Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn a recent post, Todd Gitlin rightly calls out "the huge missing argument in Washington" against 54% of our discretionary spending going to the military budget -- and that doesn't even include the funding for 2 wars and permanent earmarks like the $13 billion per year missile defense program.
This is a subject I've blogged about over at TheNation.com for a long time -- probably a good 25 posts over the past 2 years, including a few recently (here, here, and here).
Gitlin approvingly cites an interesting argument on Huffington Post by Lorelei Kelly in which Kelly argues against progressives making a case for spending on butter over guns:
"That argument doesn't work. It never has…. A much more effective strategy for the Left will be to make tradeoffs within the defense budget this year and not to try to shift money around between domestic and defense spending."
While there is indeed a case to be made for working to find tradeoffs within the defense budget, there's also another kind of toughness that shouldn't be derided and marginalized as coming from a "Lefty Chorus…[that] looks backward for inspiration," as Kelly writes.
Instead of simply asserting that butter over guns doesn't work, or marginalizing that argument, Gitlin and Kelly should consider that perhaps it hasn't yet worked because no President has moved to make the case to the American people. There is plenty of support from the grassroots, and there are allies in Congress, who would back a wiser use of limited resources. Until now, however, too many leading Democrats have feared the "soft on national security" label and a well-heeled defense industry so they have steered clear.
But just as abolishing nuclear weapons is now a mainstream proposal so is the butter over guns argument. Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, former senior vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress, and former staff member of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Government Operations, writes in a recent Boston Globe op-ed: "[Obama] can cut obsolete programs and transfer tens of billions of dollars per year to pressing conventional military and domestic programs."
Cirincione said he frequently makes the butter over guns argument and in a recent email to me wrote:
"The defense budget is not exempt from the line-by-line review President-Elect Obama pledges to conduct. There is enormous waste, fraud, and abuse in the defense spending that cannot be cloaked by the cynical use of the American flag. Most of the $100 billion the Department of Defense spent on reconstruction projects in Iraq was wasted, we now know. The Government Accountability Office finds that Pentagon bookkeeping is so bad that we cannot even account for tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars spent on weapons programs. There is no weakness in cutting wasteful defense contracts. The weakness is not doing so."
Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan, has also written of the popular support and wisdom of reallocating resources from defense to domestic needs:
"By advocating the re-allocation of defense dollars, particularly during war, citizens are saying that American security requires much more than a rapidly increasing Pentagon budget. And they are right…. It's clear that Americans are ready to reduce some Pentagon spending in order to make progress in other areas, like the deficit and energy programs…. With proper backbone, our country's political leaders could cut tens of billions in Pentagon waste, freeing real money for truly important uses, and the people will support them."
In fact, Korb phoned me yesterday and spoke of how military spending has the lowest multiplier effect of any form of government spending -- as compared to education, for example, which most states are currently cutting due to budget deficits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
As we push for a smart security strategy in the 21st century, and we find tens of billions of dollars that should be cut from the defense budget, progressives shouldn't be shy or apologetic in making the butter over guns argument. We will find many allies -- guys like Korb and Cirincione aren't exactly your traditional lefties. In fact, these are the very times -- when an economic crisis is having a real impact on people's every day lives -- when a chorus pushing this argument is needed.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Excellent post, Ms. vanden Heuvel.
And regarding allies, with Barack Obama exhibiting an apparent allergy to progressive values --you know, the ones that this nation is ripe for....the ones that might actually represent "change we can believe in"-- and progressive policy makers in his cabinet and in his wider universe of advisers, it is prime time to rev up a sort of coalition of progressive partners to pressure our new Abe Lincoln....er George McClellan? presidency.
How about POLICE for an acronym possibility? That is Progressive Organizations Linked In a Cooperative Effort.
Just a thought, but the fact remains that Obama has not yet been held properly accountable by progressives here in America.
How long does Obama get a free pass while his center right agenda unfolds to the detriment of all Americans?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2008 @ 1:38pm
KVH, reallocating funds from the defense budget to education is not a guarantee the states will take those additional funds and increase their education spending. The states (and local governments) have total control over their budgets, not the feds. If there are deficits or gaps, they will use the money accordingly.
Posted by ACook at 12/18/2008 @ 1:55pm
Just a thought, but the fact remains that Obama has not yet been held properly accountable by progressives here in America.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2008 @ 1:38pm
Nor will he ever be. His main focus was getting elected. It is Corporate America who owns his soul now, not the progressives.
Posted by ACook at 12/18/2008 @ 2:00pm
It is Corporate America who owns his soul now.---Posted by ACook at 12/18/2008 @ 2:00pm
ACOOK, given DUBYA was more of a friend to Corporate America than Obama is...
would you say "Corporate America owns George W. Bush's soul"?
(Here's where you can backpedal...or try to explain how a liberal Dem is more "corporate" than a conservative Repub....or just be honest and say "Yes, Corporate America owns Bush's soul too"...your choice, of course!)
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 2:07pm
well, the strongest argument for reducing military defense spending is that the military is NOT THE ONLY GUAGE OF A NATION'S POWER!!!!
in fact, if a nation has LITTLE MANUFACTURING BASE and an unheakthy, unhappy populace...
just how powerful is it regardless of how big its military is?
there are many many kinds of power and thi military power is only possible when other types are the base.
interesting how for much of our history we had a powerful industrial/economic base, a massively infuential culture, and relatively progressive society yet a weak military...
and now it seems we have a kickass military, but are slipping fast in all those areas, especially the industrial base and economy, that make such possible.
and in order to build a strong, sustainable economy and industry in the modern world, we need a healthy, secure, society...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/18/2008 @ 2:36pm
would you say "Corporate America owns George W. Bush's soul"?
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 2:07pm
Sure. What politician isn't?
Posted by ACook at 12/18/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/18/2008 @ 2:36pm
We're "slipping" because we've allowed a great many of our citizens and businesses to become addicted to welfare and we're paying dearly for it. We replaced thinkers and innovators with beggers.
If only the feds weren't so quick to whip out its teets to feed everyone and their mamas, we wouldn't be in the pickle.
Posted by ACook at 12/18/2008 @ 2:49pm
Where were the military budget watch dogs when Dick Cheney gave 2300 military contracts to HB and then assumed a position as HB CEO. Certainly that appeared to be "quid pro quo". It leads me to assume that the noise about using the budget for peaceful programs comes from the right whose real complaint is "hey, get away from my piggy bank". The 8.8 billion dollars in cash that disappeared in Iraq was shrink wrapped and on pallets. There was $130,000 on each pallet and 100 pallets on each plane for $130 million dollars per plane. That means that 67-68 cargo planes full of cash had the money disappear. It was such a trivial amount that I guess nobody paid attention to it! The acceptable explanation was "a war zone is not safe and things happen". My guess is that there is a lot of waste in the military budget if situations like these are bubbling to the surface.
Posted by linwood at 12/18/2008 @ 3:15pm
Where were the military budget watch dogs when Dick Cheney gave 2300 military contracts to HB and then assumed a position as HB CEO. Certainly that appeared to be "quid pro quo". It leads me to assume that the noise about using the budget for peaceful programs comes from the right whose real complaint is "hey, get away from my piggy bank". The 8.8 billion dollars in cash that disappeared in Iraq was shrink wrapped and on pallets. There was $130,000 on each pallet and 100 pallets on each plane for $130 million dollars per plane. That means that 67-68 cargo planes full of cash had the money disappear. It was such a trivial amount that I guess nobody paid attention to it! The acceptable explanation was "a war zone is not safe and things happen". My guess is that there is a lot of waste in the military budget if situations like these are bubbling to the surface.
