As a great general and president once said:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron"
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron"
10
Senator McCain is right to want to lift the caps on DOD spending. DOD is a Constitutionally authorized department and mission. There are other areas where there is spending that has no Constitutional basis and that spending should be cut significantly and the responsibility returned to where it belongs, the states. Is there anyone who believes that the current federal government is a manageable entity? It is too big and is doing too many things not authorized by the US Constitution as a federal responsibility. The result is that we are heading towards bankruptcy. We are also heading towards anarchy. We have a Congress that doesn't do what it is suppose to do like that last few years with Harry Reid refusing to allow debate on numerous bills from the House. Then we have a President that thinks he can do whatever he wants but fails at doing that. Example, as a Nobel Peace person his foreign policy has made the world more dangerous. The debt and the size of the federal government must be reduced for the USA to survive.
It is American militarism and the vast outlays for the Pentagon which have made the US poorer and less secure relative to the rest of the world. Since Operation Desert Storm, America's ruling class decided to promiscuously use these toys in the vast Islamic world despite warnings from those of us who are experts on the region that this would lead to massive retaliation in kind from those on the receiving end. We were right and the Neo-Cons and the Southern Evangelicals were wrong. America has in no way profited from its serial wars of aggression in the Muslim world exactly as we predicted.
7
LET's include ALL the Preamble as a statement why we have a Constitution. Most important is the first three words "We the people" defines the government being created as being We the people not some foreign object. We the People is also the statement each struggle for civil rights (women's suffrage, voting rights, gay rights, etc) was about making true.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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 of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.
3
On one hand I share the fear of commentator Pat of Maplewood NJ that our excess spending on defense has led to the breakdown of our civil infrastructure including education and health care. On the other hand, spending on weapons and the military is probably our largest jobs/welfare program and curtailing it must be done with care.
2
We need the balance of political parties...or maybe it's the balance of priorities...in order to develop a budget which will assist all aspects of keeping our country healthy. Wiser heads of discuss, negotiate, collaborate, and decide on these things. There will always be differences, but we are set up to deal with differences.
However, in today's world, I would prefer the 5-year-olds of the Republican leadership not be allowed to fuss with the budget, and instead, hand over such important matters to the adults in the room.
However, in today's world, I would prefer the 5-year-olds of the Republican leadership not be allowed to fuss with the budget, and instead, hand over such important matters to the adults in the room.
3
The Congressional GOP is caught in a quandary and civil war that seems to be inherent to its fundamental nature. Since the membership of the GOP is largely conservative, they tend to be more authoritarian, rigid, less disposed to compromise and less tolerant of ambiguity … just ask a social psychologist. This is a formula for a continual state of infighting and stalemate within the Congress. This may be a state of existence that provides continual entertainment and stories for the press and television commentators for the next two years. But will also prove to be a time of further neglect of the needs of our country and its citizens … and that was the unwritten but clearly inferable part of this article.
3
If Congress REALLY wanted to cut spending but maintain or boost the military's budget, why not allow the Pentagon to close more bases it doesn't want or need anymore and sell off / dispose of the real estate?
The article below is a year old, but the situation hasn't changed. Members of Congress are terribly afraid of getting voted out of office if they close bases, which shows you where their priorities are - not in reducing federal deficits and in shrinking government, but getting re-elected.
I'd hardly call that serving America's best interest. What cowards!
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/pentagon-close-military-b...
The article below is a year old, but the situation hasn't changed. Members of Congress are terribly afraid of getting voted out of office if they close bases, which shows you where their priorities are - not in reducing federal deficits and in shrinking government, but getting re-elected.
I'd hardly call that serving America's best interest. What cowards!
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/pentagon-close-military-b...
6
The Defense budget can and should be greatly reduced by bringing many overseas military personnel back to the USA, so they can spend their money here, while working on infrastructure improvement.
The Defense budget should be greatly reduced by reducing expenditure on unnecessary weapons and other military hardware.
The Federal budget should be increased to pay for VA benefits and services, and to provide fuller employment in the government and private sectors, and provide better public education k-12 and college, and provide better healthcare.
If the government increases its budget to improve infrastructure, education and health, our society will benefit. An increased budget and full employment might be slightly inflationary, but that would devalue person debts and the National Debt.
The Defense budget should be greatly reduced by reducing expenditure on unnecessary weapons and other military hardware.
The Federal budget should be increased to pay for VA benefits and services, and to provide fuller employment in the government and private sectors, and provide better public education k-12 and college, and provide better healthcare.
If the government increases its budget to improve infrastructure, education and health, our society will benefit. An increased budget and full employment might be slightly inflationary, but that would devalue person debts and the National Debt.
3
These are not defense hawks, they are war hawks. Never seen a war they did not want to start, join, and "win".
6
Another fight for the soul of America? Or another proxy war with the men behind the curtains not always visible?
If cuts and a form of austerity are needed in order to meet defense needs, let's be sure to define those needs carefully and let's not load up on totally inappropriate machines of war. And if austerity is needed, the budgeteers need to know clearly that if we are not all in the same boat, then some boats will end up being sunk. Enough is enough. Look to the lessons of contemporary Europe.
If cuts and a form of austerity are needed in order to meet defense needs, let's be sure to define those needs carefully and let's not load up on totally inappropriate machines of war. And if austerity is needed, the budgeteers need to know clearly that if we are not all in the same boat, then some boats will end up being sunk. Enough is enough. Look to the lessons of contemporary Europe.
1
Who exactly are we defending against? We have had our hat handed to us by nomads in bed sheets and sneakers, $3 worth of shorts and surplus Soviet hardware, and now a passel of psychos who have finally found a use for the equipment we paid for with our tax dollars and gave to a pack of misfits. Meanwhile I risk my life every day crossing bridges, driving over roads ready to give way, and avoiding armies of construction barrels serving only as sentinals for defense dollars gone to fund mythical conflicts. Who are these people in Congress? What alien universe are they from?
12
The US spent more than three times any other country on the planet for military expenses the 2014 US budget was $640 billion, next closest China at $188 billion, Russia a distant third at $87 billion.
Isn't it time we we focused on what this country really needs? For starters we could think about energy independence, healthcare for all Americans, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, improving education to name a few. There would be many jobs created to replace those lost.
The real problem lies in connected lobbyists and their paid in full representatives. The military industrial complex is a behemoth that is truly out of control.
Expecting decisions made for the good of the country and our future is probably just a little too much to ask?
Isn't it time we we focused on what this country really needs? For starters we could think about energy independence, healthcare for all Americans, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, improving education to name a few. There would be many jobs created to replace those lost.
The real problem lies in connected lobbyists and their paid in full representatives. The military industrial complex is a behemoth that is truly out of control.
Expecting decisions made for the good of the country and our future is probably just a little too much to ask?
10
This has always, always been the ruse of the old guard "spend and debtors" around election. I ain't buying it.
3
I remind the group that the Constitution requires that the Federal government "provide" for the common defense, and only suggests that it "promote" the general welfare.
Beyond that, I doubt whether the Democrats will have any better solutions than the same old, same old / usual suspects among the GOP.
Beyond that, I doubt whether the Democrats will have any better solutions than the same old, same old / usual suspects among the GOP.
It is not a "suggestion". The Constitution states that government EXISTS in part to promote the general welfare. Not to ignore it, nor to bleed it, nor to scorn it, but to promote it. Let it DO that.
7
Ed
Read the Preamble of the Constitution and tell me how "promote the general welfare" is only a suggestion? The Preamble in its entirety is below - it is an entire statement of purpose for having a Constitution.
PREAMBLE: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.MBLE-
Read the Preamble of the Constitution and tell me how "promote the general welfare" is only a suggestion? The Preamble in its entirety is below - it is an entire statement of purpose for having a Constitution.
PREAMBLE: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.MBLE-
3
Never fails that McCain and fellow hawks want unlimited funds for the "security" industry that's been set up since 9/11.
Conservatives talk about starving the beast of gov't but they are starving the people to feed this beast of security/defense, and it's past time for Democrats to call it out for being immoral.
Stand up Democrats! Don't be afraid of being called soft on security or anything else. These guys are over the top while our country rots from their cuts on everything except military/defense contractors.
Conservatives talk about starving the beast of gov't but they are starving the people to feed this beast of security/defense, and it's past time for Democrats to call it out for being immoral.
Stand up Democrats! Don't be afraid of being called soft on security or anything else. These guys are over the top while our country rots from their cuts on everything except military/defense contractors.
10
Those military contractor's lobbyists must be really busy in GOP circles. They are fighting for fatter contracts, paid by US taxpeyers, then using the money to pay lobbyist and contribute to election campaigs, to get more money from the government.
And they say government doesn't create jobs!?
And they say government doesn't create jobs!?
2
The G.O.P. has lost touch with reality. Cutting taxes and shrinking government has been their mantra for thirty five years and they are frustrated because they have not achieved what they seek but they have left the country hurting in a big way. The domestic economy is just not growing fast enough to support doing all that needs to be done without higher taxes. The United States is a global power, a continental nation composed of states that form regions which could be nation states with differing characteristics of their own, and it's a modern state with multiple interacting economies relying upon a fantastically huge and interconnected highly technical infrastructure to keep it all working. To keep the huge federal and state and local governments all working well, there must be highly professional public employees to assure that it does not collapse because of waste, fraud and incompetence. In other words, unless we break up the U.S. into a bunch of small polities that can operate with citizen volunteers alone, we are committed to a huge and expensive establishment of governments and of taxes to support them. We must have a military that can protect our interests and that means assuring deterring foes, assuring the free flow of trade, and neutralizing threats to our way of life from terrorists and rogue states. It means constantly keeping our technology first rate to avoid having to use the strategies which mean trading human life in vast numbers to deter or defeat foes.
2
We already spend more on the military than the next 8 countries combined! If anything, we should cut our defense budget in half, and redirect that money to health, education, infrastructure, research; sectors that really ensure our prosperity and well being. That we aren't doing that is a crime against humanity.
10
Stop calling them entitlement programs. My whole working life I have been required to pay into these programs, it was not a choice for me to take this money and save it for myself. Defense spending is excessive when the protectiions for those in uniform does not even begin to approach the income for the war profiteers.
12
It's hard to believe that tax and spend conservatives will put our morbidly obese military budget on a diet given that so many "good" jobs depends of the huge deficits that Republicans support to fund runaway military spending.
3
The key to having smaller government is giving fewer people the most say. Since corporations are now people too, they and their money have the most say.
3
Have at it, boys! (Any Republican women left?)
3
I see no benefit but significant harm in Sen. Lindsey Graham's deliberately confusing disagreement with war. For starters, it devalues the horror of war. This fellow is not nearly as deep as he purports to be.
9
70% of the US economy depends on consumer spending.
Yet, the GOP refuses to focus public investment on things that drive consumer spending: infrastructure, education, safety net, workforce development, equitable tax rates.
Instead, they focus on things that retard consumer spending and drive public debt: corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy that do NOT trickle down and enriching defense contractors.
Are they stupid, willfully blind or corrupt?
Does it matter?
Yet, the GOP refuses to focus public investment on things that drive consumer spending: infrastructure, education, safety net, workforce development, equitable tax rates.
Instead, they focus on things that retard consumer spending and drive public debt: corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy that do NOT trickle down and enriching defense contractors.
Are they stupid, willfully blind or corrupt?
Does it matter?
19
All of our military spending will be for naught if we don't have a healthy and educated citizenry.
Advanced weapons won't do us much good if the person using them can't follow the instructions due to poor education (illiteracy), or poor vision (lack of medical care), or poor health (lack of medical care, proper food).
Healthy citizens make healthy soldiers.
If we ever have to return to a military draft, how many citizens will be unable to serve due to their poor health and education?
You need a strong country if you want to have a strong military.
Advanced weapons won't do us much good if the person using them can't follow the instructions due to poor education (illiteracy), or poor vision (lack of medical care), or poor health (lack of medical care, proper food).
Healthy citizens make healthy soldiers.
If we ever have to return to a military draft, how many citizens will be unable to serve due to their poor health and education?
You need a strong country if you want to have a strong military.
8
We need to establish once and for all that asking tough questions about military spending is a patriotic endeavor that contributes to the general welfare. It is not an un-American or disloyal activity but is instead the hallmark of a functioning democracy. The grand scheme for this country was never to grant the Department of War, known euphemistically now as "Defense," ever-larger checks.
7
Can't we just pay illegal aliens sub-minimum wages under the table to stock the military with cannon fodder?
2
It was never reasonable to force 50% of the sequestration caps onto the military, which had already absorbed significant budget cuts. The Republicans should increase military spending and make further cuts to the domestic side. Eliminate, for example, 40% of the farm bill spending
1
The small government military-industrial super power agenda is lethal quackery.
10
How disgusting that Mr. Walker, Mr. Jindal and other governors are slashing funding for higher education while screaming "war! war! war!" We live in a military state and these steps are destroying our future. We are quickly losing our status as the greatest country on Earth and indeed we may soon count ourselves among the failed states when this empire collapses.
9
We are eating seeds by trimming research money to NIH, NSF and defense research. Other nations are catching up with US in scientific advances which will be the greatest threat to our security.
3
It's going to be fun and interesting to watch the GOP finally deal with reality, after doing nothing but sniping in the background like a bunch of kids in the back seat during a long drive.
6
How in the world can anyone keep a straight face while saying the US military needs MORE money?
11
Having a big defense budget has not helped this country out, unless you are a defense contractor. We should cut back for five years and focus on health, education, housing and infrastructure repairs. That would help this country out in the long run.
8
Talk about a party having an identity crisis.
* We have the fiscal hawks who will not raise taxes, no matter what.
* We have the pragmatists who still won't raise taxes, but will spend money on anything as along it helps business or the wealthy.
* We have militant hawks who will spend money to wage war and create an enemy to do so.
* We have Christian fundamentalists who feel if we spend money; it should go to Israel Even if that means war. Never mind that Christ was a pacifist and preached about good works for the least fortunate.
* We have a party who would like to completely dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran's benefits; in either lower further lower taxes or eliminate them on capital gains.
* And we have a party united against the sitting president and pledge their loyalty to the Prime Minister of Israel.
The bottom line is that if it is something that benefits all Americans; they are against. and if makes industry, the wealthy and special interests richer; they're for it.
If nothing else, GOP policies 14 years ago, allowed fro 9/11 to happen. And continued fear mongering has been spending money ever since.
Apparently, this is what the American people want; based on the last election. A strong military, small government, people fending for themselves, work until death, pay through the nose heath care and waiting for wealth to trickle down like manna from heaven.
We honestly do get the government we deserve.
* We have the fiscal hawks who will not raise taxes, no matter what.
* We have the pragmatists who still won't raise taxes, but will spend money on anything as along it helps business or the wealthy.
* We have militant hawks who will spend money to wage war and create an enemy to do so.
* We have Christian fundamentalists who feel if we spend money; it should go to Israel Even if that means war. Never mind that Christ was a pacifist and preached about good works for the least fortunate.
* We have a party who would like to completely dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran's benefits; in either lower further lower taxes or eliminate them on capital gains.
* And we have a party united against the sitting president and pledge their loyalty to the Prime Minister of Israel.
The bottom line is that if it is something that benefits all Americans; they are against. and if makes industry, the wealthy and special interests richer; they're for it.
If nothing else, GOP policies 14 years ago, allowed fro 9/11 to happen. And continued fear mongering has been spending money ever since.
Apparently, this is what the American people want; based on the last election. A strong military, small government, people fending for themselves, work until death, pay through the nose heath care and waiting for wealth to trickle down like manna from heaven.
We honestly do get the government we deserve.
10
Most Americans do not care and have no clue. But they are upset at the "gridlock in Washington", for whatever it is worth. Some of them vote based on what they hear few days before elections.
We are living in fantasy land.....
We are living in fantasy land.....
2
Trillions of US taxpayer dollars wasted via the "defense" budget during the past few decades have devastated our economy and worked against the interests of democracy and freedom. Time to rethink military strategy that has become so dependent on waste and inefficiency.
12
C'mon. Everyone knows the GOP game. Transfer military bases to Republican strongholds, then increase defense spending while cutting spending everywhere else. Then, when the economies in red districts soar while blue districts languish, lecture the blue on their "irresponsible spending". Meanwhile, Democratic districts continue a massive transfer of tax dollars to their GOP neighbors.
Its all such a joke. The Republicans will never impede this money train, its how they stay in power.
Its all such a joke. The Republicans will never impede this money train, its how they stay in power.
17
All military funding that the DoD says they do not need (e.g., planes in development that they have no use for) should be used to place the workers in those plants (in nearly all the states, I understand) in schools and continue to pay their salaries for two years. Educating the electorate IS our national defense. Currently the electorate is an idiot.
8
Funding to feed poor American children? GOP says NO, spending is anti-American.
Funding to feed the military/industrial complex? GOP says of course, spending is pro-America.
Funding to feed the military/industrial complex? GOP says of course, spending is pro-America.
13
If the goal of some members of congress (small c) is a smaller government, then lets start with the biggest waster of money - congress. Really, 100 senators and 438 reps are not needed for a circus.
Also, is real issue with the defense budget, or any budget, is the amount of special projects that are included in the budget.
Also, is real issue with the defense budget, or any budget, is the amount of special projects that are included in the budget.
1
Ultimately the problem in this country is we want everything simple. Deficits are either good or bad. Government is either good or bad. Defense spending is either good or bad.
Deficit spending is not money that is burned on the White House south lawn each day. It is money that goes into the economy. It actually matters *why* there is a deficit. What is the money spent on? What effect does the spending have? Defense spending pays salaries. Just slashing for slashing sake makes no sense, but neither does the F-35 or yet another air craft carrier. Taxes reduce the ability of individuals or groups to use money in quick and targeted ways. But takes allow systemic coordination of spending that individuals could never accomplish to tackle systemic needs. It is all one big interrelated system. Fiddle with one thing and all manner of intended and unintended consequences will occur.
I am not particularly sanguine over our prospects since we seem completely unwilling to engage with long term concerns or deal with ambiguity with the nuance that one might expect of adults.
The reality of society does not actually lend itself to ideology and demagoguery if what we want is long term resilience and a pursuit of legitimate happiness. Unfortunately we have stopped doing nuance in any of our conversations. We instead use hardened ideologies as clubs in a street fight.
Deficit spending is not money that is burned on the White House south lawn each day. It is money that goes into the economy. It actually matters *why* there is a deficit. What is the money spent on? What effect does the spending have? Defense spending pays salaries. Just slashing for slashing sake makes no sense, but neither does the F-35 or yet another air craft carrier. Taxes reduce the ability of individuals or groups to use money in quick and targeted ways. But takes allow systemic coordination of spending that individuals could never accomplish to tackle systemic needs. It is all one big interrelated system. Fiddle with one thing and all manner of intended and unintended consequences will occur.
I am not particularly sanguine over our prospects since we seem completely unwilling to engage with long term concerns or deal with ambiguity with the nuance that one might expect of adults.
The reality of society does not actually lend itself to ideology and demagoguery if what we want is long term resilience and a pursuit of legitimate happiness. Unfortunately we have stopped doing nuance in any of our conversations. We instead use hardened ideologies as clubs in a street fight.
28
I can see no rift in the GOP. They want war in any form - be it Iran, the poor, education, social security, the poor and middle class, school lunches, etc. It is in their DNA.
11
Yes, I think the word you're looking for to describe them is "wreckers".
3
It's instructive how differently Republicans address budgetary issues when they are out of power, as compared to when they hold the White House. Dick Cheney famously asserted that deficits don't matter and that tax cuts pay for themselves. It's easy to advocate "bold" moves to balance the budget when you know they have no chance of being enacted into law. It's probably too much to expect them to put forth a document which actually reflects a good faith effort to tackle the nation's legitimate fiscal and policy concerns, rather than a mere collection of talking points to placate the base.
6
Depending on exactly what's included, and who's doing the counting, virtually every analyst has found that somewhere around 65% of the discretionary budget is paying for war. Past, present, and future.
When is enough enough? Apparently we aren't there yet as we bankrupt our children or they bankrupt themselves trying to pay for college educations that once were free or almost so.
When is enough enough? Apparently we aren't there yet as we bankrupt our children or they bankrupt themselves trying to pay for college educations that once were free or almost so.
7
Chasm,, Its more of a sink-hole that continues to grow..But this is what can happen. When you take to much filling out of the pie.. And not taxing the fruit.. But adding artificial ingredients...
1
The year was 1967, I was a 7th grader in a brand new middle school that held 1200 students. My Uncle was a Navy pilot and I got to sit in the cockpit of an F4 Phantom that cost $1.4 million, about the same cost as my new middle school. The middle school is still in use. The Phantom has long since been melted down for scrap. Our priorities were out of whack then and continue to this day.
7
I suggest locking Senator McCain in a room and playing the Kingston Trio's "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" 24 hours a day until he comes to his senses.
5
How, possibly, could we spend a dollar more than we already do on he military? Aren't we killing enough people and supporting enough NRA cronies already?
This really is baffling.
This really is baffling.
12
Some portion is going to buy armored vehicles, assault rifles, and body armor for police in Ferguson and other cities.
3
Sounds as of the GOP clown car is about to fall off the tracks.
7
I certainly agree with the essence of your comment, but I am very tired of hearing about the "clown car." It's been overused and more important a "clown car" is fun; the fools in the Republican Party are not.
1
And thus we continue to ensure our demise as a nation and empire. The U.S. already spends more on its military than most of the rest of the world combined. We're building weapons systems that meet no need. We are an exceptionally stupid nation when it comes to priorities.
8
Deficits may have fallen somewhat, but the national debt continues to rise, now at "only $455B" this year. Don't talk about what the deficit to GNP ratio is, talk about the debt to GNP ratio if you really want to understand how much debt the country is under.
"threatening to derail any budget that does not ensure an increase for the military"?
The US military budget is now larger then the combined total of the next 14 biggest military nation spenders, our standard of living is falling behind that of major European nations, and our infrastructure and public education system is crumbling all around us for "lack of funds."
And McCain and his pals want to spend MORE on arms? And on armaments of course, not on Veteran's benefits or healthcare!
The US military budget is now larger then the combined total of the next 14 biggest military nation spenders, our standard of living is falling behind that of major European nations, and our infrastructure and public education system is crumbling all around us for "lack of funds."
And McCain and his pals want to spend MORE on arms? And on armaments of course, not on Veteran's benefits or healthcare!
9
Lets face facts. If we concentrated on strenghening our infrastructure and education at home how would the military contractors and manufacturers make their obscene profits.
7
Of course, the cry for more "defense" is nothing but a cover for more spending in districts that have heavy military concentration or military hardware builders. The procurements of the military are notoriously overlaid with bad management, favoritism and unbelievable disregard for the actual price of products.
