxpayer not benefit from the investment he has made? Why should he be happy to see BILLIONS skimmed off the top by super-wealthy corporate pigs?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Healing most definitely is a scarce good. I agree, you can reduce demand by running a more efficient system. Single payer is not that system, though. A market system will reduce demand by pricing scarce healing services at the equilibrium price.
I'm not arguing that the taxpayer should lose profit from infrastructure. But there was never a need to build most of it in the fir