[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

The deficits will destroy us far far worse than any natural disaster in our history, if we don't stop them. You have no idea of how bad it gets when you have a real monetary crisis in a country.

... like runaway spending on more military might that we do not need?

As Commander-in-Chief, Mitt Romney will keep faith with the men and women who defend us just as he will ensure that our military capabilities are matched to the interests we need to protect. He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year, which will include three submarines per year. He will also modernize and replace the aging inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively strengthen our force structure. And he will fully commit to a robust, multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.

This will not be a cost-free process. We cannot rebuild our military strength without paying for it. Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending—meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development—at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.

Ridiculous.

He contradicts himself in his first sentence saying that he'll match our military to our interests. But his whole plan is to make sure this all happens above a *FLOOR* (his italics, not mine) of 4% of GDP. If all you have are military dollars, everything looks like a military threat. He doesn't say how he will pay for it, what with reducing everyone's taxes, dramatically increasing our defense budget, typical Romney, say anything that will stampede the voters, facts be damned.

Originally Posted by Adak

In any budget, you can point out SOMETHING that appears cruel. Any budget. In fact, when Obama was asked about something similar in regards to Obamacare, he said "maybe you just send some folk home with a pain pill or something. Not everyone needs an operation." (the operation was an expensive one).

Jesus, you are obdurate. Please provide a citation for this. (ps, I'm just gonna ask nicely this once, and if you don't give a cite, I'm going to chalk this up to more defamation by you.)

Originally Posted by Adak

Romney is correct however - the federal gov't can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home. Why should it be? That's why we have insurance companies, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have insurance on their home. Maybe a few Democrats don't, but they're always hard to figure out. Paying for the National Guard to be brought in is fine, but paying people for their losses - no. The federal gov't is NOT our insurance company. Which is good, because the fed's could never run as efficiently as any insurance company.

I agree with you, the federal government can't afford to be a replacement for insurance on your home.

But no one is suggesting that. You are melodramatically exaggerating the role of FEMA.

Originally Posted by Adak

The help that you are appealing for, should come from the State, but most immediately, from the nearby and affected communities, friends, and various charity groups like the Red Cross, etc. Katrina is a lesson in this. The people went to the Superbowl for shelter, expecting the gov't to take care of them. But the gov't had told them to bring their own provisions, etc. Many did not however. So the Superbowl was completely overwhelmed, both in numbers, and in what they needed. They simply weren't set up to handle THAT many people.

Money from the state, collected in the state, distributed to the state? No interstate/federal help?

Originally Posted by Adak

And it took days for FEMA to get even bottled water in to those inside.

This last hurricane that hit New Orleans, the city was clear - The Superbowl is CLOSED, and no one will be admitted. So what happened? The people made their own arrangements, and everything worked out much better. Of course, there was much less flooding, but the idea is that YOU are the one responsible for your own safety, and YOU will do a LOT better job than some FEMA director in Washington can do for you. (The director's previous job was as an officer in an Arabian horse club, btw Oh! I hate Crony Politicians!)

Do you REALLY want to put your safety in the hands of these nitwits? Why? Please discuss!

My god, you sound like Romney, that you believe that people, some 47% of us, won't take responsibility for our lives, that we, some 47% of us, believe it is the federal government's responsibility to take care of us in every way, including our safety. Unbelievable.

Yet.

You would blindly put our national safety in the hands of the same "nitwits", with an even bigger military budget. Gotcha. I doubt you can explain that one away, but you probably meant to say something else.