In response to:

When Big Deficits Became Good

Robert341 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 11:59 AM
Everyone wants to cut spending, but not any program they support or benefit from. I think it is now hopeless, that we will suffer fiscal collapse, followed by social and political collapse, riots, privation, violence and death. I pray that I’m wrong. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog. ( Robert A. Hall USMC 1964-68 USMCR, 1977-83 Massachusetts Senate, 1973-83 Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic All royalties go to help wounded veterans For a free PDF of my 80-page book, write tartanmarine(at)
gungy Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 4:31 PM
Collapse is now inevitable. Then we can maybe rebuild from the ashes of socialism and marxism once wall-to-wall counseling has taught people that a state based on handouts, redistribution, and punishing success doesn't work..
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:39 AM
If by counseling you mean starvation, destitution, homelessness, and mass casualty, then I agree.

I do not believe that liberal ideology can be purged from a wealthy society. It requires poverty, hardship, and meager success via hard work, which brings pride of ownership, and therefore a respect for property, both for one's own possessions and for those of others.
Corbett_ Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 12:02 PM
The people on TH are the same. They want cuts in "entitlements" but they actually want increases in "defense".

We need to cut every part of the budget.
tibby2 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 12:22 PM
Defense is a legitimate role of government, entitlement handouts are not.
johnm h Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 3:15 PM
But it should be cut to make it leaner and meaner. It is bloated like all Washington bureaucracies and would be better if deeply cut. Most of the rest could be cut entirely, and if legitimate by at least half.
Dyadd Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 4:58 PM
Our wars since WW II have all been net losses.

Until the rules of engagement and the laws of war are changed to allow real victory we should keep the troops at home. We have wasted enough of them.
Roy323 Wrote: Jan 11, 2013 12:54 AM
cORBETT--I've been wanting to ask You this question for quite a spell--Do you believe Military people should be paid for their service(s) even though all are "Volunteers"? Entitlements is a very poorly defined term. I do not consider a GI's Salary or a Military Person retired "for length of service" or "disabled" Vets to be the same as Welfare. What say You?
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:33 AM
BS. "Defense" is just another word for welfare to bomb builders.

The $800,000,000,000 we spend on defense, most of it outside the country, is wasted. We would be better suited giving every household in the country a full-auto rifle and two cases of ammo.

Better yet, just cut all defense spending and let the American people buy their own weapons.
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:35 AM
I 100% agree.

States (or counties) should fund, train, and field their own defense. the federal government should have no standing army. None. If we are invaded, THEN, and only then, do we have a "commander in chief" to marshal the forces to a common defense.

As a senator and presidential candidate, Barack Obama said that he detested budget deficits. In 2006, when the aggregate national debt was almost $8 trillion less than today, he blasted George W. Bush's chronic borrowing and refused to vote for upping the debt ceiling: "Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.'"

In 2008, Obama further blasted Bush's continued Keynesian borrowing: "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our...