Posted by linwood at 12/18/2008 @ 3:16pm
This whole war fiasco has benefited all of the Bush group, making big money for all their buddies. They couldn't be more thrilled that it is still going on after all these years!!! Who cares if the whole thing was based on lies, who cares if troops and innocent people have been killed just as long as those greedy self serving bunch of swine's got their way. Money and lives wasted all in the name of "democracy and freedom" what a load of crap!!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/18/2008 @ 3:40pm
Get rid of those worthless "Star Wars" missile defense systems, along with the civilian contractors that infect the every branch of the government, and you will save billions, if not, trillions of dollars.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/18/2008 @ 3:57pm
How long does Obama get a free pass while his center right agenda unfolds to the detriment of all Americans? Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2008 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
get a grip, he ain't pres yet, and his agenda has yet to unfold.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 4:00pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/18/2008 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
that's THIS year. previously repugs were the recipients of most of the Wall st money.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 4:10pm
Posted by ACook at 12/18/2008 @ 2:40pm
Okay, kiddo...stored away for later.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 4:17pm
How in the world was Bush a great friend to corporate America? What did he accomplish to reduce corporate taxes to a level competitive with the rest of the civilized world?----Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/18/2008 @ 2:54pm
Apparently NOBODY is EVER going to be good enough for you, LL...
"Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 4:22pm
get a grip, he ain't pres yet, and his agenda has yet to unfold.
Posted by "emile duBwah" @ 4:00pm
Yo "Emile",
Don't be so daft, man.
How many signals does it take to figure out that Obama aint no progressive? And his agenda (whatever it turns out to be in specifics) is already handcuffed by a slew of DC insider choices for all key posts thus far, essentially.
If you think that any of this bodes well for Obama's presidency I have prime lake front property on the moon to sell you for a song. If the progressive "movement" can get it together, pull their heads out, and apply effective pressure, Obama may well have us to thank for pulling his lame ass out of the fire.
Now, what song would you like to sing for your tropical breezy digs on la mare tranquilitatis?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2008 @ 4:59pm
Posted by linwood at 12/18/2008 @ 3:15pm
Seriously man, 2300 CONTRACTS!!??
You're on the wrong blog site my friend. The conspiracy blogs are down the hall and to the left. You can't miss it. It's right next to the trash bins.
Posted by ACook at 12/18/2008 @ 5:18pm
How in the world was Bush a great friend to corporate America? What did he accomplish to reduce corporate taxes to a level competitive with the rest of the civilized world?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/18/2008 @ 2:54pm
Why are you making comparisons with the rest of the civilized world here? I think the statement from Mask was "ACOOK, given DUBYA was more of a friend to Corporate America than Obama is..."
I am not sure why you would even argue this point since the laissez-faire approach supported by most Republicans tends to go easy on the corporate pocket book. While the reasons for this support may be in contention its existence isn't.
Posted by !immutable at 12/18/2008 @ 5:25pm
How many signals
how about actions? just cool your heels for a while, you'll have plenty of chances to bitch. right now you sound like a loon.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 5:29pm
So, if you want to even have the opportunity to lower consumer costs, you need to lower corp taxes. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/18/2008 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and fewer services. that's the part you knuckleheads always leave out. lower taxes=fewer services
LOWER TAXES = FEWER SERVICES
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 5:59pm
here's more apropos corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.
when the tax is lowered, not a single corp lowered its prices. none.
taxes are how we pay for civilization, period.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 6:02pm
I like your persistence, Kay Vee...
"In fact, Korb phoned me yesterday and spoke of how military spending has the lowest multiplier effect of any form of government spending"...
Now, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "multiplier effect"... and it would do us all a good turn if you could explain what you mean by it... very clearly... but for now, assuming you are referring to some semblance of 'value per dollar'... for the very society that produces those dollars... then this is undoubtedly true.
It's just that many of us are so fanatical about our 'market economy'... and it's 'blind visionary' manifestations... that it is difficult for the rest of us to imagine government spending that is neither a 'hand-out' , a nor a 'bail-out'... but rather... a declaration that life can be made 'more livable', by timely and far seeing collective action that effectively repudiates and annuls the pointless excessive wastes inherent in unregulated laisse-faire markets.
It does seem that a 'peacetime military' could be productive in ways that ours currently isn't... but a change in procedures takes time, especially one of this magnitude...
Over all however... I think it is abundantly clear.
What the rest of the world likes most about the US has little to do with our military... and what our forefathers had in mind for us bore little resemblance to the empire we are trying to maintain with sheer military dominance.
It's been tried before.
Let's create a better world peacefully, instead.
Yes... things will have to change... but they already are... and paying for the largest military in the history of the world with Ponzi schemes is kinda short-sighted... don'tchathink?;^)
Posted by ttr at 12/18/2008 @ 6:10pm
Posted by ttr at 12/18/2008 @ 6:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'multiplier effect
An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity.'
Dictionary.com
Many military assets have very low multiplier effects compared to investments in such things as schools, hospitals, public infrastructure etc., because they produce nothing tangible (except perhaps destruction which is a negative multiplier I suppose) after they are produced. Excessive nuclear missiles sitting in silos rusting away would be a good example.
Posted by OneVote at 12/18/2008 @ 6:41pm
You would think that a some particular point, MIC would realize that they are destroying the host on which they feed, and would stop sucking so much blood. In the animal world, the parasite usually allows its host to live or in the alternative, if its parasitism is fatal, it completes its life cycle or feeding cycle before the death of the host. Who else in the world but the US devote so much money and blood to its military? No where for MIC to go to if it kills us off. Maybe this is what Korb is getting at.
Posted by OneVote at 12/18/2008 @ 6:51pm
We recieved more value for our education dollars in the 1950's than we do today after increasing spending on education 20 fold since that time! Posted by comanchenation at 12/18/2008 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well, we spent a lot less educating black children, and guess what, we still do.
funny, those railing the loudest against public education would have trouble passing a middle school english class.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 8:18pm
Allow me a moment to respond to the likes of comanchenation & happylonghorn:
1) The US Military 2001-2008 and beyond = code for pouring trillions of TAXPAYER $'s into the coffers of profiteers & private "contractors."
2) Military "value-added" - According to dunderheads like you: Oh, we're protecting the "homeland" against our enemies. Spare us your asinine paranoia....you pussies. 9/11 was a single event which could have been avoided with our regular military and military intelligence had the current administration simply been paying attention.
3) I would argue that the economic ruin caused by the illegal actions of a large number of corporate interests have c0st more than foreign enemies. Just look at the shambles our economy is in today. You see foreigners as the enemy. Thinking Americans recognize the enemy.....and he is us. (Before you go there............no, I don't hate America.....I just wish people like you would shut the f*** up). You just like to hear yourselves talk.
4) Those who have been in charge of government for the last 8 years succeeded in their agenda: break government so that it appears irrelevant. They chose George-I've-never-finished-anything-in-my-life-Bush as the puppet to carry out this plan: Mission Accomplished. To those of you who subscribe to this worldview, I sincerely hope your children and grandchildren enjoy the cheap, sleazy and dilapidated America you wish on the rest of us.
By the way, I'd love to see more spent on schools. Just because comanchenation & happylonghorn obviously skipped most of their classes doesn't mean schools don't work.
Sorry about the ad hominem statements, but I can't stand stupid people anymore. We've been listening to them for 30 years now (since the pseudo god Reagan was President).
Posted by mrfreeze at 12/18/2008 @ 8:30pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/18/2008 @ 2:54pm
Apparently, you were asleep during those years where we had a Republican Congress and Karl Rove was twisting arms to get the votes the Bush administration wanted.
Posted by OneVote at 12/18/2008 @ 6:41pm
Multiplier effects have to do with who gets paid to do the work and their relationship to the economy - not the value of the asset created.
Suppose you were a billionaire. Now imagine that you want to do two jobs: (1) create a big hole in the ground and fill it in; (2) create a garden - each costing $100,000.
So, first, you pay 100 people in your neighborhood over the course of a week to dig a big hole in your front lawn with shovels and fill it back up again and paid them $25 an hour. If we assume a 40 hour week, that's $100,000.
Then, suppose, you pay a garden company to create stone walkways, buy and plant trees and so forth and to do it with a budget of $100,000. The garden company uses less than 10 guys, heavy machinary and sources material from all over the world.
Even though the same amount of money is being spent and a garden is a more valuable asset than a dug and filled in hole, the multiplier effect of the 1st job is going to be much more pronounced because there are more people involved that are part of the economy and buy things from others within it.
