“Nope. Cut it all, or you’re not serious about fiscal responsibility.”
Again, cutting the 81 percent of non-military spending is fiscal responsibility directed with proper priorities. Priorities of spending is the most important thing of all.
“Right now, a large extravagant military”
The military is neither large, nor extravagant. We are at wartime at present, ergo cutting the military is not appropriate at this point in time.
“Irrelevant.”
Not at all. Wars are wars. Wars must be fought to win. Peacetime military is very different from the wartime military.
“Congress is only authorised to raise and support armies by specific appropriation for two year periods.”
Not since the Bill of Rights.
“This means that the whole “standing army” expenditure is pretty much unconstitutional on its face.”
One of the reasons the bill of rights was passed was to deal with this part of the Articles.
“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.”
This is the big problem. The problem isn’t so much the lack of appropriations for the military, it is the fact that legally, the budget must be passed, each and every year. This is a huge problem for one missed budget, let alone 4. This issue must be addressed instantly.
“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 I’m very much in favor of budgeting.
“And while we’re on the war - it’s time to end it.”
So sayeth the loser generation that lost in Vietnam and drew in Korea. No, we’re going to fight in Afghanistan and win in Afghanistan. As much as I’m sure the boomers want to cut and run, the younguns like me who have been fighting the war for their entire adult life are going to keep fighting.
“Occupying Afghanistan serves absolutely no US security interest.”
Establishing a democratic and free Afghanistan does.
“so your analogy is useless on its face.”
Jefferson didn’t cut and run from the Barbary Pirates. Why do you think Jefferson would cut and run after something like 9-11?
“Like we should have done in 2002.”
Umm, neither the war in Iraq nor the war in Afghanistan was won at that point in time. So you believe in losing wars?
Well, first of all, the 81% of non-military spending won't all be cut, for the simple reason that the government *does* have other constitutional roles besides just operating a military. A large chunk of it can and should be cut, but your simple-minded "we'll just cut the other 81%!!!" approach is ludicrous and infeasible.
AGAIN - anyone not willing to put a 19% chunk of largely useless spending on the block is simply not serious and is not paying attention.
The military is neither large, nor extravagant. We are at wartime at present, ergo cutting the military is not appropriate at this point in time.
Well, first of all, the action in Afghanistan *barely* constitutes a "war" and it's certainly not a "war" that in any wise constitutes a life-or-death situation, or one where we'd be even mildly inconvenienced were we to stop diddling around with it. It certainly does not justify 19% of a budget that comprises ~3.5 trillion dollars. If we have to end the war in Afghanistan to cut it back, then so be it. We have no interest now in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is irrelevant to American security interests.
Not at all. Wars are wars. Wars must be fought to win. Peacetime military is very different from the wartime military.
Well, since we're obviously not fighting this war to win, then there's no point to our being there. Why continue to waste $85 billion a month when we're not serious about fighting it? That's simple-minded stupidity. Either powerup and kill everybody in the country ('cause that's basically what you'd have to do to really "win" there by the definition we're used to thinking of), or leave and let them rot in their own Islamic filth.
Not since the Bill of Rights.
Seriously? You are an idiot, plain and simple. The Bill of Rights nowhere calls for a standing army, large or otherwise. The 2nd amendment assumes that the entire able-bodied population of the country that is of age will form a well-regulated militia - which is emphatically NOT the same thing as a professional standing army, large or otherwise. The fact that you seem to be confused on this point indicates that you really have no business engaging in this discussion since you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Go back to the library and read some more, and maybe we can pick this discussion up in a few months.