What would you change in government?

If one were to believe the polls, a large majority of Americans are profoundly dissatisfied with the way the government is being run, and consequently, the direction the country is headed.

Congratulations…you’ve won the political lottery! You’ve been anointed Czar of America. You now have all authority to establish, eliminate, or adjust any and all governmental programs and policies.

What do you do?  Would you bestow any new rights or take any away or reduce them?

I realize this is similar to everyone’s lottery winning fantasy and there’s just so much that needs fixing. But where would you begin, what are your top three changes?


  1. Term limits.

    Outlaw deficit spending.

    Clearly define objectives of programs and shut down the ones that aren’t working.

  2. Put it back on Constitutional footing, eliminate the Federal Reserve and go back on the gold standard, get rid of the Department of Education (invented by Pres. Carter to reward unions), get rid of the ENDA (if it gets passed), make the Military strong and boot out homosexuals, take women out of combat roles, and one heck of a lot of cutting out welfare (end the Social Security – no one else gets on it), enforce deportation of illegals, bring our military out of the Islamic countries and put them on our border with Mexico.
    Get rid of inheritance taxes, get rid of farm subsidies, get production back into the USA.

    Gee, there are so many things to do that I can’t think of them all at once!

  3. WideAwakeChristian says:

    Strict term limits (6 years max), independent election monitoring, and treason charges for any elected official that introduces a bill or amendment that violates the constitution

  4. I would simply revert everything back to the world of our Founding Fathers. Women would be unable to own property, speak only when spoken to, and no voting, I mean that’s a given. All “men” are created equal.

    Africans would be slaves of course, and if someone owes a debt they can themselves be an indentured servant, or use their children to pay said debt.

    Zero federal programs beyond the militias and burgeoning army. We need those to kill indians.

    I also really like Glenn’s idea of using our military on our own soil, which is against the Constitution.

    And wideawake with treason charges? WTF? I mean the two of you just defined why you are a minority in a minority…..your’e going the way of the dinosaurs.

    • Nash says; I also really like Glenn’s idea of using our military on our own soil, which is against the Constitution.

      Wow, what Constitution are you reading? I said to have the military protect our borders – isn’t that what our military is for – protecting us against invasion?

      Nash: I am dumbfounded to hear that any of you think that it is a good idea to remove women from combat.

      I was dumbfounded when they began letting women into combat roles. Throughout history we have been protective of our women. They are not built like men, they do not have the psychological make-up of men, etc. They are women, and for some of us we find it totally lacking in chivalry to put a woman in a combat situation. Only barbarians would use their women as cannon fodder, or let them be taken by the enemy for abuse.
      And of course, physical standards are lower for women (at least they were when I was in when they first let women be parachute qualified when men with those standards wouldn’t have made it). A woman is not “equal” to a man in such roles. But if you want you wife and daughter taken by the Taliban or other Muslims, feel free. (By the way, when the Constitution was written, there was no more thought about putting women into combat than there was about permitting same-sex fake marriage.)

      John gave a lot more excellent reasons. Women are very often non-deployable due to menstrual problems, and wherever there have been men and women put in very close quarters (like on ships) there is lots of sexual tension, sexual liaisons and pregnancies – which make the women non-deployable.

  5. I’d start with a zero based budget, set priorities than fully fund them. Zero out programs that can be gotten rid of.

    Re think our military commitments. Pull troops out of Europe and other countries where they are not needed, reinvest in training, equipment, and pay increases.

    Mandate limits on both deficits as well as the national debt based on % of GDP. Move away from “mandatory” debt limit increases.

    Revamp the tax system.

    Sorry, that’s 4.

  6. We already have term limits. It’s called “the voting booth”.

    As to my top three, I need to give it some thought. So much is wrong.

  7. I would criminalize all elective abortions.

    I would end most corporate welfare.

    I would ensure that every citizen receives basic healthcare.

    I would end a lot of the unjust and foolish regulations foisted on businesses.

