Question for Clark fans

[imhotep]

Should our tax dollars subsidize corporations that build weapons of mass destruction? yes or no?

[RememberJohn]

1. If this is veiled criticism, it is weak...

Our tax dollars already subsidize corporations that build weapons. Our tax dollars go to the government, they use it to contract companies to build weapons.

So its been forever...

Dean won't change it.

Kucinich won't.

It won't end.

[imhotep]

6. you are correct.

It wont end. However, there is a big difference in the quantity.
Also, it would be a mistake to eliminate the issue of corporate welfare from the national political discussion.

[DealsGapRider]

7. Well said.

Nor should it end. As long as the world is filled with wicked people, it is only responsible that we remain well armed. We will continue to possess nuclear weapons (as the French and British do) for the deterrent factor. Our chemical and biological weapons are in the process of being completely destroyed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I Feel Like Dick Clark

The hits keep on coming

[RememberJohn]

3. I'll back whoever gets the nomination and cease all criticisms...

...if he (or she) isn't my choice. But I have a feeling if the nominee is anyone other then Dean or Kucinich some DUers aren't going to let it go.

[Kahuna]

8. DU rules don't allow the bashing of the nominee once he is selected...

nt

[RememberJohn]

10. Yes, I realize that... and I believe there are going to be a lot of...

...suspended accounts when/If Dean doesn't get the nod.

Whereas I am more partial to Clark and Kerry, I will happily support Dean.

I just don't see the reverse of that from some folks based on their posts.

[terryg11]

4. no

but as REmemberJohn already posted none of the dem candidates will change that.

[imhotep]

5. thanks for replying

.

[Kahuna]

9. Inasmuch as the weapons are built for use and control by the USA...

of course they should be subsidized. If defense contractors were building weapons for a "free market" the country would not need to subsidize their development and sales. They're weapons, not consumer products. Since the USA is the primary client and controls who can purchase the weapons, of course they're going to subsidize the manufacturers. Why shouldn't they?

[dfong63]

12. that's a bizarre argument

of course they should be subsidized. If defense contractors were building weapons for a "free market" the country would not need to subsidize their development and sales. They're weapons, not consumer products. Since the USA is the primary client and controls who can purchase the weapons, of course they're going to subsidize the manufacturers. Why shouldn't they?

huh? you think the US should subsidize SALES of WMD???? there is no legitimate need for more of them. the US already has enough to kill every person on the planet. if the US tries to acquire more, it's NOT for deterrent purposes. we already have enough, and we shouldn't be spreading them to other countries. you can debate over whether existing stocks should be destroyed, but it is idiotic to say we need more. we went to war supposedly over another country having "illegal" WMD's. but even the amount they (Iraq) were accused of having, was a mere drop in the ocean compared to the amount we (US) have. this is the height of hypocrisy, as former UN weapons inspection chief Richard Butler noted.

[Donna Zen]

11. Nevertheless

Who knows where the bodies of useless, boondoggle weapon systems are buried? Who stands a better chance of getting rid of them? Who could end the reign of PNAC?

Any Democrat who takes the office of Presidency will find themselves cash strapped. One upside of Clark's military connections would be his ability to access the loot for the greater good.