And, of course, our penchant for getting into another war where we are not wanted, creates millions of veterans that, grievously, will require more attention and more money. Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex should be struck in bronze and displayed in every congressional committee meeting.
And, of course, our penchant for getting into another war where we are not wanted, creates millions of veterans that, grievously, will require more attention and more money. Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex should be struck in bronze and displayed in every congressional committee meeting.
21
The devil resides on the details - as well as in the broad strokes. There may be a pathological belief in ever-increasing military spending by some members of Congress (in both parties). But exactly where is the money to go?
Those details may be of more interest. For example, will we build planes and tanks that the pentagon has deemed not worthy? That's a tough vote for a member of Congress whose district/state houses the factories to build that undesired equipment. Will we fund adequately the facilities to care for wounded soldiers and veterans - or is that funding subject to cuts in other designated parts of the overall budget?
Let's hear where individual representatives propose to augment the military budget and/or where they think cuts are advisable - a much more meaningful debate than whether or not to jump over a numerical bar set by the GOP's political nemesis in the White House.
Those details may be of more interest. For example, will we build planes and tanks that the pentagon has deemed not worthy? That's a tough vote for a member of Congress whose district/state houses the factories to build that undesired equipment. Will we fund adequately the facilities to care for wounded soldiers and veterans - or is that funding subject to cuts in other designated parts of the overall budget?
Let's hear where individual representatives propose to augment the military budget and/or where they think cuts are advisable - a much more meaningful debate than whether or not to jump over a numerical bar set by the GOP's political nemesis in the White House.
13
There is a huge opportunity to drive out inefficiency, ineffectiveness and fraud from military procurement and utilization of resources. Both parties are guilty of catering to their cronies to maintain programs that the military deems ineffective. There is also a huge amount of no bid purchases, favoritism to politically connected suppliers, and outright fraud in government procurement. The NYT was very interested in the political connections of suppliers, particularly of Chaney, during the Bush administration. Their interest has waned during the Obama administration. Is that because government procurement has become efficient, effective and fraud free?
The NYT reports today that they were told by the Inspector General of the Justice Department (notably before the VA IG was notified) that it investigated the IG of the VA and that the VA IG retaliated against an employee for testifying against another employee in a complaint regarding a hostile workplace. The investigation consisted of interviewing five friends of the employee who agreed that the employee accused of workplace hostility disliked the other employee.
Justice IG and NYT did not investigate the report of the VA IG report that the "victimized" employee had given no bid contracts to friends. So we know who the alleged retaliator is (legally protected by privacy law unless it results in a lawsuit or a FOIA request) but not anything about the procurement fraud. NYT gives friends a waiver.
The NYT reports today that they were told by the Inspector General of the Justice Department (notably before the VA IG was notified) that it investigated the IG of the VA and that the VA IG retaliated against an employee for testifying against another employee in a complaint regarding a hostile workplace. The investigation consisted of interviewing five friends of the employee who agreed that the employee accused of workplace hostility disliked the other employee.
Justice IG and NYT did not investigate the report of the VA IG report that the "victimized" employee had given no bid contracts to friends. So we know who the alleged retaliator is (legally protected by privacy law unless it results in a lawsuit or a FOIA request) but not anything about the procurement fraud. NYT gives friends a waiver.
Why do we insist of maintaining an 18th century vision of what a military is?
THIS is what's taking over the budget and keeping future generations in debt.
THIS is what's taking over the budget and keeping future generations in debt.
3
OK Democrats let's deal. For each dollar increase in defense spending we get three dollars in increased non-defense spending (which we know will help stimulate the economy and. therefore, pay for itself...unlike Republican tax cuts). Oh and add to that an increase in the minimum wage, which will also boost the economy and likewise help pay for the increased defesne spending.
2
Most Republicans have so lost their moral compass that this debate is largely about power and money and no longer about adequate defense.
I happen to agree with the Republicans who argue that sequestration was the best thing to happen to us, at least as far as military spending goes.
The hawks are always for the reckless: push Iran into military confrontation with Israel; push into Ukraine forcing a military response by Russia; push into every nook and cranny in the Middle East until every country implodes.
Meanwhile, no defense program is unnecessary. Everything is 'critical', all of the time.
Per Eisenhower's warning, the U.S. economy and political realm is so contaminated by military spending that it is virtually impossible to parse out the worthy from the unworthy. This is how great countries are brought to their knees.
I happen to agree with the Republicans who argue that sequestration was the best thing to happen to us, at least as far as military spending goes.
The hawks are always for the reckless: push Iran into military confrontation with Israel; push into Ukraine forcing a military response by Russia; push into every nook and cranny in the Middle East until every country implodes.
Meanwhile, no defense program is unnecessary. Everything is 'critical', all of the time.
Per Eisenhower's warning, the U.S. economy and political realm is so contaminated by military spending that it is virtually impossible to parse out the worthy from the unworthy. This is how great countries are brought to their knees.
8
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Remarks on Paul O'Neill (January 9, 2004) by Dick Cheney
Unless, of course, the Democratic Party is in the White House....then 'deficits' are a dirty, dirty word....right, Dick?
Remarks on Paul O'Neill (January 9, 2004) by Dick Cheney
Unless, of course, the Democratic Party is in the White House....then 'deficits' are a dirty, dirty word....right, Dick?
7
Because the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were such a good deal for the American people. Same crap, different decade.
11
Americans haven't learned from their mistakes of the past. They just elected an army of these war mongerers to take over Washington.
Don't be shocked if Americans suffer Iraq amnesia and vote Jeb or Walker into the White House in 2016 because they fall, yet again, for the Fox News rhetoric. Then they will act shocked in 2021 when it turns out thousands didn't have to die, and trillions didn't have to be spent to accomplish whatever it is they wanted to accomplish.
Next time, don't ask those of us who told you so (again) to fork over more tax revenue to pay for your idiotic voting practices. If it costs your town its public school, oh well. Think before you vote next time.
Don't be shocked if Americans suffer Iraq amnesia and vote Jeb or Walker into the White House in 2016 because they fall, yet again, for the Fox News rhetoric. Then they will act shocked in 2021 when it turns out thousands didn't have to die, and trillions didn't have to be spent to accomplish whatever it is they wanted to accomplish.
Next time, don't ask those of us who told you so (again) to fork over more tax revenue to pay for your idiotic voting practices. If it costs your town its public school, oh well. Think before you vote next time.
1
Why is it that the ONLY place budget cuts are enforced is in social safety net programs? We the people, who actually have to work for a living, are always being thrown under the bus. Enough already. We spend more on bombs and bullets than any other country on the planet and less on health care than any other country. See here http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp for the death and destruction numbers. This is total insanity and can only end badly for all. When you have so many toys you will eventually play with all them regardless of the outcome.
11
It's the same old game. Republican fiscal hawks use our brave soldiers as human shields so they can keep funding the military contractors who fund their campaigns.
13
"This is war", said Graham. Wow, I wish they could take their guns and go somewhere to shoot it out until there's no Republican left. Between the war hawks and the fiscal hawks and the evangelicals (in another article today) they are killing us all in their dirty little war.
Isn't there some way their bodies can just shut that whole thing down? If not, go somewhere and leave the rest of us alone to live in peace...
Isn't there some way their bodies can just shut that whole thing down? If not, go somewhere and leave the rest of us alone to live in peace...
17
One obvious problem we seem determined to ignore, is the crumbling infrastructure of our nuclear weapons arsenal. Recent embarrassing personnel issues, obsolete hardware and software, abysmal morale, etc., are a real threat to our security. Imagine if we have an "accident" in a silo? Yet, neither the states nor Congress will recognize nor address the situation.
"More military spending" usually means earmarks for states, and bloated "development programs" that give little, if anything. back the American people. We have so much "junk" military hardware, we're foisting it off onto local police departments, as if militarizing the police was ever a good idea.
We need a strong, but focused military, with far less "contractors" involved.
"More military spending" usually means earmarks for states, and bloated "development programs" that give little, if anything. back the American people. We have so much "junk" military hardware, we're foisting it off onto local police departments, as if militarizing the police was ever a good idea.
We need a strong, but focused military, with far less "contractors" involved.
6
National debt
Now: $18,085,826,074,242
Late 2007: 9,007,653,372,262
Yeah...Obama is a fiscal conservative. Explain how this is good for the economy? He could have just given every single American 30 grand and saved money.
Now: $18,085,826,074,242
Late 2007: 9,007,653,372,262
Yeah...Obama is a fiscal conservative. Explain how this is good for the economy? He could have just given every single American 30 grand and saved money.
3
Cherry picking numbers doesn't make for good budgets.
Pres. Bush left office in January 2008. The national debt was approximately $10.7 trillion. What do you think debt service on that was? In addition, Pres. Bush left his successor a Great Recession and enormous ongoing expenses for 2 wars.
Pres. Bush left office in January 2008. The national debt was approximately $10.7 trillion. What do you think debt service on that was? In addition, Pres. Bush left his successor a Great Recession and enormous ongoing expenses for 2 wars.
5
We increased the debt from 1946 to 1973 by almost as high a percentage as Obama, and that was without a galloping recession at the start of the period.
And we enjoyed Great Prosperity.
And we enjoyed Great Prosperity.
3
The public's misunderstanding of debt and deficits didn't just create itself out of thin air. The Right has been peddling this kind of nonsense for decades. Actually Bush increased the size of gov´t by 30 percent and left behind in his last budget a deficit of $1.4 trillion, the largest deficit in US history, caused by the budget-busting Bush tax cuts, unnecessary unbudgeted wars, and the deregulation of Wall Street which led to the Great Recession. These GOP policies will continue to drive the deficits in the coming years. In this context, it´s remarkable that Obama righted an economy on the rocks as quickly as he did. GDP growth was re-established within months of his presidency and has been consistently positive each and every month since Jun ´09.
2
$577 billion per year.....the mind can scarcely comprehend the amount of good for our own citizens that amount of money could do, were it applied to domestic programs like healthcare or infrastructure rather than funneled into our fancy death machine.
7
Gross Old Party - Defenders of gross inequality they are old, out of touch, anti-science and lack critical thinking skills. We don't need more money for defense. We need infrastructure. The country is falling apart.
10
Senator Lindsey Graham should be telling us “This is a war by a powerful segment of the Republican Party against the American electorate and all those who serve, or served, in the U.S. Forces.”
The Republican budget busters direct their loyalty to the moguls of Wall Street, multinational corporations and top one percent of individual taxpayers. They should be representing the total electorate, including the less than one percent who show, or showed their concerned about national security. They should also be concerned about meeting the Congressional promises given to the men and women who opted to volunteer to serve in harm’s way.
Also disappointing is the lack of concern expressed in many comments by the nine-nine-plus percent of those who went shopping for the ramifications of determining what is necessary to ensure our national security. This is clearly reflected in the approximately 93 million eligible citizens (47.5% of eligible voters) that were not sufficiently motivated to vote in the 2012 Presidential election.
The greed and political contributions of the business community and high income taxpayers apparently trumps telling Congress and the taxpayers that they have a responsibility to pay for the federal government goods and services necessary to maintain our national security and strengthen the U.S. economy.
The Republican budget busters direct their loyalty to the moguls of Wall Street, multinational corporations and top one percent of individual taxpayers. They should be representing the total electorate, including the less than one percent who show, or showed their concerned about national security. They should also be concerned about meeting the Congressional promises given to the men and women who opted to volunteer to serve in harm’s way.
Also disappointing is the lack of concern expressed in many comments by the nine-nine-plus percent of those who went shopping for the ramifications of determining what is necessary to ensure our national security. This is clearly reflected in the approximately 93 million eligible citizens (47.5% of eligible voters) that were not sufficiently motivated to vote in the 2012 Presidential election.
The greed and political contributions of the business community and high income taxpayers apparently trumps telling Congress and the taxpayers that they have a responsibility to pay for the federal government goods and services necessary to maintain our national security and strengthen the U.S. economy.
2
Media can help a LOT if it would stop calling these "entitlement" programs - that's GOP-speak. I have been paying into Medicare and SocSec for decades, and people who have Medicare are paying premiums, besides, and part of their costs.
In what universe is this "entitlement"?
Tax breaks for agribusiness - THAT is an entitlement program for you. Even so-called food stamps started as much to help farmers as to help hungry poor people.
In what universe is this "entitlement"?
Tax breaks for agribusiness - THAT is an entitlement program for you. Even so-called food stamps started as much to help farmers as to help hungry poor people.
8
So now they'll betray themselves in the cause of wasteful weaponized Keynesianism for their districts, regardless of the need. These Republicans are past hypocrisy.
2
It's funny how conservatives scorn the notion of "pouring money into a program" in order for it to work better - with the lone exception for "defense" spending. Actually, it's hilarious because most of the "defense" spending is for systems designed to defeat an adversary that surrendered almost three decades ago.
Defense spending is economic stimulus for the rich.
Defense spending is economic stimulus for the rich.
8
Yet another war in the Republican party?
6
Since 9/11 the defense budget has continued hover at over 600 billion per year and now the fine Senator wants at least half of next years increases to go to the military. Is this fiscal responsibility. Oh yes, more $100 bills are needed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, not to mention the crooks operating in the Ukraine. With his new power in the Senate, John McCain can now have his way and send American troops into every skirmish in Africa, the middle east and Asia. Yes, there will be more opportunities Senator McCain to flex our inflated muscle and we must be prepared.
4
I'm sorry but John McCain cannot in this day and age claim that inflating the Pentagon's obscenely bloated budget is somehow commensurate with being committed to defending this nation. Thoughtful military planning and spending is not only politically expedient now, it is absolutely essential.
14
McCain lost all credibility when he rashly and recklessly selected Palin as his running mate in 2004. Why should anyone listen to him now?
17
A Democrat President willing to spend more on defense than a group of conservative Republicans...have we entered the "Twilight Zone"?
9
Note the rhetoric adopted by the NYT:
"The $540 billion in cuts still to come under the Budget Control Act would be replaced by savings from entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security as well as new revenue from closing some tax loopholes."
"savings from" Medicare and Social Security rather than "cuts to" Medicare and Social Security. Cuts can be replaced (or better: avoided) by increases in revenue. But a "cut" is not "replaced" by "savings": it is simply made into a cut in Medicare and Social Security rather than a cut in defense spending. No doubt the NYT will soon be referring to the wealthiest 1% as "the job creators".
"The $540 billion in cuts still to come under the Budget Control Act would be replaced by savings from entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security as well as new revenue from closing some tax loopholes."
"savings from" Medicare and Social Security rather than "cuts to" Medicare and Social Security. Cuts can be replaced (or better: avoided) by increases in revenue. But a "cut" is not "replaced" by "savings": it is simply made into a cut in Medicare and Social Security rather than a cut in defense spending. No doubt the NYT will soon be referring to the wealthiest 1% as "the job creators".
6
I seriously view our feticism with war with its correspondent glorification of such as morally bankrupt and economically motivated. War sucks the life blood of money from all citizens. If we skinned back defense we could pay for health care for all...free.. and education for all.
War is not a Conservatism value and is nothing more than federal funding of a business interest.
So let's stop the glorification of war and treat it as it should be...just another business interest manipulating us to give them money with patriotism and guilt.
War is not a Conservatism value and is nothing more than federal funding of a business interest.
So let's stop the glorification of war and treat it as it should be...just another business interest manipulating us to give them money with patriotism and guilt.
8
Income inequality didn't happen by accident; it happened by adopting GOP and right wing policies that fought unions, fought minimum wages, exported good-paying jobs to Asia, hijacked the tax code for the rich, defunded public education, eliminated pensions, and created massive government deficits in the process....all the while waving the american flag and giving thanks to the 'Lord'.
6
Let conservatives put their money where the mouth is.
They have supported arming the population beyond any practical need. Let the public be the second amendment's militia. Who would invade a country bristling with 300 million guns?
Better yet, do away with the paid army and let gun owners be the militia referred to in the second amendment. Instead of just pretending to be patriots from their basements they can get in shape and train and actually be ready to be that force!
They have supported arming the population beyond any practical need. Let the public be the second amendment's militia. Who would invade a country bristling with 300 million guns?
Better yet, do away with the paid army and let gun owners be the militia referred to in the second amendment. Instead of just pretending to be patriots from their basements they can get in shape and train and actually be ready to be that force!
6
Oh Lord. If you knew the way these guys think, the Rambo-Dirty-Harry wanna-bes that swagger around with itchy fingers picturing themselves as heroes, looking for any excuse...you'd be shaking in your boots at the thought of their having any more power than they already do.
The adamance & simplicity of GOP positions are also their tragic flaw. Both fiscal & defense fanatics lack a capacity to reason. Such rigidity resembles delusional certainty, a solution for those who are too frightened to be flexible.
That we mistake this for Principles may reflect our own terror.
Governance & statesmanship require agility, intelligence & rational investigation of the facts - not intractable 'beliefs.'
That we mistake this for Principles may reflect our own terror.
Governance & statesmanship require agility, intelligence & rational investigation of the facts - not intractable 'beliefs.'
3
We already have a bloated, absurdly out-sized military. We desperately need to spend more money on our country's collapsing infrastructure, research and development, public education, and the great overlooked menace of contaminated food going unchecked. There's more, that's just a sample. Oh, and higher taxes on the rich and especially corporations, to pay for it.
8
G.O.P.: Once the Grand Old Party.......now the Grouchy Old Party.
As Paul Newman (or was it Robert Redford?) said in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance KId" : "Who are those guys?"
As Paul Newman (or was it Robert Redford?) said in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance KId" : "Who are those guys?"
5
I can't believe it. Has no one read far enough in this article to see what Obama's part in this debacle is? I admit it's great fun to bash Republicans (entirely too easy a sport!).... but what about the role Democrats--in this case, the president--play?
"President Obama has already proposed raising spending caps in the fiscal year that begins this October by nearly $80 billion, half for defense, half for domestic programs."
"There's not a dime's worth of difference between them....."
"President Obama has already proposed raising spending caps in the fiscal year that begins this October by nearly $80 billion, half for defense, half for domestic programs."
"There's not a dime's worth of difference between them....."
3
Send these grandstanding Republican militarists into war zones to do real battle. Don't worry the neocons will find a war for them somewhere.
These Republicans clearly do not know what they are doing when it comes to governing. Do not elect them to public office. You wouldn't hire a florist who hates flowers; why elect Republicans who hate all government except the military?
These Republicans clearly do not know what they are doing when it comes to governing. Do not elect them to public office. You wouldn't hire a florist who hates flowers; why elect Republicans who hate all government except the military?
8
Having several friends in the military, it's always distressing to see them apply for public assistance for their families because we don't pay them enough to survive on. It would seem that this is the natural extension of the current policy choices that squeeze the average working person's wages, be they civilian or military. All while spending large sums to enrich the already bloated fat cats at the top of the food chain.
Waste, greed and political pandering lead to the massive misallocation of resources that erode our country from within. "Support our Troops" rings hollow when the salaries of the folks who actually put their lives on the line to protect us can't even feed, clothe and house their families.
Waste, greed and political pandering lead to the massive misallocation of resources that erode our country from within. "Support our Troops" rings hollow when the salaries of the folks who actually put their lives on the line to protect us can't even feed, clothe and house their families.
8
We spend about 1.5 BILLION dollars A DAY for Defense. A greater sum than the next 10 countries COMBINED! Yet, this is not enough? America, ruled in this way by corporatist perverts whose lust for money and death in unbounded.
14
I am sick and tired of Mr. McCain and his tag along Mr. Graham. Most Americans understand the importance of defending our nation but to spend our citizens tax dollars on arming other countries (where most of the money disappears) and rebuilding those nations is unacceptable. Also, why is it that these two can't make the same loud call to arms to increase VA funding to take care of these brave young men and women when they return from war? If you can't take care of those who serve you don't deserve the right to expand a war most do not approve of.
10
Something for nothing. Why is that so complicated?
Maybe we can invite Bibi Netanyahu to Congress to give us all a lecture on how to allocate our tax dollars.
Oh wait, he already did that.
Oh wait, he already did that.
9
Yes and ultimately we will follow his good advice or someday soon, Selective Service System: Welcome...you've got mail!
Our military spending has become a national shame. As the country crumbles from within, congresspeople with MIC jobs in their districts conspire with the media to frighten the sheep into funding more and more instruments of death. We are in decline as a country and this is why. Anyone who takes the bounty we've been given and spends it on ways to kill people because of imaginary threats is headed for the dustbin of history.
10
Since Vietnam, this country has been fighting senseless and expensive wars. Our leaders, corporations and media all love going to war while the people remain distracted by lies, misinformation and propaganda. The proof is that we are in a perpetual state of war somewhere on the globe. People need to realize that money is the true religion of this country and lives don't matter. Our leaders just spin that they do.
13
Maybe it is just my age, and the specific generations I have coexisted with ... but your "since Vietnam" doesn't ring true. There was a genuine Pax Americana between 1973 and 1980 -- between US demilitarization in Viet Nam and mass revulsion at Carter's non-military response to the Soviet Union.
It was the only period in my life when, suddenly, Americans were only concerned with domestic politics, and the economy. Foreign regimes just didn't count for much -- except for economic opportunities, such as in China -- because the USA was regrouping after its overdose of grief and humiliation. Unfortunately, the grief passed. But not the humiliation: and Reagan understood that he had unlimited military authority ... unless grief entered the scene.
Getting rid of the draft had long since made that grief factor less of a political problem.
It was the only period in my life when, suddenly, Americans were only concerned with domestic politics, and the economy. Foreign regimes just didn't count for much -- except for economic opportunities, such as in China -- because the USA was regrouping after its overdose of grief and humiliation. Unfortunately, the grief passed. But not the humiliation: and Reagan understood that he had unlimited military authority ... unless grief entered the scene.
Getting rid of the draft had long since made that grief factor less of a political problem.
1
In the end, the Republican congress has become the marketing arm of the military armament complex. Their task is to build the market and keep demand strong so that their masters (military conglomerate) can grow revenues and reach profit targets.
The market strategy is simple and obvious: create an enemy, bring in agitators, and craft a story that armament buildup is the only way. At the same time: ignore diplomacy, overlook allies, and disregard or attack sane/moderate types that seek non-war means for resolution of whatever matters are going on. This ensures that there will be funding to grow the masters’ earnings, appropriated from the US taxpayers.
Republican congressmen gladly collect their risk-free 30 pieces of silver (campaign contributions, etc.) as they send other people’s children to war, and keep pleasing their masters.
The market strategy is simple and obvious: create an enemy, bring in agitators, and craft a story that armament buildup is the only way. At the same time: ignore diplomacy, overlook allies, and disregard or attack sane/moderate types that seek non-war means for resolution of whatever matters are going on. This ensures that there will be funding to grow the masters’ earnings, appropriated from the US taxpayers.
Republican congressmen gladly collect their risk-free 30 pieces of silver (campaign contributions, etc.) as they send other people’s children to war, and keep pleasing their masters.
10
Gee, they're so concerned about military spending. What about what leads to military spending? Things like well maintained roads and bridges, a good communications infrastructure, a well educated population, a healthy population, spending on things that are needed rather than what Congress has decided the military wants. I fail to see the purpose of increasing military spending if the population as a whole is not going to be able to take care of itself with respect to health, get a decent education in grades K-12 or beyond without going bankrupt, eat healthy food, live in decent housing, and feel secure enough to plan for the future.
Every plan put forward by the Republicans has cut the programs that help the middle and working classes. If they continue this where are they planning to get military personnel to fight a war or keep our armed forces running in case of a war? Or will we outsource that too?
Every plan put forward by the Republicans has cut the programs that help the middle and working classes. If they continue this where are they planning to get military personnel to fight a war or keep our armed forces running in case of a war? Or will we outsource that too?
8
Hopefully they will keep diriving the clown car faster and faster and achieve nothing of their middle-class punishing agenda.
5
Defense contractors, anyone? So-called dark money that influences our politics does not just come from the energy and pharmaceutical companies. Legislators are under pressure to maintain the uber-profitable status quo for both sides of the dash in "military-industrial complex."
8
Additionally, the MI Complex uses lots of carbon based energy.
1
The country's infrastructure, health of its population and education of its workforce are the underpinnings of defense. The actual weapons and numbers in uniform are secondary considerations. Our success during WWII had more to do with America's industrial might than its military prowess. The North overwhelmed the South due to superior infrastructure and industrial capability. The nature of warfare itself is in transition as robotics and electronic warfare make manned aircraft, aircraft carriers and tanks more vulnerable than ever. Cyber attacks are occurring on an incessant basis. We are at greater risk by having our electrical grid, GPS systems or computer networks knocked out. We can survive without our aircraft carriers but not those systems. Restoration of a vibrant economy with tomorrow's products manufactured here will do more to assure our defense and future than more military hardware designed for offensive warfare. Knowledge and economic vitality will do more to assure our place on the global stage than gun barrels and bombs. Budget accordingly.
96
Clearly, the republicans are gearing up for expanded wars in the middle east. Not only do I disagree with them, I argue that it would be the worst thing we could do. Putting US troops on the ground is what destabilized the middle east in the first place. It was a recruiting tool for the terrorists and strengthened Al Quaida, which cost American lives. Reintroducing American troops would further destabilize the current situation and strengthen ISIS, undoing the progress that the local fighters are making. If we don't have money to educate our children, and maintain our infrastructure then we don't have money for pointless military adventures in the middle east. The only solution in the middle east is diplomacy.
3
What irony! The Republicans always wanted something, anything other than what President Obama proposed. Now they are finding out that what our President proposed is way beyond what both sides want i.e each faction of the G.O.P gets a better deal while restraining the deficit. Any agreement between the two warring factions of the G.O.P would result in a budget that does not satisfy either side. Why don't they just agree with President Obama? A little humility won't hurt them and it will be good for the country. Besides, THEY can claim to have passed a bi-partisan Budget.And I hope the Democrats stick to their guns. As for the G.O.P they should realize that a house divided cannot stand by itself. Funny, the President they reviled and hated so much will be the one to bring them together!!
1
An "unending war"--the phrase should've been hatched on Madison Avenue--what a great way to ensure oceans of money continuing to pour into the military and "security" behemoths in this nation with the by-far largest military in the world.
It would be well to look at what happened when Rome, or Germany, or the USSR embarked on their military madnesses, when their nations became impoverished, when their economies failed. Like any huge corporate mentality, there's no concern on the bosses' parts for consequences of their never-ending accumulation of wealth. And that's a greater danger to this country than any band of "terrorists" du jour, friends.
It would be well to look at what happened when Rome, or Germany, or the USSR embarked on their military madnesses, when their nations became impoverished, when their economies failed. Like any huge corporate mentality, there's no concern on the bosses' parts for consequences of their never-ending accumulation of wealth. And that's a greater danger to this country than any band of "terrorists" du jour, friends.
2
Lets say it like it is.
The Republicans are going to ruin this country. They war mongers not because they want to protect the people of this nation but because they want to line the pockets of their corporate cronies and protect their permanent employment in the house and senate.
The Republicans are going to ruin this country. They war mongers not because they want to protect the people of this nation but because they want to line the pockets of their corporate cronies and protect their permanent employment in the house and senate.
9
Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt.... They're DEFENSE INDUSTRY hawks, otherwise know as belligerents, profiteers, and provocateurs. They are deeply immoral who actively fear and work against reasonable peace.
7
Jack Reed picked a poor example of why we need more money for the military. I believe in a strong military but do we really need warships in the arctic ocean being cleared by icebreakers? Is there really a fear that Russia is going to invade Alaska?
3
Irrational people do things like this. We all know that. They are filled with contradictions and counter productive behavior. The Republican Party is precisely that or worse. It is dysfunctional for all the wrong reasons, not because it is trying to do anything good. On one side we have a bunch of lunatics that do not have a clue about economics, and on the other hand we have a bunch of people, whose entire understanding of economics has to do with feeding the wealthy in any way they can. Defense spending is just one of them. In the process, they accomplish nothing and the country rots. Democrats need to wake up and go out and vote, or they will wake up one day and our Constitution will have been turned in to a hymnal.
3
Only the GOP to have an internal debate where both sides are wrong.
6
More kabuki. Does anyone really think that we don't spend enough on defense? Does anyone really think that we couldn't eliminate farm subsidies, oil and gas tax breaks and "covered interest" without damaging the economy? Does anyone really think that all the people on disability are actually disabled? It's hilarious, all assertion and not a shred of fact based analysis. The sequestration is the best thing that ever happened.
1
I guess this is what Republicans call governing.
4
Perhaps Senator McCain can donate one of his seven houses to the Military Cause?
6
The Kean Commission that investigated the 9/11/01 attacks estimated that Al Qaeda spent less than one million dollars for the entire operation. Armed with little more than box cutters or some other sharp implements they took the lives of almost 3,000 and caused billions of dollars in property damage. And all of the billions that we spend annually on high tech weaponry did not protect us that day.
The Continental Army in the American Revolution defeated a foe that was far better equipped and funded. Superior spending does not always result in a superior defense.
The Continental Army in the American Revolution defeated a foe that was far better equipped and funded. Superior spending does not always result in a superior defense.
7
We have squandered billions and billions of dollars on corrupt governments and endless wars. So far we haven't won anything or solved any problem. If anything we made matters a lot worse, for us and for the countries we bombed to the ground. Who is going to pay for the millions of displaced homeless people? Who is going to pay for the rebuilding of those countries?. Now we have a lot more enemies, therefore we need more spending on the military!. If any organization needs to tighten its belt it would be the military. We have enough weapons to blow all the major capitals on the planet. a tighter budget for the military may force them to become more creative and more efficient with what they already have, which is quite a lot. A good chunk of this budget has gone to homeland security which basically is used to spy and squeeze American citizens. Stop the bleeding.
5
It may be because at 80+ years of age, I need it to live on, but I am very tired of a group of future government pensioners acting to cut Social Security, the one retirement income most Americans actually have is getting really tiresome. It's not supposed to be part of the budget!! It's been paid for!!
12
Guns don't cause deficits, food stamps do.
2
Actually, food stamps cause farm and food industry business and income.
4
If this is satire, which I believe it is, it's very funny.
But satire doesn't generally do very well in these comments because many of us can't be sure.
But satire doesn't generally do very well in these comments because many of us can't be sure.
3
We must be thankful to the GOP, the party that brought us the most outrageously excessive military budget on the planet thinks we need to increase that even more. God forbid we provide healthcare, education, or infrastructure repairs, here at home.
This is not about defending America. This is about protecting lobbyists and the vast military industrial complex.
This is not about defending America. This is about protecting lobbyists and the vast military industrial complex.
13
The Republican Civil War!
4
The republicans have never seen a war or a tax cut they didn't like. They just don't like spending money to better people's lives.
10
What was that about how the dog chasing a car is in a quandary when he actually catches it? What is amusing is watching Republicans try to twist the truth to show they are serious about cutting costs yet hope Mom leaves her pcoketbook unattended.
Fact is, we need a total overhaul of the military as it is highly unlikely we will ever deploy Corps level forces,with all of the Tanks and field artillery, again. And since the Army is the most manpower intensive of the military branches, no Congressman will advocate throwing some 100,000 military, their families, and the towns and services that serve them to the curb.
Hope the Republicans enjoy being held up as incompetent with two years to go to the Presidential elections. This will both be fun and tragic to watch, and, thanks to the Senate's stunt that allowed Iran to call us dysfunctional, Republicans will only have themselves to blame.
Fact is, we need a total overhaul of the military as it is highly unlikely we will ever deploy Corps level forces,with all of the Tanks and field artillery, again. And since the Army is the most manpower intensive of the military branches, no Congressman will advocate throwing some 100,000 military, their families, and the towns and services that serve them to the curb.
Hope the Republicans enjoy being held up as incompetent with two years to go to the Presidential elections. This will both be fun and tragic to watch, and, thanks to the Senate's stunt that allowed Iran to call us dysfunctional, Republicans will only have themselves to blame.
5
There you have it, folks: what a debt of gratitude we owe to those who elected these buffoons, believing they could actually govern! They can't even get along with each other, much less deal with the compromises required of adults in an inclusive government.
7
All this huffing and puffing will get the GOP nowhere. What will happen will be another continuing resolution with sequestration caps, same as last year. Passing a budget is a waste of time since fundamentally the spending bills created will all be voted by BO. Best all go home, that is all except the Hillary bashing committees. As for saving from entitlements, we all know that is nothing more the a game of 'three card Monte' played by all politicians. Again, best Congress just go home and come back in 2017.
1
Now when interest rates are low - those with good credit ratings like Uncle Sam can borrow for just about nothing - and the dollar is strong and commodities are priced low and wage rates are low and people need work.......
Why, now is not the time to spend money on building world class airports, schools, roads, broadband buildout, federally subsidized energy saving devices in homes that will pay back for decades, etc.
No, no, say Republicans, let's wait on that til things turn around, when wages are high, workers are not to be found, commodity prices are booming, and interest rates are double digit because that is the time that just happens to be when tax receipts increase. In short, let's pay more than we have to and suffer in the meantime for nothing.
So dumb.
Why, now is not the time to spend money on building world class airports, schools, roads, broadband buildout, federally subsidized energy saving devices in homes that will pay back for decades, etc.
No, no, say Republicans, let's wait on that til things turn around, when wages are high, workers are not to be found, commodity prices are booming, and interest rates are double digit because that is the time that just happens to be when tax receipts increase. In short, let's pay more than we have to and suffer in the meantime for nothing.
So dumb.
8
Republicans accuse Democrats of throwing money at social programs while they themselves heap it on defense. At least Democrats are attempting to address the real life economic problems of our citizens. If these problems are not addressed then we will wind up defending an empty shell of a country of plutocrats who worry about their tax loopholes more than the fate of our country.
112
Democrats throw more money to the wealthy than they do to the poor.
Warren Buffett gets billions in tax subsidies to build windmills; he says it wouldn't make sense absent the taxpayer contribution. Obama refuses to approve the Keystone XL so middle class union members don't get jobs; Buffett gets to increase railroad profits; oil is transported via rail, increasing the risk of hazardous spills; farmers can't get their produce to market because of railroads congestion.
Solyndra alone got half a billion to line the pockets of the investors and produced nothing.
The movie industry 1% got tax breaks to make movies?
The insurance companies get billions in subsidies to provide insurance that has $6,000 individual deductibles and $12,000 family deductibles. They get premiums far in excess of what they are going to pay out for most policy holders.
The poor get Obamaphones, high deductible insurance payments, free birth control pills worth $5/month and $100/month in food stamps.
[Republicans are waging a "war on women" because they don't want to pay drug companies $60 per month for name brand contraceptives as a substitute for the $5 generics that women are currently buying.]
Obama invites illegal aliens to come, to stay and to take jobs from the lowest skilled tier of the American population.
The Democrats lie to the American people and ignorant Democrats believe them. Gruber had it right. Stupid people will vote for anything if it is properly marketed.
Warren Buffett gets billions in tax subsidies to build windmills; he says it wouldn't make sense absent the taxpayer contribution. Obama refuses to approve the Keystone XL so middle class union members don't get jobs; Buffett gets to increase railroad profits; oil is transported via rail, increasing the risk of hazardous spills; farmers can't get their produce to market because of railroads congestion.
Solyndra alone got half a billion to line the pockets of the investors and produced nothing.
The movie industry 1% got tax breaks to make movies?
The insurance companies get billions in subsidies to provide insurance that has $6,000 individual deductibles and $12,000 family deductibles. They get premiums far in excess of what they are going to pay out for most policy holders.
The poor get Obamaphones, high deductible insurance payments, free birth control pills worth $5/month and $100/month in food stamps.
[Republicans are waging a "war on women" because they don't want to pay drug companies $60 per month for name brand contraceptives as a substitute for the $5 generics that women are currently buying.]
Obama invites illegal aliens to come, to stay and to take jobs from the lowest skilled tier of the American population.
The Democrats lie to the American people and ignorant Democrats believe them. Gruber had it right. Stupid people will vote for anything if it is properly marketed.
The 'conservative' movement has a contradiction at its core. One one hand the ideology demands smaller government. On the other hand, it calls for 'a strong national defense'. The fact is that about 55 percent of the discretionary budget is allocated to 'defense'. Moreover, the politics of 'defense' demand no cuts in this sector -- even when the military explicitly states it needs no more of X or of Y weapons system. The very success of 'conservative' legislators in getting defense plants in their districts means that they must promote wasteful Big Government military spending, if only to mollify their own constituents. A handful of thoughtful conservatives have critiqued the dangers to 'freedom' that a standing army poses to a free society. Self-described 'Catholic conservative' and former West Point professor Andrew Bacevich comes to mind. The issue military spending is just the tip of an iceberg. The root issue is the bankrupty of an ideology. Conservatism is simply not a coherent philosophy of government.
3
The democrats have a golden opportunity here to paint the republicans as jobs program junkies (which is defense spending). Will they?
Kalidan
Kalidan
If you want to have jobs, spend money on fixing infrastructure or education, both of which produce about twice as many jobs per dollar than military spending.
Let me see if I have this right. The world is a terribly nasty place filled with an ever-increasing number people who want to kill us or our allies and we are openly negotiating with a group who are, in the least, supporting, if not having been the genesis of, the folks that want to kill us. The libs want us cut spending on military in the face of this so that my ever-increasing tax bill goes to pay for programs so poorly managed that they are scandalous. Wow, if we end up with another lib in the WH, we are in such deep kim-chi.
Re: 'Wow, if we end up with another lib in the WH, we are in such deep kim-chi.'
No president in US history has ever been handed such a mess as Obama inherited from the disasterous conservative Bush administration in which the economy was in absolute free fall, the GDP plunging 9% in just one quarter. That's equivalent to THREE years of robust growth literally wiped out in three months! US foreign policy was in a shambles, and 750,000 jobs were being lost each and every month.
Just go back to Sept. of 2008 to honestly admit that Obama & company have performed a veritable miracle; we are much better off today than we should have been able to expect we would be, when viewed from the bottom of that deep chasm 6 years ago.
No president in US history has ever been handed such a mess as Obama inherited from the disasterous conservative Bush administration in which the economy was in absolute free fall, the GDP plunging 9% in just one quarter. That's equivalent to THREE years of robust growth literally wiped out in three months! US foreign policy was in a shambles, and 750,000 jobs were being lost each and every month.
Just go back to Sept. of 2008 to honestly admit that Obama & company have performed a veritable miracle; we are much better off today than we should have been able to expect we would be, when viewed from the bottom of that deep chasm 6 years ago.
1
Check these politicians out. I'll bet they all have "golden parachutes" worth billions when they 'retire" from political life. Those perks greatly overshadow the pittance we pay these crooks.
2
Nothing like a bunch of math challenged attorneys arguing over money. To quiet the defense hawks, ask them why they keep increasing funds for a department that is classified "unauditable" and has been for over a decade. Ask the hawks what they have done to locate the $2.1 trillion that Comptroller Zakheim identified as missing in 2001. Ask the hawks what they are doing 14 years later as the missing money has grown to $7 trillion. How can the hawks fund a department that can't determine what what they owe, are owed, what's in their account balances, and what items are in in inventory and storage? What is the logic behind giving money to a financially incompetent agency?
6
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
--Address by President Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace" delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16,1953.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
--Address by President Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace" delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16,1953.
9
It's all political rhetoric; so unreal.
All it takes to go all out on spending for war is to drum up national fear. Just remember how we funded George Bush's war: on the credit card. The cost of our longest war was not included in the budget at all.
So this leads to a question: are our adventures in the Middle East now acknowledged in the budget or is it still uncounted in some bottomless category?
All it takes to go all out on spending for war is to drum up national fear. Just remember how we funded George Bush's war: on the credit card. The cost of our longest war was not included in the budget at all.
So this leads to a question: are our adventures in the Middle East now acknowledged in the budget or is it still uncounted in some bottomless category?
3
These are now on budget items. When President Obama put both of W's wars on the books our deficit exploded and the republicans have been blaming him for it ever since.
1
Please stop using the hokey term "homeland". We live in a "country" or are part of a "nation". The latter two terms belong in political discussions; "homeland" has its place in war propaganda.
8
Thank you. When that term began to be used under Bush during the shriek-fest that attended the rush into bombing and invading Iraq, it was clear we were entering some new fascist phase.
2
Or in an Orwell novel.
1
Ah but who bequeathed the stupidity of sequestration to the nation? The Republicans of course. Who squandered the budget surplus created in the Clinton years by the Clinton administration? The Republicans of course. Who spent us into oblivion and sent the world economy over the cliff? The Republicans and their friends on Wall Street. Who wants to reduce federal taxation to the point that we cannot fund a national government? The Republicans of course. Who believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, failing to notice that 95 percent or more don't have an oar much less a boat? The Republicans of course.
The Republican Party and its insane supply side,hate government mantra will destroy this country one day. They have come close several times. Now it seems they want to try again.
To their disloyalty add stupidity. It is a witches brew of fiscal, financial and economic failure.
And we already spend more on the military than the next 10 largest defense budgets in the world combined, which obviously includes both China and Russia. It is enough, it is enough, it is enough, it is beyond enough, it is too much, it is wildly beyond too much.
The Republican Party and its insane supply side,hate government mantra will destroy this country one day. They have come close several times. Now it seems they want to try again.
To their disloyalty add stupidity. It is a witches brew of fiscal, financial and economic failure.
And we already spend more on the military than the next 10 largest defense budgets in the world combined, which obviously includes both China and Russia. It is enough, it is enough, it is enough, it is beyond enough, it is too much, it is wildly beyond too much.
12
The Democrats had their chance at the budget and they spent it all on Wall St bailouts and increasing welfare; not a good allocation of funds. At least Republicans are looking to be more fiscally responsible. One of the most exlpicit duties of government is national security and in some areas of that it is needed. Some axing of bloated weapons contracts though should be tagged to it.
Senator John McCain is a WAR MONGER in no uncertain terms Our Military budget is higher than the next 10 or 12 largest countries in the world combined.
Where does the money go ? Considering we have had over 33 non stop WARS against poor 3 rd world countries who were no threat to us since 1950 , considering we have troops based in over 140 countries around the world but none on our own borders , is this part of the so called " New World Order " ?
In the process of bringing " Democracy " to the world , we have cleansed these countries of their excess population . [ We murdered multi millions of
innocents , including children ] Is it any wonder that so many people throughout the world hate us . WE have created Terrorists thru our actions .
An eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth .
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you .
Where does the money go ? Considering we have had over 33 non stop WARS against poor 3 rd world countries who were no threat to us since 1950 , considering we have troops based in over 140 countries around the world but none on our own borders , is this part of the so called " New World Order " ?
In the process of bringing " Democracy " to the world , we have cleansed these countries of their excess population . [ We murdered multi millions of
innocents , including children ] Is it any wonder that so many people throughout the world hate us . WE have created Terrorists thru our actions .
An eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth .
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you .
5
When will Congress realize that the US cannot be, and should not be the world leader in maintaining peace through warfare or threats thereof!
Meddling with the affairs of countries by 'waving the rod' and imposing Western mores has gotten us nowhere.
Time to stop feeding the military-industrial complex with more high tech weapons that have gotten us no allies, no friends and no victories.
Meddling with the affairs of countries by 'waving the rod' and imposing Western mores has gotten us nowhere.
Time to stop feeding the military-industrial complex with more high tech weapons that have gotten us no allies, no friends and no victories.
7
Close one-half of the 1,00 plus overseas military bases we operate and shut down the gold-plated F-35 program. There's a start.
6
Congress fiddles while the country burns... with rage.
5
The Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund for increased military spending is nothing other than the Iraq War billions in the Supplemental Budget that the Republicans used to cook the books the last time they were in control of Congress.
The Republicans would rather endlessly criticize Democrats, rightly or wrongly, than come up with an intelligent budget. For all the talking about entitlement reform, tax reform, health care reform etc over the past 6 years, I thought that as soon as the new Congress was sworn in, it would have bills on the table.
Republican Party = Big Hat, No Cattle.
The Republicans would rather endlessly criticize Democrats, rightly or wrongly, than come up with an intelligent budget. For all the talking about entitlement reform, tax reform, health care reform etc over the past 6 years, I thought that as soon as the new Congress was sworn in, it would have bills on the table.
Republican Party = Big Hat, No Cattle.
2
Yes, please, lets spend more money on the military. Because spending more money on the military then every other country in the world COMBINED is not nearly enough. Never mind that people are overtaxed or the infrastructure, or the poor, or better healthcare, or better education and schools. We need more weapons. Of course we will need more enemies, but hey we are a can do nation, am I right?
4
Fiscal austerity and a well funded military. The fiscal austerity goes along with a mindset that considers society using government to carry out national policies to be inefficient and destructive along with a belief that rich people are really the only people who should be making decisions for all. As for those who want to fund the military better without supporting all the other programs and services that assure all have equivalent opportunities and equal treatment, the strength of a nation in the modern world is a product of the wealth, general prosperity, and ability to sustain a unified effort on behalf of all. The Republicans had better consider that living in a state which raises up the very well off and neglects the rest is not one which will sustain liberty and justice for long. We need a military that serves the needs of the country but the current system has some critical weaknesses that derive from the crass and brutal lack of community that derives from having too few control the wealth of the nation and too many finding it harder and harder to keep up let alone prosper. It's not going to be fixed by this Congress dominated by the thinking that brought this situation into being.
2
It does not matter how much money you give to the military they will say they need more. There are so many reforms that would reduce spending and not endanger their effectiveness. First, why separator branches? Why not just an Arm Forces.