    I would push through a line item veto – unless this would be unnecessary given I’m Czar!

    I would close a lot of the “Cold War” military bases and use the savings to provide better and safer equipment for our military men and women.

    Like Glenn, I would remove women from combat.

    I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head, but there’s other stuff I’d do. I know that’s more than three, but since I’m Czar and all…

  8. Another vote against term limits.

  9. I don’t like term limits myself, but without them how long would we be stuck with Obama, given the changing demographics?

    • I know, that sucks. My only real beef against term limits is that I think you should be able to vote for whoever you want. What if I have a congressman or senator or governor or president I think is representing me the best?

      • Richard Nash says:

        I am dumbfounded to hear that any of you think that it is a good idea to remove women from combat. On what grounds?

        So even as president you would remove Constitutional rights of individuals? Only a dictator would do such a thing.

        Is it not their right to serve? For a demographic that prides itself on individuals freedoms, how do you square revoking a woman’s right to serve her country “equally”, as compared to her male counterparts? This would seem in direct conflict with espousing freedoms in general.

        And for the record, having served with women for years, my wife included, it has not weakened the military readiness of our forces. They have every Constitutional right to serve in combat. 

        • Where is that right in the constitution? I’m not challenging you, I’ve just never heard that.

          I think for one, men have an innate drive to protect women. They make unnecessary risks to protect a woman that they would for a man. That and hygiene issues on combat deployment and issues related to sexual privacy. Where do they use the bathroom and shower? Where do they change clothing? Do we create a separate infrastructure for them? Or do they just not get privacy?

        • It’s not really about whether they can operate a tank or shoot a gun.

  10. paynehollow says:

    I would cut the military budget by at least half (probably more, but maybe just half to start with, to allow for an adjustment time.)

    I would end any wars and military actions short of stopping an invasion attempt (which isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen).

    If we aren’t policing the world, there is no reason for us to have such a large military budget (more than the next 26 or so countries combined, if my memory serves correctly).

    I would pay the War Crimes fine we owe to Nicaragua ($17 billion! but it’s a legitimate debt and would demonstrate we are a nation of laws and abide by those laws, rather than a nation that sees itself above the law.) The $17 billion would be paid for with money saved by cutting the military budget in half.

    I would end the “war on drugs.” I would decriminalize marijuana and let it be sold in the same way cigarettes are sold. I would tax the sales of marijuana and a portion of the sales from marijuana, cigarette and alcohol sales taxes would go to remediating the problems associated with those drugs.

    Driving while under the influence would not be tolerated. If you got caught, you’d lose your license for a given time (one year for a first offense, would be my suggestion).

    I would not support the free sale of crack or heroin or any harder drugs, but I would decriminalize it, or change the laws so that if you were caught using or selling, you’d be sent to rehab courses, not prison.

    So far, I’ve saved our nation hundreds of billions of dollars each year, by my military cuts and by my ending the Drug War. Some portion of that money would be put into place to improvements in prisoner rehab/education, in education and community improvement (I haven’t thought this part through – the idea is that by my military budget cuts and prison cuts – while saving lots of money, I’ve also cut out a lot of jobs, so this is to pour some money back into job creation… how this would happen, I’d have to ponder on).

    I’d invest some money in finding sustainable energy solutions.

    I’d invest some money in responsible foreign aid and rational international efforts to stop war crimes and genocide responsibly.

    The money that I’ve saved that wasn’t spent on these programs/solutions would go back to the people – a tax savings.

    For starters.


  11. paynehollow says:

    Oh, I’m with the term limit people.

    Also, a change in the way people can raise money for elections – no corporate money, financial caps. Money is not speech.

    • The military should have the major part of the budget, so that we have the best in the world, which will prevent people even thinking about invasion. Of course only those who understand history know that, while others who think if we just say we want peace and put flowers in our hair no bad guys will bother us. Stripping the military now is already a major problem.

  12. paynehollow says:

    I guess we can see who is for a BIG gov’t and who isn’t.


    Women are very often non-deployable due to menstrual problems

    Not deployable because they’d be TOO mean and ready to kill, you mean? That IS an unfair advantage that women have when it comes to killing… perhaps you’re right.


  13. paynehollow says:

    And you are a beloved child of God with a bit of bitterness, it seems. Love you just the same, big guy!


    • No bitterness, Dan, just no tolerance for fools like you.

    • Richard Nash says:

      John, the Constitution is based on the MA Constitution which was written 7 years earlier. 4 of the Founding Fathers were responsible for that document.

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      “We the People” means women and men can equally contribute to “insuring domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defence.” They will be a proactive element in “securing the blessings of Liberty.”

      Sexism is unsupportable if you allow for 100 plus years of various court rulings concerning a woman’s role in our culture. You are supporting the right of the Pentagon to use sex as a basis for discrimination. That my friend is against the law. Unless you are for “separate and equal”?

      And just because you have trouble wrapping your head around the possibility and raise the usual set of bs reasons as a way to justify your sexist position, will not change the fact that they have the right to defend their country the same as any man.

      They already have solved all of the issues that you guys have raised. Why are you so far behind the times? My wife served in combat in 2003. She was not the only woman in that role. The privacy issue has been resolved.

      Glenn, women have been warring for thousands of years, of their own accord. Nobody is “putting” these women in these roles. It’s part of their free practice of liberty that allows for it. None of you have the right to deny a person their rights because you think your chivalrous 15th century bullshit trumps their right to defend their country. You are only capable of raising red herrings in your attempts to paint women as inferior. I sure have met a lot of men who are not capable, for some of the reasons you mentioned, and for a host of other reasons. Have you an argument for weeding them out?

      Glenn, it is against the law to use US military troops on US soil, unless there is a specific threat of nuclear material. This has been held up by the SC. Unless you plan to have the troops stationed on Mexico’s side of the border?

      There have been 900 female casualties between Iraq and Afghanistan, all volunteers in the worlds greatest military.

      • It is Not Unconstitutional to use troops on U.S. soil. THat is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in a long time. THEY ARE STATIONED ON U.S. SOIL!!!. They fought in the Civil War, and the Mexican War, let alone the Indian wars – all on U.S. Soil. They are for the defense of this nation. If we are being invaded from the south, why is it unconstitutional to station troops to stop the invasion!?!?!

        Women are not physically or physiologically capable of most needs of war time. Whether women have fought in wars doesn’t make it right. And NO, they haven’t solved those issues – they are still there, right along with the issue of have “gays” being along with the normal troops (yes, I said “normal” vs “gay”). It is bad for moral to have “gays” sharing shower and latrine facilities knowing they may be sexually aroused by looking at the guys. You liberals as so desensitized to human sexuality being nothing but a free-for-all that it is no wonder modesty is a thing of the past.

        Now that women have gotten access to combat roles, you can be sure if and when a draft is re-established, women will be required to go to combat. All because a bunch of feminists think they should have the right to fight wars.

        It’s no use arguing with a liberal.

        • Posse Commitatus prevents the use troops on US soil with the exception of the Coast Guard which falls under Homeland Security. They are stationed on US soil but cannot be used there unless there is an invasion. I have news for you, illegal immigrants are not an invading military force. Do you know who wrote this piece of Congressional legislation? Look it up.

          Your sexist rant about women is exactly why women have been allowed into combat. You are way behind the times Glenn. Your sexism is not persuasive. Your ideas about gays in the military is just as divisive, and you haven’t convinced anyone but yourself. We have gays and women in the US military and we are just as strong as before, in spite of your biased opinion.

          It is also against the law that only men should sign up for the draft. Wow, you sure do have a slippery set of ideas about what passes for equal and free. Freedom and equality for some, some of the time, if it passes your biblical morality test? You lose.

          And yes they have solved those issues Glenn. Stop already with your cognitive dissonance, it’ very unattractive. They were solved when I was still in. I am on Ft. Hood at least twice a week, I know people from 1 star generals down to E-2’s, dozens of them, and guess what Glenn, you are in the minority in thinking that these female logistics haven’t been solved.

          • Keep deceiving yourself, Nash, just like every other liberal. You think men and women are not different, but any grade-schooler knows the difference between boys and girls.

            Your ilk have a unisex idea about everything. Share bathrooms and shower facilities because they are all just the same – like they now do in the schools in California.

            Oh, and Posse Commitatus has nothing to do with stationing troops in the U.S. to fight an enemy (and yes, illegals are an enemy – “ILLEGAL” means something in English, and even Muslims are crossing our border) which has invaded or attempting to invade. They are not acting as a posse to enforce laws if they are acting to stop invasions or aggressive acts by terrorists. Perhaps you should actually read what it prohibits. Oh, wait, facts don’t mean anything to liberals.

            And the only “minority” that I am in is that I’m not a flaming liberal.

            • Your slippery Glenn, oh so slippery. But not slippery enough. The point was never about differences between the anatomy of men and women, in spite of your childish attempt to make it that. We aren’t all simpletons though. The premise is that “you” have no right, much less a relevant argument to revoke women of their right to serve. You and your kind have already lost that fight. Why do you carry on?

              Let me ask you Glenn, why isn’t the US military on the border fighting illegals? Better yet, why aren’t you? Why do you support business’s and industries that employ illegals? Is it because your a big fat, old hypocrite? Or is it something else?

              I have a copy of the Act right here on my desk Glenn, care to read it? Why hasn’t a single president or Chief of Staff, or the Pentagon or the State Dept said that our border with Mexico is a war zone and declared Mexicans trying to cross the border as combatants?

              So you are for separate and unequal? What a surprise?

              • I wasn’t talking about anatomy either, except for the fact than men are NORMALLY stronger physically and their bodies designed better for physical strength, as well as their physiology, and psychology.

                There are a lot of things people have a “RIGHT” to do, but wisdom says they shouldn’t exercise such rights due to the possibility of causing harm. If i’m wounded in combat to where I need to be carried out, or if I’m in a burning house and need to be carried out, who would be more likely to be able to carry me – male or female?

                I don’t support business or industries who employ illegals – why would you suggest I do? But none of us can know 100% if anyone employs them, can we?

                Yes, why are not our military on our border stopping that invasion rather than over in the middle east in everyone else’s business? Why am I not there? Not legally allowed. And I don’t live close and I’m not about to change my whole live at my age just to stop illegals when the government doesn’t give a damn that they are sucking us dry. I’m only one person – I’m not an army. But if I lived down there, I’d do like a lot of those ranchers and make sure they don’t come across my land.

                Why don’t our politicians call it a war zone? Demokrats get their votes from them and their friends, so they won’t do it. BUt the main reason is political correctness – the same reason our politicians refuse to accept that Islam is a danger to us.

                Men and women are equal as humans, and as equal before God, but they aren’t equal in their roles. Do you know any man who can get pregnant? (and, no, a mutilated woman who now calls herself a man doesn’t count).

              • I am still trying to figure where your “wisdom” revokes another persons rights. Thankfully your opinion is again irrelevant when it comes to equality for women who wish to serve their country. None of what you have put forward could be used to legally disallow women from serving in combat. They are the same old christian conservative ideas, they don’t hold up.

                I can’t even begin to comprehend how out of touch with reality you are to suggest that women shouldn’t also be fire fighters!

                Have you eaten fast food Glenn or eaten any processed meat in the last 30 years? Well you just supported illegals. Koch Foods, American Apparel, all fruits and vegetables picked and processed in the US, Agriprocessors, Pilgrims Pride, Del Monte…….should I even go on? They lobby every day to keep their illegal armed combatants working in their factories. How many of those factories are owned by liberals Glenn?

                Nice way to wiggle out of joining a militia to prevent the invading Mexican combatants. Why not move closer if it’s so frickin important? Why let someone else fight your war on unarmed Mexican terrorists?

                Why don’t any republicans call it a war zone Glenn. Don’t try to change the subject. Why didn’t Cheney and Ashcroft call them enemies of the state? Why doesn’t Cruz or any tea party zealot call them an invading army?

                So men can’t get pregnant? I thought your point had nothing to do with anatomy……….

              • Nash why don’t I have the right to join the military next year? You know, since it’s a right.

              • I don’t understand the question. Currently only your age or health can keep you out. The age has been raised twice since 9/11.
                What does next year have to do with it?

                I responded already with a legal framework from the Constitution. Every person has an equal right to take a role in defending the country.

              • But I’ll be 36, that’s age discrimination. Age or health doesn’t negate rights does it?

              • Wow John! I have great news!!! You can still join, and I implore you to do so. It is always a magnificent moment when people put their money where their mouth is.

                And you can serve well past 39.5 years old. Even if your health deteriorates, as long as you can pass the physical demands your in! I just did an event with some Soldiers missing limbs still serving! And don’t worry they have a program to get your fat ass into shape! It’s free! They do discriminate against felons though.

                And if your attempting to equate being a quadriplegic or a senior citizen with being a physically fit 24 year old female, your an effing moron. I triple dog dare you to go your nearest VA women’s health center or military post and tell them that you think they are inferior and unfit to serve, or that you regret that they were allowed to serve in the first place. I dare you.

              • Nash, why dont you go back and reread my reasons for thinking women shouldnt serve in combat roles. HINT: It has nothing to do with their abilities.

              • So are you joining?
                Are you still equating women with the handicapped?

                “I think for one, men have an innate drive to protect women. They make unnecessary risks to protect a woman that they would for a man. That and hygiene issues on combat deployment and issues related to sexual privacy. Where do they use the bathroom and shower? Where do they change clothing? Do we create a separate infrastructure for them? Or do they just not get privacy?

                1) Men have an innate drive to protect everyone, including their fellow Soldiers. They give out medals for taking unnecessary risks to protect each other.

                2) Hygiene has been fixed. Women have been deployed on the front lines since the Civil War and specifically, and officially since 1908 the Navy allowed nurses to be in combat zones. How and why could you continue to harp on hygiene. Women have been on the front lines in the suck for a decade straight. Where are you getting your information from?
                3) Bathroom and shower? Fixed. Separate showers, separate sleeping quarters. Husband and wives if deployed to the same theater can usually share a pod that is their’s alone. Most junior enlisted share a room with 1-3 other Soldiers.

                4) Privacy is less on the ground but not absent. The infrastructure doesn’t need to be created by “you”, don’t worry we already took care of it………..years and years ago. We learned how to do it when women needed their own boot camps etc.

                Where is your legal framework to revoke an individuals rights to defend their country? How would you argue your premise before a jury or federal judge?

              • where is your legal right to revoke someone’s right if theyre “too old”?

              • I have never said that someone should be restricted by age have I? I simply filled you in on the Army’s/DoD policy. Have you ever written your Congressional rep or Senator about this egregious discrimination John? Nope….a mind numbingly rhetorical exercise at best. Why the double standards?

                Your pro Constitution and sexist views are antithetical.

                Now, are you joining, are you off to the nearest military post to tell all of those women that they are inferior, will you be equating them to invalids and the handicapped? Why?

                So I addressed your individual “concerns” and you returned with this?

                No matter how many times you move the goal posts you will always be wrong.

                Can you make a legal argument against women in the military or not? Your rehashing of other peoples concerns shows that you are toeing the party dogma indoctrination. Why not allow women to continue to serve? What happens in your life if women are defending your right to sit on your keyboard in a first world country? They make up more than 15% of active duty personnel.

                Under your archaic 16th century dictum would women be allowed to do anything, vote, speak, own property?

              • Are you unable to discuss this without putting words in my mouth or not? How can you expect me to entertain your position if you can’t even be honest with mine?