It's a little more complicated than this - but it gets the general idea across that multiplier effects are not significantly driven by asset value.
Posted by OneVote at 12/18/2008 @ 6:51pm
Perhaps the MIC is a parasitoid and not a parasite?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2008 @ 8:35pm
Srjenkins - Wouldn't you characterize wars, prisons and other seemingly negative economic activities as examples of the "broken window" fallacy? Seems to me that digging a hole and filling it is just another version of a broken window approach to employment.
Shouldn't intelligent people strive to create goods and services that are, essentially, value-added?
Posted by mrfreeze at 12/18/2008 @ 8:44pm
well, we spent a lot less educating black children, and guess what, we still do.
funny, those railing the loudest against public education would have trouble passing a middle school english class.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 8:18pm
Well...according to the OECD, the US spent more per pupil than all but one of the other industrialized nations and our students' scores are consistently lower (middle of the pack) than those other countries we outspend...worse yet, that disparity in scores gets worse as our kids "progress" through school...(heeeey, wait a minute...isn't that the same logic that you libs use to destroy our medical system? We spend more than everyone else but without the results to show for it? But I digress)...and BTW, minorities' scores have consistently if slowly improved while our overall scores have decreased.
Posted by usc1 at 12/18/2008 @ 9:15pm
KVH...you are a wonderful idealistic liberal (I share those ideals.) But the Democratic Party does not represent most of those ideals. How many Democrats in Congress vote against defense budgets? (Jim McDermott from my state of Washington is one of the few.) The military budget is obscenely huge because Democrats keep voting for it. We cannot continue to slavishly support the Democrats and expect anything progressive out of them. They are not a progressive party. Look at Obama's appointments. Although the Progressive Caucus is the largest in the House, they are frozen out of the Democratic leadership. Progressives have no pull in the Demo party. Sad but true. The Demos only want us at election time.
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 9:16pm
Posted by mrfreeze at 12/18/2008 @ 8:44pm
The point of my post was to illustrate differences in the economic concept of multiplier effects and how these effects are independent of assets - both their value or their existence.
My understanding of the broken window fallacy is that it simple demonstration of hidden costs. Perhaps, it also illustrates the idea of externalities.
I do not imagine that a billionaire spending $100,000 to have a hole dug and filled in is unaware of the costs involved. He may even be doing it for some good reason - such as to lay pipe. I didn't think it necessary to fill in those details since it was not germaine to what I was doing in my post.
I should also add that economic value isn't the only value. Sometimes, economic values are less important than other values - such as health, quality of life, equity, and so forth.
"Shouldn't intelligent people strive to create goods and services that are, essentially, value-added?"
So long as we include the mother taking care of her child instead of selling her labor for money - and similar circumstances - as "value-added".
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/18/2008 @ 8:56pm
You could make the same arguments about cutting grass, repairing appliances or any of the many other things involved in maintaining a house, neighborhood, city or state. Why bother, right?
Luckily, most people understand that there is value in keeping things well-maintained. It means they are less likely to over-grow, break down or whatever.
I'll continue on the second part of your post shortly.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2008 @ 10:03pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/18/2008 @ 8:56pm
The military is a bad example for multiplier effect. If were analogous to anything in my example, it would be analogous to the garden company because most of the money it spends are spent purchasing military equipment - which is provided by specialized firms.
Most of the money spent on the military is not used to provide for manpower. In fact, "manpower" has been cut and is now provided by contracted companies, which increases the cost for that "manpower" because these companies will eliminate competition (if there ever was any), raise the price of the service over time, reduce the wage by hiring foreign nationals and pocket the difference. This fact leave a lot of that money going into other national economies and not helping ours.
Your post also misses the value of intangibles such as discipline and capability. But that is merely a side-point here.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2008 @ 10:19pm
So here it is, the call from Katrina Vanden Heuvel, to lower military spending. This call will no doubt be heeded by Obama at some point.
So the Democrat President will do what Democrats do -what the last 2 Democrat Presidents did - weaken our military.
Mask, you do chronicle these things (the blogs) so you can try to catch Conservatives in contradictions down the road, so you of course can go back and see Conservatives predicted this kind of thing would happen.
And here are the first stages of it, the calls from "progressive" notables such as Katrina Vanden Heuvel.
This call occuring when terrorist are flexing their muscle more and more, recently killing people in India for no reasonable purpose (not that there would be), but just because terrorists want to show they can and will kill when they want.
More and more elements of the war are popping up in more and more places, so Ms. Vanden Heuvel calls for us to weaken our ability to retaliate.
Seems that is the opposite of what one would normally be prone to do.
Here is the itinerary, then:
1. The calls from lib notables for "butter" over "guns"
2. The implementation ("having the proper priorities") from a Democrat president, this time Obama.
3. Later on down the road, after Obama is no longer president, the military ramp up that will be needed in response to the attack to occur at a yet to be determined location that may make Sept. 11 look like child's play. Will it be Dayton? Milwaukee? Albuquerque? Los Angeles? Who knows? We will find out and as we will also realize it did not have to happen if we had maintained the proper defense and if we had pro-actively stopped the terrorists ahead of time.
4. Libs will then blame somebody other than themselves.
You would think after a while people would learn.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/18/2008 @ 10:43pm
the biggest military by far did not protect us from Bin Laden. it doesn't seem to be working well in Iraq and Afghanistan either.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:48pm
There will be no attempt to rein in the out-of-control military budget. The Democrats have mostly sold out. They just keep voting for bigger and bigger amounts for the military-industrial complex. There is nothing in the Democratic Party for progressives.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 12:13am
The biggest military in the world didn't work in Iraq...The appearance of improvement was due to the old fashioned methods of colonialism....Pay off local thugs to stop attacking you and, at the same time, do your dirty work. It was nothing more elegant than bribery.
Posted by koroviev at 12/19/2008 @ 12:52am
All this babble about defense expenditures........blah, blah, blah.....
And the sad truth is, and has been for quite some time, that the state of our "national defense" is in a complete and total shambles.
From Counterpunch, 12/11/08 (to site but one stellar source on our "national defense"):
Winslow Wheeler: The conventional wisdom amongst the elite in Washington is that they have done a pretty good job of taking care of our national defense, that things may be a little expensive but we have the best armed forces in the world, perhaps even in history, and we do the best for our troops by giving them the world's most sophisticated equipment which is, of course, the most effective. We have, so the elite asserts, demonstrated our ability by knocking off Saddam Hussein's forces twice and are in general a model to the rest of the world on how to build equipment and provide for forces.
That's all crap. None of it is true. None of it stands up to scrutiny. Let's tick through it. First of all, we now have the largest defense budget in inflation-adjusted dollars since the end of World War Two. That has bought the smallest military establishment we have had since the end of World War Two. We now have fewer navy combat ships and submarines, fewer combat aircraft and fewer army fighting units than we have had at any point since the end of World War Two. Our major items of equipment are on average older than at any time during this period. Key elements of our fighting forces are badly trained. In other words we're getting less for more. People point to the two wars against Saddam Hussein. His armed forces were pitifully incompetent and even against them in both the 1991 and 2003 gulf wars we demonstrated serious deficiencies while overestimating how good we were.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2008 @ 01:01am
Andrew Cockburn: But is the U.S. likely to be facing anyone better in the near future?
WW: Apparently we are right now. In Afghanistan things are going south, rapidly. In Iraq people seem to think the surge saved things, but far more important than the so-called surge in reducing American casualties has been the purchase of Sunni co-operation with hefty bribes and the ceasefire that was brokered not by us but by Iran to get Muqtada al-Sadr's forces to sit on the sidelines. Time after time we read in the press about how American air units have killed civilians, how American ground units have killed civilians. We have a huge technological edge against these opponents and yet they are able not just to survive against us but fight us all too effectively.
AC: What brought the U.S. to this sorry state of affairs?
WW: The fundamental reason, I believe, is that we are not interested in what works best in combat. Instead, our defense structure in Washington is interested in other things. In Congress they're interested in jobs and campaign contributions. In the Pentagon they're interested in various political and bureaucratic agendas. They're not paying attention to the lessons of combat history. A bloated, declining military structure is the result.
