(01-30-2015 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Article One Section 8

Quote:To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

The Constitution does not provide for the size, scale, or utilization for the military other than this, also in Article One Section 8:

Quote:To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So again I ask where it says should be providing $914,000 to something called "Project Romance"?

I don't know anything about that one without reading about it but you probably can't buy 1 missile for that much.

Doesn't matter, it's not Constitutionally mandated and the missile is.

No, the missile is not constitutionally mandated. What if we spent 100% of our budget on the military? Is that still constitutionally mandated?

(01-30-2015 05:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Article One Section 8

Quote:To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

The Constitution does not provide for the size, scale, or utilization for the military other than this, also in Article One Section 8:

Quote:To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So again I ask where it says should be providing $914,000 to something called "Project Romance"?

I don't know anything about that one without reading about it but you probably can't buy 1 missile for that much.

Doesn't matter, it's not Constitutionally mandated and the missile is.

No, the missile is not constitutionally mandated. What if we spent 100% of our budget on the military? Is that still constitutionally mandated?

Congress has a Constitutional mandate to raise and support our armed forces, so yes it is mandated.

And please show me where anyone is asking for the military to be 100% of the budget.

All I am asking is for the federal government to return to it's Constitutionally mandated obligations. I imagine that if this were to happen then the budget deficit would take care of itself.

(01-30-2015 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Article One Section 8


The Constitution does not provide for the size, scale, or utilization for the military other than this, also in Article One Section 8:



So again I ask where it says should be providing $914,000 to something called "Project Romance"?

I don't know anything about that one without reading about it but you probably can't buy 1 missile for that much.

Doesn't matter, it's not Constitutionally mandated and the missile is.

No, the missile is not constitutionally mandated. What if we spent 100% of our budget on the military? Is that still constitutionally mandated?

Congress has a Constitutional mandate to raise and support our armed forces, so yes it is mandated.

And please show me where anyone is asking for the military to be 100% of the budget.

All I am asking is for the federal government to return to it's Constitutionally mandated obligations. I imagine that if this were to happen then the budget deficit would take care of itself.

And the left is unwilling and unable to find anything that is worthy of cutting, or unworthy of funding, even to the extent of claiming it's all covered under the Constitution somehow. Best they can do is the "But Hey, guise, look over there! The military spending is a lot too, ya know!" garbage.

It's no wonder why we're so ****** in this once great country.

20tt in debt, exceeding our annual GDP. more people on the dole than off it, and fewer % of people working than at any time in the last 40 years. The lefts answer? Spend MORE! As if this is somehow sustainable.

We're so, so ******.

Since the sequester took effect, the economy has done much better. That may be the one way in which the economy has actually improved.

(01-30-2015 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Since the sequester took effect, the economy has done much better. That may be the one way in which the economy has actually improved.

It's amazing what happens when government is constrained.

(01-29-2015 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It's not going to happen, but that would smack the economy on the behind and it would explode. Of course the Republicans don't want that with 2016 on the horizon, so on with the status quo of modest job growth.

The economy does not need more misplaced Keynesianism. It is doing fine on its own slowly getting itself out of the mess that type of meddling caused.

(01-30-2015 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Article One Section 8


The Constitution does not provide for the size, scale, or utilization for the military other than this, also in Article One Section 8:



So again I ask where it says should be providing $914,000 to something called "Project Romance"?

I don't know anything about that one without reading about it but you probably can't buy 1 missile for that much.

Doesn't matter, it's not Constitutionally mandated and the missile is.

No, the missile is not constitutionally mandated. What if we spent 100% of our budget on the military? Is that still constitutionally mandated?

Congress has a Constitutional mandate to raise and support our armed forces, so yes it is mandated.

And please show me where anyone is asking for the military to be 100% of the budget.

All I am asking is for the federal government to return to it's Constitutionally mandated obligations. I imagine that if this were to happen then the budget deficit would take care of itself.

I understand, I'm just saying that spending outrageous sums on the military is NOT better than spending a small amount of money on something that isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution. That may not be true for some of the oddball things you mentioned, but just in general.

(02-01-2015 03:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know anything about that one without reading about it but you probably can't buy 1 missile for that much.

Doesn't matter, it's not Constitutionally mandated and the missile is.

No, the missile is not constitutionally mandated. What if we spent 100% of our budget on the military? Is that still constitutionally mandated?

Congress has a Constitutional mandate to raise and support our armed forces, so yes it is mandated.

And please show me where anyone is asking for the military to be 100% of the budget.

All I am asking is for the federal government to return to it's Constitutionally mandated obligations. I imagine that if this were to happen then the budget deficit would take care of itself.

I understand, I'm just saying that spending outrageous sums on the military is NOT better than spending a small amount of money on something that isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution. That may not be true for some of the oddball things you mentioned, but just in general.

The best thing for the economy is for the Feds to limit their spending to what is Constitutionally mandated and lower taxes to where the money stays with the taxpayer. Then they can stimulate the economy with the money they earned.

(02-01-2015 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 03:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Doesn't matter, it's not Constitutionally mandated and the missile is.

No, the missile is not constitutionally mandated. What if we spent 100% of our budget on the military? Is that still constitutionally mandated?

Congress has a Constitutional mandate to raise and support our armed forces, so yes it is mandated.

And please show me where anyone is asking for the military to be 100% of the budget.

All I am asking is for the federal government to return to it's Constitutionally mandated obligations. I imagine that if this were to happen then the budget deficit would take care of itself.

I understand, I'm just saying that spending outrageous sums on the military is NOT better than spending a small amount of money on something that isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution. That may not be true for some of the oddball things you mentioned, but just in general.

The best thing for the economy is for the Feds to limit their spending to what is Constitutionally mandated and lower taxes to where the money stays with the taxpayer. Then they can stimulate the economy with the money they earned.

We don't know what is mandated.

(02-01-2015 05:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 03:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, the missile is not constitutionally mandated. What if we spent 100% of our budget on the military? Is that still constitutionally mandated?

Congress has a Constitutional mandate to raise and support our armed forces, so yes it is mandated.

And please show me where anyone is asking for the military to be 100% of the budget.

All I am asking is for the federal government to return to it's Constitutionally mandated obligations. I imagine that if this were to happen then the budget deficit would take care of itself.

I understand, I'm just saying that spending outrageous sums on the military is NOT better than spending a small amount of money on something that isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution. That may not be true for some of the oddball things you mentioned, but just in general.

The best thing for the economy is for the Feds to limit their spending to what is Constitutionally mandated and lower taxes to where the money stays with the taxpayer. Then they can stimulate the economy with the money they earned.

We don't know what is mandated.

Sure we do. It's spelled out in a pretty clear manner in the Constitution.

(02-01-2015 05:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 05:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 03:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 05:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Congress has a Constitutional mandate to raise and support our armed forces, so yes it is mandated.

And please show me where anyone is asking for the military to be 100% of the budget.

All I am asking is for the federal government to return to it's Constitutionally mandated obligations. I imagine that if this were to happen then the budget deficit would take care of itself.

I understand, I'm just saying that spending outrageous sums on the military is NOT better than spending a small amount of money on something that isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution. That may not be true for some of the oddball things you mentioned, but just in general.

The best thing for the economy is for the Feds to limit their spending to what is Constitutionally mandated and lower taxes to where the money stays with the taxpayer. Then they can stimulate the economy with the money they earned.

We don't know what is mandated.

Sure we do. It's spelled out in a pretty clear manner in the Constitution.

OK, so out of the current government agencies (and branches of the military) in existence, which should remain and what should their budgets be?

Republican leadership is gutless they'll give him a 15% plus all their own earmarks.

(02-01-2015 05:13 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Republican leadership is gutless they'll give him a 15% plus all their own earmarks.

This is true. Neither party has the requisite discipline.

New Obama budget would spend $12,541/us citizen next fiscal year.