Well, THIS will piss you off: The F-35 trillion $$$ Boondoggle.

[trof]

[Octafish]

1. One Thousand Billion Dollars

Great report on the F-35 boondoggle and what it really means for the nation's defense and war fighters -- very memorable message, too.

[Rex]

3. We have homeless vets sleeping in the gutters, a stones throw from Congress

yet all they seem to want to do is waste our money on a plane that cannot fly. Congress has lived off special interest groups for far too long. Time to cut ties and get our money back!

Dammit!

[Scuba]

2. If we can't afford to educate our children, to heal our sick or care for our elderly ...

... just what is it the defense budget is defending.

[HassleCat]

4. I can think of two things

1. Campaign contributions. 2. Cushy jobs for retired military officers.

[Orrex]

5. And the pockets of military contractors

[Scuba]

6. Corporate profits in general ...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/politics/us-navy-escort-cargo-ships-iran-strait-of-hormuz/

[hunter]

7. K&R

Everyone should see this.

[benld74]

8. Yup, PISSED off,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Volaris]

9. 'It's mission is to COST MONEY.'

We need to strip the Pentagon (and the 'intelligence' services) of at least HALF their annual budget for at least the next 10 years. If we took half of that, and put it into relief and diplomatic efforts around the globe, there would be a lot less people we would have to 'defend ourselves' from.

[HereSince1628]

10. We need a constitutional amendent that limits military spending when not at war.

Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

The spending should be limited to 2x the average spending of the 2nd and third place nations in order of militarily power over the past decade.

If we took half of that spending for domestic needs and half of that spending on international development, we'd be way, way ahead on cutting down reasons for violence and war, and MIC stockholders could still get a ROI from on-going war and proxy war.

[Volaris]

11. That's an Avenue of attack I have never considered, and one that has a lot of potential...

It's also not a Constitutional requirement that Congress maintain a standing Army. A Navy, yes, to facilitate and protect overseas trade shipping, but not an Army.