🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10 Feb 2018 14:33:57 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:

>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>>>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>>>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>>>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the
>military).
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>>>>>they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>>>>>Obama admin.
>>>>
>>>> Military spending increased annually through the first half of the Obama
>>>> administration, and declined _very slightly_ over the
>>>> next four as the wars wound-down.   Hardly "gutting".  You really need
>>>> to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh (or his local radio proxies).
>>>>
>>>> https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_analysis
>>>>
>>>Just because the spending increased, does not mean that the money
>>>was being used to keep the military war-ready.  That's what I meant
>>>by gutting.
>>
>> And again, you make that statement without any supporting evidence.
>>
>> They've been spending on war. lots and lots of wasted $$.
>
>
>Exactly.  What's wasted doesn't pay for practical things required
>for war-readyness.  This is simply common sense.
>
>/BAH

Pay checks are never enough for the lower ranks in the military. I
knew several guys on my ship that were on food stamps due to low pay.

All this extra spending will go to hardware, not pay checks. it
doesn't matter how many tanks, airplanes, and ships we have, if there
aren't enough people to operate them due to crappy pay.