View Single Post
Old 03-08-2013, 11:10 AM   #39
Ring of Famer

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Notice he said equalize opportunity, not outcome. As a nation you have to compete with the world on some level. You can erect barriers to everyone in order to try to double down on your unwillingness to compete, but in the end, the whole nation suffers as it's left behind in it's chosen dark age while the rest of the world surges ahead.

Like I said before, you can choose to sanction those who work under fundamentally different views of humanity (China). But if we choose, as a nation, to retire from the game instead of compete with the Japans or SKoreas or Taiwans or Germanys of the world, the only ones we're hurting in the long run is ourselves.
It would be a lot easier to compete with China in the global economic market if we weren't outspending them 5:1 in defense. Everyone always likes to count us out vs. China when it comes to the economy, but it's because we're still stuck in our old, paranoid 1950's world views. China (nor any other superpower or nation who represents any legitimate military threat) has no interest in military conflict. In fact, it's contrary to their interests, because the market has become so globalized, that a market crash by either side would cripple both economies, not to mention both economies being destroyed in the first place because we buy so much from each other...that would end immediately, and the only thing propping either of us up would be the military economy, which would only last as long as our military resolve and natural resources would hold out.

The threat we face comes from rogue states, cells and individuals, and catching them requires precision and efficiency, not a huge standing army. Talk about attacking a problem with a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel... All of this can be done for much, much less than we currently spend on the military. Yes, this would destroy jobs. Jobs we would have to offset by rebuilding our infrastructure, which in and of itself is a huge contributor not only to supporting the economy, but to supporting a war effort if needed.

So slash the bejeezus out of the defense budget, shift the responsibility of "home defense" back to the states, where it was when this nation was founded, and rely on each state to raise and maintain militias (these would be your National Guard units) that can be called on in time of war. When Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers in April 1861, there was a reason they reached half a million volunteers before even the first drafts were begun.

Now, what exactly do we do with $300 billion dollars? I dunno, but I'm sure we can find some way to help level the playing field. It's not a simple their labor force is bigger than ours I recall the Soviets had a lot of cheap labor and natural resources, as well.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote