another idiotic part of high military is the sheer number of nuclear weapons. America has 5 times the # needed to destroy the world, so whats the point in building enough to make 6?

"-The negative effect on the national debt outweighed any positive economic benefit."
Nope. The negative effect on the national debt would have been MUCH higher had the government just let "the markets do their thing" and collapse.

"-Credit reform bill does little to protect consumers."
Let's say I agree with this statement. Little protection is a heck of a lot better than no protection.

"-Passed a wasteful, ineffective health reform bill that only worsens the current system. Health care is not a right in America."
You're right about it not being a right but I would rather have the right to decent healthcare than a right to bear arms (which I have to say, might be outdated anyhow.)

"-I agree that Obama needs to put more pressure on Syria et al. However, I would not call his foreign policy sensible or progressive."
No. America's foreign policy is currently much more progressive than the previous administration's, which was content in keeping the status quo. But I will say that Obama is late on the ball sometimes.

"-We have an existing system for legal residency and naturalization. The DREAM Act would reward criminals for committing a crime, which is NOT an American ideal."
Right. Because we must treat evey illegal immigrant who crosses the border like hardened criminals or like invading hordes. And anyway, America's current immigration policy has A LOT to be desired.

"-The regulations only slow growth and recovery. The new regulations do very little to protect "Main Street". You cannot blame the crash of 2008 on a lack of accountability on Wall Street."
Wrong. As Mafia said, most other countries who have regulations fair much better during a crisis. Also, the crash of 2008 was caused mostly by a housing bubble, a bubble caused by the banks selling toxic loans to people who could not afford to pay the loans back.

"-You cannot blame the crash on Bush. The President is not omnipotent. He cannot simply foresee and stop economic crashes. Like a natural disaster, sometimes things just go bad."
Maybe not, but the crash of 2008 was not a natural disaster. It was a disaster that couls have been avoided had the SEC and the Bush administration paid any attention to what was happening.

Strongly Oppose.

too many reasons to list.

@ Putin33

The F-22 is a hell of a lot more useful to America than universal healthcare, amnesty, or some other liberal sacred cow. Also, I am not a "conservative". My position on the issue of military spending is not indicative of my political philosophy.

I did not specifically say "Iraq". You brought that up. I did support the invasion, but I was opposed to the pointless, lengthy occupation.

Our military is not "bloated", and it is equipped to fight both terrorism AND "threats that existed 30, 40, 50 years ago.". Last time I checked, the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. That particular threat (and it was a threat, don't fucking kid yourself) existed 20 years ago. The threat from China still exists. We live in a very violent, militaristic time. We need to defend ourselves. The best way to defend ourselves is to make sure no one else can beat us in any kind of war. Nuclear, conventional, or unconventional.

@ Fasces349

"another idiotic part of high military is the sheer number of nuclear weapons. America has 5 times the # needed to destroy the world, so whats the point in building enough to make 6?"

We didn't even have enough nukes to glass the world ONCE during the height of the Cold War. Today, we only have 300 nuclear missiles with 475 kiloton warheads. Definitely NOT enough to glass the whole world even once. Even if you count airplane-dropped freefall bombs, we still would not have enough nukes to destroy the world.

All of that is a bit of a moot point because our nuclear weapons provide the most security for the least amount of money. Minutemen III missiles only cost 7,000,000 dollars, and we haven't upgraded our nuclear arsenal since the 1970s. If you want to go after nuclear spending, go after something that could possibly be a waste of money, like the new Ford-class supercarriers or the F-35 JSF program.

@ StevenC.

"Nope. The negative effect on the national debt would have been MUCH higher had the government just let "the markets do their thing" and collapse."

Not true, but no one has any way of proving it, so I'll just let that one go.

"Let's say I agree with this statement. Little protection is a heck of a lot better than no protection."

I disagree. A little vulnerability is better than a little unnecessary regulation.

"You're right about it not being a right but I would rather have the right to decent healthcare than a right to bear arms (which I have to say, might be outdated anyhow.)"

I'll take my M14 and my M1911s over healthcare any day. I work for a living, and therefore can pay for my own healthcare. We wouldn't have so many problems in this country if people knew how to fucking work.

"No. America's foreign policy is currently much more progressive than the previous administration's"

Provide evidence. Also, what is your definition of "progressive". Whenever I see or hear "progressive", I immediately jump to "liberal", which turns into "weak".

"Right. Because we must treat eve(r)y illegal immigrant who crosses the border like hardened criminals or like invading hordes. And anyway, America's current immigration policy has A LOT to be desired."

Some of them are hardened criminals, and the rest are invading hordes. Your second sentence is correct. We need to make legal immigration a little easier (less bureaucracy, same security) and illegal immigration a hell of a lot harder. A thorough background check and no previous history of attempted illegal entry is good enough for a green card, in my opinion.

"As Mafia said, most other countries who have regulations fair much better during a crisis. Also, the crash of 2008 was caused mostly by a housing bubble, a bubble caused by the banks selling toxic loans to people who could not afford to pay the loans back."

Other countries fared better because the crash started in America. Of course everyone else didn't get hurt as bad. The housing bubble was just the trigger. Between the trade deficit and the government printing money, something was bound to happen.

"It was a disaster that couls have been avoided had the SEC and the Bush administration paid any attention to what was happening."

Frankly, that is not true. Bush did not simply allow the economy go down the toilet. Tell me what he could have done to stop (or lessen the effects) of the crash.

@ Sicarius

Can you clarify?

Correction:

"If you want to go after nuclear spending"

If you want to go after *military* spending

"The F-22 is a hell of a lot more useful to America than universal healthcare, amnesty, or some other liberal sacred cow. Also, I am not a "conservative". My position on the issue of military spending is not indicative of my political philosophy. "
Lol, how?

"Provide evidence. Also, what is your definition of "progressive". Whenever I see or hear "progressive", I immediately jump to "liberal", which turns into "weak"."
This is absolutely hilarious.

@ gunfighter

I could. But I'm probably not going to, because I dont want to write a novel.

In brief, he's no better than any other president (well marginally better in some ways, mostly superficial ones) and worse than some. His interest lies not in the welfare of the american people, but the pocketbooks of big business.
Guantanamo is still open.
We are still at war in Iraq
We are still at war in Afghanistan
We are continuing and expanding military operations in yemen, pakistan, syria, etc, its a long list
We now have a new war in Libya.
His campaign to his presidency, he has done pretty much a 180 about everything he said, which basically just means he's a politician.
the patriot act has been renewed and expanded.
we still have military commisions act.
he called bradley manning "guilty" before he has even had a trial.
ok I'm gonna stop now, because I could literally come up with bullet points for you all day long.

Sicarius pretty much nailed it completely accurately, although I would highlight that his Justice Department has been a tremendous disappointment, and his willingness to claim the state secrets privilege is as disgusting as it was for his predecessor. In fact, the only way in which Mr. Obama is preferable to Mr. Bush in my opinion, is that he is more competent than Mr. Bush was. Greater competence is a virtue only insofar as the greater competence is in service of good and ethical policy.

@ Sicarius

Maybe Obama realized the stupidity of his positions on the issues you listed.

Or maybe he's just corrupt. Which do you think is more likely out of the former editor of the Harvard Law Review, that he was a total moron until he got into the White House, or that he was bought and paid for by the same basic interests that have turned America into an oligarchy where class mobility is lower than anywhere else with a per capita GDP over $8,000.

I don't think Obama is corrupted in the traditional sense, but I do think he is corrupted by the beltway. He IS a career politician, after all.

I guess I don't understand what "corrupted by the beltway" means and how it is different from normal corruption.

"He IS a career politician, after all."

Funny I thought you rightwingers always bitched that he didn't have enough government experience and was a 'community organizer'. So which is it? Can't keep your story straight, as usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
The Americans had 32,000 nukes at the hieght of the Cold War, and 5000 nukes today, I have no idea where you got those stats....

Anyway, Nukes are retarded, however fighter jets and carriers have merit and use. I am not attacking military spending, I am saying its retarded to build nukes after you have more then enough to destroy the world.

Carriers are utterly useless against any of the big boys and will last about 30 minutes into the next serious war. Anyone with a real military (and that group keeps getting larger every year) will merely lob enough guided ordnance at a carrier to overwhelm its defensive systems. China came out with the C-802 antiship missile in 1989.Hezbollah damaged an Israeli frigate in 2006 firing C-802's from a mobile shore battery. Hezbollah. We're not talking about outrageously deep pockets here. Comes a real war, you'll see about 300 of these suckers launched off of a fishing fleet. 3 hits on a Ford class carrier, and it's goodbye, $10 billion plus the cost of the air wing, which will probably check in somewhere around $20-$30 billion, plus the complement of 4500. Carriers are, however, kinda useful still for beating the crap out of weedy, uppity little dictatorships.