What about the hundreds of million dollars worth of equipment we left in Iraq and Afghanistan, what abut the hundred of millions of dollars worth of excess weapons that we gave to police departments that did not need them.
President Eisenhower tried to warn the country of the dangers of the military industrial complex. The Marines are developing new landing crafts. The last amphibious landing was Inchon over 60 years ago. Does anyone seriously think we will "hit the beaches" again ?
What about the hundreds of million dollars worth of equipment we left in Iraq and Afghanistan, what abut the hundred of millions of dollars worth of excess weapons that we gave to police departments that did not need them.
President Eisenhower tried to warn the country of the dangers of the military industrial complex. The Marines are developing new landing crafts. The last amphibious landing was Inchon over 60 years ago. Does anyone seriously think we will "hit the beaches" again ?
2
“If we’re going to have a lower number than the president of the United States...we have no credibility” Mr. McCain said...
So, once again, it's not about what this country needs, it's all about their Obama Derangement.
So, once again, it's not about what this country needs, it's all about their Obama Derangement.
7
What's new? Republicans want wars with Iran, on education, on the middle class, on school lunch programs, on social security, on Medicare, etc, ad nauseum. I don't see any rifts within the Grand Oblivion Party.
3
Frugality must be the first line of defense. Too much of DoD money goes to spouses, cronies and camp followers who stay at the bases shrouded as civil service or support contractors. Too much of DoD money goes to systems justified soley by senior service or military biases without audit and accountability for promised need or results. in some instances, development personal are permitted to fund and receive the results of research and development contracts without adherence to statute probably maybe while moon lighting for their retirement with the same. Furgality, first..or we will be broke before being defeated.
1
So the plan is to increase defense spending and take it out of Medicare and SS.
One would think that those who worked and earned those benefits, aka, falsely, as entitlements, would raise their voices in protest and change their voting habits. If not, those great programs may become a fond and distant memory.
But at least we'll have a great military, which never loses another war and our grandchildren will be safe and out of debt, won't we?
One would think that those who worked and earned those benefits, aka, falsely, as entitlements, would raise their voices in protest and change their voting habits. If not, those great programs may become a fond and distant memory.
But at least we'll have a great military, which never loses another war and our grandchildren will be safe and out of debt, won't we?
1
Sequestration is a flawed way to limit spending but, as long as the alternative is runaway spending, it will have to stay.
I wonder if a possible presidential election of a four star will sate the GOP's thirst for blood. We have forgotten Ike's caveat.
2
Now we're beating plowshares into swords. We have become Sparta, not Athens.
4
We are spending more on defense than the next 13 nations COMBINED and the situation is dire? The military/industrial and intelligence agencies have hijacked this nation ever since 9-11, riding on this incessant wave of fearmongering to strip the nation of its treasure and its citizens of their rights. Are we really going to continue giving Bin Laden the post humus gift of our lost national soul?
5
Lindsey Graham, who sees "war" everywhere and talks so much about it, gained his combat experience in an office in Frankfurt, Germany, and during the Gulf War, in an office in South Carolina. He's also the same fool who stated in New Hampshire last week that as President, the "first thing" he'd do would be to "literally use the military to keep [Congress] in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts." And to think this guy passed the bar and has a license to practice law. The fact that anyone in the Republican party listens to this Caesar wannabe tells you everything you need to know about the state of the Grand Old Party.
4
For once, I agree with the fiscal hawks. There is so much waste in military spending that it's imperative they learn to do with less money by spending it wiser. If they were to go over the cap I can only surmise they're going to put it to better use - benefit the soldiers' health and education over hardware. It's understandable that much needs to be replaced after years of warfare but human beings need to be taken care of first and foremost. A hard look at our priorities is in order.
1
Defense spending is already more than half of the entire federal budget. To my knowledge, lawmakers have revised, repurposed and overhauled the safety net many times to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. The safety net programs have a continual watchdog on them from both federal and state providers. I say not one more dime for defense spending until all of those programs are evaluated for necessity and audited for the big 3 (waste-fraud-abuse). And for those Strict Constitutionalists, there's not one word in the Constitution about the Air Force and Marines, it only references Army and Navy. We should start with the two "unconstitutional" programs first, focusing on the F-35 for starters, which Senator McCain himself has said is a boondoggle.
3
The US needs to decide who and what it is. Are we the policemen for the world or not. Do we need to project power everywhere in the world for our security at home. Will we acknowledge that the threats in the future and now are cyber ones that a boot on the ground or a huge aircraft carrier can not counter. We seem not to be capable of dealing with our own borders much less with the deadly ghosts that haunt our middle east deserts. How well does a stripped down defense department corrdinate with all the agencies of our homeland security.
There are so many questions here that go beyond how many trillions can be heaped upon our military. If the Republicans were sincere about their pledge to control spending they would deal directly with our security needs more than their need to cater to the needs of our war machine to make more money.
There are so many questions here that go beyond how many trillions can be heaped upon our military. If the Republicans were sincere about their pledge to control spending they would deal directly with our security needs more than their need to cater to the needs of our war machine to make more money.
1
Bill Maher did a fine job the other night pointing out the GOP loves Corporate Welfare especially if it is to profit the Merchants of Death and especially Inherited Wealth.
They can always find money to give more to the top 1% and the corporations that bought their seats in Congress.
For the middle and working classes though....then it's called entitlements?
They can always find money to give more to the top 1% and the corporations that bought their seats in Congress.
For the middle and working classes though....then it's called entitlements?
2
Oh yeah and we really need to remain competitive in the 'Arms Race' since China is a new contender on the march to wars.
A thoughtful observer might inquire whether constant exhortations to spend on weapons systems might lead to increased pressures to employ them in foreign wars.
In modern history, the United States has had few conflicts which were fought on the nation's soil. With the exception of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, all of the wars in the last century have been fought overseas.
It is not clear that the more recent foreign military adventures in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have produced any tangible benefits for the United States, apart from employing military contractors. Even significant reductions in defense spending will leave the U.S. with overwhelming military superiority anywhere on the planet.
Let's focus resources here at home on things that really matter to the American people: education, infrastructure, healthcare, retirement, poverty, and build fewer aircraft carriers, submarines, bombs, and fighter planes.
Maybe if we had fewer weapons, we would also have fewer wars.
In modern history, the United States has had few conflicts which were fought on the nation's soil. With the exception of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, all of the wars in the last century have been fought overseas.
It is not clear that the more recent foreign military adventures in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have produced any tangible benefits for the United States, apart from employing military contractors. Even significant reductions in defense spending will leave the U.S. with overwhelming military superiority anywhere on the planet.
Let's focus resources here at home on things that really matter to the American people: education, infrastructure, healthcare, retirement, poverty, and build fewer aircraft carriers, submarines, bombs, and fighter planes.
Maybe if we had fewer weapons, we would also have fewer wars.
93
The author raises an interesting point but overlooks a crucial fact - successful deterrence requires capabilities robust enough to convince potential adversaries not to take hostile action for fear of the response. I am no fan of our far too frequent overseas interventions for dubious reasons - but not having a strong military is an invitation to bad actors to have their way and for conflict to proliferate. Would Stalin had stopped where he did if the US wasn't a potential adversary? Would Putin expand his ambitions to the Baltic States? How much more aggressive would China be towards its smaller neighbors? Most of all, absent a US nuclear umbrella, how many potential nuclear states in the middle east, Asia and Europe would there be right now - with a greatly increased likelihood that they would they used them. We must not continue to get mired in conflicts that waste our lives and treasure for no real purpose - but the way to avoid that is through a stronger Congressional role not in unilaterally giving up the capability.
3
Artful D So please how spending a fortune on a plane that cannot fulfill its mission like the F-35 or on a tank like the Abrams that is only good for battles that will never be fought deters anything?
I would argue that World War II in Europe and the Korean war were in the national interest, even if fought overseas, as was standing up to the Soviet Union in the cold War. I agree, however, with the tenor of your posting to shift emphasis from weapons to nation building at home.
For what rational reason would we increase our defense spending when we already have half the military power on the planet, far more than is needed to defend our true national interests, and we've shorted spending on our internal needs for decades? I understand the irrational reason that there's a political and industrial constituency behind increase defense spending, but isn't there a time when we can finally say enough, and if not now, then when?
As an aside, I had hoped that over a decade of being engaged in actual war would convince people not to use the term "war" for non-violent interpersonal squabbles, but Sen. Graham hasn't learned. Using "war" as he has disrespects those who engage in the real thing, enduring misery and risking life and limb -- serving in the Senate doesn't even begin to compare -- indeed, serving in a legislature is engaging in the alternative to war.
As an aside, I had hoped that over a decade of being engaged in actual war would convince people not to use the term "war" for non-violent interpersonal squabbles, but Sen. Graham hasn't learned. Using "war" as he has disrespects those who engage in the real thing, enduring misery and risking life and limb -- serving in the Senate doesn't even begin to compare -- indeed, serving in a legislature is engaging in the alternative to war.
4
Oh the joy of it all!
It seems the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE is suffering from a fate of it's own making echoing the expression "Be careful what you wish for as you may receive it".
And, boy, have THEY got it! They're "in control" but can't even seem to agree on something as basic as "defense spending".
One wonders how this sort of "governing by negativity" will play out in the "big prize', the presidency.
As for the "defense" of our country, it seems it will be a primary concern as long as this "defense" dovetails into what the defense contractors are heaping on the GOP/TP/K.A. in the form of legal contributions, kickbacks and fully paid for junkets to "conferences" in the Barbados.
One questions whom exactly is benefitting from all this "defense"?
I think I know the answer.
It seems the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE is suffering from a fate of it's own making echoing the expression "Be careful what you wish for as you may receive it".
And, boy, have THEY got it! They're "in control" but can't even seem to agree on something as basic as "defense spending".
One wonders how this sort of "governing by negativity" will play out in the "big prize', the presidency.
As for the "defense" of our country, it seems it will be a primary concern as long as this "defense" dovetails into what the defense contractors are heaping on the GOP/TP/K.A. in the form of legal contributions, kickbacks and fully paid for junkets to "conferences" in the Barbados.
One questions whom exactly is benefitting from all this "defense"?
I think I know the answer.
2
Bate and switch abounds.
"The $540 billion in cuts still to come under the Budget Control Act would be replaced by savings from entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security as well as new revenue from closing some tax loopholes."
Bet the so called savings briefly mentioned here do not bode well for the masses. As for closing loopholes, well that is certainly highly suspect.
Anyone know the number of Americans who actually comprehend the federal budget at even the most modest level of detail? Could probably accommodate them all on a medium sized cruise ship.
For the rest of us its all about the never ending toxic wrangle that consumes our muddled politics. "Who shot John?" played on a never ending loop.
And, why, pray tell, does it cost the U.S. something on the order of 20 times more for our military defense than any other nation on the planet?
"The $540 billion in cuts still to come under the Budget Control Act would be replaced by savings from entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security as well as new revenue from closing some tax loopholes."
Bet the so called savings briefly mentioned here do not bode well for the masses. As for closing loopholes, well that is certainly highly suspect.
Anyone know the number of Americans who actually comprehend the federal budget at even the most modest level of detail? Could probably accommodate them all on a medium sized cruise ship.
For the rest of us its all about the never ending toxic wrangle that consumes our muddled politics. "Who shot John?" played on a never ending loop.
And, why, pray tell, does it cost the U.S. something on the order of 20 times more for our military defense than any other nation on the planet?
2
The military budget of the U.S. is already bigger than the military budgets of the next 10 nations combined - and most of them are allies of ours anyway, like the UK and France. But somehow that's not enough for the defense hawks. Our bridges and rails are crumbling in this country, we can't get health insurance to all our citizens as most of the rest of the industrial world manages to do, but we must shovel even more money into the defense industry's gaping maw.
1
The perfect image for the current Republican party is Slim Pickens riding a nuclear bomb at the end of Dr. Strangelove. Republicans today unfortunately are also a dark comedy.
2
It's obvious our national defense isn't good enough. If it was we wouldn't be in so many military conflicts around the globe.
The inevitable result of poor (1/3 of eligible) voter turnout and the accession of the two worst speakers of their respective houses of congress. What else can go wrong? Stay tuned . . it's going to get worse.
2
Boehner keeps screaming that the Democrats were killing the conomy.
Now we get to see how well he handles the economy.
Where are the jobs bills Cryin' John?
Now we get to see how well he handles the economy.
Where are the jobs bills Cryin' John?
4
Traitors who should be rounded up, tried and sentenced appropriately.
1
HIGH NOON AT THE OK CORRAL!
So the Republicans are finally about to be hoist on their own petard. The freshman in Congress are going to be toilet trained. And socialized. The second may be far too ambitious. They're going to have to learn to place the security of the homeland ahead of their ideological purity. Like it or not, the US, and for that matter, the whole world, exist in reality. Not in some Never Never Land of competing pure, unsullied ideologies. Anyhow most fairy tales don't have happy endings.
The Day of Reckoning is upon the Republican renegades. When Lindsay Graham and John McCain proclaim war, and are willing to team up with Democrats to legislate a logical, responsible budget plan, Republican freshmen are well-advised to fall in line behind their leaders. After all, they were sent to Congress by a voter turnout somewhere in the 20 to 30% range. In 2016, when there is a Presidential election and much larger turnouts, the voters will dump them without a second thought.
So the Republicans are finally about to be hoist on their own petard. The freshman in Congress are going to be toilet trained. And socialized. The second may be far too ambitious. They're going to have to learn to place the security of the homeland ahead of their ideological purity. Like it or not, the US, and for that matter, the whole world, exist in reality. Not in some Never Never Land of competing pure, unsullied ideologies. Anyhow most fairy tales don't have happy endings.
The Day of Reckoning is upon the Republican renegades. When Lindsay Graham and John McCain proclaim war, and are willing to team up with Democrats to legislate a logical, responsible budget plan, Republican freshmen are well-advised to fall in line behind their leaders. After all, they were sent to Congress by a voter turnout somewhere in the 20 to 30% range. In 2016, when there is a Presidential election and much larger turnouts, the voters will dump them without a second thought.
1
Now would be a great time to go to war with Iran
Entitlement should not be a bad word. Sure social security is an entitlement program, and a good one. So is medicare. You just want to reserve the word entitlement for programs that don't directly benefit you.
3
"“If we’re going to have a lower number than the president of the United States is proposing, we have no credibility in saying we’re committed to defending this nation,” Mr. McCain said late last week"
It is tragic that "defending" the US comes down to spending money on weapons. All the weapons in the world can't protect a country which has leaders without integrity.
It is tragic that "defending" the US comes down to spending money on weapons. All the weapons in the world can't protect a country which has leaders without integrity.
93
Defending the country is the most important function of the federal government. It is tragic that we have a President that has no interest.
Defense of a country that has the most powerful military in the world and in fact, the history of the world, will not be be further strengthened with more money spent on defense. Who or what are we defending ourselves against? Just as you can't spend your way out of debt, neither can you spend yourself into safety. You can, however, spend yourself into oblivion, and we are well on our way.
Republicans who claim to care so much about Federal government waste should not demand that the Pentagon waste money on military bases it does not need or want:
http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-officials-we-need-more-base-closure....
or weapons systems it does not need:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to...
Let the Republican Congress take a "holiday" from fear and greed motivated budgets.
http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-officials-we-need-more-base-closure....
or weapons systems it does not need:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to...
Let the Republican Congress take a "holiday" from fear and greed motivated budgets.
5
when we take into account the combined budgets of the DoD, DHS and the intelligence community we find the untidy sum of $2.2 trillion being allotted to defend and secure the nation.
in perspective - that's about twice what we spend on food.
when does it end?
in perspective - that's about twice what we spend on food.
when does it end?
3
Shoe, meet other foot.
23
What does Bibi NETANYAHU think we should do ??
44
Or you could ask what South Korea, Germany or the Arab States in the Persian Gulf think. Why the focus only on Israel? Ed
1
Yeah--we get it--somehow spending more money on things like education is wrong because Republicans maintain there is no correlation between school performance and spending--but yet the Pentagon-- legendary for waste and fiscal mismanagement can't possibly be safe without a blank check and no oversight.
58
I remember an interview with John LeCarre (David Cornwell) in which he remarked that after the fall of Communism, he was looking forward to not supporting all the dictators around the world who were apparently supported by the West because they were against the Communists.
Then he remarked, "but nothing changed".
The most positive thing about McCain's military push, remember his "Bomb, Bomb Iran" joke (2007) is that I have no regrets he was not elected president.
And McCain seems to have only one play in his playbook, "more military spending".
But the willingness to use military force cuts across both parties, as According to Madeleine Albright's memoirs, she once argued with Colin Powell for the use of military force by asking, "What's the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can't use it?"
I suspect the only Keynesian government spending program both Democrats and Republicans can agree on is the US military.
Meanwhile, we have about 1 Trillion of deferred infrastructure maintenance in the USA, with 59% of roads in poor to fair condition, 31% of bridges deficient or obsolete, 1/3 of school buildings need repair and 12% of dams are high hazard due to deterioration.
And what did Joseph Stiglitz suggest is the true cost of Iraq War, more than 3 trillion?
Why not shrink the defense budget? The USA might actually decrease the blowback if we stopped doing all the foreign military interventions.
Then he remarked, "but nothing changed".
The most positive thing about McCain's military push, remember his "Bomb, Bomb Iran" joke (2007) is that I have no regrets he was not elected president.
And McCain seems to have only one play in his playbook, "more military spending".
But the willingness to use military force cuts across both parties, as According to Madeleine Albright's memoirs, she once argued with Colin Powell for the use of military force by asking, "What's the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can't use it?"
I suspect the only Keynesian government spending program both Democrats and Republicans can agree on is the US military.
Meanwhile, we have about 1 Trillion of deferred infrastructure maintenance in the USA, with 59% of roads in poor to fair condition, 31% of bridges deficient or obsolete, 1/3 of school buildings need repair and 12% of dams are high hazard due to deterioration.
And what did Joseph Stiglitz suggest is the true cost of Iraq War, more than 3 trillion?
Why not shrink the defense budget? The USA might actually decrease the blowback if we stopped doing all the foreign military interventions.
33
Yes, it is far past time to do some "Nation Building" right here at home.
1
When it comes to blowing up other countries' infrastructure, and killing their civilians or scraping up 1 billion for Ukraine, the chicken Hawks are all for it. When we need to replace our crumbling infrastructure and possibly put our own people to work with WPA-style work plans, and making corporate welfare queens pay their employees a livable wage, they scream a resounding "no!" The GOP 's fiscal plan has always been to run up a huge tab without financing it (and lining the pockets of Halliburton et al) and sending everyone else's children off to blow up and maim other countries' children. (Go back to the top and begin again)
48
Sure, John McCain, who was a POW for 5 years, is a "chickenhawk." Shame on you.
Remember "Bomb,bomb,bomb--bomb-Iran", sung to the tune of "Barbara-Ann" by McCain? The man may have once had some integrity and sense, but he has become nothing but a sad parody himself as he has no solutions but war for pretty much any challenge we as a nation face.
The Republicans swept to historic victories in 2010 almost solely on the issue of the budget deficit, then one trillion dollars per year. They claimed the ACA would only drive the deficit higher.
Republicans love to speak about listening to the voice of the people.
Democrats would do wise to remind the voters of why they gave Republicans full control of all levels of government to an extent not seen in almost 100 years and they should run hard against any Republicans who want to spend more demanding to know why they are flip floppers who cannot keep their promises.
Republicans love to speak about listening to the voice of the people.
Democrats would do wise to remind the voters of why they gave Republicans full control of all levels of government to an extent not seen in almost 100 years and they should run hard against any Republicans who want to spend more demanding to know why they are flip floppers who cannot keep their promises.
9
Re: ... why they gave Republicans full control of all levels of government to an extent not seen in almost 100 years
The electorate keeps voting GOP against their own benefit. Alas, this is how democracy works in america where the people presumably know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Afterall the electorate put the GOP back into power in 2012, even though it meant continuing political scorched-earth shenanigans and reckless brinkmanship. And incredibly they did it again in the 2014 mid-terms. Clearly it´ll take a full return to debilitating GOP ideology to educate voters to the absurdity of what they are doing.
The electorate keeps voting GOP against their own benefit. Alas, this is how democracy works in america where the people presumably know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Afterall the electorate put the GOP back into power in 2012, even though it meant continuing political scorched-earth shenanigans and reckless brinkmanship. And incredibly they did it again in the 2014 mid-terms. Clearly it´ll take a full return to debilitating GOP ideology to educate voters to the absurdity of what they are doing.
1
Unfortunately, the Democrats are not that politically creative. A politically creative Democratic Party, after the 2008 blowout, would have decimated the GOP to a 100 seat southern rump for a generation.
The Republicans fall over themselves cutting food stamps for the poor and less advantaged in our society but have never seen a war or a weapons system they didn't like. In addition they never have seen a tax cut for the wealthy they didn't like.
After spending nearly 3-4 trillion dollars on two wars that have gone nowhere except to destablize the Middle East the Republicans are looking to start another war with Iran and spend more on the military although we already spend more than all the industrialized countries in the world. Any new military spending shuld be paid for with a tax increase and not by cutting programs for the poor or borrowing the money to pay for an increase.
Americans need to stop living their lives in fear and letting fear drive decisions on national priorities. The military budget is the biggest social welfare and jobs program going.
After spending nearly 3-4 trillion dollars on two wars that have gone nowhere except to destablize the Middle East the Republicans are looking to start another war with Iran and spend more on the military although we already spend more than all the industrialized countries in the world. Any new military spending shuld be paid for with a tax increase and not by cutting programs for the poor or borrowing the money to pay for an increase.
Americans need to stop living their lives in fear and letting fear drive decisions on national priorities. The military budget is the biggest social welfare and jobs program going.
29
One of the biggest weaknesses of Obamas administration has been his completely inability/lack of trying to CUT the military budget. Our military spending is beyond out of control, and Americans hate math, so nobody even looks at the numbers to see this very clear fact. The military has never even had a legitimate audit of their finances, in the history of the existence of the military, so its a norm for them to just throw money around with complete disregard. Just last year, while Republicans and Democrats were arguing about whether we could afford to give the VA an additional 200 million dollars or so, the Air Force basically threw away some 400 million dollars on a botched deal to upgrade Italian cargo jets, which went essentially unreported. We are literally just lighting hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars on fire by giving the military an essentially blank check for any and everything they want, year after year. Democrats are cowards for not even trying to rein in the spending, and Republicans who call them fiscal hawks are frauds if they dont acknowledge the complete waste in the military that cannot be allowed to continue, not for one more budget cycle. Vote Independent. For the love of God, people, stop supporting these parties.
