Obama wants to:
Spend other people's money
Spend it inefficiently
Spend it to create a massive bureaucracy
Spend it to regulate your personal life (the cars you drive, the energy you use, the light bulbs you have)
Spend it to bankrupt the country and its children
To make you a slave of the state
To make you a parasite on the state
To make you a drone hooked on the dole.
Spend it to destroy liberty
Spent it to fund abortions
Spend it to regulate, control, and devalue health care
Spend it to imitate failing economies, such as Greece and Spain.
Spend it in ways alien to the Constitution.
Not spent it where needed: the military.
And I could go on.
Military spending? The US spends almost 7 times more on the military then the #2 county in world, China. And you think we need to spend more? For example, speaking of China, to quote Gregg Easterbrook:
With national red ink meaning the defense budget is likely to decline, aerospace contractors, and members of Congress with aerospace contractors in their districts, dearly would love a new bogeyman. How about the Chinese? OMG, China is building ships!
"CHINA FLEXES NAVAL MUSCLE" was the Wall Street Journal banner headline when the unnamed Chinese aircraft carrier took a test sail. Many of the nation's major newspapers had this menace on the front page, in stories that could have been written by the P.R. department of any defense contractor. One factor at work is that many journalists at elite media organizations have little knowledge of military affairs, and so don't know how to put the Chinese carrier into perspective. So let's put it into perspective.
The "Chinese" aircraft carrier is actually the Varyag, laid down in 1985 by the old Soviet Union. The Varyag languished in port for two decades, a white elephant for Moscow. A few years ago, the Russkies sold the leaky hull to Beijing. The Varyag was in such poor repair it had to be towed to Chinese waters.
Let's suppose the project is successful. The Varyag does not have nuclear power, like all United States Navy carriers. It's primary design element is a shortened "sky jump" deck, not a flat deck with catapult like all United States Navy carriers, meaning the Varyag can launch only short-range medium-performance jets, not long-range high-performance jets like all United States Navy carriers. The Varyag weighs 67,000 tons and carries about 40 aircraft; the latest United States Navy carriers weigh about 100,000 tons and carry about 100 aircraft. The Varyag is what the United States Navy would call a Kennedy-class aircraft carrier, the John F. Kennedy being the last conventionally powered carrier built by the United States. And the Kennedy was launched in 1967.
Even if all goes well for the Varyag, it brings the Chinese navy to roughly the position, regarding warship quality, that the United States Navy was in 44 years ago. Now take into account quantity. The United States Navy has 11 supercarrier assault groups -- a very large nuclear supercarrier accompanied by guided-missile cruisers and destroyers, with two types of nuclear submarines unseen underneath. How many supercarriers are possessed by the rest of the world combined? None. The race to naval supremacy, a grand theme of 500 years of great-power politics, has ended with the United States besting the rest of the world combined by a final score of 11-0.
China's obsolete carrier does nothing to alter this. The politics of the obsolete carrier are particularly silly. Commentators are suggesting that China's work on an aircraft carrier means it plans to engage in hostilities with the United States. Yet America says its far larger and far stronger navy is strictly for defensive purposes, threatening no one. If the United States asserts that 11 advanced supercarrier strike groups can patrol the world's seas without hostile intent, how can we simultaneously claim that China possessing a single obsolete aircraft carrier represents a provocation?
And you think we need to spend more?
And just a few other thoughts about this post:
Spend other people's money = Both parties do this via taxation. You can debate the programs and the dollar amounts, but this comment doesn’t make sense unless you propose to eliminate all public services.
Spend it inefficiently = This is an American government tradition. Both parties have done this successfully for decades and decades and decades and decades. A truly bipartisan problem.
Spend it to create a massive bureaucracy = See above comment. Both parties have been doing this since Abe Lincoln was trimming his beard. Equal guilt for Democrats and Republicans—not a problem that has sprung up since the advent of color television or even since 2008.
Spend it to regulate your personal life (the cars you drive, the energy you use, the light bulbs you have) = Aren’t you against civil unions? Or for keeping marijuana illegal?
Spend it to bankrupt the country and its children = This might be a good time to note that in 2001Clinton left Bush with a $127 billion dollar budget surplus and it was W. Bush who racked-up a $319 billion deficit by 2005. Both Obama AND Bush are to blame for our spending and debt situation.
To make you a slave of the state = It’s been 4 years and I’m not a slave to anyone. Unless you want to count my boss, but he doesn’t really compare to a slave owner, although he is from the South—but that’s probably a coincidence. Anyway, Americans work more hours per year than any other country, so we might be slaves, just not to the state. More likely to our employers. Or philosophically, to money, or possessions.
To make you a drone hooked on the dole = Judging by the way Americans stare blankly at their phones this might be true. I don’t think the iPhone is Obama’s fault though.
Spend it to destroy liberty = I want a free country, too. Which means I want the government to interfere in my life as little as possible. That means if I want go hunting, I should be able to own a rifle. Which means if I want to smoke marijuana, I should be able to. Which means, that if I need medical care, I should be able to afford to get treatment without declaring bankruptcy. Which means, that if my kid wants to go to college, he/she should be able to without incurring $10,000+ in debt.
I know where to buy a gun and where to get marijuana, but I can’t stop the insurance companies from raping me, nor can I control tuition costs, so that’s where I need the government to lend a hand and keep costs under control!
Spent it to fund abortions = Given abortion is not illegal, I don’t have a problem with government funding going to a legal medical procedure.
Spend it to regulate, control, and devalue health care = God, I hope he does regulate and control healthcare. I hope he starts by limiting malpractice suits, tighter controls on Medicare/Medicaid fraud, and makes electronic medical records mandatory to cut down on administrative costs. I also hope Americans stop being such hypochondriacs and having such a dependence on prescription drugs. In fact, a recent survey showed that most Americans feel a doctor’s visit is a waste of time unless they get a prescription. Yikes! Anyway, I don’t want the government to run healthcare, I want them to regulate it so everyday people can afford treatment. AFFORDABLE is the goal we should be working towards.
Spend it to imitate failing economies, such as Greece and Spain = Those are notoriously two of the laziest countries in the world. Having been to Spain last year, I can say that the laziness is well deserved—the place is amazing. Anyway, the US should definitely get rid of our socialist urges like Medicare or Medicade or Social Security and spend more on defense, right?
Spend it in ways alien to the Constitution = The Constitution doesn’t contain any clauses that dictate how to spend tax dollars. Colorado voters approved a sales tax to fund the construction of Coors Field. That type of spending isn't in a state or the federal Constituion.
Post a Comment