              • Where is your legal framework to revoke an individuals rights to defend their country? How would you argue your premise before a jury or federal judge?

              • Nash,
                I didn’t say MY wisdom – the wisdom of the person who wants to exercise a so-called right.

                Putting women in combat has nothing to do with legality and every thing to do with common sense and morality. Americans used to be very protective of their women, but now with feminism where women want to be men, same-sex fake marriage, sexual immorality rampant, so-called gender confusion, our society sees women as just another guy.

                So you think every fast-food restaurant supports illegals? How many are owned by liberals? I wouldn’t know, but my guess would be a lot because they want the Demokrat vote to keep the illegals. There is no way I can know what restaurant or clothing store, etc supports illegals. And, guess what – I used to boycott businesses which supported the homosexual agenda, but now you have boycott everything for that so I gave up except for those who are really blatant and in your face about it – like Home Depot.

                As for your comment about me not joining a militia, you are just an ass.

                I told you why NO politician calls it a war zone – political correctness. It doesn’t matter that people are being killed down there on an almost daily basis, that we’ve lost border-patrol officers, that our President armed the drug dealers etc, we need to be politically correct rather than sealing that border.

                So how about you, Nash, why don’t you go over to the middle east and quit letting other people protect you?

                Your little rant about anatomy was nothing but about sex organ differences. Pregnancy is a role for women, not men – that was my point. A role in defending the country does not have to be on the battlefield. Look at what women did in WWII!

                I can see debating with Nash is as futile as doing so with Trabue. A waste of time with liberals, atheists, and false teachers. They are unteachable as they make themselves their own gods.

              • Richard Nash says:

                Well Glenn, your morality, your wisdom or not, since you think it unwise, or your common sense are “NOT” the determining factors are they? You and your metrics play no role in that decision, again you must submit your biblical morality and your common sense to the will and self determination of the individual. They have their own rights, imbued by the Constitution. I know you long for the old days, but you should have instilled a different form of government if you wanted women to have no rights, if you felt they should be subjugated to your will indefinitely.

                Glenn, the entire meat industry is supported by illegals. All meat! All of it! That meat goes to every fast food chain. You are, everyday supporting illegals by buying fruits and vegetables grown in the US, or any meat product. The meat industry is supported by very conservative vote-buying lobbying firms.   


                Read this essay and the works cited at the bottom. Your entire food chain is worked by illegals, those immigrants are kept here by big business and their lobbys, the majority being conservative. I can find zero of the business’s or industries that I listed to be owned or lobbied for by liberals. Smithfield Foods, a perfectly average example. All conservative, the board, primary shareholders, and their lobby group. They have been busted too man times to count, and simply paid their fines and kept doing what they do. Koch? Same thing.  

                And yes there is a way for you to know if a business uses illegals as part of their business strategy, that is if you care to do your due diligence. Imagine if you put your time where your mouth is if this issue is something so important to you, that you might consider doing something legitimate about it, as opposed to just the usual whining caterwauling. How can I know which business’s or industries support an illegal workforce? Due diligence.

                And guess what, I’m not a liberal Glenn. I know that makes you feel better because it’s all you have, you just cast your wide net generalizations, and hiss away with the name calling, but seriously, I have lost numerous liberal friends over the years over this very issue. I do not support illegals. It’s hard. I threw a contracting company off my property 8 months ago because they had illegals on board. A liberal would not do that. A liberal doesn’t talk about cuts to social services, a liberal doesn’t talk about gutting PE and jailing the teachers unions, a liberal doesn’t join the military to kill jihading psycho zealots. Get your generalizations straight Glenn. I know it’s easier to just call people names but just because we disagree doesn’t make me a liberal.

                The border militias put up and then shut up Glenn. You seem to go on about illegals, but then….don’t do anything about it. The roving border militias are doing something about it, or so they think.

