500 Billion A Year For Defense?

spending on the general welfare could be building new Cities in more optimal locations that could help green our economy and generate more energy in the process.

 

I have no problems reducing government spending and eliminating the deficit.

As long as we have an unbeatable expeditionary military force (and the will to use it) and an outstanding space program.

We don't have either right now.

 

Why would we want to do that? Urban planning has not exactly worked well historically. For what its worth, this was a concept Adolf Hitler was fond of.

 

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

 

We don't need building any new cities if we were to control America's population.

America's population should have been capped at 176 million.

 

grow our economy we must.

 

Wars have always grown America's economy.

 

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

 

I'm sure it was just a typo back in the day.

But the welfare clause was referring to the majority not the minority.

 

Why do you keep repeating that when you know it means nothing?

 

typical right wing. our commerce clause is also express and we have no general defense clause.

 

I am a federalist and don't know that. From my perspective, it is merely right wing bigotry and blaming the Poor.

 

You're a member of a political party that died two centuries ago?

 

I seem to remember...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...

 

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Object orientation is an ancient American secret we can extract from our federal doctrine.

They covered every Thing.

 

Our founding fathers used Vattel's "The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature" when they wrote the Constitution.

They used a little "Common Law" also

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/vattel-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed

.

 

They expressed the federal doctrine, they did not imply it.

 

Uh-huh. They were firing "decommissioned" missiles at us in 2003, right?

And please tell me, what is the difference between a chemical weapon and a decommissioned weapon? Does it somehow become less deadly?

 

I'd focus on strength in numbers. We don't have to have an unbeatable military, but our alliance needs to. China will eventually far surpass us in GDP and will be able to spend far more on the military. They also have far more military age males, scientists, and engineers. An unbeatable military is an impossible goal. In addition, they like to team up with the Russians, to counterbalance us. We can't beat both Russia and China alone.

 

The Russians are a dying power. Literally. For the Chinese to ally with them would be like Germany allied with the Empire of Austria Hungary in World War One.

Chained to a corpse.

 

there is no general warfare clause or common offense clause.

 

The Russians aren't dying and there is no way we can beat them and the Chinese. In a few years we won't be able to beat the Chinese alone.

 

Their population is falling and life expectancy has fallen dramatically. What would you call that?

 

$500 billion per year is still more than the next five biggest spending nations combined. When is it enough? How much money and other people's dead husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters is American hegemony worth to you? The Founding Fathers would slap the shiite out of all of us.

 

So, Russia can kick our asses with less than a tenth of our military budget?!?!?

Someone - a LOT of someones - in Congress, the Pentagon and our esteemed Military Industrial Complex need to be imprisoned or outright shot if that's the case.