Quote (thundercock @ Oct 26 2019 09:42pm)

How can you say with a straight face that the American taxpayer doesn't benefit from all of this? A stable world means cheaper prices for EVERYONE and we are BY FAR the largest consumer in the world. You've seen what happens to the price of oil when there's instability in the Middle East. Think about what would happen West Asia was unstable. Think about Europe. America benefits WAY more by having a large military to enforce global security. It means cheaper prices for ALL AMERICANS.

I'm not sure why you think it's a cuck ideology either. You make it seem like America is this great power when it's alone and that's just blatantly false. Sure, no one could ever invade us or beat us in a war at home. However, our standard of living is due to global stability.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 26 2019 06:47pm)

No. It's really not. Our standard of living has much more to do with our productivity levels. Other countries with high productivity levels should be contributing to their own security. Everyone benefits from stability not only the US, so everyone should contribute to it no? It's a cuck ideology because we are paying for it while someone else benefits. Japan can boast about their healthcare system and social safety nets meanwhile we spend money to defend and police other regions while our inner cities are all boarded up. You don't think that's fucked up?

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 26 2019 09:54pm)

Well, most economists would strongly disagree with you. There's a reason why the State Department, Defense Department, Treasury Department, etc. work so closely. The amount of $ that we save on an annual basis is trillions by exerting our influence throughout the world. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

How much we spend on military has nothing to do with taking care of people domestically. The fact of the matter is that there's not enough political pressure to give a shit about inner cities. Do you honestly believe that if we cut military spending to zero that we'd suddenly give a shit about blacks, homeless, universal healthcare, and all the other things we need? LOL. Americans have a values issue.

Quote

"Even if the wars are ended by 2023, the US would still be on track to spend an additional $808 billion to total at least $6.7 trillion, not including future interest costs," the report adds. "Moreover, the costs of war will likely be greater than this because, unless the US immediately ends its deployments, the number of veterans associated with the post-9/11 wars will also grow."

Quote (ofthevoid @ Oct 26 2019 07:04pm)

You're making shit up.

Unlike you i can back up my claims.



That's just the wars...not counting sooo many others things like DOD costs, etc.

Idk if we'd spend it on inner cities or not. The point is that there are about a thousand better ways to spend that money, you know ways that we as Americans can see and feel. Better roads, better infrastructure, maybe a partially subsidized preventative care?

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 26 2019 10:15pm)

I'm simply referencing experts. Just because it takes a shit on your naive Ron Paul worldview doesn't mean I'm making shit up.

Quote (thundercock @ Oct 26 2019 10:15pm)

I'm simply referencing experts. Just because it takes a shit on your naive Ron Paul worldview doesn't mean I'm making shit up.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Oct 26 2019 09:19pm)

'experts'..and claiming experts believe in your fantasy doesn't make it accurate or your policy correct.

The US government wasting trillions on garbage counter-productive interventions is wasting trillions, not saving trillions.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 26 2019 10:45pm)

This reminds me of the time you criticized the Obama administration for making solar loans because it cost the government millions when Solyndra failed.

Then when I pointed out that the program made a profit and had a low failure rate you pivoted to saying that you consider everything the government does as waste regardless of consequence.

Quote

This reminds me of the time you criticized the Obama administration for making solar loans because it cost the government millions when Solyndra failed.

Then when I pointed out that the program made a profit and had a low failure rate you pivoted to saying that you consider everything the government does as waste regardless of consequence.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Oct 26 2019 11:08pm)

This is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Your idiotic misrepresentation is not relevant to the current discussion.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Oct 26 2019 10:33pm)

The government 'profiting' on a policy is not the sole determinant of whether its a good policy or not or whether resources were misallocated and wasted or not.
Over half a billion on solyndra is still misallocated and wasted, even if other companies paid back their loans.
You dont seem to fundamentally understand what is going on there.
This is a far cry from "you pivoted to saying that you consider everything the government does as waste regardless of consequence."