American Politics the 2016 edition

Interestingly, when the question was added a lot of police officers were no longer able to privately buy a firearm.

Apparently MO law used to require a permit to carry concealed weapons, to get said permit required a background check and a gun training class. Seems very rational to me, and given gun nuts always go on about how people should be educated, trained etc etc about guns...I see no issue here, seems right up their ally. No one would be denied, unless they fail a background check or dont do the training, both of which I'd hope are pretty reasonable, if you want to carry a concealed weapon. 

I have no doubt they will flip a sh*t about it

While I am strongly in favor of defense spending being cut, that is deff one of the worst ways to do it. 

I am far from an expert on this stuff, but I always gathered tons of spending ends up wasted in inefficiency, or goes to a bloated bureaucracy, and lots of it going to defense contractors. And as we know they are not often the best examples of sound business.

I always figured there must be ways to cut defense spending, without making painful cuts to the actual people who serve. I mean...things were fine under Clinton as defense spending was falling, it soared under Bush so seemed rational to me going back to 2000 while perhaps painful short run, long run should be no issue. 

Just for curiosity sake, I wonder how much has spent through the GI Bill since its inception. It might be one of the, if not the, largest gov programs ever. Basically free college tuition for millions of people, plus low interest loans for housing, unemployment insurance and has been doing so since 1944. I'd also say it rivals Social Security in terms of success. Shame that today such an idea, on its own, would be socialism. 

I actually think that'd be great to do, explain it in generic terms to people on the right and see their reaction. Any horrified ones who yell socialism should then be told "Well I just described the GI bill"

The old GI Bill did not give free college tuition to veterans. If a veteran chose to go to college they received a monthly assistance while they were in school and trust me, this assistance was minimal.

Veterans did nor receive low interest home loans. If a vet wanted to buy a home they applied to the VA for a certificate of eligibility. Their application was approved or denied based on their income and their credit rating. The vet would then go to a private lender just like anyone else applying for a home loan. This certificate meant that the government was backing the loan and if the vet lost their home the government would buy back the loan from the lender. Most vets did not lose their homes and did not cost the government one dime. By the way, when I bought my home the interest rate was 15% whether you were a veteran or not.

There were no unemployment benefits through the GI Bill. If a vet was laid off from their job they would go to the unemployment office and apply for benefits just like everyone else. If their application was approved they would receive the amount they were eligible to receive just like any non vet.

Well that is interesting, it's certainly not what we're told. So what about the change in 73 prompted these changes? Extra "incentive" for people? 

Oh also I guess college also used to be much cheaper decades ago, so there's that to keep in mind. 

I am aware of the graph, but what I am asking is was it simply all due to the fact 2 wars were started, or is there any validity to some of the claims made above? Also why is it still so high? I get the 2 wars were responsible for most to all of the build up, but it's still at a high plateau even with the cuts, (which seem pretty benign when compared to post Korea, Vietnam and Cold War) Any idea why this is? That is what has boggled my mind, why it remains so high. So arguments about "hand outs" to defense contractors and etc do resonate because, well where is that spending going?

Still seems to me like we should be able to live at 2000 levels of defense spending.