14
I've been advocating a 50% decrease in defense spending for years, just because I like round numbers. We should be able to scrape by with half what the rest of the world spends, despite our national tendency to panic. Maybe the UN could fill in with those black helicopters our scared fringe keeps imagining. We could phase in the cuts over 10 years (another nice round number) so that defense industries could retool and build what we actually need. There you go, Congress, a plan that makes sense. Good luck with it.
15
These are the folks that Eisenhower warned us against: the "military-industrial complex". Add in the demands of the "holy folk" and the uber-rich who swear that taxes are the job of the "little people", not them, and you have the iron-clad recipe for dismantling a country - any country.
The United States of America is subject to the same realities as any thugocracy or banana republic ever raised up.
We are not immune. And these people are a sickness.
The United States of America is subject to the same realities as any thugocracy or banana republic ever raised up.
We are not immune. And these people are a sickness.
42
The purpose of military spending at a time of relative peace is to deter those intent on destabilizing the world. According to world opinion, as measured by an international Gallup poll, the greatest threat to world peace is the U.S. military.
24
I am convinced that McCain has lost it. Somewhere in his subconscious he is still fighting the Vietnam War. We already have the most powerful military machine in the world many times over. We need to focus on domestic needs, especially our rapidly declining infrastructure.
45
With ISIS and other insurgent tactics, "most powerful" military doesn't mean much. Just as in the Vietnam war, we are defeated by people who have a lot more to gain/lose than we do, and know how to fight sneaky unconventional warfare. Sort of like the Founding Fathers. They didn't have a military industrial complex behind them, just fire in the belly. Something chickenhawks only get from too much food.
I think its important to note that budget plans cannot change existing law, such as laws for Social Security and Medicare, or set spending caps on those laws. That would amount to repealing a law by simply defunding it. To harm any American, including almost all Americans who will rely on Social Security and Medicare for their retirement, and the disabled Americans on Social Security that the Republicans are already trying to defund, appears to me to be unconstitutional.
I am wondering why the Republican attempt to ruin the lives of 9 million disabled people (including 1 million veterans and 3 million children) on Social Security by only a House rule change, essentially an attempt to impermissibly repeal part of the Social Security Act, is not already the subject of a lawsuit.
I am wondering why the Republican attempt to ruin the lives of 9 million disabled people (including 1 million veterans and 3 million children) on Social Security by only a House rule change, essentially an attempt to impermissibly repeal part of the Social Security Act, is not already the subject of a lawsuit.
26
Republicans complain continuously that we "throw" money at education, that we should instead be maximizing what's already in place. Why don't they apply this philosophy to military spending? Answer: they despise and disdain public education, while generally supporting with all their hearts the exertion of American force wherever they can manage to exert it. If any Republicans can be found to stand up against this trend, I'll be surprised and relieved.
20
Neither side will rest until they have created a nation that is no longer worth defending.
19
It's nearly impossible to wade through the proposed defense budget and understand what it means. As always, the threats to our national security are evolving: a nationalistic Russia, cyber-warfare and China to name a few.
A budget is supposed to be for what we *need* but the average American, indeed the average senator, has no idea how the defense budget ties into keeping our country safe. Instead, it's about Republicans versus Democrats and with an election in the background to boot. Depending upon the likes of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Kelly Ayotte to get it right is not helping me sleep at night. How about you?
A budget is supposed to be for what we *need* but the average American, indeed the average senator, has no idea how the defense budget ties into keeping our country safe. Instead, it's about Republicans versus Democrats and with an election in the background to boot. Depending upon the likes of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Kelly Ayotte to get it right is not helping me sleep at night. How about you?
7
The recognition that these fellows are playing war games, but with real blood and treasure, all over the world, while my parents are being stripped by the medical industry, social security is threatened, my children can't afford college or find work except for poverty-wage part-time, people turn on each other by profession, class, and every other distinction, and the bridges fail and roads rot--that's keeping me up at night. And Ukraine's problems and China's problems and the rest of the military maniacs' excuses for making messes overseas are not what's going to bring us down. The other nations of the world don't even need to try, not even if they wanted to.
The asphalt on the nearby roads looks like jigsaw puzzle pieces randomly laid side by side.
The township just gave us a choice to raise properly taxes to minimally repair the main roads or have them ground up and reduced to the cinder surfaces they were in the 1940's. This, because neither the State nor the Federal government has the money to fund road projects.
'American progress'!
I don't want a half a trillion dollars going to the military. I want a road I can safely drive my car on.
The township just gave us a choice to raise properly taxes to minimally repair the main roads or have them ground up and reduced to the cinder surfaces they were in the 1940's. This, because neither the State nor the Federal government has the money to fund road projects.
'American progress'!
I don't want a half a trillion dollars going to the military. I want a road I can safely drive my car on.
35
Our gov't spends much more than it takes in. In most case, one could have sympathy, but in our gov'ts case, their spending exceeds 4 trillion dollars, with the military spending 500 billion and still not have enough money to help the veterans who fight on the front on the war on terrorism.
4
If the government did not spend more money than it takes in, where would the new money required by a growing economy come from? Would it fall like manna from the heavens?
Shockingly, the complaint (comment) board this morning is all about the evils of the military industrial complex. Well Democrats, you have a Knight on a white horse riding in to help you and those who agree with you out: it is your other old friend, the TEA party. irony can be pretty ironic sometimes, eh?
2
Didn't voters listen to Lindsey Graham campaign on Washington has a spending problem, small government and balanced budget?
For every $1 his state sends to Washington, Washington sends $8 back. Now he is demanding they spend more on defense.
Wake up people!
You voted him in???
For every $1 his state sends to Washington, Washington sends $8 back. Now he is demanding they spend more on defense.
Wake up people!
You voted him in???
12
Let's see: Our defense budget is higher than that of Saudi Arabia, Germany, UK, Japan, France, Russia and China COMBINED. But with $18 trillion of Federal debt, $523+ billion for defense of the homeland is still not enough for Republicans.
18
A democrat reciting with worry the size of the national debt? You are a unicorn.
1
When has debt negatively impacted our economy? In point of fact the one time in our history we paid off the debt it was immediately followed by the longest depression we ever had. Every time we balanced the budget for more than 3 years, we got a depression. On the flip side when we had the largest debt (as a percent of GDP) ever we followed it up by 27 years (1946 - 1973) of mostly deficit spending and the debt in dollars almost doubled, but we had great prosperity.
1
Two military men in Congress pushing for military spending...........
Big duh, huh? C'mon folks, they're a military coup of two.
Big duh, huh? C'mon folks, they're a military coup of two.
6
This rift is really laughable. One wants to tighten, the other wants more money for the military - a choice between Scylla and Charybdis.
5
Reconciling the budget hawks and the military hawks will prove nigh unto impossible. They will probably try to do it by raiding Social Security and Medicare once again. One of the great problems introduced in the last two generations was when Johnson introduced the combined budget. Which made raiding the "trust funds" much easier to disguise how much Congress was willing to underfund normal operations. They are quite willing to put real fiscal responsibility off onto our children and grandchildren. Even so-called fiscal hawks in the House have been willing to put off true balanced budgets between 10-40 years [it varies from day to day] :-(
3
After years of whining and blaming Harry Reid for everything, the GOP has its chance to govern.
So quit whining and govern.
So quit whining and govern.
17
As a republican our defense spending is more than adequate, I agree with Sessions spending caps was the best thing to keep politicians mitts out of the spending, this goes for both sides of the aisle, democrats who can't stop spending and republicans who say they are for spending control but are really not. It's sad that both sides can't be responsible and do this by actually thinking and looking at what are priorities, but politics always trumps common sense. Voters must control their spending so must politicians.
1
Why did you do that, because I can.
Military spending has created the monster killing machine of all time.
With blood dripping from their fangs, the monsters march on.
Destiny awaits the day of reckoning.
The death toll will make past wars look like child's play.
Why America, why?
Because I can.
Military spending has created the monster killing machine of all time.
With blood dripping from their fangs, the monsters march on.
Destiny awaits the day of reckoning.
The death toll will make past wars look like child's play.
Why America, why?
Because I can.
3
Is it just me or does any one else feel that the Republicans can do a blessed thing? They seem like a bunch of Ever ready battery bunnies.
2
The United States has been involved in two asymmetric wars for more than a decade. Neither opponent in these wars, be they Al Qaeda or ISIS are capable of projecting power, and although we now live in a condition of perpetual war, our opponents exhibit the behavior of criminals more so than the armies of States.
For now ISIS seems to be able to hold some ground in broad daylight, and if ISIS were to win the battle to redraw the political maps of Iraq and Syria, how much will the US really have lost? With and ISIS win, our primary rival, Iran, will have been contained, and Europe will have been secured from the receipt of Persian and Iraqi gas for the foreseeable future. This is the outcome which Big Oil and the Sunni Royals demand.
We have no enemy about which we are told that the threat is real, other than a bunch of amateur who are the riff raff of Islam, and nearly every day we are urged to be properly afraid by our President and Republicans.
Efforts to get a decent war going in Ukraine with the Russians are adamantly opposed by Ms. Merkel, which causes me to wonder what threat all of these expenditure on high tech systems and new weapons technology are imagined by Republicans to be used against? Why do we need more firepower, when no opponent on the horizon can currently reach out and touch us except for some inconvenient harassment. I wonder if today's interventionist Republicans, which should be a contradiction in terms, ever think about this reality.
For now ISIS seems to be able to hold some ground in broad daylight, and if ISIS were to win the battle to redraw the political maps of Iraq and Syria, how much will the US really have lost? With and ISIS win, our primary rival, Iran, will have been contained, and Europe will have been secured from the receipt of Persian and Iraqi gas for the foreseeable future. This is the outcome which Big Oil and the Sunni Royals demand.
We have no enemy about which we are told that the threat is real, other than a bunch of amateur who are the riff raff of Islam, and nearly every day we are urged to be properly afraid by our President and Republicans.
Efforts to get a decent war going in Ukraine with the Russians are adamantly opposed by Ms. Merkel, which causes me to wonder what threat all of these expenditure on high tech systems and new weapons technology are imagined by Republicans to be used against? Why do we need more firepower, when no opponent on the horizon can currently reach out and touch us except for some inconvenient harassment. I wonder if today's interventionist Republicans, which should be a contradiction in terms, ever think about this reality.
5
The utter hypocrisy of the Republicans and conservatives in general has been apparent to me since childhood: They will lecture us nonstop about fiscal responsibility and shake in terror over the national debt, but when it comes to yhe military, they pretty much just hand over the checkbook. meanwhile, education, infrastructure and poverty relief - in other words, real needs of real people here at home - are off the table.
The worst part is, they have actually convinced voters to go along with all of this.
The worst part is, they have actually convinced voters to go along with all of this.
15
Military spending is welfare for red states. This is not about patriotism or being prepared for a war - it's to enrich the local economies who have little else to offer.
25
Your comment is a myth.
Blue states benefit from US Defense spending more than Red states, with Virginia and California leading the way.
http://forbes.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bloomberg.pdf
The bottom line, every state in the Nation enjoys some level of Government cash from the USA military machine.
Blue states benefit from US Defense spending more than Red states, with Virginia and California leading the way.
http://forbes.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bloomberg.pdf
The bottom line, every state in the Nation enjoys some level of Government cash from the USA military machine.
Defense contractors are the biggest beneficiaries.
1
Yet there's plenty to do here at home, including rebuilding rotted infrastructure to creating new products and industry, with the kind of money that's now gushing to the delusions of empire (money that disappears without producing anything but carnage), we could begin to have a nation to be proud of again, and that takes workers, and plenty of them.
Republicans switch around the deck chairs on the foundering ship. The wrangle about defense spending because they fear the unknown enemy. How about raising the gas tax to pay for urgently-needed repairs for roads, bridges, railroads, airport improvements? The Teapublicans are still hunkering down, fearing Khruschchev's "we will bury you" promise. That was 55 years ago! Get over it!
6
Incredible, huh? Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our airports are third-world level, our ports are woefully outdated, our electric and communications grids lag behind other countries....and none of that figures into the spending debate. It's all about increasing the size of the gigantic war machine.
21
Those who want additional spending should reduce wasteful spending and redistribute wasted current dollars to areas in need. Billions are lost through fraud in the IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, Social security, excess leased and owned government property , Congressional spending on investigations and junkets for the President and Congress. The military budget also has massive waste on weapons and the excessive number of generals and admirals and their aids. Wiser spending should allow for adequate funding without additional deficits or taxes. Americans should demand an effort beyond rhetoric of elected officials to decrease waste.
5
The shoe is on a new foot and it does not fit. In fact it is even worse than the foot it replaced.
Sadly, the brains at the other end f this foot is too stupid to admit that a bigger shoe may be needed to ever walk tall again with pride and confidence.
Sadly, the brains at the other end f this foot is too stupid to admit that a bigger shoe may be needed to ever walk tall again with pride and confidence.
3
The Republican old crazy white guys that can't govern are a hoot. I though after their initial couple of month's of governing failure they would get their act together, but no, dysfunctional as ever. This Republican bunch are going to have to trade their clown car in for a clown bus.
9
Sequestration is the reason the annual deficit has decreased. Republicans who oppose sequestration, whether for higher defense spending or for more domestic spending, should be honest enough to propose the higher taxes to pay for this. Those who argue, mockingly, that concern about deficits is a misguided exercise, framed almost fraudulently as common sense, should be asked for more details on their economic theories. If deficits are of no concern, by all means we should be producing and handing out more money.
33
Why are sensible people celebrating the fact that under Obama the deficit has been cut in half? This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. As a percent of GDP, debt service is the lowest in 60 years. We can lock in ultra low interest rates to get money to invest in worthwhile projects like infrastructure repair, education, research, a new power grid, etc. which would put people back to work now besides the obvious long term benefits.
Heck, since there is absolutely no sign of inflation, we could even print the money the private sector needs to provide good jobs.
Once we get the economy growing again the debt would fade in insignificance as the larger debt (as a percent of GDP) after WWII did.
Or we can keep cutting the deficit until we get surpluses as we did after WWI when we got the large war debt down to 16% of GDP in October of 1929. And how did that work out?
Heck, since there is absolutely no sign of inflation, we could even print the money the private sector needs to provide good jobs.
Once we get the economy growing again the debt would fade in insignificance as the larger debt (as a percent of GDP) after WWII did.
Or we can keep cutting the deficit until we get surpluses as we did after WWI when we got the large war debt down to 16% of GDP in October of 1929. And how did that work out?
Sen. Tom Cotton, lately of Ayatollah letter-writing fame, is a perfect example of the conservative Republican mindset's disconnect between the real world that exists, with all its messiness and shades of gray, and the black-&-white world they wish it were and want it to be. That is to say, the Cotton Club can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Naturally,to make it all balance, Republicans are counting on slashing Social Security and Medicare because, after all, only girly men and old ladies need that kind of spending, which never fits with the muscular, patriotic need for the nation to have a defense force equal to 20 or 25 rivals.
19
Why the focus on the budget? It's literally just a piece of paper that Congress will wave around for political purposes. It has no force of law to control spending - that's why the Democrats never passed one when they were in control of Congress. Why wave a budget bill around when the president is in your party? The only bills that really matter when it comes to 'spending' are the appropriations bills.
4
They sure behave as though every penny of public spending is someone's income.
2
We are up to our ears in crumbling infrastructure but the GOtP would rather give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires than to invest in our once great Nation. Our greatest threat we face as a Nation is conservative Republicans.
28
There was a rerun program on the History channel from 2014 yesterday afternoon about billionaires' misuse of money to try to control the world. One multi billionaire wants to create "islands of wealth" in neutral waters where billionaires can live and not pay taxes. Good. Let them take over world wars with their money and children, too. And WE must stop giving them access to OUR national treasures and governments all over the world. Let them self-destruct.
30
Always at war with someone, even if it is themselves.
55
Thank you. That one sentence succinctly describes the U.S. Republican Party in the 21st century. As they say in the British House of Commons - Here, Here.
2
If John McCain & Lindsay Graham want more war - let THEM pay for it.
USA taxpayers are sick & tired of funding their military adventures.
USA taxpayers are sick & tired of funding their military adventures.
56
Maybe no one should ever call the police when they are in trouble. We could save all that money--salaries, pensions, vehicles, court cases, equipment and upgrades, prison costs, etc.. You obviously don't understand what defense is all about.
While I'll agree with your statement in the purest sense, I must question why they Republican warmongers continue to get elected and reelected if your statement is so true. The foolish US taxpayer has bought into yet another Republican farce. First it was "We pay too much in taxes" and look at our infrastructure now. (I know, we blame the illegals instead) Then it became the need to strengthen the military, to the tune of the expenses going off line as far as the budget is concerned. If the public was paying attention they would realize that a HUGE chunk of our annual spending is going to defense. Defense expenditures we don't need, but have been manipulated into funding nonetheless. And since that money isn't "on the table" so to speak, it is difficult if not impossible to actually trace.
I think you meant. military mis-adventures
What a dilemma! Fiscal hawks trying to please their oligarch, starve-the-beast patrons by eliminating spending and defense hawks trying to indulge their defense contractors' endless demands and desire for yet more billions in revenue.
Perhaps someday they'll get around to instead serving the American public.
Perhaps someday they'll get around to instead serving the American public.
168
>"Perhaps someday they'll get around to instead serving the American public."
Let's not hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen. Oligarchs and defense hawks trump the American public every time, at least since St Ronnie slayed common sense and any commie pinko ideas about promoting the common welfare.
Let's not hold our collective breath waiting for that to happen. Oligarchs and defense hawks trump the American public every time, at least since St Ronnie slayed common sense and any commie pinko ideas about promoting the common welfare.
2
I would like to see less military spending and fewer overseas interventions.
64
All aboard the clown car. Let's fund the military and eat ammo.
68
Just think how better we the people would be if the money the GOP spent on the war in Iraq was spent here at home. How can they vote to take food out of the month of children and spent it on guns?
121
Thomas, the immorality of their value system does not enter their minds. They sincerely believe that being prepared for war and waging war is more important than feeding children. They believe that you cannot do the latter unless you do the former. Want more caution with war? Vote for Democrats.
4
You seem to misunderstand the republicans. Theirs is not a choice of spending money on war or food for children. The choice is spending money on wars or more tax cuts for the 1%. Either way, they are more than willing to vote to take food out of the mouths of children.
3
Old theory about "guns and butter." If you don't study history, you are doomed to repeat it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model
It's a fair and honest inter-party "war" that the Republicans deserve to have to thrash out with themselves. The defense hawks, however, do not seem to have received the memo that politically the US has renounced world leadership. Why should US taxpayers foot an enormous bill to pay for it?
105
You think it's up to the taxpayers?
4
The Republicans have not renounced world leadership. They have simply taken it upon themselves, and cut the President--formerly known as the "leader of the free world"--out of it.
All's fair in love and war, even when the war is upon your own country and your own president.
All's fair in love and war, even when the war is upon your own country and your own president.
7
" Why should US taxpayers foot an enormous bill to pay for it?"
Because the defense contractors want them to.
Because the defense contractors want them to.
1
There you have it. Sequestration was never really about deficit reduction, it was about cutting spending that helps those who can't take for themselves.
And now that they've got their Sequestration, these megalomilitarists want to go back to funding the military as though deficits don't matter, buying weapons we don't need with money we don't have.
Thank goodness John McCain isn't President.
And now that they've got their Sequestration, these megalomilitarists want to go back to funding the military as though deficits don't matter, buying weapons we don't need with money we don't have.
Thank goodness John McCain isn't President.
177
McCain has become a tired old war-monger and needs to retire!
7
And what, exactly, is the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on these issues?
McCain doesn't hesitate before attacking some foreign foe; Barak hesitates briefly.
McCain has never met a military spending idea he didn't like; Obama is exactly like McCain. Obama is (just) a Republican in sheep's clothing.
McCain doesn't hesitate before attacking some foreign foe; Barak hesitates briefly.
McCain has never met a military spending idea he didn't like; Obama is exactly like McCain. Obama is (just) a Republican in sheep's clothing.
1
Republicans as of late are showing their hand regarding what to expect if one of them wins the Presidency: I would give it maybe six months before we are involved in another ground war in the middle east, and the Republicans so clearly want it that they're practically frothing at the mouth. Has the American public such a short memory that we have already wiped from our minds the double disasters that were Iraq and Afghanistan? It truly sickens and frightens me how little critical thought is given to the idea of waging war. For one of the two major governing parties in this country war has become a game we play to fill the bank accounts of arms manufacturers and investors.
139
Indeed, Americans' memories are so short that they cannot even listen to an entire pop song on iTunes but would prefer to shuffle ten-second samples of songs.
Just as lemmings march to the sea to jump in and drown, this will lead to our national extinction, because we seemed primed to make the same mistakes we did in 2000, when the Supreme Court determined a close election and what was, in effect, the "war party" took control and repeated a history most Americans (at least of my generation) learned and even more Americans seemed to forget.
That party (the GOP) appointed a national security advisor who either (1) was totally stupid or (2) was told to ignore eight months of solid intelligence warnings of a terrorist attack on these shores, ensuring that 9/11 occurred. 9/11 itself was used to enact the already-written "USA PATRIOT" Act in haste and fear, which trashed the Constitution and is a great tool in establishing permanent political power. Then they lobbied for what they wanted all along--attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
This was a direct copy of the Nazi playbook of 1933: the Reichstag Fire and the enactment of legislation setting up a dictatorship. A war based on lies took six years--the attack of Poland in 1939 and the invasion of the USSR (to seize its resources) in 1941.
Just as lemmings march to the sea to jump in and drown, this will lead to our national extinction, because we seemed primed to make the same mistakes we did in 2000, when the Supreme Court determined a close election and what was, in effect, the "war party" took control and repeated a history most Americans (at least of my generation) learned and even more Americans seemed to forget.
That party (the GOP) appointed a national security advisor who either (1) was totally stupid or (2) was told to ignore eight months of solid intelligence warnings of a terrorist attack on these shores, ensuring that 9/11 occurred. 9/11 itself was used to enact the already-written "USA PATRIOT" Act in haste and fear, which trashed the Constitution and is a great tool in establishing permanent political power. Then they lobbied for what they wanted all along--attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.
This was a direct copy of the Nazi playbook of 1933: the Reichstag Fire and the enactment of legislation setting up a dictatorship. A war based on lies took six years--the attack of Poland in 1939 and the invasion of the USSR (to seize its resources) in 1941.
1
It is obvious that vast numbers of Americans are not capable of critical thought. If Americans gave a second thought to what voting for a Republican really means, we would never have had the disastrous presidency of G. W. Bush!
2
The upside of this budget impasse: The GOP is no longer able to blame the democrats for congressional dysfunction. I can't decide which is worse, their desire to fund their pet Pentagon programs or the ease with which they throw average Americans under the bus.
123
Oh, I fully expect them to blame the democrats for anything and everything. Why would Republicans stop lying now, when it's been working so well for so many years.