AC: Surely you're not suggesting that our leaders in uniform, as opposed to those interfering civilians [sound of Wheeler laughing] aren't interested in producing the most combat-efficient force possible?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2008 @ 01:01am
WW: I was laughing because that's the bilgewater that they keep on pumping – and believing, I'm sure – on Capitol Hill. If you look at the record, a lot of our military leadership is very questionable. During the 2003 march to Baghdad the commanders had to pause simply out of panic at the minimal opposition they were facing, coupled with some poor weather and a supply problem. None of the commanders warned the public, or the president, about the problems that we encountered in Iraq. People point to [former army chief of staff] General Eric Shinseki as the great hero who told us that we needed a larger invasion and occupation force and was ignored. That argument simply doesn't work. The idea that more Christian, white American soldiers occupying an alien country would have prevented an insurgency is ridiculous.
End quote.
The rest here: tinyurl.com/432os2
So there you have it --but one key ingredient in a souffle of self-destruction for this once proud nation, America.
Plenty of incandescently bright and incisive commentators --from Chalmers "Yoda" Johnson and his Blowback trilogy which culminates with the magnificent, "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic", to the retired U.S. Army Colonel and conservative Boston U. professor of history, Andrew Bacevich, with his taut 180 page masterwork, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism"-- have been spelling out the demise of our country in no uncertain terms.
And in the midst of this flurry of powerful warnings we have a supposedly brilliant president elect who has just appointed a cabinet full of stiffly starched and stalwartly obedient shipmates for his maiden voyage.
Only problem --these are, in the most important respects, essentially crew members cut from the same
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2008 @ 01:01am
DC establishment that got us into this mess in the first place.
I'd say it's time for a mutiny, but I don't think this anesthetized nation is up to the task.
"Keep an eye on your lifeboat" is probably sound advice.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2008 @ 01:01am
LVLIB,
I notice you "ignored" my comment on how REAGAN not only didn't cut, but RAISED corporate taxes.
Seems even "the best" wasn't good enough for you, was he?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 07:14am
BTW, not that I think Ms vanden Heuvel's defense cuts will be realized, but...
maybe the local Right will explain how an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or a Virginia-class submarine...
will stop "Muhammed bin-Muhammed Muhammed", who's been living in London for six years and meeting "friends" in Cairo for the last six months, and sneaks onto a Delta flight for New York with a suitcase of anthrax and releases it 20 minutes before touchdown at JFK?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 07:20am
Hey KVH, I've got a better idea than taking military money and spending it on our country's poor people:
Let's take all of the concrete blocks out of the foundation of the building The Nation is housed in and use those blocks to build a really pretty spire on top of the building.
I just hope none of the workers is killed when they are errecting the spire and the building collapses.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 07:21am
Good morning, Mask. You can pick on LVL all you want, but his basic point to true. Reagan greatly simplified taxes. He got rid of thousands of intentionally created loopholes and just said 28%, now do make money however you want to rather than some federally sanctioned way.
It was great for America, it was good for politicians because they had a lot more money to spend, but it was bad for the do-gooders who like to use the tax code to tell other people how to live their lives.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 07:24am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 07:21am
So, America will collapse if we have "only" 10 new F-35s or don't build a new aircraft carrier?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 07:24am
Two questions-
1. DID Reagan raise corporate taxes?
2. When did the "Reagan recovery" begin?
(Yes, it's a trap)
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 09:34am
As for Afghanistan, now you see what happens when we let NATO run a war, disfunctional europeon leadership as usual!!! Posted by comanchenation at 12/19/2008 @ 12:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
you live in a dream world. NATO is NOT running the Afghanistan war. in addition many of the NATO troops are not combat troops. both wars are strategical disasters.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/19/2008 @ 10:08am
Military Keynesianism is a very flawed way to stimulate the economy because the products are tools of war and killing which are not good for society to use. The Truman Cold War boost in military spending has continued (no peace dividend is ever allowed,then or now.) Better to stimulate the economy with peaceful useful infrastructure projects, which spread the funds around much wider. But Congress keeps voting for bigger and bigger military budgets endlessly. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of still rules.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 10:57am
Posted by OneVote at 12/18/2008 @ 6:51pm
Perhaps the MIC is a parasitoid and not a parasite?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2008 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Your terminology is spot on.
'A parasitoid is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life history attached to or within a single host organism which it ultimately kills (and often consumes) in the process. Thus they are similar to typical parasites except in the certain fate of the host. In a typical parasitic relationship, the parasite and host live side by side without lethal damage to the host. Typically, the parasite takes enough nutrients to thrive without preventing the host from reproducing. In a parasitoid relationship, the host is killed, normally before it can produce offspring. When treated as a form of parasitism, the term necrotroph is sometimes (though rarely) used.'
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 12/19/2008 @ 11:05am
Multiplier effects have to do with who gets paid to do the work and their relationship to the economy - not the value of the asset created.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2008 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
True. Multiplier effects have to do with the stimulus effect of spending as a multiple (hopefully) of the original amount spent (often measured as asset value based on original or historical cost). The cost based asset value is rarely synonymous with market or societal value. The relationships of which you speak are intrinsic to the multiplier, but what is created (the asset whether tangible or intangible) also is determinative of multiplier effect...i.e., a domestic military base versus another ICBM silo off the coast of Alaska.
Posted by OneVote at 12/19/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/18/2008 @ 11:04pm
As you will recall, we were talking about multiplier effects, and your post suggests that you are not understanding how they apply in a military context.
I stated that most of the money spent on the military is not paying personnel costs. You gave us a figure of $150 billion for wages and health care and another $24 billion for housing. That's $175 billion of $515.4 billion or about a third of the expense (~34%). Your estimate for weapons procurements is ~36%, and we know ~66% is being spent on something other than military personnel.
Your arguments that paying contractors is like having them on staff and count as personnel costs violates basic accounting principles regarding expenses. However, I think you are trying to touch on multiplier effects - which you can rightly do only if you understand how those industries work relative to alternatives and understand some complicated economics. You aren't there.
For example, you aren't addressing the negative differences in multiplier effects on our economy that come from maintaining hundreds of military bases abroad, the manufacturing base for military suppliers, and so forth compared to alternatives such as a specific domestic spending initiative revolving around infrastructure or education.
The question seems like it has no clear answer when you pretend you are making an apples to apples comparison of the military and some vague abstract alternative. When you start actually evaluating alternatives, it is a lot clearer that our level of military expense hurts our economy.
Finally, $515.4 billion doesn't account for military-related debt, off budget war expenses and so forth. So, we don't even have the real understanding of the waste - just an inkling.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/19/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by comanchenation at 12/19/2008 @ 12:05am
"Always amusing to see posts from the pseudointellectuals..."
I couldn't get much further...Something about glass houses kept coming to mind.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 07:24am
Reagan was also the first to create huge deficits, insuring that we would still be paying the debt on those expenses long after he was dead. Hey, maybe you too will be able to die and pass your debts on to your children.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/19/2008 @ 11:48am
What better time to make the "butter over guns" argument than in the midst of a major economic downturn? Whereas most Americans have heretofore presumed that we can have both at the same time, they will now be more receptive to the idea that such is not the case. In addition, they will be more inclined to agree that a failing economy, crumbling infrastructure and substandard health care and educational systems are also matters of national security and are, in fact, more important than weapons systems that have no actual utility.
Will Barack Obama finally be the President with enough courage to make the case for common sensical limits on military spending? We can only hope.
Posted by robgo2 at 12/19/2008 @ 12:05pm
Posted by srjenkins at 12/19/2008 @ 11:48am
A Darin lecture on "pseudo-intellectualism"....
is like an "abstinence-only sex ed" lecture from Bristol Palin.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 12:53pm
comanchenation - I love your response to my post......
"Always amusing to see posts from the pseudointellectuals who recognizing the truth plainly stated rant incoherently playing the blame game!
This is the end product of the dysfunctionally educated morons created by the liberal biased educational system focusing primarily on P.C. sociallogical experimentation rather than advancing the cause of education and technology!"