The carriers were the reason the US won the pacific war, and carriers haven't been battle tested since then. However carriers were just as fragile in world war 2 with weaker planes and harder to detect subs. Now, given that they are a behind the front line support ship Its still got merit in tomorrows naval fields and I bet it will be the most useful ship (excluding the nuclear sub) in world war 3...

Don't be hating on aircraft carriers. China may have came out with that missile in 1989, but it's only their very recent development of an anti-ship ballistic missile which is making US policy makers nervous. I'd assume that there's all kinds of crazy countermeasures in place on the new Gerald Ford carriers to stave off even those attacks.

Hezbollah does have deep pockets. Those pockets belong to Iran. Hell, they probably have more missiles than the UK or France, if the initial bombardment of Libya showed us anything...

At any rate, in a BIG war you'd just nuke the carriers so that's kind of a moot point. They exist as way to project power. Gun boat diplomacy, if you will. A war with someone who could pose a credible threat to a carrier (China or Russia) is far more likely to escalate into a nuclear exchange once one side makes a big gain like sinking a carrier or bombarding a naval base. Bluntly, if we're in a war where carriers could plausibly be sunk we'll all be gone before we even miss them.

nuking a carrier is the most retarded overkill I have ever heard of... naval warfare will probably be fought without nukes...

Iran could take a Ford class in the Indian ocean by sending a fishing fleet stocked with hordes of ASMs that have 200 miles of range. Same with Pakistan, or the DPRK.

As to Hezbollah having deep pockets, they do for a private group. For a state, not so much.

You can't be that stupid. Submarines with ICBMs are targets for nuclear strikes once they're found, since you can't risk waiting to send a ship to sink them. If you were in a nuclear war, particularly a "limited" one, then it stands to reason to shoot a missile out into the ocean to totally eliminate the threat. Why risk your own ships and precious time?

Use your head.

I still think it would be overkill, if your using nukes I would rather use it to take out an enemy city then destroy an enemy navy that will do minimal damage to your empire.

If a nuke is fired, both sides of the conflict will more or less launch their entire arsenal in self defense...

Well, presumably the navy would notice a huge fishing fleet coming right at it and do something about it. There's actually a pretty important bit of international law about fishing during wars (the details of which escape me) which would make the scenario of using that against a carrier unlikely, or at least would make the US suspicious enough to react accordingly.

But as a sneak attack to, say, launch a missile and set off an EMP pulse over a territory that's totally possible.

as to the Pacific war, yes, the carriers won them. However, the subs that may or may not be easier to detect now have so much more killpower compared to what they had then that it seems a much better investment of naval bang for the buck.

Overkill, schmoverkill. You eliminate the threat. I also thought we were working under the assumption this was already some sort of nuclear war, since only nuclear states have the realistic capability to take out a carrier in other ways and a war between nuclear powers is very likely to escalate.

Do you really think they would only pick the targets for a nuclear strike once the war's begun? I'll bet you anything the Soviets were doing everything they could to know exactly where the US navy groups were at any time so they could launch nukes specifically set aside for that mission during the Cold War.

if it already is a nuclear war, the world has been destroyed so why does it matter whether or not a a carrier still exists? thats what I am saying...

Also Fasces349, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that a nuclear strike on some ships in the open ocean is going to go over much better in international opinion than one on a city. Assuming that things don't get out of hand and the conflict is resolved without the destruction of humanity, a nuclear launch that vaporizes a couple ships and some water is going to be much easier to deal with in the international community than one that vaporizes people. If a state thinks the war will be a "limited" one an oceanic strike to destroy the opponent's nearby naval forces is EXACTLY what you'd expect a rational acting state would do. Assuming that introducing nuclear weapons into war is ever really rational...

Do you really see no distinction between a limited nuclear war and one where the world is destroyed? While it's probably just a matter of one escalating into the other, they're certainly distinct and if you thought you could win and still have a world left at the end a big part of your strategy would be to destroy the opponent's navy if possible. Nuking them would do it, and leave you in a better strategic position.

Now, that probably would make you opponent pretty desperate and more likely to repay the favor by getting rid of a lot of your cities, but nuking carriers in the open ocean makes a lot of sense. Well, as much sense as can exist in a nuclear war scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalij_Fars

Range 300 km. That'll be improved over the next few generations of development. Carriers are floating coffins in any real war.