                And your opinion about the war zone analogy is total bullshit. The tea party is nothing about being PC. Let me fill you in Glenn, the reason no one call it a war zone, is because it’s not. Kandahar, Mazari Sharif, Miran Shah, are war zones Glenn, and when you use those terms to describe places that are not you diminish the meaning for those in real war zones.

                Who in the ME is protecting me? When was the last time you were there Glenn?

                Every time your position is failing you resort to the same old habits, name calling. Why not admit that your proposition is flawed?

  14. paynehollow says:

    Sorry if I make your life more difficult, it is not my intent. But then, your distaste for me and my love for you are not really the point of this post.

    On topic:

    I’d, of course, repeal the DOMA and promote marriage… or maybe encourage the gov’t to get out of the marriage business altogether… one or the other. I don’t see that it’s really the federal gov’t’s place to promote certain marriages.


  15. paynehollow says:


    Stripping the military now is already a major problem.

    Our military budget is larger than the next 26 nations combined. Cutting it by half – so that we’re only larger than the next, say TEN nations combined – is not the same as “stripping the budget.” It’s bringing it down to a more reasonable level. We could then use some of those dollars to reinvest in ourselves and in peacemaking efforts outside of military angles.

    As the saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

    Our budget is over $600 billion/year. China’s (the next biggest spender) only spends $100 billion-ish.

    By contrast, our foreign aid budget is about $23 billion.

    If we cut the budget to “only” $300 billion, we could up our foreign aid up to $100 billion, pay for some of these other programs I’m speaking of and still return money to the taxpayer, all without even beginning to “strip” the military budget.

    We don’t need to be the world’s police. Getting countries to behave by military action is not a winning approach even if we wanted to do that. We need smarter solutions.

    ~Czar Dan

    • You don’t compare our spending to other countries to determine whether or not the amount we are spending is reasonable.

      If that’s the standard you want to use then we need to cut a whole lot of money out of our education budget because we spend many times over with the next 26 countries spend with worse results. Dan, should we also cut education spending?

    • John,
      I don’t think there SHOULD be federal education spending. Leave that to the states. Which is why I said I’d get rid of the Dept. of Education.

      Otherwise, I have to agree with you about spending comparisons. I also don’t want us to be the world’s police force, but I want to have the best and strongest military in the world, which it is doubtful we have it now.

  16. paynehollow says:

    If we are spending more than the next 26 nations combined and STILL don’t have the best defense, what would it take???

    Are you advocating a military budget of $1 gazillion?

    • We do have the best defense. I’m talking education. We out spend every nation and are mediocre at best. Should we cut education spending because we out spend other countries?

  17. Not deployable because they’d be TOO mean and ready to kill, you mean? That IS an unfair advantage that women have when it comes to killing… perhaps you’re right.

    Sorry, Glenn, but that was funny.

  18. paynehollow says:


    If that’s the standard you want to use then we need to cut a whole lot of money out of our education budget because we spend many times over with the next 26 countries spend with worse results. Dan, should we also cut education spending?

    1. I don’t think it’s true that we spend “many times over” the next 26 nations. But I’ll entertain a credible source to back this up.

    Here’s one source I found…


    …that says we DO spend more, but not “many times more…” That says we spend $15,100 per student whereas Switzerland spends $14,900. And I believe that’s counting private dollars, not just tax dollars. But I have not really researched it. Do you have any support for that claim?

    2. I am also looking for results. I don’t think there is any evidence that our massive military budget makes us that much safer or that it is significantly stopping genocides/oppression in other places. But with our education spending, we still have ground to make up.

  19. paynehollow says:


    If you’re going to compare per capita student spending, you must do so for military personnel per capita too. You can’t equivocate.

    Compare total spending or compare per capita spending, but not different categories to suit yourself.

    1. You’re the one making the claim, doesn’t it seem like YOU would be the one to support it with data?

    2. Education spending (total dollars) is different than defense spending in that those dollars are to educate specific children. A nation with 10 million children would spend more total on the educational budget than a nation with 1 million children simply as a factor of size. Thus, how many children are being educated matters and thus, one can reasonably make the case that per child costs comparisons are more apt.