1) You obviously skipped your grammar lessons. You write as a 3rd grader does. 2) Don't use big words such as pseudo intellectual or dysfunctional or sociological. They are obviously above your pay grade (probably 3rd grade). 3) "Advancing the cause of education and technology!" .........meaningless, twaddle. 4) You remind me of the famous quote: "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." 5) I must repeat, I hate stupid people like you!
Posted by mrfreeze at 12/19/2008 @ 1:05pm
Reagan however is the best we had in the 20th century. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
mmmm, FDR? ended the depression, won a world war.
you are a nutcase, plain and yes simple.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/19/2008 @ 1:22pm
When Reagan entered office, the national debt was under $1 trillion. By the end of his time in office, the national debt was several trillion. The final year of Carter had a $46 billion deficit. Reagan,s tax cuts for the wealthy and massive military increase created a record deficit of over $100 billion, and the deficits got bigger each year. Reagan also started borrowing from Social Security, thus robbing from pensioners. Reagan pushed through the biggest increase in FICA taxes.Thus began an avalanche of massive government deficits under Republican presidents, resulting in the current $9 trillion-plus national debt, with yearly interest payments of more that $430 billion. Only Clinton, a Democrat, balanced the budget. Republicans still spout the myth that Reagan was a good president. As a conservative, he was a huge failure, since Republicans traditionally oppose deficit spending.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 2:03pm
Only Clinton, a Democrat, balanced the budget.
and how did he do that? wait for it,
by raiding the social security trust fund. absent that, no balanced budget
Posted by emile duBois at 12/19/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 12:53pm
I believe comanchenation was discussing the failures of our educational system and the cornucopia of pseudointellectuals it produces.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 1:08pm
According to what criteria? Fiscially, he was irresponsible. Simply look at the government's balance sheet before and after.
If it was "defeating communism", I'd like to know how you square that with your so called strict interpretation of the Constitution? Defeating communism or foreign entanglements are both very much against the spirit of the document.
If it is some other reason, it would be good if you explained your reasons rather than making claims like "Ronald Reagan was X". Here's an example:
Ronald Reagan was the worst President of the 20th century because under his watch we became an entrenched debtor nation, and his policies undermined the long term viability of our republic.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/19/2008 @ 2:39pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 2:48pm
Yes, the old blame the Democratic Congress for Star Wars, proxy wars and what not but then in the next breath claim that it was Reagan who "succeeded brilliantly against communism".
Only schizophrenics get to eat their cake and eat it too.
I also notice that you failed to outline any criteria beyond a bandwagon argument.
I'm sure Ceasar was pretty popular a decade after his death. I hear they even called him a diety. It doesn't change the fact that he changed a republic into a dictatorship.
While Reagan is no Caesar, I'm sure historians will find his tenure an important negative turning point in the American experiment. Without Reagan, there would be no George Bush I or II, just as without Caesar there would be no Octavian.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/19/2008 @ 5:46pm
In particular, depreciation write-offs for investments were made more generous in the mid-1950s and again in the 1960s, with the introduction of the investment tax credit. The sharpest decline in the effective tax rate relative to the statutory rate occurred in the early 1980s, with the enactment of the "accelerated cost recovery system" -- which, according to the late Brookings Institution tax scholar Joseph Pechman, "broke the precedent with prior laws by severing the connections between the useful life of an asset and the period over which it was depreciated for tax purposes."[12] http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 1:28pm
Where did mask go? Hiding under his/her desk?
Posted by twillie at 12/19/2008 @ 8:44pm
our help to foreign countries (in the form of Butter),
our foreign aid is almost all military in nature. it is also a payoff to the military contractors. the money never leaves the country.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 12:19am
I surely would agree to spending a lot in defense, the problem is that we spend mostly...in aggression or what is a euphemistically "preventative" or "fight them there so we won't need to fight them here".
While I agree that salaries are a sizable portion of any expenditure, the differences between spending in defense and social services are basically these: 1) Social services promote well being in the community. Defense spending well being in a handful of 'hawkish" companies. 2) Social services at aimed at justice for the population, specially for the weakest.(Hey Christians, the first duty with your neighbor) Defense spending is finally aimed at violence and destruction. 3) Salaries spent in social services are just there, there is not necessarily someone profiting out of it. Salaries for special defense programs go in a proportion of 10% to the BOEING employees, the rest is profit of the company. (Just the inverse of what occurs with a manufactured good made with the sweat of a worker somewhere in the world). By the way, the champions of free markets know these programs have one or two bidders so their costs are hyperinflated because of lack of competition. And not because others don't have the know-how, it is all about size of capital, and connections with the Pentagon. 4) It is true that some defense programs bring about new technology (I am an engineer and know this is true), those should be clearly defined and with pacific applications as well. Applied research for the benefit of the common people is almost unexistent: i.e. cheap but effective solar systems, affordable housing, or low cost nutritional concentrates, to mention only a few. 5) Bottom line: we have all the disuasive power that we can ever get. And we have 40 million people that lack basic se
Posted by Frank42 at 12/20/2008 @ 02:27am
It's pretty much a National concensus that GM is a dinosaur and needs to restructure or it will no longer be viable.
So, why not apply the same rationale applied to the US Military Industrial Complex? It's obvious that the bloated budget, inefficient spending, costly privatization of traditional military roles, sprawling global presence etc...has reached diminishing returns.
Posted by koroviev at 12/20/2008 @ 05:55am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 6:09pm
You see. Here's the problem:
Your 12/19/2008 @ 2:48pm post: "For it was the out of control spending by the Dem controlled Congress that created the deficits."
Your 12/19/2008 @ 6:09pm post: "However, Reagan increased spending in the 80's..."
The only way this argument works is if you pretend that Congress suddenly increased domestic spending in the 1980s, which simply isn't true - see link below.
So, on one hand, you want to pretend Reagan stopped communism and on the other hand, you want to blame the Democratic Congress for the costs.
It's actually a pretty good summary of your commentary - take credit for what you perceive as good and blame the other guy for the rest.
Oh, and comments like this one: "The price was definitely worth it; unless you are of the opinion that living under totalitarianism is acceptable."
That's absurd. Red Dawn was fiction - not even a remote possibility. Further, communism likely fell due to its own structural problems and not because of Reagan's runaway military spending.
http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2001/spend2.html
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 09:28am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/19/2008 @ 10:38pm
"Overwhelmingly, in one form or another, most money spent on just about anything is for "personnel costs"..."
While true of most businesses, it is not true of the military - as your own numbers make evident.
So, in order to make it appear true, you want to pretend that the labor costs involved in creating capital are "actually" borne by the buyer. When, in fact, the buyer is only buying the building, piece of machinery or whatever at the value of said capital asset - the labor costs involved in making it are not accounted for.
The reason you are going this route is because you don't understand multiplier effects and why military expenditure, such as the DoD's status as the largest consumer of oil in the world, doesn't help the American economy - because the dollars spent on that capital expenditure from the drilling, transporting until it gets to the DoD goes primarily into foreign economies. Same goes for foreign bases, foreign factories, foreign labor.
Obviously, the military has a greater foreign component than say an alternative like a domestic education program. So, just by that factor alone, increased spending on a domestic education program would have better multiplier effects in the national economy.
Same goes for location of work. Military expense, because it is "defense" that happens in other countries, means a lot of work happens elsewhere. Everything from sailors in Dubai buying hookahs to paying international logistic companies to move bananas means a lot of the expense immediately leaves the economy.
Contrast that with a domestic infrastructure program. Even if you pay foreign construction firms to do the work, their workers have to spend time in the U.S. to complete this work.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 09:41am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/19/2008 @ 10:53pm
"Does any part of our Butter budget requests?"
The point is to illustrate that what the government calls "military spending" doesn't cover significant expenses, such as debt. Since alternatives aren't responsible for those expenses, I'm not sure what your point is.
