Republican Tea Party Debate- Sept 12

[Scheavo]

Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.

Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.

I see how you could draw that conclusion. But they're specifically after changing economic policy, nothing else. They're closer to the republicans than anybody else, but organized in response to the Republican party not staying true to their free market roots.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?pagewanted=all

I think the Ron Paul libertarian movement, and the Tea Party, are something different at this point.

[William Wallace]

Tea Party, eh? As a non-American the Tea Party seem to have lost some connection with the rest of the world. They seem to be like a combination of completely outdated and just silly IMHO. Michelle Bachman for instance, is for the most part objectively wrong.

Not to mention they're basically Republicans pretending to be a different party.

I see how you could draw that conclusion. But they're specifically after changing economic policy, nothing else. They're closer to the republicans than anybody else, but organized in response to the Republican party not staying true to their free market roots.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?pagewanted=all

I think the Ron Paul libertarian movement, and the Tea Party, are something different at this point.

Basically. I don't see what's to disagree with in the Times article. They're disaffected Republicans in many ways.

[rumborak]

I suspect that if the next administration is Republican, the Tea Party will evaporate again.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Well let's just hope that doesn't happen in 2012.

[pogoowner]

Well let's just hope that doesn't happen in 2012.

I really don't think it makes much difference either way.

[Super Dude]

It makes a very small difference; it keeps conservatism divided while we wait for a new New Left.

[MasterShakezula]

So your hope is that a new, truly leftist party develops while the current, extreme movement dies off, and the current "liberal" Democratic party ends up being the more Conservative group?  Is this an allusion to the rise of the Lincolnian Republican party?  (I'm just curious, it sounds a bit similar)

Sounds fair enough, if very optimistic. 

[Super Dude]

More like a pipe dream really, but hey, the longer the conservatives can remain divided the better.

[MasterShakezula]

I'm good with that. 

I hope though that in this pipe dream, your proposed new progressive party is averse to spending copious amounts of money.  The last thing this country needs is more massive amounts of money spent.  (I know full well that the libs are more fiscally conservative than the cons, due to the Repub's fetish for various defense departments and massive military presence in the 3rd world; I still say that less money needs to be spent, and taxes raised, if the US is to be taken seriously about wanting to fix its budget.)

[73109]

Raising taxes? Ha! Good luck.

[Super Dude]

Cup it's not necessarily that less money needs to be spent period, it's just that we need to cut in the appropriate areas.  If anything, spending should always go up, not down.  That's what it means to maintain an infrastructure.

[MasterShakezula]

That can make sense, provided that enough is coming into the budget to spend in the first place, hence why we need higher taxes.

I'm for spending on the right areas i.e. ones that are of benefit on home soil and to our reputation as a reasonable and peaceful nation. 

I'm all for cutting the massive increases in defense spending that ol' Ronny set the ball rolling with. 

[73109]

I've been looking at the spending charts, and I think spending more on defense than on education is insane. If it were up to me, education would receive the most funding out of any section of government spending.

[Sigz]

I've been looking at the spending charts, and I think spending more on defense than on education is insane. If anything, it shows what kind of country this is. If it were up to me, education would receive the most funding out of any section of government spending.

Eh, let's be fair here. The amount of money required to adequately defend a nation the size of America is much larger than the money required to adequately educate it.

[MasterShakezula]

What would you define as adequately defending it?

[73109]

What the hell do we need a defense for? We need a small army here. That's it. Get all the troops out of posts outside of the country and reduce the size of the one's here. Stop spending on everything involving the military. It only increases the violent mindset we have to come to expect out of America. No one is going to attack us if we don't start shit.

[Sigz]

No one is going to attack us if we don't start shit.

Yeah, the world totally doesn't work that way, sorry.

[73109]

If America was minding it's own business, doing nothing but churning out smart, successful, and educated individuals, and not starting shit and sturring shit up in the Middle East, what would anybody attack us for?

[MasterShakezula]

If America was minding it's own business, doing nothing but churning out smart, successful, and educated individuals, and not starting shit and sturring shit up in the Middle East, what would anybody attack us for?

[Sigz]

So what, America's the only country capable of starting an unprovoked war? FFS, are you seriously naive enough to think that defense would be completely unnecessary if we just 'mind our own business', or that every war in history has been completely justified? There are a multitude of reasons why someone would want to attack. Resources, wealth, creating an 'enemy' to keep power in their own nation, etc.

[MasterShakezula]

Well, we do have a record of being one of the more trigger-happy 1st world nations.  Germany hasn't exactly declared too many wars in the last half a century, and I haven't heard of people declaring war upon them, lately. 

[73109]

Iceland has been voted the most peaceful country in the world...they have NO standing military. None.

[Sigz]

Iceland has been voted the most peaceful country in the world...they have NO standing military. None.

Yeah, because it's fucking Iceland. Besides a strategic naval position and an abnormally large proportion of ethereal post rock, there's literally no reason for a country to waste their time invading.

Well, we do have a record of being one of the more trigger-happy 1st world nations.  Germany hasn't exactly declared too many wars in the last half a century, and I haven't heard of people declaring war upon them, lately. 