By all means, let's increase military spending and let our infrastructure crash and burn in the mean time. The Republicans are not happy unless this country is at war. A bunch of cowardly war-mongering chicken hawks - the lot of them.
111
And, let us not forget that Hillary was a big supporter of the Iraq War.
Revised Tax Rate for Adjusted Gross Income over:
$1,000,000 = 40% progressive in 1% increments to 50% at $10,000,000.
Then:
$11,000,000 - 20,000,000 = 50% progressive in 10% increments to 90%.
Problem solved.
$1,000,000 = 40% progressive in 1% increments to 50% at $10,000,000.
Then:
$11,000,000 - 20,000,000 = 50% progressive in 10% increments to 90%.
Problem solved.
33
How they can be so wrong about so many things for so long and still be a viable force in politics is beyond me. This is an illustration of both how and why no country can stay viable for ever. What a bunch of idiots.
147
They do it by cutting funding for research and education. Keep the masses ignorant.
1
Joe Sixpack does not read books, newspapers or watch anything but Fox News and therefore votes against his own best interests. Meanwhile many registered Democrats find it "too much trouble" to vote even if it means sending in an absentee ballot. Go figure.
1
Depending on what set of numbers you use, the US spends more on defense than the next 15 to 25 countries. At what point does this disparity bring a halt to the tax burden it places on middle class Americans and the resulting safety net reductions for lower income Americans?
73
The GOP's leader, Netneyahu, has given them their orders. Now they have to make sure they have plenty of fancy weapons at his command.
The working U.S. taxpayers are expected to put up and shut up and send their sons and daughters for the fight.
The working U.S. taxpayers are expected to put up and shut up and send their sons and daughters for the fight.
70
Why the need to bring in Israel? We also protect a lot of other countries, including S Korea and Germany and much of the Persian Gulf.
1
@ Ed
- Because the leaders of those countries aren't coming over here to address Congress.
- Because U.S. taxpayers are giving the equivalent of $500 per person to Israel.
- Because Netanyahu is demanding that the U.S. send our money and our sons and daughters to die in wars based on made-up nonsense to protect Israel.
- Because Israel's sons and daughters in the army can't be counted on to fight anyone except rock throwing teenagers.
- Because Israel needs to decide if they're really a sovereign nation or a 51st state of the U.S. and if they want all the protection and privileges of a state they need to PAY TAXES to support our military and send THEIR OWN sons and daughters to fight their enemies on foreign soil.
- Because the leaders of those countries aren't coming over here to address Congress.
- Because U.S. taxpayers are giving the equivalent of $500 per person to Israel.
- Because Netanyahu is demanding that the U.S. send our money and our sons and daughters to die in wars based on made-up nonsense to protect Israel.
- Because Israel's sons and daughters in the army can't be counted on to fight anyone except rock throwing teenagers.
- Because Israel needs to decide if they're really a sovereign nation or a 51st state of the U.S. and if they want all the protection and privileges of a state they need to PAY TAXES to support our military and send THEIR OWN sons and daughters to fight their enemies on foreign soil.
2
I think you should put some more thought into your comment. There is compulsory for much of Israel's youth (yes, I know the exceptions), so to say that Israel's military cannot be counted on to fight anyone except rock-throwing teenagers. If you are concerned about people in the mideast who won't fight for their own country, you should ask Iraq, Syria and others who don't fight for their own country. Instead, they fight their own people. You need to decide if Israel is controlling the US or if the US is controlling Israel because you imply both in your comment. By the way, the US is not "giving" the equivalent of $500 per person to Israel. Much of what is purchased by Israel are US goods. Do you feel better that we continue to give quite a lot of aid to Egypt? Why does only aid to Israel bother you?
Republicans can win rigged elections in gerrymandered districts, but they can't govern. The behavior of those people in Congress make me thing that the GOP may be a greater threat to the security of the United States then is ISIS.
121
My district was gerrymandered by Democrats... But somehow is held by a Republican.
The military? Nothing but moochers and takers. Let them eat cake!
If the military needs money, let them get it from the 1%. The middle class has tightened its belt as far as it goes. No more notches here!
If the military needs money, let them get it from the 1%. The middle class has tightened its belt as far as it goes. No more notches here!
64
The term is bait and switch.It would be amazing to see how much money we actually needed for defense if you cut out all the waste. If anyone ran there household budget this way they would quickly file Chapter 11.
23
The GOP brought sequestration on themselves. Cutting snap programs for children was just fine but now when the cuts involve the military Ouch!
55
The thing about military contractors is that you've got to feed them regularly to keep them alive. Military cutbacks put the industry behind them out of work, and therefore unable to quickly ramp up in response to future needs. It's hard to keep their R&D on future weapons systems fully funded without a robust production of present generation weapons to fund/validate the R&D. Perhaps we could turn a lot of this technology toward NASA and manned spaceflight. There must be a lot of parallels between building a submarine that can stay submerged for months on end and building a deep space vehicle.
36
I classify your post as serious but stupid. Essentially you're arguing tha the defense industry is a JUNKIE that needs a constant fix....hmmm.
"The thing about military contractors is that you've got to feed them regularly to keep them alive. Military cutbacks put the industry behind them out of work, and therefore unable to quickly ramp up in response to future needs."
If WWII was any indication, we ramp up pretty darn quick when the situation calls for it and the country is behind it. Staying ramped up just starts and supplies more wars.
If WWII was any indication, we ramp up pretty darn quick when the situation calls for it and the country is behind it. Staying ramped up just starts and supplies more wars.
How about feeding our poor and hungry with a small fraction of the Military's budget?
Not surprisingly, no end to the venality and idiocy from Republicans in the USA Congress. Who votes for these people?
11
The no-new-tax-nincompoops are having tremendous difficulty removing their bloviating craniums from the deep recesses of their derrières.
99
The reason the military appears starved is because operations and support competes with the only thing the defense industry really cares about -- weapons programs. For example, we are about to embark on yet another long range bomber program based on fantasies masquerading as cost estimates, even though our current fleet has contributed little to our national security. We don't need this program, nor do we need a new carrier, nor do we need nuclear weapon modernization, four separate military services, three military academies, and about half of the real estate we own. Can we ever have a reality check?
12
We spend too much on defense. We spend it stupidly, too. The nation's civilian infrastructure is at risk from cyberattack by enemy nations, yet I see little beyond verbiage about defending it.
Meanwhile, the clueless and ideologically crazy GOP will define essential defense spending just as the clueless and ideologically dated Democrats do: "whatever is needed to keep jobs in my district." The military will call for new weapons systems as a form of job security, too, or to score points in inter-service rivalry.
These stupid rationales shortchange our national security while gutting cost-effective and battlefield-tested programs such as the A-10 "Warthog" aircraft that should never have been retired.
Meanwhile, the public goes shopping for Apple Watches. Be sure to give a vet begging for change a quarter, as you go into Starbucks. And thank them for their service. It's not just Congress: we're a nation of chickenhawks.
Meanwhile, the clueless and ideologically crazy GOP will define essential defense spending just as the clueless and ideologically dated Democrats do: "whatever is needed to keep jobs in my district." The military will call for new weapons systems as a form of job security, too, or to score points in inter-service rivalry.
These stupid rationales shortchange our national security while gutting cost-effective and battlefield-tested programs such as the A-10 "Warthog" aircraft that should never have been retired.
Meanwhile, the public goes shopping for Apple Watches. Be sure to give a vet begging for change a quarter, as you go into Starbucks. And thank them for their service. It's not just Congress: we're a nation of chickenhawks.
10
Wait a minute, I'm confused. I thought the GOP was getting super concerned about the middle class with ideas like increasing the earned income credit and such to enable better equality of opportunity?
Oh, never mind.....
Oh, never mind.....
21
We started out with 100 Senators, who immediately divided into camps 54 to 46; then the 54 became 47% purer still; now the warring factions will subdivide even further until each is no larger than a fifth grade clique...and just as mature. What we are seeing is the phony puppets duke it for the pleasure of their owners who yank on their almost visible strings. This is fundamentally Kochs v. Adelson....where will the People's money go? Next we will likely see the GOP factions start suing each other, ending up on the docket of The Supremes, where they too will reveal whose hands pull the strings of the "justices". Popcorn please.
10
The federal budge problem is not defense hawks vs deficit hawks. The problem is republican politicians cannot add and subtract.
The federal budget has insufficient revenues to cover the costs. Sequestration has actually worked quite well and has been a major contributor to the reduction of debt as % of GDP. National debt itself has not declined, and interest payments on the debt has increased, but the debt burden is manageable.
That said, the government runs at a deficit. We take in ~$500b less in tax revenues than we spend. All sequestration has done is to cap spending increases. Over the long haul, even Mr Krugman acknowledges that at some point we have to close the income and outflow gap.
Interestingly, the single largest increase in annual costs since 2009 has been in the category of government pensions, up ~20% in 5 years to just over $900B according to nationalpriorities.org. Clearly government pensions, including military, are far too generous in comparison to the private sector for this level of increase to occur during a time of zero inflation.
Unfortunately, America does need a strong military in today's world. Just as unfortunately, most republican defense hawks want to sustain defense spending on unneeded military bases and useless military weapons programs, something that even Rumsfeld believed was necessary to trim.
Since most of the bases and much of the weapons programs fund red states' economies, it will be a while before they are trimmed.
The federal budget has insufficient revenues to cover the costs. Sequestration has actually worked quite well and has been a major contributor to the reduction of debt as % of GDP. National debt itself has not declined, and interest payments on the debt has increased, but the debt burden is manageable.
That said, the government runs at a deficit. We take in ~$500b less in tax revenues than we spend. All sequestration has done is to cap spending increases. Over the long haul, even Mr Krugman acknowledges that at some point we have to close the income and outflow gap.
Interestingly, the single largest increase in annual costs since 2009 has been in the category of government pensions, up ~20% in 5 years to just over $900B according to nationalpriorities.org. Clearly government pensions, including military, are far too generous in comparison to the private sector for this level of increase to occur during a time of zero inflation.
Unfortunately, America does need a strong military in today's world. Just as unfortunately, most republican defense hawks want to sustain defense spending on unneeded military bases and useless military weapons programs, something that even Rumsfeld believed was necessary to trim.
Since most of the bases and much of the weapons programs fund red states' economies, it will be a while before they are trimmed.
3
1. Think of money flowing between the federal sector (Treasury, FED, etc.) & the non-federal sector (people, businesses, & state and local gov.). When it flows out of the federal sector we call it a deficit. When it flows out of the private sector, we call it a surplus. Which direction would you like to see it flow?
The federal section can create as much money as it needs without creating private debt. As the economy grows, the non-federal sector (us) needs more and more money to operate. So money must flow out of the federal sector and into the non-federal sector. So we must have a deficit. AND it has to be large enough to support the growth of the economy.
Deficit hawks who want to throttle this flow of money or even worse reverse it are like vampires who want to limit the flow of what is the life blood of our economy, money.
2. The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want to have enough revenue to cover all the costs?
The federal section can create as much money as it needs without creating private debt. As the economy grows, the non-federal sector (us) needs more and more money to operate. So money must flow out of the federal sector and into the non-federal sector. So we must have a deficit. AND it has to be large enough to support the growth of the economy.
Deficit hawks who want to throttle this flow of money or even worse reverse it are like vampires who want to limit the flow of what is the life blood of our economy, money.
2. The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want to have enough revenue to cover all the costs?
Can we stop and look back. This is the party that painted Obama as inflexible, and unwilling to negotiate on legislation and policy? Look at them now. They control both houses, and still cannot even come to an agreement on the one issue used to unite them like drones - defense and war! I think we can now all agree on who has paralyzed this government for the past 7 years.
26
We might know, if there was anything the republicans would fight about amongst themselves, it would be over the amount of weapons they could play with.
If ever a spending cap was in order in this country its the cap on military spending.
McCain, eager to pick a fight with Iran ( or anyone else in the mideast, or North Korea, or many others he hasn't yet told us about ) wants an additional 16 billion spent on time military, presumably because he believes you can never get enough of a good thing
Paranoia aside, a spending cap has been possibly the most rational decision made in congress in the last 20 years. Anything in place which controls the fanatical war hawks ambitions should be kept in place, at least until by chance, the country can elect a sufficient number of rational politicians who are willing and able to indulge in a rational dialogue over our need for unlimited safety at any cost.
The republicans who want "war" should keep it among themselves. That way, the rest of us can go about our own business without concern about any 'innocent" casualties.
If ever a spending cap was in order in this country its the cap on military spending.
McCain, eager to pick a fight with Iran ( or anyone else in the mideast, or North Korea, or many others he hasn't yet told us about ) wants an additional 16 billion spent on time military, presumably because he believes you can never get enough of a good thing
Paranoia aside, a spending cap has been possibly the most rational decision made in congress in the last 20 years. Anything in place which controls the fanatical war hawks ambitions should be kept in place, at least until by chance, the country can elect a sufficient number of rational politicians who are willing and able to indulge in a rational dialogue over our need for unlimited safety at any cost.
The republicans who want "war" should keep it among themselves. That way, the rest of us can go about our own business without concern about any 'innocent" casualties.
9
The GOP never met a war it didn't like. I was naive to think a fleet of inexpensive drones and inexpensive ship based lasers would help reduce our military spending. Silly me.
21
This is the GOP's stimulus package. They have identified shovel ready projects that the military wants to spend money on. Provided that such spending is undertaken in the US, it is a strategy that may even appeal to Paul Krugman.
To appeal to fiscal conservatives, the GOP then points out that budget overruns are the result of Government "hand outs" to undeserving welfare recipients. They are careful to differentiate between such persons and recipients of Social Security and Medicare as the latter make up a substantial portion of their base.
To appeal to fiscal conservatives, the GOP then points out that budget overruns are the result of Government "hand outs" to undeserving welfare recipients. They are careful to differentiate between such persons and recipients of Social Security and Medicare as the latter make up a substantial portion of their base.
5
Unusual that the Republicans are off message. I'm sure tomorrow they will blame this on Obama.
Guns or Butter. As Krugman confirms both are fiscal stimulus. How hypocritical of our Republican brothers to say that now that they are in control, however, it is high time to increase the size of government.
On a positive note, I suppose, it's good to see a bend toward compromise with the Democrats. More Domestic for more Defense.
There is one area where I think the commenters on this thread are wrong: McCain et al really do believe that we need more defense spending to remain safe and protect our interests. I don't agree (and think it wonderful the Air Force is shrinking--maybe we can drown it in the bathtub and merge it's mission with the Navy and Army?) but they do believe we need more military spending for the good of the country.
Guns or Butter. As Krugman confirms both are fiscal stimulus. How hypocritical of our Republican brothers to say that now that they are in control, however, it is high time to increase the size of government.
On a positive note, I suppose, it's good to see a bend toward compromise with the Democrats. More Domestic for more Defense.
There is one area where I think the commenters on this thread are wrong: McCain et al really do believe that we need more defense spending to remain safe and protect our interests. I don't agree (and think it wonderful the Air Force is shrinking--maybe we can drown it in the bathtub and merge it's mission with the Navy and Army?) but they do believe we need more military spending for the good of the country.
7
Our defense budget has been absurd for many years now. For some reason we feel that it is important to be the world's police, even though many throughout the world reject us for that. Conservatives often complain about foreign aid spending without acknowledging that much of the real spending in that category is hidden in the massive defense budget.
39
If Congress people want us to be the world's policeman, invading and bombing at will across the globe, a simple answer would be to impose an Endless War sur-tax. The tax should be progressive; falling on those who support and have the most to gain from this crazyness.
51
We should reinstitue the draft.
If the average American had skin in the game, going to war would be a very big deal.
If the average American had skin in the game, going to war would be a very big deal.
1
Don't forget to add a universal draft.
When children of wealth and influence are jeopardized, wars of choice will be a thing of the past.
When children of wealth and influence are jeopardized, wars of choice will be a thing of the past.
2
actually if we are the "world policeman" then we should be paid by the world. We need to stay at home unless the "world" is willing to pay our costs. We could becom a mercenary police force for hire, lots of work for everyone and low tadxes since our employer would be paying the bill (not really but makes as much sense as anything else our congress is currently doing)
There must be some milk for babies left in the "Budget" we can cut.
26
"Make war, squeeze the poor."
The Republican mantra.
The Republican mantra.
76
Get rid of programs like the F-35 that costs more than an aircraft carrier and a submarine combined. The rise in spending goes to contractors while active duty troops are facing cuts in allowances and new fees for health care for family members. I'm sure that if we need to deploy personnel, that Lockheed-Martin and Boeing employees will not be grabbing rifles and rucksacks and getting on an aircraft or embarking on a ship.
The whole privatization of the military which began in 1999 has led to nothing but mega profits for defense contractors and reduced forces. Every year the defense budget rises, but they can't afford to keep people in uniform. Why?
The whole privatization of the military which began in 1999 has led to nothing but mega profits for defense contractors and reduced forces. Every year the defense budget rises, but they can't afford to keep people in uniform. Why?
198
Actually, aircraft carriers and submarines make big easy targets. Perhaps stealthy aircraft are a better choice. I firmly believe the future is in air and space.
1
What happened in 1999 that led to the privatization of the military? I actually do not know, and I would appreciate it if your informed me.
Cut funding for Solyndra and Warren Buffet, which line the pockets of the 1% and contribute nothing to the public good.
I don't really care who isn't getting along, as long as something like progress comes out of it.
---
Rhetorical question from the community cynic - If policy dissent within the GOP is called a "rift," what is it called when Democrats struggle with policy direction?
---
Rhetorical question from the community cynic - If policy dissent within the GOP is called a "rift," what is it called when Democrats struggle with policy direction?
1
I find the choice between the redistribution liberals and the Republican Hawks who want to control your personal life fundamentally distressing. The US does not face a defense threat. We spend more on defense than all other nations combined. The defense industry reminds me of the teachers union. The system is bad while the participants are largely in it for the common good. There is no reason to believe that we cannot work to have a more efficient, more effective military for the amount of money we are spending.
6
Senator Graham,
This is not "war" but an argument. War is when you and your colleagues in Congress send American men and women into harm's way; this is an ideological squabble between members at the ideological extremes of your party.
War is when American men and women die in support of their country; this is a spat between people who are concerned only with their "base" and their contributors.
That you do not understand the awful difference between war and disagreement certainly helps explain why you and your ilk are so willing to send our brave men and women to unnecessary danger in furtherance of your desire to gain the base support of voters and your campaign contributors.
This is not "war" but an argument. War is when you and your colleagues in Congress send American men and women into harm's way; this is an ideological squabble between members at the ideological extremes of your party.
War is when American men and women die in support of their country; this is a spat between people who are concerned only with their "base" and their contributors.
That you do not understand the awful difference between war and disagreement certainly helps explain why you and your ilk are so willing to send our brave men and women to unnecessary danger in furtherance of your desire to gain the base support of voters and your campaign contributors.
13
For the millionth time - social security and medicare are not entitlements. Working women and men pay for it and have earned it. I can understand conservatives and republicans in congress referring to these programs that way, but the NT Times? That's just irresponsible journalism.
25
Why do we continue to waste trillions of dollars and the blood of America's finest fighting other people's wars in the Middle East? And keep talking about taking money from our oldest and poorest to pay for it?
70% of Americans agree, good riddance to foreign entanglements. We need people in congress and the white house who can't be bought, and have the courage to say no to the military industrial complex.
70% of Americans agree, good riddance to foreign entanglements. We need people in congress and the white house who can't be bought, and have the courage to say no to the military industrial complex.
19
Lindsey Graham: as president I would deploy the military against Congress!
“And here's the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States. I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.”
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/lindsey-graham-military-coup
“And here's the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States. I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.”
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/lindsey-graham-military-coup
2
We get into deep deep trouble with our military, losing the Vietnam War, Iraq an unmitigated disaster, and Afghanistan. The less financing of our military the better. Our dysfunctional foreign policy is profoundly weakening our country. Also Libya.
9
Vietnam was two generations ago. (I'm not arguing about how badly that was mis-managed, both by the military and the civilian leadership).
2
Nobody's resources are infinite and we all make decisions about what to buy to stay within a budget. Why can't government? This article talks about trade offs but fails to mention the use of diplomacy in lieu of military might. Perhaps if we were not trying to dictate to the rest of the world all the time we might need fewer military assets.
5
We currently spend about as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, but the military hawks are insistent that this is not enough. Eisenhower was right to warn about the power of the military-industrial complex. He is, by the way, the most recent Republican president who actually produced a balanced budget. The modern-day GOP would faint at the tax rates under his administration.
1
The Republicans claim the government is broken and then they are elected into power and prove it. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
15
How predictable that the current Commander in Chief is willing to gut the military.
The only thing Mr. Obama is willing to protect and preserve is food stamps, free cellphones and NPR.
The only thing Mr. Obama is willing to protect and preserve is food stamps, free cellphones and NPR.
1
Think of the billions and billions worth of weapons we left behin in our failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which are now used by all these evil regimes. Real smart we are !!,
3
@mookie. You should have read the article. This article provides no basis for your anti-Obama comment. "President Obama has already proposed raising spending caps in the fiscal year that begins this October by nearly $80 billion, half for defense, half for domestic programs." Not that facts matter ...
3
That's what happens when you've been talking out of both sides of your mouth. To quote Malcolm X, "Chickens come home to roost."
3
O.K. we spend too much on "defense" & we spend it badly, on huge projects like the F-35 which attempts to repeal the laws of physics by building a plane that is fast, maneuverable & stealthy, all of which require a small cross section, AND can take off vertically or from a very short runway, which requires a large cross section. Or the Abrams tank which is very expensive to build & maintain, but is by far the best tank ever built. It would allow us to win any tank battles like that fought on the plains of Hungry in WWII. Unfortunately there will no longer be such tank battles.
BUT even more important is the stupid idea that we must lower the deficit. Think of money flowing between the federal sector (Treasury, FED, etc.) & the non-federal sector (people, businesses, & state and local gov.). When it flows out of the federal sector we call it a deficit. When it flows out of the private sector, we call it a surplus. Which direction would you like to see it flow?
The federal section can create as much money as it needs without creating private debt. As the economy grows, the non-federal sector (us) needs more and more money to operate. So money must flow out of the federal sector and into the non-federal sector. So we must have a deficit. AND it has to be large enough to support the growth of the economy.
Deficit hawks who want to throttle this flow of money or even worse reverse it are like vampires who want to limit the flow of what is the life blood of our economy, money.
BUT even more important is the stupid idea that we must lower the deficit. Think of money flowing between the federal sector (Treasury, FED, etc.) & the non-federal sector (people, businesses, & state and local gov.). When it flows out of the federal sector we call it a deficit. When it flows out of the private sector, we call it a surplus. Which direction would you like to see it flow?
The federal section can create as much money as it needs without creating private debt. As the economy grows, the non-federal sector (us) needs more and more money to operate. So money must flow out of the federal sector and into the non-federal sector. So we must have a deficit. AND it has to be large enough to support the growth of the economy.
Deficit hawks who want to throttle this flow of money or even worse reverse it are like vampires who want to limit the flow of what is the life blood of our economy, money.
7
The U.S. needs to put its resources into productive uses, like infrastructure, training, education, research. health care, and innovation. We have been overspending on the military since the defense industry purchased the Congress, many of whose members it still owns.
The "spend more on bombs and bombers" crowd are made up in large part of a cabal of traitors who would destroy the U.S.'s best hopes for grown-up diplomacy in the world, in order to support Israel and their corporate sponsors. This fact makes it even easier to resist their nonsense.
The "spend more on bombs and bombers" crowd are made up in large part of a cabal of traitors who would destroy the U.S.'s best hopes for grown-up diplomacy in the world, in order to support Israel and their corporate sponsors. This fact makes it even easier to resist their nonsense.
18
"Savings from entitlement programs..." Social security is not an entitlement program - every working woman and man in this country pays into it for their entire working lives. So the idea is to 'save' the military by furthering cuts to the people the military is supposed to defend?
And if only these leaders in Congress were nearly as concerned about the threat looming right now - CA is on path to run out of water in one year, according to the LA Times. The rest of the Southwest is on track to follow. The Northeast's infrastructure is under unbelievable stress from these cold and brutally snowy winters. Where is the proactive, we must defend the homeland Congress? Congress should be funding massive infrastructure projects to ameliorate the devastation from these changes in climate which scientists have been predicting for decades.
And if only these leaders in Congress were nearly as concerned about the threat looming right now - CA is on path to run out of water in one year, according to the LA Times. The rest of the Southwest is on track to follow. The Northeast's infrastructure is under unbelievable stress from these cold and brutally snowy winters. Where is the proactive, we must defend the homeland Congress? Congress should be funding massive infrastructure projects to ameliorate the devastation from these changes in climate which scientists have been predicting for decades.
34
They are being hoisted on their own petard. Well probably end up with a typical right wing Hobson choice of more for the military and deeper cuts for the poor and entitlement programs boomers have been counting on for retirement.
After all: the poor don't make campaign donations but the military industrial complex does...and then some.
After all: the poor don't make campaign donations but the military industrial complex does...and then some.
19
Republicans usually do not like to cut Defense spending, and Democrats usually do not like to cut spending on Medicare and Social Security.
Here is a compromise: Eliminate the planned cuts of $540 Billion, and increase taxes on the rich by the same amount.
Here is a compromise: Eliminate the planned cuts of $540 Billion, and increase taxes on the rich by the same amount.
23
Social Security is NOT government spending. It is funded SOLELY by FICA taxes, does not add to the deficit. It is the WORKERS' money, and there is no justification for cutting benefits in ANY way, although that was hinted at in the sixth from the last paragraph.
5
>
The Tea Party vs. the Warmongers, should be interesting. The American people will be this war's victims and losers, whichever side wins.
The Tea Party vs. the Warmongers, should be interesting. The American people will be this war's victims and losers, whichever side wins.
24
Lindsay Graham just wants more money so hey can dump it in the middle east. Look at all the hearings he is on. He would love to send 1/2 million Americans in never ending wars being a proxy for Israel. How many more American kids have to die defending other people's countries?
16
Besides being arch enemies of anything left of a democracy for and by the people, the Republicans will militarily attack either anything that moves or anything that can be made into a profitable enemy. Control of the three branches of government by these people will spell the end of the experiment with democracy in the US! Military spending is the only justifiable spending objective of the Republican Party!
And because big money controls elections, and voters can be convinced to vote from their fears rather than their self-interests, right-wing Republican control of this nation is a real possibility.
And because big money controls elections, and voters can be convinced to vote from their fears rather than their self-interests, right-wing Republican control of this nation is a real possibility.
19
"As more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell into disrepair."
341
We may have rusting bridges, crumbling highways and a failing power grid but by god we will have more bombs.
2
Interesting fact to select from history.
It's also true that as Rome declined, they pumped significant resources into spectacles to entertain the masses and distract them from the decay of the empire. (Throwing Chrisians to the lions: giving tax subsidies to the movie industry, NASCAR, sports arenas, ObamaPhones) The wealthy, meanwhile, gorged and purged themselves in vomitoriums, further wasting resources and generally living large on the backs of slave labor who, incidentally they exploited as sex slaves. (Tax subsidies for private jets, mega mansions, wealthy sex slave trade [Clinton friends], politician wealth growing exponentially during their time in public service and faster once out of office, huge gifts granted to the favored few [Warren Buffett, Solyndra, GE], disproportionate salaries to CEOs.)
Democrat policies give to both the rich and the poor, with the rich getting a bigger share. This policy leads to an increasing rate of bifurcation between the rich and the poor. A few from the middleclass move into the elite ranks, the rest sink closer and closer to the ranks of the poor.
Increasing military spending was a best a minor element in the fall of the Roman Empire. It contributed to the extent that the resources to fight were drawn from the productive sectors of the economy, while protecting the elite and funneling resources to distract the masses. Poor administration: sounds like Obama.
It's also true that as Rome declined, they pumped significant resources into spectacles to entertain the masses and distract them from the decay of the empire. (Throwing Chrisians to the lions: giving tax subsidies to the movie industry, NASCAR, sports arenas, ObamaPhones) The wealthy, meanwhile, gorged and purged themselves in vomitoriums, further wasting resources and generally living large on the backs of slave labor who, incidentally they exploited as sex slaves. (Tax subsidies for private jets, mega mansions, wealthy sex slave trade [Clinton friends], politician wealth growing exponentially during their time in public service and faster once out of office, huge gifts granted to the favored few [Warren Buffett, Solyndra, GE], disproportionate salaries to CEOs.)
Democrat policies give to both the rich and the poor, with the rich getting a bigger share. This policy leads to an increasing rate of bifurcation between the rich and the poor. A few from the middleclass move into the elite ranks, the rest sink closer and closer to the ranks of the poor.
Increasing military spending was a best a minor element in the fall of the Roman Empire. It contributed to the extent that the resources to fight were drawn from the productive sectors of the economy, while protecting the elite and funneling resources to distract the masses. Poor administration: sounds like Obama.
How can you abandon a program of spend without taxation while your campaign coffers are overflowing....it pays to create havoc, financially, especially when you can blame it on the POTUS and get away with it
What a mess...and people continue to vote Republican, just incredible!
What a mess...and people continue to vote Republican, just incredible!
34
When Republicans call their own Republican plans a gimmick its not just a gimmick but really a scam on the America People.
15
I bet the DOD and HS could save a lot of money if they stopped giving away military equipment to police in America, took back what's already been given and reuse what they have instead of always buying new!
12
The US created ISIS, indirectly, by spending $1 Trillion+ in Iraq. Whats another Trillion here, or a Trillion there? The American taxpayer doesn't seem to care.
19
ISIS is in large part a creation of the millennium long spit between the two main factions of Islam. The roots are far older than the U.S. involvement in the MidEast.
1
Relax everyone, the GOP never pays for ANYTHING, they're going to put it on the credit card. like they always do. Then those who come along behind them will be stuck with their bills again. See how smart they are?
36
No. Your claim that the modern GOP is the big offender of buying on credit & kicking the can down the road is simply inaccurate.
Both sides of the aisle are guilty of overspending, but what you have described is what the Democrats have done for several generations. Everyone knows it. In terms of debt, the National Debt was at $5.8 Trillion when George W. Bush took office in 2001. It was $11.6 trillion when he left office. Most liberals, including then-Candidate Obama described such overspending as "unpatriotic." But after six years of spending under now-President Obama (during all of which the Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress), spending has reached an all-time high. It is now at $18.1 Trillion - just shy of a $7 Trillion increase from when Bush left office... and we still have a couple of years to go. ...And the president's proposed, annual spending plan calls for LOOSENING the purse strings!
The Obama Administration is empirically the biggest over-spender presidency in history. As for Congress, the 110th Congress (both houses controlled by the Democrats) approved the biggest non-war spending in history, with the various stimulus packages, and the 111th Congress (near super-majority control by the Democrats) similarly overspent, including more stimulus and the passage of ACA.
Through it all, the fight in Congress has been over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling (to allow more debt to build) The GOP opposes it. Democrats insist its necessity.
Both sides of the aisle are guilty of overspending, but what you have described is what the Democrats have done for several generations. Everyone knows it. In terms of debt, the National Debt was at $5.8 Trillion when George W. Bush took office in 2001. It was $11.6 trillion when he left office. Most liberals, including then-Candidate Obama described such overspending as "unpatriotic." But after six years of spending under now-President Obama (during all of which the Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress), spending has reached an all-time high. It is now at $18.1 Trillion - just shy of a $7 Trillion increase from when Bush left office... and we still have a couple of years to go. ...And the president's proposed, annual spending plan calls for LOOSENING the purse strings!
The Obama Administration is empirically the biggest over-spender presidency in history. As for Congress, the 110th Congress (both houses controlled by the Democrats) approved the biggest non-war spending in history, with the various stimulus packages, and the 111th Congress (near super-majority control by the Democrats) similarly overspent, including more stimulus and the passage of ACA.
Through it all, the fight in Congress has been over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling (to allow more debt to build) The GOP opposes it. Democrats insist its necessity.
1
Let's look a some history on the debt.
After WWI, we had 10 years of balanced budgets. Here are the debt figures:
07/01/1920 $25,952,456,406.16
06/30/1930 $16,185,309,831.43
In 1929, the debt was only 16% of GDP
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED !?
BTW History shows us that every time we embraced austerity and balanced the budget for a while, we got a depression and every major depression followed a period of surpluses.
After WWII we had even more debt as a percent of GDP, but we had mostly deficits for 27 years,
Here are the debt figures:
06/28/1946 $269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1973 $458,141,605,312.09
As you can see, the debt almost doubled, but we got the interstate highway system, Medicare. a median real household income that was 74% larger, and GDP growth averaged 3.8%.
BTW the public debt was 109% of GDP in 1946 and the gross debt was 121%. Those figures are about 73% and 100% today.
Please explain why we ever have to pay off or even pay down the debt. Debt service is running at 0.8% of GDP, the lowest in about 60 years.
When did we pay off the debt from WWII? When did too much debt EVER negatively impact the economy? Many times (e.g. 1929) too little debt sure did.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
After WWI, we had 10 years of balanced budgets. Here are the debt figures:
07/01/1920 $25,952,456,406.16
06/30/1930 $16,185,309,831.43
In 1929, the debt was only 16% of GDP
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED !?
BTW History shows us that every time we embraced austerity and balanced the budget for a while, we got a depression and every major depression followed a period of surpluses.
After WWII we had even more debt as a percent of GDP, but we had mostly deficits for 27 years,
Here are the debt figures:
06/28/1946 $269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1973 $458,141,605,312.09
As you can see, the debt almost doubled, but we got the interstate highway system, Medicare. a median real household income that was 74% larger, and GDP growth averaged 3.8%.
BTW the public debt was 109% of GDP in 1946 and the gross debt was 121%. Those figures are about 73% and 100% today.
Please explain why we ever have to pay off or even pay down the debt. Debt service is running at 0.8% of GDP, the lowest in about 60 years.
When did we pay off the debt from WWII? When did too much debt EVER negatively impact the economy? Many times (e.g. 1929) too little debt sure did.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
"Don't complain about the President . . ."
Made me laugh! May as well tell them not to breathe.
Made me laugh! May as well tell them not to breathe.
18
Replaced by savings from social security and medicare... Heard that one before, along with get rid of waste and corruption... Worked out well in past, right?
8
Guys, Guys, Guys... be careful for what ya wish for. You got your November election. Don't mess that up! (Like that would be a bad thing...!!)
2
The American people just put Republicans in control of Congress. Well that will definitely end gridlock in Washington and address our nation's most pressing issues. Sure. Be careful what you wish for...........
6
Republicans can save Billions of Defense dollars by merging the supply depots of the Air Force and Army into Defense Logistics Agency as was intended in 1961 when DLA was created. Further Billions in Defense dollars can be saved by merging Air Force and NAVY tactical air forces. Such a merger would eliminate all of the duplicative intermediate tactical headquarters staffs all the way up to the Chief OF Staff of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Navy. Republicans will not do these things because they are not true conservatives, they are liberals when it comes to wasting taxpayer dollars on outmoded defense organizational structures. We are now back to the spend and spend of Republican George Bush years where he gave us HUGE tax cuts which wiped out the Clinton surpluses and doubled the national debt . Had Bush 43 left the system as it was in 2001, we would have had NO NATIONAL DEBT OF ANY KIND BY 2011. Republican big government liberals are back in power and will waste money on defense big time. Big, unwarranted tax breaks for businesses and waste on defense are what Republicans do best. As a Goldwater conservative, I expect Barry is spinning in his grave at what this current crop of GOP guys do.
11
We're not doing a lot of fighting these days, so the military's role includes substantial deterrence. Without military spending, ISIS would control more territory and would have massacred more civilians, Yemen would be a terrorist state, the Taliban would have more influence, North Korea and Iran would have advanced their nuclear programs, China would have occupied the disputed islands, the Ukraine would be Russian, Israel would exercise even less restraint, and Western Europe would be on its own. Assuming that most of the money saved would not be used domestically, taxes would be much lower. On the other hand, ex-soldiers would flood the labor market and drive wages down.
Reducing the military budget is a piecemeal thing. The goal is to reduce aggression without reducing deterrence.
Reducing the military budget is a piecemeal thing. The goal is to reduce aggression without reducing deterrence.
1
McCain being a warmonger again? What a surprise.
15
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was a disaster, arguably the nadir of the Obama presidency. It should be repealed. But Democrats, as much as some want to end the domestic spending caps and even spend more money on the military, cannot go along with any plan to make up the $540 billion by weakening Medicare and Social Security. Republicans are not going to want to end the carried interest and other tax loopholes, so we're likely going to stuck in a few months right where we are now.
The GOP's plan to pass a budget that conforms to the 2011 law and then change that law later this year (and thus end sequestration) sounds an awful lot like a Boehner idea. Do those ever work? The party is too divided. Of course, the McCain-Graham wing might break and force McConnell to rely on Dems to pass a budget that ends sequestration so it can ramp up military spending yet again. That might be the best outcome for Democrats.
The GOP's plan to pass a budget that conforms to the 2011 law and then change that law later this year (and thus end sequestration) sounds an awful lot like a Boehner idea. Do those ever work? The party is too divided. Of course, the McCain-Graham wing might break and force McConnell to rely on Dems to pass a budget that ends sequestration so it can ramp up military spending yet again. That might be the best outcome for Democrats.
1
What a great country America is! Our beloved congress will demand a budget that gives more money to the military and less money to the social welfare of those who haven't everything they need like enough food, shelter, medical care that isn't costly and so much more.
BUT---but--- we will be safe from our enemies. Who wouldn't rather miss meals and sleep in shelters and have their children in need than to have to worry about being safe from all those people who "hate us and our way of life".
BUT---but--- we will be safe from our enemies. Who wouldn't rather miss meals and sleep in shelters and have their children in need than to have to worry about being safe from all those people who "hate us and our way of life".
19
Perhaps the reason they "hate us and our way of life" is the way we treat our poor.
3
Big split in the GOP? Not supported by this story!
What it reveals is a yearning to lift ALL sequestration on the left-ie all Dems, with much greater leaning on their left. (e.g. E. Warren, who awaits cue to enter the Dem primary/fray-to-come from stage left when the crescendo consigning Hillary under the bus reaches necessary levels.)
There is no dispute in the GOP for the need to maintain adequate military spending including increases. This is while Obama hollows out inter alia the army while he not only recklessly withdraws forces (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq-both with disastrous results) but also refuses military aid to others he wishes to stand guard, or fight for, aims vital to us.
What this reflects is groundwork for the predictable Dem refusal to approve any targeted (favorite Dem/liberal word) increase in military spending.
And as a coda to the above: Why do we not hear of the left/lefter split within the Dems? Wasn't it Will Rodgers who said "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."
Oh wait we can see it! Recent example: Dem opposition to Obama's pending decision to give away the store-not to mention the fundamental safety, in order of importance, of Israel, the world and the US- to reach the most significant "peace" pact, since Munich, with Iran. This through the exercise imperial power to ignore the Constitution treaty provision to reach "secret treaties secretly arrived at" (the 15th secret exception to Wilson's 14 points) with Iran.
What it reveals is a yearning to lift ALL sequestration on the left-ie all Dems, with much greater leaning on their left. (e.g. E. Warren, who awaits cue to enter the Dem primary/fray-to-come from stage left when the crescendo consigning Hillary under the bus reaches necessary levels.)
There is no dispute in the GOP for the need to maintain adequate military spending including increases. This is while Obama hollows out inter alia the army while he not only recklessly withdraws forces (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq-both with disastrous results) but also refuses military aid to others he wishes to stand guard, or fight for, aims vital to us.
What this reflects is groundwork for the predictable Dem refusal to approve any targeted (favorite Dem/liberal word) increase in military spending.
And as a coda to the above: Why do we not hear of the left/lefter split within the Dems? Wasn't it Will Rodgers who said "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."
Oh wait we can see it! Recent example: Dem opposition to Obama's pending decision to give away the store-not to mention the fundamental safety, in order of importance, of Israel, the world and the US- to reach the most significant "peace" pact, since Munich, with Iran. This through the exercise imperial power to ignore the Constitution treaty provision to reach "secret treaties secretly arrived at" (the 15th secret exception to Wilson's 14 points) with Iran.
1
Irrespective of the size of the US defense budget US hegemony will not be sustained. But this is traditional route for the end of imperial powers full of delusions and demonstrations of innumeracy.
9
Now, from deep in Republican Voodoo-land, a $540 billion "deficit-neutral reserve fund" to be funded by equal reductions in so-called "entitlement" programs, specifically Social Security and Medicare.
For all their lying and obfuscation, the Republican Right has been trying to kill Social Security since its creation by FDR. And didn't St. Ronnie tell America long ago that Medicare was socialism, and had to go? Just elect a Republican president, America, to team up with the Roberts Court, and the Tea Party Congress, and see how long it takes to destroy both.
For all their lying and obfuscation, the Republican Right has been trying to kill Social Security since its creation by FDR. And didn't St. Ronnie tell America long ago that Medicare was socialism, and had to go? Just elect a Republican president, America, to team up with the Roberts Court, and the Tea Party Congress, and see how long it takes to destroy both.
17
Let's not forget that we spend as much on defense as the all the other countries in the world do COMBINED! Why would any sane person even think of increasing this huge budget??
Since the vast web of military contractors are among the largest contributors to members of Congress, who in turn are beholden to these contributors, it is unlikely that Congress could ever get the courage to start cutting the enormous amounts of fat (50,000 troops in Japan), waste, unneeded weapons (the Osprey & the F-35 as examples) and general mismanagement that exists in this huge branch of our government. Therefore perhaps the sequester is the only way.
In short, long live the sequester!
Since the vast web of military contractors are among the largest contributors to members of Congress, who in turn are beholden to these contributors, it is unlikely that Congress could ever get the courage to start cutting the enormous amounts of fat (50,000 troops in Japan), waste, unneeded weapons (the Osprey & the F-35 as examples) and general mismanagement that exists in this huge branch of our government. Therefore perhaps the sequester is the only way.
In short, long live the sequester!
10
So typical. GOP's can't govern their way out of a brown paper bag. Nothing for the nation, just war all the time...their blueprint for the last 40 years. You'd think they would scrap the archaic to the dustbin of history and join us in the 21st century. I won't hold my breath.
20
Only the Republicans could take two sides of an issue, and be wrong in both cases.
31
Brilliant!
3
Sadly, these grandstanding and not-very-bright politicians are the folks running the govt.
7
The specter of deficits and the so-called national debt have been the dual linchpins of GOP thought for as long as any of us have been alive. It wins elections because they can make comparisons between home budgets and federal gov't spending that sound lie common sense, although they are in fact ridiculous.
According to Bloomberg News, at one point the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the financial institutions during the banking crisis. It is widely agreed that at least one trillion was spent immediately in 2008. This spending caused no inflation at all, by the way. The initial trillion could have hired all unemployed Americans at $30,000 a year plus benefits for at least eight years.
We can safely predict that the GOP will continue to smother the country with misinformation. It is unfortunate that so many Democrats buy their economic narrative, and are now cheering the lowering of the deficit. As long as these beliefs are not challenged, the right wing will continue to win elected position for which it has no right.
According to Bloomberg News, at one point the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the financial institutions during the banking crisis. It is widely agreed that at least one trillion was spent immediately in 2008. This spending caused no inflation at all, by the way. The initial trillion could have hired all unemployed Americans at $30,000 a year plus benefits for at least eight years.
We can safely predict that the GOP will continue to smother the country with misinformation. It is unfortunate that so many Democrats buy their economic narrative, and are now cheering the lowering of the deficit. As long as these beliefs are not challenged, the right wing will continue to win elected position for which it has no right.
12
You forgot to mention that the banks repaid the one trillion dollars to the US Treasury at a profit for the government.
2
Hey, as far as defending this nation, I have a great idea...how about we launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran? Once we take care of Iran, there's North Korea, and you know who's next. That sounds like a good way to defend our freedom.
2
Move $100B from defense into renewable energy research. More jobs. More security.
25
Hey, just move it into directly subsidizing home solar panels for most Americans and all apartment buildings in regions where they are practical. We don't need a billion in research.
5
Keep sequestration intact; especially on things military. Cut spending on colossal boondoggles like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and all our wars that only grow in scope and cost. We simply cannot afford to fight interminable wars overseas; not if we want to keep a country worth living in.
This is a strategic decision. I live in Chicago, once a great city now slowly crumbling and imploding due to corruption, out-of-control spending (state and county) and under-funded/unfunded future commitments (mostly pensions). Yet a small fraction of the money squandered on the wars and gold-plated, ineffective military weapons platforms, like the F-35, could refloat Chicago, before it capsizes. It would afford its hard-pressed leaders enough breathing room to fix it before it becomes another Detroit. But such appeals fall on deaf ears in Congress, a Congress beholden to defense contractor campaign money laundered through the "Citizens United" legalized bribery apparatus. So our elected representatives vote their pocketbooks, electing to starve domestic necessities instead.
Bin Laden was right. He played Hannibal Barca to our Gaius Flaminius Nepos. He pricked America with a long needle (9/11), drew blood, and led us on a merry chase into brambles and thickets, sinkholes and traps. And he did it knowing that our political class would first devour itself, then overspend wildly, creating mountains of debt.
Keep sequestration intact. Do not hand Bin Laden's ghost his final victory.
This is a strategic decision. I live in Chicago, once a great city now slowly crumbling and imploding due to corruption, out-of-control spending (state and county) and under-funded/unfunded future commitments (mostly pensions). Yet a small fraction of the money squandered on the wars and gold-plated, ineffective military weapons platforms, like the F-35, could refloat Chicago, before it capsizes. It would afford its hard-pressed leaders enough breathing room to fix it before it becomes another Detroit. But such appeals fall on deaf ears in Congress, a Congress beholden to defense contractor campaign money laundered through the "Citizens United" legalized bribery apparatus. So our elected representatives vote their pocketbooks, electing to starve domestic necessities instead.
Bin Laden was right. He played Hannibal Barca to our Gaius Flaminius Nepos. He pricked America with a long needle (9/11), drew blood, and led us on a merry chase into brambles and thickets, sinkholes and traps. And he did it knowing that our political class would first devour itself, then overspend wildly, creating mountains of debt.
Keep sequestration intact. Do not hand Bin Laden's ghost his final victory.
8
How to get Chicago rejuvenation added to the budget? Was that automatically denied? Was it asked for? Did Illinois senators and congressmen support this request?
1
Osama had a lot of help from Bush/Cheney.
7
@Margo:
Visit Switzerland. Take a train between Basel and Bern, or Bern and Zurich. Spend some time in Zurich, then travel to Vienna.
You will be shocked, shocked, by what you see. Just how decrepit and obsolete, even backward, American infrastructure and America itself is, compared to what the Swiss, Austrians and Germans have won't just be self-evident, it will poke you in the eye.
When conservative Republican politicians shout "starve the beast" in unison -- bleating it like sheep -- the beast they're starving is American cities like Chicago. Then they almost fall over themselves voting eye-popping sums to defense contractors and the MI/IC (Military Industrial/Intelligence Complex), this in the name of "defending America" even as it rots before their very eyes and beneath their feet.
The enemy doesn't need an invading army to lay waste to our lands or fleets of strategic bombers to flatten our urban areas. It doesn't because it has Sen. McCain, Cruz, Cotton and Graham to do their work for them.
Visit Switzerland. Take a train between Basel and Bern, or Bern and Zurich. Spend some time in Zurich, then travel to Vienna.
You will be shocked, shocked, by what you see. Just how decrepit and obsolete, even backward, American infrastructure and America itself is, compared to what the Swiss, Austrians and Germans have won't just be self-evident, it will poke you in the eye.
When conservative Republican politicians shout "starve the beast" in unison -- bleating it like sheep -- the beast they're starving is American cities like Chicago. Then they almost fall over themselves voting eye-popping sums to defense contractors and the MI/IC (Military Industrial/Intelligence Complex), this in the name of "defending America" even as it rots before their very eyes and beneath their feet.
The enemy doesn't need an invading army to lay waste to our lands or fleets of strategic bombers to flatten our urban areas. It doesn't because it has Sen. McCain, Cruz, Cotton and Graham to do their work for them.
10
Military spending is way too high and should be drastically cut. No more increases til there is an actual war declared by congress or when the National debt is paid off. When will we have a conversation about paying off the national debt that will free us from interest payments and make our nation stronger.
7
People invest in government bonds for their retirement.
2
For the past couple of years, the only issue has been whether we have a budget. The fact that the Republicans are concerned about what's in the budget is pogresss.
3
In an economy in shambles the GOP got their "sequester". With the economy much improved much of the reasons for the "sequester" are debatable. The "sequester" is basically a pair of handcuffs around Federal spending with absolutely no flexibility conceived by members of Congress that may or may not know the whole picture.
Grover Norquist has convinced some of the GOP that the only thing to do is shrink our Federal government until it is so small you can drown it in a bathtub. So much for civilization, some of the GOP would like to send us back to the "stone age".
Grover Norquist has convinced some of the GOP that the only thing to do is shrink our Federal government until it is so small you can drown it in a bathtub. So much for civilization, some of the GOP would like to send us back to the "stone age".
5
The sadness is that the chasm is over whether to spend the absurdly high $761.4 billion on defense we spent in 2014 or as usual more and more and more.
9
How can anyone fight to waste more money on the misadventures of the Pentagon/CIA after twelve years of funding their mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and now finding them digging up new mistakes to make in Ukraine, Syria, and Yemen. Some Republican senators are in the forefront of the lavish spending on military ventures while at the same time they pull the strings tight on educating our children and all the other social needs of the nation. While cutting the monies spent on useful human activities these senators are handing out tanks and other major weapons to all kinds of friends and foes apparently with no questions asked in a splurge of funding for the busy military industrial complex.
62
The Republicans don't care about you and me. Normal people are not on their radar. Why the public hasn't figured that out yet I don't know. For the military, we cannot print money fast enough to satisfy the hawks and we never will.
14
Look at who votes for what and you will see that the Dems are also in there supporting the outrageous wish lists of the military. We know that Republican bashing is the life blood of the New York Times, but how about doing a little research to support your over the top remarks?
My solution? Re-elect No One! Break the co-dependency links between the Congress and the military-industrial complex and their Wall Street cheerleaders.
My solution? Re-elect No One! Break the co-dependency links between the Congress and the military-industrial complex and their Wall Street cheerleaders.
2
With the understanding this will be heresy to the GOP, if it's such a great investment, why don't they raise taxes on billionaires to pay for it? Let's increase capital gains taxes from 20% to 39.4% to match earned income, and estate taxes, too. Too great a burden on the capital class? OK, have your kids enlist.
My son is currently on active duty having served in Afghanistan. I have zero confidence in the GOP to do right by our soldiers. But I'm certain they will take care of the contractors, I've dealt with them in my professional career.
My son is currently on active duty having served in Afghanistan. I have zero confidence in the GOP to do right by our soldiers. But I'm certain they will take care of the contractors, I've dealt with them in my professional career.
175
Well the "official," cough, harvard economist line on that is that taxing a hundred USA billionaires doesnt bring in as much as taxing the working classes more simply because there are so many more to tax in the working classes. I suspect there is some truth to that, but I also suspect things get complicated fast since it is currently legal for the very wealthy to send money offshore.
4
Exactly right.
3
tax the billionaires, they are the ones profiting from the military industrial complex anyway. And put their kids in uniform with a truly universal draft. Then see how many boots on the ground they want.
3
I'm for an increased military budget if it goes towards helping vets, but not if it going to be spent frivolously on weapons and equipment even the military doesn't want or need.
If those GOPers who want to slash and burn the rest of the budget win, then I hope the military industrial complex feels the pain too.
The call of balancing the budget is just a little political game some like to play. It should not be taken at face value as it means "destroy the programs we don't approve of and feather our backer's nests so we get re-elected". The exceptional in this case means "except us".
If those GOPers who want to slash and burn the rest of the budget win, then I hope the military industrial complex feels the pain too.
The call of balancing the budget is just a little political game some like to play. It should not be taken at face value as it means "destroy the programs we don't approve of and feather our backer's nests so we get re-elected". The exceptional in this case means "except us".
46
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&...
January 15, 2015
Defense spending was 62.5% of federal government consumption and investment in 2014.
$761.4 / $1,219.1 = 62.5%
Defense spending was 24.0% of all government consumption and investment in 2014.
$761.4 / $3,175.8 = 24.0%
Defense spending was 4.4% of GDP in 2014.
$761.4 / $17,418.3 = 4.4%
January 15, 2015
Defense spending was 62.5% of federal government consumption and investment in 2014.
$761.4 / $1,219.1 = 62.5%
Defense spending was 24.0% of all government consumption and investment in 2014.
$761.4 / $3,175.8 = 24.0%
Defense spending was 4.4% of GDP in 2014.
$761.4 / $17,418.3 = 4.4%
5
If the GOP was serious about cuts in spending they would start with the defense budget. The only thing they are serious about is profit, and wars offer profit to the right people. They don't even have to do the dirty work. It's not spending they want to cut, it's the common good. The common good benefits too many people the GOP has determined are undeserving. They make good cannon fodder, though.
187
The GOP is running around like a Chicken Hawk with its head cut off.
105
To cut military spending is not what the old crowd of military defense/oil cartel would like to see. They are still building empire! Now we send drones etc to the Ukraine. Just because there are no "boots" on the ground there, doesn't fool me. We are at war and all over the world. Why doesn't someone call a spade a spade, and level with the American public? When are we going to quit fighting wars and calling them national security, when in fact, they are just big money making ventures for war profiteers and the oil cartel?
177
Apparently, if the polls are correct, some 70 percent of americans think u.s. troops should go back to Iraq and to Syria to "wipe out" daish. It is pretty clear we did not learn the basics from our decade plus fiasco. We can only blame the politicians for so long...
4
Just how much money does this country have to spend on its military before John McCain feels as though he can sleep at night? My guess is that he, Lindsay Graham and an IBM are all sharing the same bed.
227
McCain has a well known personal history which explains why he's a defense hawk. It's fair to accuse him of being way excessive. Accusing him of being corrupt is not fair (the Keating Five was a whole different thing).
1
Defense spending has leaned down some what... which is fine. However, we shouldn't ask more from our military as we cut their budget. There is no shortage of enemies in this world... ISIS, Iran, Boko Haram, etc. Someone will have to deal with them.
In all honesty the Republicans should stick with the spending caps. Our deficits are still in the negative and increasing spending for military is ill advised if something isn't done to raise revenue by other means for domestic programs to improve scientific research and infrastructure. That is how the United States stays nimble and on top, not by force with a military but by force as an economic powerhouse. Not to mention our military is already one of the strongest in the world as is. Other NATO nations need to focus on maintaining their militaries at 2% GDP and not rely solely on US troops when Russia starts increasing pressure in Eastern Europe.
82
I think your comment about the importance of economic growth is spot on. However, keeping large numbers of American workers idle or working in unproductive or forced part-time jobs isn't going to build the economic powerhouse you seek. Our yearly deficits are comparable to our base increase in GDP and our target for inflation. They are lower or comparable to the deficits in austerity-hobbled European nations. Lots of luck getting Europe to help with NATO, as they skate ever closer to long-term economic stagnation.
Not "one of the strongest" our military budget is greater than the next 5 combined! It is crazy to be spending ever greater amounts while the poor languish and millions lack healthcare still. What prepared the fall of the ussr? Overspending on the military.
6
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want want deficits "in the positive" (surpluses)?
Are you sure you want want deficits "in the positive" (surpluses)?
3
Lindsey Graham was quoted saying if the budget, "This is a war within the Republican party...this is war." As if to emphasize the militarism dominating his priorities, 'war' is dropped into innocuous statements. Freudian slip, perhaps.
86
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!!"-
President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers) in Dr. Strangelove, a movie well ahead of its time
President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers) in Dr. Strangelove, a movie well ahead of its time
207
Remember Lindsay is the guy who said about ISIS, " we're all gonna die"!
9
Poor Lindsey - he hasn't been able to fight on foreign soil (a military lawyer whose "tour" was limited to North Carolina!). He''s so envious of the captured, 4th from the bottom naval academy grad McCain he just has to declare wars everywhere.
17
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell asserted that there would be a budget. He better make sure that the other representatives read the memo, or he'll face a repeat of last month's embarrassment, when he promised no Government shutdowns and Boehner suggested otherwise...
50
Half a trillion dollars for "defense" is preposterous. (This money is not primarily for defense, but for war creation and financing the empire.) $577b is rank lunacy, something out of absurdist theater.
Fear has fully rotted our judgement. Apparently, we as a nation have no understanding of what an American budget should look like. It would be one that would provide for superior domestic infrastructure in its largest sense; greatly diminish cruelty, ignorance and misery; eliminate our role in creating global environmental disaster; and expand human solidarity. Concomitantly, such an action will reduce our enemies and build allies among the peoples of the world.
Fear has fully rotted our judgement. Apparently, we as a nation have no understanding of what an American budget should look like. It would be one that would provide for superior domestic infrastructure in its largest sense; greatly diminish cruelty, ignorance and misery; eliminate our role in creating global environmental disaster; and expand human solidarity. Concomitantly, such an action will reduce our enemies and build allies among the peoples of the world.
360
Ronald Reagan, as quoted by Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter."
8
Some years back when the annual defense budget was only $400 billion, I heard there was an annual "black box" budget of another $400 billion. Are there any reflections on the accuracy of that?
If defense-related spending is more focused on economic impact including lining of silk pockets than attending to the military's actual responsibilties including veterans' welfare, priority perversion has set in. Cart before the horse. We need both but in the right order.
If defense-related spending is more focused on economic impact including lining of silk pockets than attending to the military's actual responsibilties including veterans' welfare, priority perversion has set in. Cart before the horse. We need both but in the right order.
1
I read an article in an Indian newspaper that it would take all of 12 Billion dollars to run High speed trains there for oevr 2000 miles. Less than what facebook paid for whatsapp. Given that India is no exception to wasteful spending can't imagine what we could do with half a trillion dollars of infrastructure spending in USA, using it in an efficient manner.
1
Through much of the past 15 years, the congressional GOP has been the party of discipline -- though less so since radical Tea Party candidates made inroads.
And, now in the majority, they flail and fracture and cannot hold together. I begin to doubt whether they are really a party at all: perhaps the party is but an illusion maintained to avoid fracturing the conservative/ultra-conservative vote.
Can they rule? Do they even, collectively, know what "ruling" is? The next few years will be interesting. But you know what they say about "interesting times."
And, now in the majority, they flail and fracture and cannot hold together. I begin to doubt whether they are really a party at all: perhaps the party is but an illusion maintained to avoid fracturing the conservative/ultra-conservative vote.
Can they rule? Do they even, collectively, know what "ruling" is? The next few years will be interesting. But you know what they say about "interesting times."
98
Last 15 years? How about the 8 years under Bush?
6
Bob Dobbs bought into the whole "party of discipline" propaganda. Wake up, Bob.
6
Interesting point you just made. "Can they rule?" They should be asked to govern, but because of their conservative purity model and platform, ruling over others' lives is their only strategy. Now the party is showing signs that they can't even effectively do that. Quite the dilemma, for sure.
Although deficits are coming down they are still a mind boggling half a trillion dollars a year. Leave sequestration alone. It's the only thing Congress has done right in the past 6 years.
61
Michael, the deficit may be mind boggling, but so is the sheer size of the American economy. Instead of flying, take a drive or ride a train through the Boston-NY-Washington megalopolis and just try to think about how much is there. The way to better understand deficits and debts is to consider how big they are compared to our ability to pay them back. This requires that you divide the deficit by the GNP, which is a reasonable approximation of how much the nation has to spend each year. I know it's math, but we all learned to divide in grade school.
9
Michael, sometimes you should quote absolute numbers; sometimes you should quote relative numbers. Half a TRILLION today means a lot less than say, $55 Billion in 1943. Today's deficit is only 2.7% of GDP; the deficit in 1943 was 27%, 10 times larger.
Furthermore you seem to feel that deficits should be small. Think about the amount of new money needed to support a growing economy. Then think about where this new money comes from.
The deficit is the amount of money flowing from the federal sector to the non-federal sector (us). You seem to want to throttle this down. Perhaps you want to eliminate deficits. Just remember, ALL 6 times we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a major depression.
The finances of a huge country which can print its own money and whose debts are in it own currency is a lot different from your finances.
Furthermore you seem to feel that deficits should be small. Think about the amount of new money needed to support a growing economy. Then think about where this new money comes from.
The deficit is the amount of money flowing from the federal sector to the non-federal sector (us). You seem to want to throttle this down. Perhaps you want to eliminate deficits. Just remember, ALL 6 times we have eliminated deficits for more than 3 years, we have fallen into a major depression.
The finances of a huge country which can print its own money and whose debts are in it own currency is a lot different from your finances.
20
budget sequestration is akin to a surgeon using a meat cleaver and not a scalpel to remove a small brain tumor. For sure you will cut the tumor out, but also lose a whole lot of other function. Its the worst way to cut spending, blindly across the board.
7
How predictable - Republicans speak as misers except where military spending is concerned. Issues like crumbling infrastructure are treated as frivolities, but for the GOP, the sky's the limit when it comes to warfare.
423
Let me correct you. They speak as misers except where BIG MONEY is concerned. Every single time, that is every single time there is anyway to help those who stuff their pockets Pol.s vote BIG Money under the guise it will create jobs. How is that working for US. It doesn't matter what party. Let's start the rhetoric against BIG MONEY interests. Let's see who wants run on that campaign.
Warren, Warren, Warren.
Warren, Warren, Warren.
8
Everyone is looting, why blame military ?? look at food stamps to medicare
@Francis. The REAL looters are agribusinesses and energy companies; they receive humongous subsidies from the US Government to our detriment and our treasury. From there, let's move on to another corporate benefit - the off-shoring of their business to evade paying their share of taxes, again to our detriment and their outlandish financial gain. Next, let's next go to the uber-wealthy, billionaire oligarchs that off-shore their wealth AND get tax breaks that are mostly unavailable to the rest of us.
Remove the Fox news drip from your arm and read/watch something worthwhile and truly informative; Faux News is willfully and purposely distracting you away from the real looters.
Remove the Fox news drip from your arm and read/watch something worthwhile and truly informative; Faux News is willfully and purposely distracting you away from the real looters.
8
Despite their supposed fixation on the debt, the debt has risen 60% as a percentage of GDP under Republican presidents after Eisenhower and fallen 9% under Democratic presidents during the same time period- http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/debt-gdp-president
Republicans just fundamentally do not get how to run the economy. They slash at things that boost the economy, like education, scientific research and the safety net, and they spend like crazy on things that don't help the economy, like the military and tax credits and subsidies for corporations that already have more money than they know what to do with.
The GOP needs to abandon its entire economic platform and draft a new one from scratch.
Republicans just fundamentally do not get how to run the economy. They slash at things that boost the economy, like education, scientific research and the safety net, and they spend like crazy on things that don't help the economy, like the military and tax credits and subsidies for corporations that already have more money than they know what to do with.
The GOP needs to abandon its entire economic platform and draft a new one from scratch.
835
You dont get it at all: the USA economy in large part depends on constant military spending. It is a major "employer." Cut the military budget 20% and USA people lose their jobs instantly. Obviously there is no politician including the President that can actually say that to the press. So instead you see all of this blustering back and forth about the military budget but much of that spending is untouchable without causing a political crapstorm in every politicians' homestate re-elections.
9
Alas, today's Democrats fundamentally don't get how to communicate this to the public, along with the fact that Democratic presidents have been better for the economy as measured by economic growth and jobs in almost every single case since the Hoover years. This failure is particularly stunning given the fact that the economy melted down under Bush and has recovered under Obama despite Republican obstructionism, yet the public says in polls that it believes Republican are better for the economy.
23
The economic platform of the Republican Party is plan to enrich their donors. That is simple, measurable, and accurate.
Democrats need not fear the old Republican ruse: patriotism. They have identified with Israel over the United States, sought to undermine our negotiations with Iran, and weakened our power abroad. They are truly traitors and should be prosecuted under the Logan Act: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Some Republicans think that they can spin this act but all Americans can read it and decide.
Democrats need not fear the old Republican ruse: patriotism. They have identified with Israel over the United States, sought to undermine our negotiations with Iran, and weakened our power abroad. They are truly traitors and should be prosecuted under the Logan Act: "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Some Republicans think that they can spin this act but all Americans can read it and decide.
14
“This is not only possible. It’s doable,” Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, the Budget Committee chairman, said last week.
Yes, and the difference between possible and doable is?
Last week Harvard educated lawyer, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, demonstrated he didn't understand that the Senate doesn't ratify treaties. Where do they find these people?
Yes, and the difference between possible and doable is?
Last week Harvard educated lawyer, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, demonstrated he didn't understand that the Senate doesn't ratify treaties. Where do they find these people?
322
An old joke from eastern Europe under communism whas that they had free speech, just the the western democracies, but in the democracies, people also had freedom after the speech. I think the difference between possible and doable might be that possible is a matter of arithmetic, but doable is a matter of surviving the political consequences. Or maybe its the other way around.
9
Er, Harvard?
4
Not sure what you're getting at, but of course the Senate ratifies treaties. Did you mean that the Senate doesn't negotiate treaties?
14
The American people are sick of defense spending; the American people are sick of wars; the American people are sick and tired of the United States being unable to take care of maimed veterans.
The Republicans are itching to "put troops on the ground" no matter where those troops would go. More defense money they preach, more, more, more. They find any excuse to create more war and declare more defense spending is a need. (it would be an interesting article to report how many members of Congress have their children fighting our wars - not just serving in the military - but actually serving as "boots on the ground" in a war zone)
When a Congress who opposes food stamps, unemployment compensation, could not decide on Homeland Security budgets, and shut down the government point blank keeps demanding more $$$ for defense, it's time for the American people to "just say No" and mean it.
The Republicans are itching to "put troops on the ground" no matter where those troops would go. More defense money they preach, more, more, more. They find any excuse to create more war and declare more defense spending is a need. (it would be an interesting article to report how many members of Congress have their children fighting our wars - not just serving in the military - but actually serving as "boots on the ground" in a war zone)
When a Congress who opposes food stamps, unemployment compensation, could not decide on Homeland Security budgets, and shut down the government point blank keeps demanding more $$$ for defense, it's time for the American people to "just say No" and mean it.
520
Bring back the draft: no deferments!
21
If you want major change, senate and house should have term limits or we will be fixated with cold war perpetually!
3
Yes Americans are sick of the endless Wars which account for 55% of the Federal budget. But Obama is proposing an INCREASE in Pentagon spending, a New Authorization of Military Force, new bases in Africa and Asia, new spending for a new generation of nuclear weapons when under the Non-Proliferation Act the US and Russia are supposed to be CUTTING nuclear weapons. Unfortunately key Corporate Democrats taking contributions from the National InSecurity State are just as eager to waste literally trillions of US taxpayer's money for endless Wars for Merchants of Death's profits. Hillary Clinton is a fine example when she resumed arms giveaways to Egypt even after the military coup there which under US law should have led to a cutoff in arms giveaways. This was at the behest of Boeing, one of 7 major Corporations last year who actually paid their CEO more than they paid in Federal taxes! Thus US taxpayers wind up subsidizing arms sales and giveaways to countries like Saudi Arabia AND Israel, Egypt,
Pakistan AND India, and of course the gift that keeps on giving, 20,000 rocket launchers to terrorists in Libya now finding their way to ISIS and other terrorist groups. See Kucinich excellent testimony on the Libyan debacle:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4023726/dennis-kucinich-benghazi-attack
Pakistan AND India, and of course the gift that keeps on giving, 20,000 rocket launchers to terrorists in Libya now finding their way to ISIS and other terrorist groups. See Kucinich excellent testimony on the Libyan debacle:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4023726/dennis-kucinich-benghazi-attack
3
When, oh when, my compatriots will you snap out of the trance and throw these scoundrels out?