Pat Buchanan says Bring Our Marines Home

[yellowtail3]

Back to the thread, we were already moving out of Japan partially on their dime. Now they don't want to pay, and many here support our move. Where do we get the $ for that again? Where do we put all the assets moved? Which district gets the jobs to build another base? You see where I'm going?

The decision to withdraw costs a lot of $ ... we don't have.

Bring the home, sell the equipment there if it's not worth bringing back, and demobilize troops as needed. Those who want to stay in, may have to find other jobs.  Or get out, and find jobs. I predict most will stay in ((military is a good deal, esp. right now)

[Cabin4]

Congress spends $, the President can only voice support for legislation.

Back to the thread, we were already moving out of Japan partially on their dime. Now they don't want to pay, and many here support our move. Where do we get the $ for that again? Where do we put all the assets moved? Which district gets the jobs to build another base? You see where I'm going?

The decision to withdraw costs a lot of $ ... we don't have.

The burst of money we spend on the exit plan out of Japan will pay us back over the long term. I'd look at the initial spend as an investment. In any case, in pricipal we should not have man & material on their soil.

[rio grande]

Dependsn how you view spending.
Republicans spend money on defense.
Democrats spend "more" money on social prjects.
One is infastructure and one is socialism.
Blessings

Defense spending isn't infrastructure - it creates no wealth, sustains nothing, just burns $.
The democrats are sure spending a lot on defense also!
Is it 'Obush' or Bushbama'?

[williamlayton]

Rio
That is like saying Roads don't create wealth.
Infastructure protects and gives the means to create wealth--jobs, industry, economy.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

Rio
That is like saying Roads don't create wealth.
Infastructure protects and gives the means to create wealth--jobs, industry, economy.
Blessings

Roads and other infrastructure do not create wealth.

Infrastructure is one of the many enabling components that facilitate commerce. Only the private sector can create wealth and it uses that infrastructure when actual commerce is engaged. There is a difference.

[williamlayton]

Without roads can private enterprise build them?
Roards, Railroads, airports and Ports are the means of commerce.
Which was one of the reasons for the Civil War--that and levy's to protect American maufacturering.
The United States is and should be responsible for infastructure--which includes the military--it produces a climate of commerece and growth for the nation.
Can the military Industrial Climate get out of hand-sure-and Isenhower was particuly aware of this.
Is it outof hand now---I think so.
Are our bases in other countries out of hand--some see it that way. I am cautious on this subject. If you are a world player--and we are--they are necessary to portray a presence and protect American interest abroad---protecting shipping is a good example.
Some see that as leverageing--and, since there is no perfect world, I must agree that it can be. I can't agree that it is all bad and it must be managed correctly. The present administration shows no expertise in the area of management.
The history of Japan is at an end, much as our presence in Germany, so moving on is a good decision---BUT---we still need a base for presence in the Pacific and Asia.
Blessings

[Cabin4]

Without roads can private enterprise build them?
Roards, Railroads, airports and Ports are the means of commerce.
Which was one of the reasons for the Civil War--that and levy's to protect American maufacturering.
The United States is and should be responsible for infastructure--which includes the military--it produces a climate of commerece and growth for the nation.
Can the military Industrial Climate get out of hand-sure-and Isenhower was particuly aware of this.
Is it outof hand now---I think so.
Are our bases in other countries out of hand--some see it that way. I am cautious on this subject. If you are a world player--and we are--they are necessary to portray a presence and protect American interest abroad---protecting shipping is a good example.
Some see that as leverageing--and, since there is no perfect world, I must agree that it can be. I can't agree that it is all bad and it must be managed correctly. The present administration shows no expertise in the area of management.
The history of Japan is at an end, much as our presence in Germany, so moving on is a good decision---BUT---we still need a base for presence in the Pacific and Asia.
Blessings

Thus, infrastructure is one of the many "enabling" components for wealth delivery. By itself, it cannot create wealth nor is it any guarantee that wealth will be created because of it. I agree the private sector cannot build all the required infrastructure. But the private sector determines where wealth will happen and the infrastructure follows to help enable that. Things like the bridge to nowhere not only did not create wealth, its took wealth away. Infrastructure projects that have no or little private sector business support/requirements will simply spend tax payer money for the project and return no long term jobs/wealth. Building an airport without agreement from the airlines and cargo air companies to fly planes in/out will deliver nothing in the form of jobs/wealth. Building a shipping port without agreement from the steam ship lines to use the port will deliver no jobs/wealth.