To your larger point, the problem that both federal and state programs have with "entitlement spending" is not the benefits. The problem is that they didn't fund them. Instead, they borrowed money from the existing funds and used it to cover their deficit spending. Essentially, they took money that should have funded pensions, and tendered an IOU. Rather than pay back funds that have been borrowed over 30-50 years, people like yourself want to go the easy route and talk about cutting benefits because these types of programs don't fit in with their political philosophy - which I believe is part of the reason the money was "borrowed" in the first place.
But it is also true that politicans tend to think in the short-term and many of the people that are responsible for these problems have either moved on and died, leaving the rest of us to clean up the mess. Unfortunately, rather than live up to these obligations by paying more taxes, people like yourself would rather renegotiate the contract - except when it comes to military spending and other issues responsible for the problem in the first place.
In other words, the "having my cake and eating it too" mentality where Ronald Reagan was responsible for bringing down communism but the guy writing the checks for his anti-communism programs is responsible for the debt. Pure hogwash.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 09:51am
it seems that communism is alive and well in China, where the communist party rules. the Reagan worship here is genuflecting before false idols.
Reagan during his second term could no longer distinguish between things that happened to him from parts he played in movies.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 10:28am
what do corporations do when they want to better educate their employees? they spend more money.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 11:42am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/20/2008 @ 11:35am
The source you are looking for is Digest of Education Statistics:
"Expenditures of educational institutions rose to an estimated $972 billion for the 2006-07 school year (table 26). Elementary and secondary schools spent about 62 percent of this total, and colleges and universities accounted for the remaining 38 percent. After adjustment for inflation, total expenditures for all educational institutions rose by an estimated 40 percent between 1996-97 and 2006-07.
If you consider the rest of the page from the link below and the rest of the digest, it is clear that enrollments are up:
"From 1971 to 1984, total elementary and secondary school enrollment decreased every year, reflecting the decline in the school-age population over that period. After these years of decline, enrollment in elementary and secondary schools started increasing in fall 1985, began hitting new record levels in the mid-1990s, and has continued to reach a new record level in each subsequent year...Total public elementary and secondary enrollment is projected to set new records every year from 2007 to 2016."
The number of teachers employed have more or less matched the rise in student populations:
"An estimated 3.7 million elementary and secondary school full-time-equivalent teachers were engaged in classroom instruction in the fall of 2007 (table 4). This number has risen about 17 percent since 1997."
Yet there was a 10% increase in people with college education, and there is a clear correlation between education, employment, and higher disposable incomes. I think the long term economic impact is obvious.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ch_1.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ch_5.asp
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 12:27pm
Also, a quick international note from the same source:
"In 2004, per student expenditures at the elementary level of education were at least $7,500 in seven OECD countries (table 404). Specifically, Luxembourg spent approximately $13,500 per student at the elementary level, the United States approximately $8,800, Switzerland approximately $8,600, Norway approximately $8,500, Iceland approximately $8,400, Denmark approximately $8,000, and Austria approximately $7,700."
"At the secondary level, five countries had expenditures of over $9,000 per student: Luxembourg (approximately $17,900), Switzerland (approximately $12,200), Norway (approximately $11,100), the United States (approximately $9,900), and Austria (approximately $9,400)."
"At the higher education level, the following six countries had expenditures of at least $14,000 per student in 2004: the United States (approximately $22,500), Switzerland (approximately $22,000), Sweden (approximately $16,200), Denmark (approximately $15,200), Norway (approximately $15,000), and Australia (approximately $14,000). These expenditures were adjusted to U.S. dollars using the purchasing-power-parity (PPP) index. This index is considered more stable and comparable than indexes using currency exchange rates."
There is a reason people from all over the world come to the United States for higher education, and part of it is that we spend more on it.
I'll grant that there is negative returns after a certain point and you can spend more and not get anything for it. I don't think we are anywhere near that point. I'll also grant that U.S. primary and secondary education has deep seated pedagolical flaws stemming from the fact that it socializes human beings more than it educates them.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/20/2008 @ 11:35am
Also, don't you think educated liberals like my wife and I, paying six figures in taxes, have a right to say how our money is spent?
We'd like our neighbors, many of whom are much less well off inner city residents, to have the same opportunities we've had, and we think that the more than half of our income that government takes from us should be put to that purpose.
We don't have a problem paying taxes. We have a problem with how those taxes are utilized - to make the rich richer and to keep the good folks we live with continue to struggle and come nowhere near their potential.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 12:43pm
the fact that it socializes human beings more than it educates them. Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 12:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is a talking point of the loony Maasch, among others. got any proof of that. that loony is an adjective not a noun.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 1:07pm
The comments on this post are pretty comprehensive but a few (hopefully) additional thoughts. After previous periods of warfare through the Viet Nam War there were significant efforts to demobilize and convert defense efforts to the civilian economy. It is now so enormous since the Reagan Administration and the failure of the Clinton Administration to reform it that these issues again lurk large. So heregoes some highly specific suggestions to control the "Complex" (Michael Turse's new book title concerning the military-industrial (and I always add "academic") complex.
First, the National Guard be limited to a support role despite their interest in maintaining "Warrior" status. Logistics, and engineering battalions and civil support. They are needed more for domestic crisis response as opposed being the playthings of DOD heirarchy, both civil and military. Second, a statutory reversal of a 1983 SCOTUS case allowing the NG to be deployed overseas. That case should be overturned and the only overseas deployment of NG, either indivduals or units, be prohibited unless requested by Sec/Def in writing and approved by Congress.
Second, control of all overseas military bases and their funding would be through the Department of STATE.
Third, overseas arms sales would be terminated unless specifically approved by Act of Congress.
Fourth, the Department of Defense dual hatted agencies, such as DISA, DLA, and others would become fully civilian and not subject to DOD but instead part of a joint defense/civil agency procurement organization, probably an independent agency. GSA would be reduced to the Federal Building Service and terminate its procurement role with those involved being transferred to the new civilian procurement agency.
Ran out of space. GOOD Luck KHV
Posted by OnVacation at 12/20/2008 @ 1:44pm
Americans need to get off of Omaha Beach. And Americans need to give W a final boot before he leaves the White House. He's been asking for "old shoes" as a Christmas token of American affection for him. Tell your friends and send your flipflops and shoes to:
The White House 1600 Pensylvania Ave NW Washington DC 20500
Email you friends. lets dump a load on W
Posted by BushCamWildlife at 12/20/2008 @ 1:52pm
Railing against military spending is what the Left does best. It is its favorite occupation. Because it is so easy, so virtuous, it comes so naturally.
That was its tune, throughout the Cold War. The US was ever accused of pushing the arms race.
Nevermind that it was the Soviet Union which regularly invested the best part of its productive capacity, on arms. While all its other products were shoddy and scarce, its weapons were first rate. It punched them out in vast quantities at the expense of the Russian people. They spent interminable hours on endless lines to buy shoes and oranges while production lines rolled out top notch aircraft and many more tanks than the West, and vastly more artillery. The USSR fielded thousands more missiles and nuclear warheads with much higher yields. But The Nation and its "progressive" cohorts ceaselessly accused the US of driving the arms race.
That even predated the Cold War. Before WWII the UK's Conservative party was accused of feeding fat armorers over a hungry nation. Winston Churchill was isolated as a blood thirsty militarist. In the United States, even as Germany conquered Europe and was blitzing London, "Progressives" howled against the defense budget. They opposed Lend Lease and the Draft and called Roosevelt a war monger. That tune of course changed the day Hitler attacked Russia.
The fact is that our military spending, relative to GDP, is near historic lows, including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. Progressives want to forget that it is US might that has protected the world from catastrophe since 1945.
Urging "Progressives" not to be shy is ridiculous. They twist and lie shamelessly. It is only in masking their Socialist identities that they are shy.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/20/2008 @ 3:30pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/20/2008 @ 3:30pm
Arguing about military spending as a function of GDP is the lie.
Particularly when it doesn't account for off-budget items like war, previous military related debt and the IOUs that undermined fully funded entitlement programs.
Not to mention that Soviet tanks and artillery never posed a threat to US. Nor does having more nuclear weapons represent any kind of advantage. When you can already blow up the world several times over, does it really matter if one side can do it a few more times?