Oh sure, you know, besides that whole "being split in half with a militarized border for thirty years" thing.

[73109]

How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.

[Super Dude]

Yeah sorry Cup and Cole, I'm with Sigz on this one.  We can't just say to hell with military spending completely, nor even with military bases.  Downsizing, I can understand.  We don't need to be constantly buying the next generation in stealthcraft technology either, at least not for a decade or two.  But we do still need a comprehensive national security system with the flexibility to respond, and we can't do that if we just pick up and leave.

How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.

North Korea: Training nukes on the islands of Japan since 2006 at least.

[Sigz]

They're also a considerably smaller nation, with 1/3 the population and 4% the land area of the US.

[73109]

Yeah sorry Cup and Cole, I'm with Sigz on this one.  We can't just say to hell with military spending completely, nor even with military bases.  Downsizing, I can understand.  We don't need to be constantly buying the next generation in stealthcraft technology either, at least not for a decade or two.  But we do still need a comprehensive national security system with the flexibility to respond, and we can't do that if we just pick up and leave.

How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.

North Korea: Training nukes on the islands of Japan since 2006 at least.

That's my point though. They need to keep protected in case of shit involving North Korea yet they still don't go overboard with spending. America does not need to have 1000+ military basis around the world. Nor, like you said, do we need to spend money on advanced technology that we won't use.

If you want to talk size, look at Canada. 8th most peaceful. As big as the US and only 1.4 of the GDP. 21 billion is bearable(still a hell of a lot.) 700 isn't. I'm sorry.

[Super Dude]

Yeah sorry Cup and Cole, I'm with Sigz on this one.  We can't just say to hell with military spending completely, nor even with military bases.  Downsizing, I can understand.  We don't need to be constantly buying the next generation in stealthcraft technology either, at least not for a decade or two.  But we do still need a comprehensive national security system with the flexibility to respond, and we can't do that if we just pick up and leave.

How about Japan? Third most peaceful country. Valuable land and they only spend .9% of their GDP on military.

North Korea: Training nukes on the islands of Japan since 2006 at least.

That's my point though. They need to keep protected in case of shit involving North Korea yet they still don't go overboard with spending. America does not need to have 1000+ military basis around the world. Nor, like you said, do we need to spend money on advanced technology that we won't use.

If you want to talk size, look at Canada. 8th most peaceful. As big as the US and only 1.4 of the GDP. 21 billion is bearable(still a hell of a lot.) 700 isn't. I'm sorry.

Yes, but that's because they have us; remember that Japan is a U.S. protectorate.  We have bases and a response policy such that if North Korea so much as farts in Japan's general direction, Pyongyang will be incinerated in a matter of hours.  That said, in recent years Japan has actually dramatically increased its military spending, and we may for the first time see a fully-fledged national security policy from them in a few years.

[MasterShakezula]

America does not need to have 1000+ military basis around the world. Nor, like you said, do we need to spend money on advanced technology that we won't use.

Exactly, Cole.  This sort of stuff, our constant occupation of foreign nations and massive spending on weaponry certainly don't make us any less attractive to attack.  It's like trying to tough out a thunderstorm by bringing a coat of tin-foil. 

[Sigz]

No one's saying we need to have hundreds of military bases around the world. All I'm saying is that we need to have defense. Our plan shouldn't consist of "have a small army and hope we don't bug anyone".

[73109]

I just can't justify spending 700 billion dollars on our military.

No one's saying we need to have hundreds of military bases around the world. All I'm saying is that we need to have defense. Our plan shouldn't consist of "have a small army and hope we don't bug anyone".

That is not what I said. I said have a small army and don't bug anyone. I hate our interventionist policy. We need to get the hell out of many of the places we occupy. I mean, really, do we still think Germany is going to rise up and kill millions of Jews again?

[MasterShakezula]

I am for defense to a degree.

Just a heavily downsized effort that just would have enough forces stationed at our borders and within our country in event of an attack upon our soil, as well as a reserve to deploy in event of emergency.  Perhaps some off-shore bases, and a functional Navy and Airforce. 

I see no reason for a huge military industrial complex unless we're caught up in a situation such as WWII, in which a great deal of funds and troops were a necessity. 

No interventionism.  It waste our funds and troops and makes for more fearsome, better justified enemies. 

[73109]

I am for defense to a degree.

Just a heavily downsized effort that just would have enough forces stationed at our borders and within our country in event of an attack upon our soil, as well as a reserve to deploy in event of emergency.  Perhaps some off-shore bases, and a functional Navy and Airforce. 

I see no reason for a huge military industrial complex unless we're caught up in a situation such as WWII, in which a great deal of funds and troops were a necessity. 

No interventionism.  It waste our funds and troops and makes for more fearsome, better justified enemies. 

Said it better than I could.

[Super Dude]

Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo would like a word with both of you.

[73109]

Somalia developed a huge military with the helps of the US and the Soviet Union and then it all went to hell during their Civil War...I don't what that has to do with anything.