[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Jonathan Biggar <jon at floorboard.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:33:35 GMT
Lines: 45

Jms at B5 wrote:
>> Hardly.  The Constitution gives the government the right and duty
>> for national defense.
>> 
>> It does *not* give the government the right to take away funds from
>> one citizen to benefit another.
> 
> So defense of the nation does not benefit the citizens?

It does benefit the citizenry *as a whole*, but not John Doe more than
Joe Blow.

> So paying billions of dollars to contractors doesn't benefit one
> group of citizens over another?  Is the US Government aware that
> their contractors are not citizens?  Because if they are, then they
> are benefitting from this.  Or is it only okay for one citizen to
> benefit over another if it's military?

It's hard to believe that you are forgetting that the US Government
*gets* something in return for the money it pays to contractors.

> Further, the provisions are not a carte blanche.  Do you mean to say
> that we have the right to fund national defense limitlessly?  To the
> point of, say, hampering states, bankrupting resources, lowering the
> value of the dollar?  Is there not, by your lights, to be *any* kind
> of cap on this?  They can spend whatever they want?

Now you are just knocking over a strawman.

> Funds I pay in taxes are being paid to a Halliburton subsidiary to go
> in and rebuild and control the Iraqi oil industry, which will benefit
> the Halliburton board of directors to the tune of billions of
> dollars.
> 
> Where, may I ask, do I go to get my money back on that one?

In lower costs of future defense because we don't have Saddam to bug us 
any more.

-- 
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
jon at floorboard.com
jon at biggar.org


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 29 May 2003 00:54:20 GMT
Lines: 76

>> So paying billions of dollars to contractors doesn't benefit one
>> group of citizens over another?  Is the US Government aware that
>> their contractors are not citizens?  Because if they are, then they
>> are benefitting from this.  Or is it only okay for one citizen to
>> benefit over another if it's military?
>
>It's hard to believe that you are forgetting that the US Government
>*gets* something in return for the money it pays to contractors.

Sure, and it's all highly over-priced, and vast amounts of it are questionable,
and for systems of dubious value.  Further to the point, does the military have
the right to bankrupt the rest of the country to pay for massive systems like
this, and again to my point, and this time please go back to and address my
point, which you keep ignoring in your replies...you and others keep saying, of
social programs, "Where is the money to pay for this gonna come?"  But how come
no one ever seems to ask that of the military spending?  It's as if the
military budget just seems to come out of nowhere, no problem, but when one
wants to spend a few million feeding our citizenry, many of whom are now out of
jobs thanks to the Bush administration, that evokes a hew and cry?

If for just one year, we put a cap on new spending in the military -- just one
year -- can you *imagine* the good we could do this country with even a half or
one quarter of that $400 billion per year (my figure of 350 was not correct, I
checked)?  The roads that could be repaired, the housing that could be fixed,
which would put people to work doing real jobs, not on welfare rolls.  

When Bush stands up and announces he's going to spend another hundred billion
dollars on the military, I just want someone, *someone* to stand up and say,
"And how are you going to pay for this?  Where's the money going to come from?"

Because the program for now seems to be to take it from the citizens and give
it to the military, in unchecked and unparalled amounts, with the result of
putting the country further and further in debt.

(Bush quietly signed a bill allowing the country to go a trillion dollars
further into debt, did you notice that one?  You can find the reference at

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAWYMS78GD.html

-- and the beat goes on and we get further into debt, this all beginning with a
group of maybe a few thousand members.  Is the only way we can fight a few
thousand al quaeda to destroy the country economically?)

>> Where, may I ask, do I go to get my money back on that one?
>
>In lower costs of future defense because we don't have Saddam to bug us 
>any more.

See, now you're just being dishonest.  Do you not follow what the Bush
administration and others are saying?  We are not one lick safer than we were
before.  There are still attacks going on, and NONE of them have had anything
to with Saddam.  How was he "bugging" us?  He has never been tied to 9/11, not
by anyone.  What we've done has enraged the Arab world and, from some accounts,
led more people to join and support al quaeda, because now we are doing what
they said we were doing all along, being an imperialist, conquering nation.  

You really think defense costs are gonna come down?  They just raised 'em,
bucky.  And now we may be going in after Iran.  

Bush and company have not said one word about costs coming down for the
military...if anything, they've talked about expanding further, re-starting the
nuclear weapons program, and so on.  So your statement above is in direct
contradiction to what the Republicans you defend have been saying.  Not the
media, not the spin doctors, the Republicans themselves.  


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)