If We Need To Expand The Size Of The Military. . .

[ProfessorGAC]

. . .because of a LLLLOOOONNNGGG "ideological struggle", i have one question.

How do we pay for it?

Will Bush put this ideological struggle ahead of the "drown gov't in the bathtub" idiots' ideology and admit that we NEED MORE MONEY!

When does this long ideological struggle require some amount of sacrifice from those who can afford it most? Will this dimestore cowboy show some courage in pursuing a funding mechanism other than more loans? Will he be willing to decide that this struggle is as important as he says it is, and back down on some other ideological points about small gov't or special interest breaks?

If we REALLY need to expand our military then i can be convinced, if the plan includes a wise and realistic way to pay for it. But, since there is no discussion of funding, at all, then i'm against it, 100% and will stay that way until we talk about the money thing.
The Professor

[wtmusic]

1. Not a dime

until he figures out what the military is for.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Cut taxes for the wealthy even more so they can really get a foothold

in the ongoing "war profiteering" ventures in Iraq? :eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Cut Taxes????

I thought i made clear on either want taxes raised or no increase in the military.
The Professor

[ShortnFiery]

15. That was a tongue-in-cheek quote from our illustrious self-proclaimed "decider"

Sorry for the lack of clarity. :hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

19. My Fault!

I guess i didn't read carefully enough. I never agree with the "cut taxes, grow the economy" crowd. I have two published papers that prove it just tain't so. I knee-jerked a bit.
The Professor

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Whose "ideology"?

If we're going to be fighting an 'ideological' enemy, I want to make sure that the person leading the charge is in sync with my ideology. So far, Bush isn't and I don't expect that he's going to change.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. No Argument From Me

But, i'm asking this blithering idiot to show either the courage of convictions or just shut up!
The Professor

[Avalux]

10. Bush explained that this morning -

His words:

"we will keep fighting until the the ideology of Liberty triumphs over the ideology of Hate" x(

[Norquist Nemesis]

21. Ahhh...feel the love

The irony just oozes from his mouth.

[Avalux]

4. Where do we get the bodies to expand the military?

I can think of two options - pay new recruits an obscene amount of $$ to join, or institute a draft. As far as "how do we pay for it?" - apparently it's not something we should worry about because Bush told us this morning to go shopping.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Well, That's The Whole Problem, Isn't It?

Need to spend even more money, but not a word on how to GET that money.
The Professor

[Squatch]

6. Well, you start by giving your servicemembers only a 2% raise

each year (except generals, who get an 8% raise)

Link

[ProfessorGAC]

11. But, That's Not New

We're doing that now. I want this idiot to show the slightest modicum of common sense to demonstrate that he knows it's expensive to do what he wants to do.
The Professor

[aquart]

8. And where do we get the volunteers from?

How do we persuade them WHEN WE HAVEN'T BEEN MAKING OUR QUOTAS AS IS?

Raising enlistment age to 42 is kind of a telltale clue that things aren't going well.

Really, this was the stupidest announcement. Did he give details to this impossible plan?

[ProfessorGAC]

14. That's Another Thing I Thought, As Well

They're having a problem meeting the quotas now!
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

18. Well, that's the easiest part. Just turn the screws tighter on the 'bottom 80%'

After all, a "healthy" stock market doesn't do a damned thing to make it easier to find a job that can pay a living wage ... including health care. As young people find it more and more difficult to achieve some degree of economic security in the 'private' sector, they'll find it more and more attractive to join a military that offers room, board, clothing, training (of a sort) and medical care ... with some 'assurance' of security.

The "War on the Middle Class" is really just a war on the working class. For millions of young adults, it's merely a choice of "wars."

But really ... who cares? :shrug: Lip service is far more convenient than solidarity. ("Union? I don't need no fucking 'union' ... of ANY kind!")

[whistle]

9. Standard budget requirement for every 10,000 new troops is $1.1 billion

...annually, but if these troops are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan the additional cost of engagement in those wars would be on the order of $7.5-$8.5 billion per 10,000 troops.

So, if Bush gets his way and increases the troops by up to 50,000 troops, total budgetary impact in 2007 will be $42.5 billion plus $1.1 billion or $43.6 billion on top of what is already being spent which was $125 billion.

[aquart]

17. He is insane. It isn't just rhetoric anymore.

The man is completely detached from reality. Isn't that a definition of insane?

insanity

In criminal law, a disease, defect, or condition of the mind that renders one unable to understand the nature of a criminal act or the fact that it is wrong. Tests of insanity are not intended as medical diagnoses but rather only as determinations of whether a person may be held criminally responsible for his or her actions. The most enduring definition of insanity in Anglo-American law was that proposed by Alexander Cockburn (1843). Many U.S. states and several courts have adopted a standard under which the accused must lack “substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” Some states have abolished the insanity plea, and others allow a finding of “guilty but mentally ill.” See also diminished responsibility.
For more information on insanity, visit Britannica.com.


in·san·i·ty (ĭn-săn'ĭ-tē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ties.

1. Mental illness or derangement. No longer in scientific use.
2. Law.
1. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
2. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.
3.
1. Extreme foolishness; folly.
2. Something that is extremely foolish.



in·san·i·ty (ĭn-săn'ĭ-tē)
n.

1. Persistent mental disorder or derangement.
2. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
3. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning considered to be sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.

[LynnTheDem]

12. Worked so well for the Soviet Union.

History repeating, as it is so wont to do.

[bigtree]

16. we need to first eliminate the false commitments before we assess true need

my take:

More Soldiers To Burn For Bush's 'Ideological War'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2952823&mesg_id=2952823

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[ProfessorGAC]

20. You Got Me On The Team!

And, in my OP, i did try to make it clear that there was a big "if". If i wasn't clear enough, i'll take that bullet. I don't agree the military needs to be bigger if Silverspoon's reasons are our reasons. But, IF we do need to make it bigger, i want to see a smart funding plan. I don't expect one, though.
The Professor