All of which gets at the bankruptcy of neoconservative thinking and how driven by fear that mentality is. I'm glad I don't live that life. I would be happier if people with this mentality didn't think it was their God-given right to spend my tax money for bombs.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 4:46pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/20/2008 @ 8:03pm
How, exactly, does communist influence in Central America constitute a threat? Can you also explain how it is any different than American involvement in places close to the Soviet Union? Afghanistan, for instance circa 1980s?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/20/2008 @ 8:07pm
The founders never envisioned military spending by the federal government as it currently exists. The vast majority, I'm sure, would be against it and the deficit spending it requires.
I am against increased spending by the federal government on education. However, nothing prevents the federal government from returning my tax money to my community. I would much rather see that done, so I could argue that money would be be used on supporting local educational institutions - where all the arguments for multiplier effects would apply (certainly more than military spending in my community).
Again, we were talking about multiplier effects and which were more advantagous. I was not offering education policy proposals for the federal government.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 8:49pm
The United States has led nearly every advance of the arms race: nuclear weapons, hydrogen bombs, missile-launched nuclear bombs, submarine launched atomic bombs, nuclear-armed cruise missiles traveling below radar,etc. The United States has driven the arms race. The U.S. military budget is bigger that the rest of the world combined. But still the supporters of the arms industry have perpetuated the myth of U.S. responding to "communist" threats. Even today! Actually, the United States is a global imperialist empire. Not the first (Spain, Britain),but an empire nonetheless. It supports dictators and destroyes democracies to maintain its power. And we taxpayers pay the bill.
Posted by philbq at 12/20/2008 @ 10:31pm
Yes, we taxpayers pay the bill and our politicians keep voting more and more. (including Democrats) New threats are constantly needed to justify this absurd expenditure.
Posted by philbq at 12/20/2008 @ 10:54pm
Always amusing to see posts from the pseudointellectuals who recognizing the truth plainly stated rant incoherently playing the blame game! Posted by comanchenation at 12/19/2008 @ 12:05am
I thought that there was gonna be one blog where information was exchanged and debated, differences aired, and some forward progress made. But it's 'the pseudointellectual' morons who are at fault again.
Who are they, I wonder? And what happened to spell check, comanche? The fact is that progressives, or socialists, or whatever it is this week... have not been in charge for the last eight years. To be cynical, it seems like no one has been in charge.
Overall this has been an excellent topic, lot's of good information (some dubious).
"There is no weakness in cutting wasteful defense contracts. The weakness is not doing so." Right on.
Posted by ficheye at 12/20/2008 @ 11:00pm
As Orwell suggested, continual war is useful to divert the minds of the people from the enormous misuse of public funds. And a global imperial power must spend vast sums to maintain its empire. And military Keynesianism creates some jobs. So the socialistic military-industrial complex goes on. The system is corporate socialism for military contractors.
Posted by philbq at 12/20/2008 @ 11:15pm
Ahhhh, the cold war left-overs have come out to show their true colors as cowards!
Hilarious as always fellas, keep up the good work!
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/20/2008 @ 11:19pm
"It supports dictators and destroyes democracies to maintain its power. And we taxpayers pay the bill. Posted by philbq at 12/20/2008 @ 10:31pm"
Hmm, didn't we do just the opposite in Iraq?
"Actually, the United States is a global imperialist empire."
I'm trying to think of another country that has voluntarily gave up territory it had conquered by military action. That's hardly the action of an 'imperialist empire".
Posted by twillie at 12/20/2008 @ 11:28pm
Empires that gave up conquered territory: England,Spain, Portugal...many have. Doesn't the U.S. still maintain military bases in Japan and Germany? The U.S. has overthrown many democracies, and installed many dictators in the past. Your point was what...twillie?
Posted by philbq at 12/20/2008 @ 11:58pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/20/2008 @ 10:58pm
I'm reading The Long Emergency by Kunstler at the moment, and I thought the section on Iraq and Iran might be useful for you to look at because it provides probably the best short description for invading Iraq I've seen yet - pgs. 85-89. To wit:
1. Create a buffer between Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc.
2. Control of the world's second largest world reserves.
3. Bunker inspection. Contents were unknown and potentially dangerous (i.e., WMD)
4. Saddam was capable of enabling dangerous mischief, such as his Kuwait invasion. Therefore, necessary to remove him.
5. US presence in Iraq tempers Iran nuclear ambitions.
I think some of the arguments are bad - such as point 5 which I believe encourages Iran to develop nuclear weapons rather than tempers this urge. However, the arguments are much better laid out than the "Saddam was a crazy dictator" arguments people frequently float here, and he is fairly concise - does it all in a few pages. He is clearly in favor - based on a culture war perspective you share.
I'm also interested in hearing your take on the peak oil and what that means for American security and economic interests, if anything. I've never seen you comment on it before.
For that matter, I seem to remember Happy having some commentary as our resident "oil man", but I forgot exactly what his perspective is...would be interested in hearing that as well.
Cheers.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/21/2008 @ 12:21am
"Voluntarily" was the operative word. Which territory did England, Spain, and Portugal give up voluntarily? They left, because they could no longer maintain their empire. The US has pretty much withdrawn from every island they invaded during WW2. We have given sovereignty back to Germany, Italy, and Japan. No troops left in North Africa, where alot of Americans died. Again, philbq, not exactly the actions of a "global imperialist empire".
And, I'm sorry, but I don't think our actions in the past should disqualify us from trying to do good in the future, even if it involves military action.
Posted by twillie at 12/21/2008 @ 12:28am
Nothing but a major a scare camoaign filled distortion,half-truth. and outright lies would get a majority of Congress and the public to support the unprovoked attack on another nation. "If you wait for smoking-gun evidence of WMD, it may be a mushroom cloud". There you have it: a diabolical scare campaign. And thus the Iraq war was sold.
Posted by philbq at 12/21/2008 @ 12:51am
There has never been a nation with the power and reach of the U.S. This includes space. Hundreds of bases are maintained all over the globe. The U.S. seized Hawaii and other Pacific islands for bases and has never given them freedom. That is imperialism. The U.S. seized this continent fronm the native Americans, and still sits on land seized by guns. A war was started with Mexico to grab the Southwest. This is the behavior of an imperialist nation and people. And the great illusion is that U.S. citizens actually believe in the benevolent intentions of the U.S. government. Tell it to the Hawaiians.
Posted by philbq at 12/21/2008 @ 01:02am
And, I'm sorry, but I don't think our actions in the past should disqualify us from trying to do good in the future, even if it involves military action.
Posted by twillie
There is a huge problem with trying to do good through the use of military force. Killing people is usually not considered doing good.
Why is military spending never addressed by politicians in terms of clear analysis. There are always platitudes or fear mongering that distract from the real topic.
Posted by koroviev at 12/21/2008 @ 02:51am
The real core reason that absurdly huge military spending continues is that the economic system has become addicted to it. The U.S. capitalist system would tank without the artifical stimulus of massive military Keynesianism. I saw a chart on C-SPAN years ago that correlated cuts in military spending with recessions. They moved in lockstep. So in spite of all the blather about the wonders of the free market, the truth is the economic system does not provide enough jobs without massive government subsidy. And so politicians keep voting for bigger and bigger military budgets. It is a terrible trap that leads to financial collapse. Instead a complete remaking of the budget priorities should begin. But few have the guts. And the unholy alliance between both political parties and the military-industrial complex goes on.
Posted by philbq at 12/21/2008 @ 08:52am
Ahhhh, the cold war left-overs have come out to show their true colors as cowards! Hilarious as always fellas, keep up the good work! Posted by TexasFlood at 12/20/2008 @ 11:19pm
I laughed so hard when I read this post. Name calling at it's most elementary level. When the bad guys run out of bullets they always throw their guns.
Then when 'Happy' says something about "the military program having it's waste, what federal program doesn't?"... I was having a hard time catching my breath. I wish I had this marvelous ability to disconnect from reality. I like to picture the two trillion dollars that the pentagon lost just before 911. Aw, what the heck! Mistakes were made! And send me one of those 500 dollar toilet seats... and throw in a couple of those 250 dollar bolts. Shucks. There's still time for Texas to secede!!
