TexasCHLforum.com

So, perhaps I just don't get it, but why, are we shipping Billions of dollars to other countries just so they'll be our friend?

I feel sure that we send cash to most countires in Europe, Asia, PacRim and South America.

If we are having problems with the budget, why not start cutting those funds we send abroad and use them here at home?

Help me undersand...

While NOT always, often times CA$H is one of the most effective tools used in order to garner and maintain national interest, and in the end, can often times be the LEAST expensive approach used in the diplomatic spectrum.

While the issues are complex, think of a cost / benefit scenario concerning say, securing a fixed installation threatened by an enemy element:
- Cost of providing internal security package including manning, and all associated logistics = $100,000 per month
- Cost of simply paying off the threat and using his elements to provide security = $20,000 per month


The practice is sound, and has been used since the beginning of time.

The problem lies not with the practice itself, as in most things, but with the execution.

I hope I get social security, I need it to pay my property taxes when I retire.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:While the issues are complex, think of a cost / benefit scenario concerning say, securing a fixed installation threatened by an enemy element:
- Cost of providing internal security package including manning, and all associated logistics = $100,000 per month
- Cost of simply paying off the threat and using his elements to provide security = $20,000 per month


The practice is sound, and has been used since the beginning of time.

The problem lies not with the practice itself, as in most things, but with the execution.

If we're going to pay protection money then let's admit that's what we're doing. And let's cut USA military spending where we don't need it because we're paying the local mob boss (war lord) to provide protection instead.

Also, the government should only pay for protection where the national security interests of the USA are at stake. If BP's facilities and personnel need protection, they should pay for it out of their budget. If Shell's facilities and personnel need protection, they should pay for it out of their budget. If CNN's facilities and personnel need protection, they should pay for it out of their budget. If Iraq needs mercenaries to keep order, let them pay for them out of their national budget.

Thats easy! Answer- The government cares absolutely nothing about the good people of this country that make its existence possible. What they care about is money and power. The rest is just a bi-product. We need to take back our country from these buffoons and fire the lot of 'em. Stop allowing them to tell us what to do and start telling them what to do. LIKE ITS SUPPOSED TO BE!

rant over

We are borrowing money, to give to other countries. Now does this make sense. I don't care what percentage it is.

If you are going to quit giving SS to the wealthy, then you are going to have to quit taking it out of their paychecks.

Thats easy! Answer- The government cares absolutely nothing about the good people of this country that make its existence possible. What they care about is money and power. The rest is just a bi-product. We need to take back our country from these buffoons and fire the lot of 'em. Stop allowing them to tell us what to do and start telling them what to do. LIKE ITS SUPPOSED TO BE!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm with this guy....

Also, the government should only pay for protection where the national security interests of the USA are at stake.

"National security" encompasses a wide variety of issues, many of which do not necessitate the use of nation sponsored violence through military action. Economic policy, and trade, both can have a significant impact on the security of a nation, and lead to demise without ever firing a shot in anger. Nations have succumbed and crumbled to policy alone countless times throughout history, and it is the duty of each nation to establish and execute policy that benefits and secures the citizens of their respective nation. The former Soviet Union is a good recent example, as is OUR nation as we fail to address trade issues with red China, among other nations.

I agree, however, that our foreign policy is laughable, and that we are NOT getting the "bang for the buck" we should be in our foreign aid investments.

SS is definately abused. My wife and I started saving for retirement (IRA, BONDS, CD's) when we were 20 or 21. That was 5 years ago. We really pinched the pennys while in the military beacuse we knew once I seperated we would be broke college students, so we made up for lost time while we were making money. A couple of reinlistments and deployment cash is basically what we started ours with. +- 80K, and we havent put a penny in it since I got out in Jan. Needless to say, I dont expect SS when its retirement time for us.