Trump: "I Want To Build Biggest Military On Earth So We Won't Have To Use It"

Agreed.

How would you feel if you got laid off with no idea of when you might return to work; these workers have bills to pay just like you and me and i'm sure most of them would rather be at work instead of having to explain to the mortgage company why they cannot pay their monthly mortgage. If anything it's not the fault of the workers for being furloughed, it's the fault of the government. How many government employee's do you personally know that bi*ch and whine? 10? 100? 1,000? Let's say you personally know 1,000; that leaves millions more who might not complain or whine and so forth. If that's the case you are labeling them based on the feelings of a rather small minority of government workers.

That's the nature of the beast. You choose to work private sector, you go by the rules in place or if you are union, you go by what the contract spells out. You work public sector, you go by their rules.

I understand your frustration, but I think you are taking it out on the workers as opposed to those who hired them in the first place.

Who will push the papers, if there were no "useless cube dwellers"?? Try telling that to a general who needs arms and ammo for his troops, but there is no one to process all the paperwork involved; should the General sit down and do all the paperwork? I don't think that is going to happen and as such everything would grind to a halt. Plus you'd have millions of people on the unemployment line, which would have a negative impact on the economy. How does that sound to you?

Hopefully you likewise understand my point somewhat.

 

Trump: "I Want To Build Biggest Military On Earth So We Won't Have To Use It"

That was Ronnie Raygun's plan too, and he tripled the national debt with "Star Wars".

 

Why do I (and my wife) work hard? Because we both like the financial reward and the luxuries you can opt for that come with it.Yes, it's about money to me. I and I'd venture to say 99% of people who work hard also like to keep as much of our money as possible (I know, greedy right?)

And no, I have no desire to work for the government regardless of it's job security. Why demote myself?

How would I feel if I got laid off? It's not a matter of feelings, it's a matter of what I did when I have gotten laid off twice in my lifetime (so far) which is to do everything in my power to solicit my skills/services to a potential employer out there (not btw have a Union do it on my behalf while they take a cut)

I don't expect you to side with my frustration about how inefficient the government is at running anything outside of LE/Military. I know there are many good people who work for the government, that's not the point. There are many more working in the private sector that do a lot more with a lot less. In the public sector on the other hand, there is no incentive to do better, no incentive to cut costs because the taxpayers foot the bill, so who cares, there's an unlimited amount of funds there.

We'll have to simply agree to disagree.

 

That works for me!

 

And we need to keep it that way.

 

Have you any idea how big Australia is?

 

This is a completely bogus chart. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

I already addressed that and posted the graph that does contain both Social Security and Medicare on page 5 post #49, addressed it again on page 12 post #111, and once more with this post. There was no attempt to distort government spending. The chart is not bogus, it just is limited to discretionary spending.

 

Yeah, just as big as the USA but with only 10% of its population. Hell I bet we have almost as many illegal immigrants as Australia has citizens.

Either way they have it good, not having direct neighbors like Mexico and they are really not that diverse in comparison to us either. They don't have a gang culture like ours, or a drug problem on the same level as us either.

They have pretty much a hell of an advantage with being able to control such things.

 

This is what Reagan did, and defeated the USSR with out firing a shot.

 

So it doesn't bother you that the republicans are going to spend $30 trillion for wars with Iran, Iraq, North Korea, ISIS, China and Russia. Please tell us how Trump will take all that oil without firing a shot.

 

better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. not like we dont have any enemies that want us destroyed.

 

And once again, conventional military power does not deter or prevent unconventional attack.

We could have 1,000 aircraft carriers and a million F-22's, they won't stop a terrorist attack or cyber warfare.

 

Vietnam's capability with their war with China had to do with the fact that most of their troops were battle hardened whereas Chinese troops were not. However, Vietnam's military was inferior when it came to equipment such as tanks, rocket propelled trucks, and the air force. Still, they fought them better than what most military experts expected.

They do not have a pure seven seas, deep blue navy, but they do have a navy. Kudos was sent when the Chinese operated with TF 150 in protecting only Chinese merchant ships and other ships that were in distress. They even cooperated to some degree with the TF commander who was Australian at that time.

