My thesis: “Anyone who voted for the stimulus package has put our troops and our country at risk”
This, however, is a bad “hard choice”…short cut defense to pay for seeding the Mall in DC and subsidizing Hollywood films (yes…both in stimulus package)…and yes…the defense jobs that will be cut will be here in the US….so yes you got that right…we are going to layoff high-skilled engineers to spend hundred-of-thousands of dollars to hire gardeners. […] Don’t cut the defense budget. The world may or may not get richer in the next few years….it is not likely to get less dangerous. [Those are his ellipses]
Congressman Barney Frank, with the latest reason why he should be thrown off a bridge, said, “The biggest ongoing threat, I believe, to fiscal sanity in this country is an open-ended ever-expanding military budget.” This is a ludicrous statement. I think the chart speaks for itself:
Entitlement spending is set to hit 18% of our GDP. Defense is currently at 3.8% and defense is the problem? He’s living in a dream world.
The Secretary of Defense should never be faced with a “hard decision” on if we should fund our weapons programs. An F-22 has a flyaway cost of $141 million. The now defunct condom program was going to cost $300 million. Condom program….or 2 F-22’s…condoms…or 2 F-22’s. Hmmm.
This should not be a tough choice. I don’t see how anyone could vote for these bailouts and spending packages and still stand up and say they’re “for the troops” when they’ve bankrupt the country to the point that the military has to make spending cuts. And anyone who voted for the stimulus or any of the other bailouts has put our country and our troops at even more risk than this signed up to accept.
Dan, a member of the National Guard:
Roger from Jackson:
John from Jackson:
Chris from Medina:
Jim from Dyersburg:
James from Union City:
Greg, 25 years Air Force:
Adrien Eddleman from Jackson:
Chris from Dyersburg:
Alex from Jackson:
Tom from Jackson:
THE Craig R. Steinfels called in just after the show: