Originally Posted by jviehe

On the contrary, I think national defense is the highest priority of the federal govt, as its a specifically mentioned duty in the constitution. Keeping people fed is not mentioned anywhere. Of second importance is ensuring freedom and the rights enshrined in the constitution. This would mean the justice system, the congress, president. Pretty much everything else can go.

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,



There is a danger inherent in insisting that we maintain a military standing in the rest of the world while letting our interior matters deteriorate. I'm trying to look at it logically. What do you think will happen to the domestic frontier if, during an economic crash, we decide to maintain our military actions in other countries while cutting off support for our own people? Can you honestly see a current American president, no matter who wins the election, standing up in front of the TV and telling the American population the following:

My Fellow citizens.
The situation in our inner cities is dire. There is rioting over the basics of food and water. The rural landscape is under seige by those seeking to escape from the turmoil of the inner cities and violence is everywhere. However, we should be of good cheer. The situation in Iraq is improving. They have water and electricty in all areas. The violence is being calmed by our presence and the forces of the Taliban are being aggressively handled by the remains of our military forces. Don't worry the rest of the world is safe for democracy.



I'm sorry if this makes me an ass but the rest of the world will just have to fend for itself. We can't beggar our own country to provide security for the rest of the world. The money can best be spent here in making sure that our country is survivable. I would much rather give money to the poor here, keep our infrastructure intact, provide security for our immediate borders than help keep the rest of the world safe and fed.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely