A question for Republicans that I've had for a long time

[Pooty22]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

 

[Rhoadmar]

Why are Pootys so stinky?

 

[RockofStrength]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

Armies have a purpose, even for the most isolationist nation in history. Social welfare on the other hand has no use whatsoever and actually causes additional problems economically.

The degree of spending on the military is another matter entirely, and needs to be discussed apart from merely "spending money on the military".

 

[Pooty22]

Why are Pootys so stinky?

Wow that's clever.

 

[Que]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

I'm not a Republican, but it seems that our national defense should always be steadfast and never in a position to play catch up. If the best equipment is our there, our military should have it and not wait until war time to give our military personnel equipment they will need time to become proficient with. By that time it's too late.

As for the social welfare programs, I believe too much of any good thing can be harmful. There are millions of people on welfare who are capable of working. There are millions on social security for headaches, who can work. We just do not attempt to find the abusers and the entire program has gotten a bad wrap because there are, overwhelmingly, more people taking advantage of it than those who really need it.

I'm sure this simple answer may not suffice, but I believe there are others who can help with what can be a productive conversation.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I'm not a Republican, per se, but one of the few Constitutional mandates laid upon our government is to provide for the defense of the nation. The current affinity for "Presidential Adventurism" notwithstanding.

 

[Destro]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Republican's explanation on the issue.

Why are Republicans so against government spending when it comes to social welfare programs, but are so willing to spend trillions on war? Or even when we aren't in a war, why are Republicans so willing to spend billions on the military during peace time?

The concept is called "security dilemma"

 

[Pooty22]

Armies have a purpose, even for the most isolationist nation in history. Social welfare on the other hand has no use whatsoever and actually causes additional problems economically.

The degree of spending on the military is another matter entirely, and needs to be discussed apart from merely "spending money on the military".

I agree that armies have a purpose, but do we really need one as big as ours even in peace time? The US has the world's first AND second largest Air Forces. We have, what, seven aircraft carriers? Is all that really necessary?

Also, would it be so bad if some of the money spend on these wars would have been spent on medical research or tuition assistance or infrastructure or NASA? The bill for the Iraq War alone is around $1.2 trillion. If you add in estimations for long term veteran care, I've seen estimations of $6 trillion. Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere. Or better yet for fiscal conservatives, wouldn't it be nice to have a surplus for a change?

 

[halfmileharry]

I agree that armies have a purpose, but do we really need one as big as ours even in peace time? The US has the world's first AND second largest Air Forces. We have, what, seven aircraft carriers? Is all that really necessary?

Also, would it be so bad if some of the money spend on these wars would have been spent on medical research or tuition assistance or infrastructure or NASA? The bill for the Iraq War alone is around $1.2 trillion. If you add in estimations for long term veteran care, I've seen estimations of $6 trillion. Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere. Or better yet for fiscal conservatives, wouldn't it be nice to have a surplus for a change?

You think the Dems could live with a cash surplus? I'd love to see that but history shows me it won't happen. I have taken notice for years on this. Every time I cashed my paycheck and all the money came out that the Govt didn't deserve. I'm retired now and they'll NOT get another dime of my paychecks to waste.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree that armies have a purpose, but do we really need one as big as ours even in peace time? The US has the world's first AND second largest Air Forces. We have, what, seven aircraft carriers? Is all that really necessary?

Also, would it be so bad if some of the money spend on these wars would have been spent on medical research or tuition assistance or infrastructure or NASA? The bill for the Iraq War alone is around $1.2 trillion. If you add in estimations for long term veteran care, I've seen estimations of $6 trillion. Surely that money could be better spent elsewhere. Or better yet for fiscal conservatives, wouldn't it be nice to have a surplus for a change?

That's a complicated question. "Our" military does need to be as large as it currently is, if when we say "our military," we mean that it's purpose is to help protect a good portion of the globe at a HUGE cost to American taxpayers. In all reality, our military to protect American soild and our immediate interests, should be much smaller.

 

[Pooty22]

I'm not a Republican, per se, but one of the few Constitutional mandates laid upon our government is to provide for the defense of the nation. The current affinity for "Presidential Adventurism" notwithstanding.

I agree but at what point is the spending considered excessive for Republicans?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You think the Dems could live with a cash surplus? I'd love to see that but history shows me it won't happen. I have taken notice for years on this. Every time I cashed my paycheck and all the money came out that the Govt didn't deserve. I'm retired now and they'll NOT get another dime of my paychecks to waste.

Not sure if srs

 

[Pooty22]

That's a complicated question. "Our" military does need to be as large as it currently is, if when we say "our military," we mean that it's purpose is to help protect a good portion of the globe at a HUGE cost to American taxpayers. In all reality, our military to protect American soild and our immediate interests, should be much smaller.

I disagree with the military needing to be as large as it is. We have no responsibility to be a global police force. We will soon be exiting (for the most part) Afghanistan and we are already mostly out of Iraq. It is time to downsize the military. It is unsustainable at its current size.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I disagree with the military needing to be as large as it is. We have no responsibility to be a global police force. We will soon be exiting (for the most part) Afghanistan and we are already mostly out of Iraq. It is time to downsize the military. It is unsustainable at its current size.

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

 

[Pooty22]

You think the Dems could live with a cash surplus? I'd love to see that but history shows me it won't happen. I have taken notice for years on this. Every time I cashed my paycheck and all the money came out that the Govt didn't deserve. I'm retired now and they'll NOT get another dime of my paychecks to waste.

Weren't we in a surplus when Clinton left office?

 

[halfmileharry]

Weren't we in a surplus when Clinton left office?

IF we were in a surplus situation then how did Clinton increase the National Debt during both terms?

 

[Pooty22]

IF we were in a surplus situation then how did Clinton increase the National Debt during both terms?

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Kutnupe14]

The surplus/debt under Clinton is a half-truth. It is based a bunch of various factors.... But never the less, he without a doubt was more fiscally-minded than most presidents in last half century.

 

[printcraft]

What's going on in this thread?

Oh, never mind.

 

[ViperJock]

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

You need to read the whole thing. There was still an enormous national debt. The Clinton budget spent less than it taxed, mainly due to large tax increases. What is called a "surplus" by politicians is essentially debt increasing at a decreased rate. They just pretend to have spare money.

To make it easy to understand, say you owe $1000. Every year that increases by $10. But you rewrote your budget to spend $8 while increasing taxes to bring in $9. Technically you made $1 but you still owe $999. That's not a balanced budget and its not excess.

and the ***** increased taxes to a ridiculous high.