Israel's main issue has to do with intervention by the UN and is subject to UN laws for all of its wars. Most of the wars, the 1954 war with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, its war with Lebanese rebels, and most importantly, the expansion of Jewish settlements in occupied territories. The whole issue of Palestine still goes back to UN Resolution 187 and the British proposal for a two state region. Israel uses the issue to have Israelis focus on that issue while ignoring the other issues that is affecting Israel far greater.

I am not the one who advocates starting a war with China. First off, China does not want a war with the United States, Japan, or anyone else. It would absolutely destroy their economy and the Son of Heavens mandate that the CCP operates under with the Chinese people. There are some who want to start a trade war with China, but even that is foolish, to say the least.

 

It is not a question of who had a standing army. Even Carnage at that time did not have a standing army during that period. However, in the Battle of Cannae, Rome lost and their army was pretty much wiped out, partly due to where the commanders were and how they operated under Roman law.

 

there are some projections one can make about future conflicts. Given the world today, we are not going to have massive army formations with multiple divisions and corps in place. We see this in our own military where we only have two corps in the US Army, III corps and XVII Corps and that is it. During Ronald Reagan's era, we eliminated three corps from the order of battle and during the 1990's, through the peace dividend, we eliminated the traditional army unit compositions within the CONTUS.

But today, the chances are going to be urban combat with irregular fighters. The second most common options is going to be like the Republic of Georgia and Ukraine situations. In both of those cases, if those governments requested, we could have sent a rapid deployment force of the 101st or 82nd. However, both of these units lacked the firepower of the more heavy maneuver units of mechanized infantry or armored divisions. That can be compensated with independent brigades instead of the divisional format.

 

Russ, I tell you what, I will give you a deal of the century.

I will increase your hours of work and areas of responsibility while decreasing your pay by 25% and increasing your cost into the retirement plan that you can set up. I won't give you, as the employer, the necessary equipment, money, or personnel in order to do the jobs that you are required to do, but still expect you to complete those jobs timely and efficiently. sounds great? Think you can do the job, complete the tasks timely and professionally with the same expectations than a fully funded project would have?

 

I am sorry Russ, but you are talking out of your arse. As for the private sector, yes, there are "non essential" employees. Most are janitors, customer service representatives, and a few other job categories. Are they necessary for the function of the company? No. But are they necessary for the image of the company? Yes.

For most government employees, it is not the rank and file employees, but the front line and middle managers. Having worked in government, I can tell you that government is top heavy with management. However, their tasks are necessary because those agencies are required by law to regulate, monitor, manage, evaluate, etc the duties assigned to them. Some of it may be political, but you can have politics even in the smallest of private companies. But they are required by law. If you truly want to get rid of the agency, then get rid of the law that allows the agency to exist. Otherwise, you are not following the rule of law but anarchy.

 

We do not yet have national healthcare for all, tuition free education for all, high speed rail/national mass transit system, yet these people want to spend money we don't have on the military???? Are they crazy??

 

There's no such thing as free. Do you not get that?

 

Peace through strength is now a bad thing? I don't like Trump at all but peace through strength has been widely successful. However when you have an unconventional enemy, it can be tough. However, terrorists are not the US's only enemy. Especially if the US guts their military.

 

If you think that is what I said you need to read more carefully. It seems like these people who want to spend endless amounts of $$$ on the military don't get that nothing is free

 

I know it's not free. Having and maintaining the greatest fighting force on the planet requires money. The latest and greatest hardware and weapons require money. This is all done so when our military goes on a mission they have superiority at all levels. Would you prefer to level the playing field on the battlefield as well out of fairness?

 

No, I would rather spend that money on OUR people. If our country has such low quality of life for most of its citizens, why would it be worth protecting? The former needs to come first.

 

I don't go hunting for other posts nor do I care to look at all of your posts looking for truth. The chart you posted was clearly meant to deceive. It's been going around on FB for a while and is very disingenuous.