“Again, you can’t say that we’re not going to touch 19% of the budget and the largest or second-largest portion (depending, apparently, on how things are accounted by whichever source you’re using) and still claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility.”
If you gut the other 81 percent of unconstitutional spending, then yes, you are advocating fiscal responsibility. The federal government has the constitutional obligation to protect the nation. Where is the constitutional right to welfare? To social security? Cut those first and then we can talk about cutbacks to the military.
“Congress could only allocate funds for armies (land forces) for specified periods of time and for specific reasons”
And, last I checked, there’s a war going on.
“Remember what the founders thought about large standing armies?”
What do you think George Washignton’s response would have been to 9-11? Oh, wait, we already have that response - “shores of Tripoli”. r
Do you think they would have put up with this half-assed no-effort war? No. They would have fought and fought to win.
If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let’s be consistent about
You might really want to re-think how you worded that shores of Tripoli part of your response - just a helpful hint
Nope. Cut it all, or you're not serious about fiscal responsibility. Right now, a large extravagant military is simply a useless bauble that's sucking away taxpayer monies with little to no return on the "investment."
And, last I checked, there’s a war going on.
Irrelevant. Congress is only authorised to raise and support armies by specific appropriation for two year periods. This means that the whole "standing army" expenditure is pretty much unconstitutional on its face. Since we've had no actual budget for several years now, but have been shoestringing it along, this also means that, while we're shoestringing appropriations for the wars, there hasn't been any actual *legitimate* appropriation for it taking place. Again, either you're for budgeting or you're not for budgeting. The former indicates fiscal responsibility, the latter indicates a lack of it.
And while we're on the war - it's time to end it. Occupying Afghanistan serves absolutely no US security interest. It's simply as rathole that we're pouring money down so that the US government can justify inflating expenditures.
hat do you think George Washignton’s response would have been to 9-11? Oh, wait, we already have that response - “shores of Tripoli”.
I think you mean Thomas Jefferson, not George Washington. However, Jefferson also sent the Navy (and the Marines, which are a Department of the Navy, and were originally shipboard pretty much entirely, except for brief landward excursions), not a standing army, so your analogy is useless on its face.
Do you think they would have put up with this half-assed no-effort war? No. They would have fought and fought to win.
Yeah - they would have fought it to win, and then come home once it was done, and demobilised any armies temporarily raised. Like we should have done in 2002.
If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let’s be consistent about
Whenever you'd like to start, please feel free to.