Infrastructure is simply one of the many building blocks to the economy. It is not a cutting edge in the process, it is simply backbone created from private sector wealth.

[Dixie Dude]

Actually a couple of years ago, the gasoline tax took in more tax money for the Federal Govn't than they were spending on infrastructure repairs and replacements.  Congress was using a couple hundred billion out of the gas tax for the general fund.  The money has been there, but was spent on something else.  Like Social Security, it was solvent and had a big reserve, but when they added medicare and medicaid to it, it dried up.  Kind of like we have the best Interstate highway system in the world, and they want mass transit high speed trains.  Well that is what the airlines were for, but now it is a bottleneck with all the screening going on.  Just something else to spend money on.  Europeans and the Japanese can use high speed trains since their countries are only as big as a couple of our states.  Air travel is still cheaper and faster than high speed rail.  Only for short distances of 400-500 miles or less does high speed rail make it worth wile, but you can drive that in about 6-7 hours and have your car when you get there.  So, it is still not worth it.  High speed rail will probably end up being like Amtrack, a money hole for our tax dollars to throw in. 

[williamlayton]

Comuter/high speed rail is not about cross country or commerical distribution.
It is about fuel and less cars on the road--going to and from work--public transportation.
It does make sense and many in America use it for such.
Long range High speed rail makes sense as the it is faster--as is the airplane.
Blessings

[Dixie Dude]

Sounds good, but we can't afford it right now.  If our deficit spending doesn't stop, we are headed for a disaster.  We can't afford foreign aid, health care, high speed rail.  I heard on TV the other night, that in no country does high speed rail pay for itself.  Even in China where they are building one, it doesn't pay for itself.  The foreign countries hope that it does, but they still have to subsidise it.  If our debt reaches 20 trillion, our currency will fail, according to some economists. 

[Cabin4]

Comuter/high speed rail is not about cross country or commerical distribution.
It is about fuel and less cars on the road--going to and from work--public transportation.
It does make sense and many in America use it for such.
Long range High speed rail makes sense as the it is faster--as is the airplane.
Blessings

Well, Obama is proposing a so called "comuter high speed rail" from LA to San Francisco! Thats about 400 miles! It will cost billions to build and no one will use it becasue air fares are less.  No ones is "comuting from LA to SFO. Its a business route.

Another runs from LA to Las Vegas. Another so call "commuter" lane. No one commutes from LA to Las Vegas except gamblers.

As long as we have a deregulated airline industry (which we should have), hi speed rail makes little sence. It cost more and takes longer. These rails are mostly all pork projects that the tax payers will subsidize forever to keep the union workers employed. Just another move to redistribute wealth masked by so called "infrastructure" fake union paying stimulus pork.

[Squib]

deregulated air travel.... I've heard rumors about targeting private planes now, for "security/terrorist/suicide" reasons

they're going to crush it sooner or later, and force us onto trains that they can start and stop however, whenever.  cars can be stopped by just blocking a road.  once a plane is in the air it's reasonably committed- so they'll be restricted from going up, more and more.  IMO of course 

[williamlayton]

Military is infastructure insofar as it provides protection of the Republic.
Ifastructure can determine where wealth is located.
Climate can, to some extent, determine where wealth is located.
Tariffs protect manufactureing infastructre.
The history of roads and transportation in America is an interesting study--as well as why some areas resisted and then complained because maunufacturering passed them by.
Blessings