    3. I’m interested in seeing a direct spending chart of various nations but after spending some time looking, haven’t come across one, yet. Do you have a source?

    4. Education spending at least in the US is budgeted and funded locally predominantly, if I’m not mistaken. I see several prices of about $800 billion for US education, but what is that speaking of? Primary education? Public school only? Public/private? College and primary and secondary? I’d be interested in seeing some actual helpful data.

  20. paynehollow says:

    Oh, we should also factor in cost of living differences. A dollar will buy X amount in the US, but it might buy 2X or 3X in Mexico or China, so that would make a difference.


  21. “The U.S. Supreme Court, in cases where GI’s were seeking rights similar to those of civilians, has said, “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. We have also recognized that the military has, again by necessity, developed laws and traditions of its own during its long history. The differences between the military and civilian communities result from the fact that it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or ready to fight wars should the occasion arise. . . . An army is not a deliberative body. It is the executive arm. Its law is that of obedience.””

    I think this helps put into perspective why it would not be a denial of rights to deny women combat roles. The military needs to decide such things based on their own criteria for military readiness and of late there has been too much politics in deciding who can serve in what capacities.

    Thus, I, too, would deny women combat duty if I had the power to alter law, though I would still train them for such. I would NOT reduce standards of performance in order to give more people the opportunity of serving in ANY capacity as I would want only the best for the job. I would certainly not allow women aboard ships at sea, as more pregnancies, which interfere with the duties of a ship and its sailors, has resulted since women were allowed on board.

    There is no “right” serve, but only the right to apply to serve. The military cannot be made to conduct social experimentation. Only the deluded would pretend that there is no risks in mixing the sexes or homos and heteros. A recent AP report tells the tale:

    “The report says that of the 1.4 million active duty personnel, 6.1 percent of active duty women — or 12,100 — say they experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, a sharp increase over the 8,600 who said that in 2010. For men, the number increased from 10,700 to 13,900. A majority of the offenders were military members or Defense Department civilians or contractors, the report said.”

    Separating the sexes and “orientations” was always the best idea and remains so today.

  22. With my last comment, I include in my three changes:

    1. A sharper focus on the military. This focus includes the removal of women from
    combat roles and a reversal of the recent pro-homosexual changes, going back pre-DODT period of Bubba Clinton. (As Czar, my changes—including those that would expand this list of three beyond its scope—would reflect common sense and morality, to the best of my ability to do so) This sharpened focus on the military would also include spending to restore our ability to function quickly and efficiently, defending AT LEAST two fronts, able to successfully engage in two conflicts. Dan thinks spending on the military is akin to supporting BIG GOVERNMENT. But big government is not about spending money alone, but on what gov’t spends that money. If the government is spending money in the course of doing its Constitutionally defined duties, the government isn’t growing at all, but doing what it is supposed to be doing.

    2. Flat tax. This would be levied on ALL income, be it individuals or groups, such as corporations. NO write offs of any kind. For every dollar earned, the same percentage goes to the federal government no matter who you are.

    3. Review and eliminate as many growth inhibiting regulations as possible. Between this and a flat tax, our economy would improve rapidly and more people would be working, earning more and living better.

  23. Problems with women in combat, AFTER they get home:

    From the article, “Women Vets”: A Battle All Their Own,” in Parade Magazine, 11/10/13, by Barry Yoeman. Reference female combat vets.

    20% experienced military sexual trauma (“sexual assault or repeated threatening sexual harassment”)

    They are more likely to be single parent – and are leaving their children behind with some type of care-giver. Children should not have their only parents off to war.

    Marriages are twice as likely to end in divorce than those with men in combat roles.

    Women are overly stressed from trying to prove themselves.

    They make up the fastest-growing segment of the homeless.

    10.3% higher unemployment rates than men returning, and women non-vets

    40% are mothers and have more problems re-entering the family than do fathers.

    Diagnosed more often with “mental-health” problems than men.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: