Monday, October 27, 2008

Barney Frank wants to cut Defense spending by 25%

link
Posted by Common Sense Joe at 1:13 PM
Labels:

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good for him, it's about time and 25% is not enough, we could cut it 50% and we'd probably be safer from terrorists acts, as it would send a signal that we no longer want to go attacking the third world for oil ...apparently our trillion dollar per year defense system couldn't stop a man in a cave from attacking the Pentagon, New York and almost the White House...so I see no problem with cutting the defense budget and putting that money to more useful projects or giving it back in tax breaks to small business and clean energy to stimulate the economy. The only way we are going to be safe from foreign terrorism is to stop our terrorism in order to control the oil flow... so we only need a defense budget to defend against nuclear attack from China or Russia until we can negotiate reductions again...that makes great sense to cut our defense budget! Actually probably only 10% of the military budget goes to defense purposes anyway, 90% goes for war purposes I'm sure. Why don't our journalists investigate that?? And why don't we know where the Pentagon lost 2.3 trillion dollars??? We could end world poverty and terrorism with it just with the money the Pentagon loses and wastes!!! Stop the madness vote Obama and Democrat all the way down the line!

October 28, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Anonymous said...

Agreed. Let someone pay to fight the next hundred years of war. The whole enterprise has become too expensive to bother with.

Either use the nukes on terrorists or resign from office.

October 28, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...

From what you said in the past I gather you think that the Iranians, the Pakistanis the Syrians the Lebanese and the Palestinians are terrorists, perhaps you include as well the Saudis and the Egyptians....if we had strong evidence that Bin Laden was in any of those countries, and the only way we could get him for sure was with a nuke, would you be willing to nuke any of those countries if it was concluded that that was the only way we could get Bin Laden? Even if it meant the instant death of over 100,000 innocent people as collateral damage, and the subsequent death of a million or more innocents by radioactive fallout later, a third of them children?...just to get Bin Laden because our incompetent Pentagon and Bush Cheney leadership failed to protect us on 9/11 despite the trillions we spend annually for "defense"?

October 29, 2008 at 5:01 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)