You have said we need to spend above World War II levels to combat the growing threat from the Chinese without building a case for specifically how much is needed and why. How do you know how much annual spending is the appropriate amount to stay comfortably ahead? $500 billion? $1 trillion? $5 trillion? I would expect the answer to that question to be based on a strategic, intelligence-based assessment of Chinese capabilities and a high confidence cost estimate of the weapons systems required to counter the threats. And I would expect justification for explosive growth in defense spending to be articulated through Congressional testimony from military and Pentagon civilian officials. I don't think this has happened, therefore I don't know how one can logically conclude that we need to be spending X to stay ahead of the Chinese.

Let's assume for argument's sake that everything that you said above is correct. If so, then how has Obama determined that the defense budget needs to be slashed, with no additional development of nuclear technology, and drastic cuts in advanced weapons research? Where is the justification for any cuts in weapons research?

 

When a government voluntarily surrenders a big edge in defense technology to an enemy possessin a jaw-dropping numerical advantage in troops, that government is failing to perform its primary duty to its citizens. Obama is proposing to cut military spending to the bone to invest in the failed liberal programs of the past.

Obama is from the Clinton school on how to balance the budget... Cripple the military...

 

Bingo!

The idea behind true marxist communism - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - is fundamentally a very Christ-like philosopy.

 

 

I never understood this rational. How is the government taking something from one person and redistributing as they see fit "Christ-like"? I can see where giving to those in need would be considered Christ like, but taking????

 

Maybe you can explain this for me?

I never understood this rational. How is the government taking something from one person and redistributing as they see fit "Christ-like"? I can see where giving to those in need would be considered Christ like, but taking????

 

Maybe you can explain this for me?

 

 

the problem is that your notion of "communism" is based on what you have seen implemented in the USSR and its satellites and allies.

 

In Pure communism there is no government and the people work for the good of the community. There is no entity to TAKE anything from anybody. People willingly do the work that is required to sustain the community and do not take away more than they need so the community continues to thrive.

 

Pure communism fails because of human nature. (sin) Thinking of oneself higher than another. Christ says that we should think of the other as higher than ourself and that we should work for the good of all. Had Marx not hated Christianity he might have been a good one.

 

BTW anyone know why Marx was so anti-Christian??