Posted by ficheye at 12/21/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by ficheye at 12/21/2008 @ 3:01pm
Errr....it's not name-calling when the label being attached to Mr. Happy et al is actually quite apt...
In fact, I've never seen a bigger group of tough-talking pussies in my life. It's like dealing with a bunch of middle-aged frat boys. They can talk the talk, but oh boy, when it's time to walk the walk, it's time for a deferment!
How many chickenhawk, warmonger cowards that post here have actually served in the military they love so much, other than LVLIB that is? Just look at our current pres. administration. 90% of those fools have never held a gun unless they were pointing it at small game (or their hunting partners).
The bogeyman is out to get us, be afraid, be afraid!
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/21/2008 @ 10:05pm
In his final speech, Eisenhower warned us about the pervasive influence of the military-industrial complex. He was right, and it is now eating our nation.
Posted by philbq at 12/21/2008 @ 11:01pm
"This is the behavior of an imperialist nation and people. And the great illusion is that U.S. citizens actually believe in the benevolent intentions of the U.S. government. Tell it to the Hawaiians." Posted by philbq at 12/21/2008 @ 01:02am
If the US is so horrible, why in the world do you live here?
Posted by twillie at 12/22/2008 @ 12:13am
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/21/2008 @ 10:05pm
You know, I misunderstood the context of your post. I apologize. It's really hard to tell just what the hell is going on here as far as humor, rebuttal, and sarcasm. Do you think comanchenation is really a native american, or just some white dude with an f-150 pickup who lives near the res?
But I agree with the overall flavor of your last post.
I have a recurrent daydream of giving Cheney and Bush some really big guns and helmets. Then set them down in Afghanistan somewhere. Have at it, boys! Hope you brought a change of underwear!!
Merry Christmas!!!
Posted by ficheye at 12/22/2008 @ 03:15am
Twillie...I love this country: the land and the people. It is the government I criticize. So stop the stupid "America-love-it-or-leave-it" crap. I love it and want this nation to live up to the ideals of Jefferson. And often it does not. So I try to change it. That is my right. It's called free speech. And free thought. Perhaps you have a problem with that concept. Maybe you should live somewhere in which the people cannot criticize the government.
Posted by philbq at 12/22/2008 @ 07:55am
What we have here is the Canadian misdirection in reverse.
Canadians are proud that there federal debt is much smaller than the US's federal debt. That's because most GOVERNMENT debt is held by the provinices, not the federal government. Total government debt as a percentage of DGP is higher in Canada than it is in the US.
So, let's talk about the tine pittance poor hungry children get from the Feds, but completely ignore the fact that probably 80% of all state budgets are for education, Medicaid, and unemployment.
Are any of you brave enough to look up the statistics and find out by what percentage total government social spending dwarfs military spending?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/22/2008 @ 09:37am
1. Create a buffer between Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc.
what for? a war torn nation with 4 million refugees in neighboring countries is not a buffer.
2. Control of the world's second largest world reserves.
we are not in control of Iraq's oil nor should we be. it is their oil.
3. Bunker inspection. Contents were unknown and potentially dangerous (i.e., WMD)
this is obviously a lie. we had inspectors in Iraq. they found nothing. invading troops also found nothing.
4. Saddam was capable of enabling dangerous mischief, such as his Kuwait invasion. Therefore, necessary to remove him.
he was not capable of anything. if he was so dangerous in Kuwait, why was he not removed then? whom was he going to invade next?
5. US presence in Iraq tempers Iran nuclear ambitions.
this is obviously false. Iran's nuclear ambitions have increased since the two ME wars.
all in all a bunch of BIG lies, easily disposed of.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/22/2008 @ 10:08am
Posted by philbq at 12/22/2008 @ 07:55am | ignore this person | warn this person
you got that right. that line is the last resort of very small minds.
I have heard it many times before.
in my building when I have complained about the landlord not providing the required services, I have been asked by the super and fellow tenants, why don't you move.
my response to the super was, I pay rent here, and you don't so shut the f**k up.
in my 18 years in my old building, I have paid roughly $216,000 in rent.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/22/2008 @ 10:18am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/22/2008 @ 09:37am
Can you provide an estimate of the military portion of the federal budget hidden: in other portions of the federal budget - i.e., Department of Energy, Veteran's Affairs, black ops, etc.; hidden as off-budget expenses such as Iraq and Afghanistan; the proportion of the debt associated with both; and the state portion of the costs involved in servicing the military - such as Veteran's Affairs, National Guard units, etc.?
"So, let's talk about the tine pittance poor hungry children get from the Feds, but completely ignore the fact that probably 80% of all state budgets are for education, Medicaid, and unemployment."
You don't have to be brave, you simply have to know where to look.
The easiest would be to use the paper, "Estimates of Real Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment by Function for 1959–2003," put together by the BEA.
On page 3, they say that 23.9% of all government funds went to National Defense. Education, health, and unemployment are ~36% of total government spending.
So, we can conclude two things.
1. Since National Defense figures are based on the functional classifications of the federal budget, which doesn't include all the problems I raised in the beginning, the percentage isn't accurate.
2. Given that general public service (12.2%), public order and safety (15.4%) and economic affairs (16.4%) comprise 44% of all expenditures at the state and local level, I'd say we know for sure your 80% figure is false. It's more like 50%.
Even if we pretend, that the National Defense figures are accurate, an additional 50% spending on education, health and income security hardly "drawfs" anything.
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2004/10October/1004rgi.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 12/22/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/22/2008 @ 09:37am
As a FYI, I do research for a living. This was trivial for me to do.
It would be better if you used statistics you had at your disposal rather than making things up and hoping no one is "brave" enough to challenge you on it.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/22/2008 @ 12:27pm
emile duBois,
You said, about Saddam:
"he was not capable of anything. if he was so dangerous in Kuwait, why was he not removed then? whom was he going to invade next? "
Saddam was not removed during the liberation of Kuwait because:
1. The agreements necessary to put the coalition together to oust Saddam dictated that the effort was to kick him out of Kuwait, not remove him completely. We agreed with other nations NOT to get rid of him, but to liberate Kuwait.
2. This was in the year 1991. We had not yet tried the efforts, through sanctions, resolutions, inspections, etc. to force Saddam to come completely clean on where he stood on weapons programs he was known to have, and that most in the world as well as here at home believed he had. Saddam never complied with the resolutions. We did not know where the programs stood in 1993, had no way to find out for sure because of Saddam's obstructions. Hans Blix, wandering around Iraq would have eventually determined Saddam no longer had weapons, and then Saddam would have been off of the hook, but would never have complied with (nor would it ever have been demanded of him) the requirement to completely describe how his programs went from weapons everybody knew and believed he had to having no weapons anymore.
In 1991 we had not tried to force Saddam to come clean. By 1993 we had tried and the effort had failed. No weapons were found when we went into Iraq. That does not mean that we should not have gone in to Iraq. All it means is that Saddam no longer had weapons TEMPORARILY until he would have been let off of the hook, then he was going to go back to making weapons again. In other words Saddam would have succeeded in jerking the world around if it were not for George W. Bush and Tony Blair.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/22/2008 @ 1:30pm
Most of my job experience revolves around research in a professional services context. I've never been a college professor.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/22/2008 @ 2:16pm
emile duBois,
I ran into the word limit above.
As far as who he was going to invade next, he was probably not going to invade anybody next. He would have been more intent on having more and more connections with terror groups (I have within the past 2 weeks posted links to articles on Saddam's future threats), and he would have been making WMD again and it is very unlikely that the WMD would not have found it's way into the hands of a terror group, whether it would have been al-Qaeda or some other group.
Thus it is a good thing Saddam is gone, despite the difficulties we have had in Iraq. Saddam spreading around weapons of mass destruction would not have been an acceptable option.
You on the left simply fanticize that none of this would have happened. It can not be absolutely proven that it would have, but it is far more likely that it would have than not, and thus we could not take the chance of letting Saddam be.
The cost would have been catastrophic. But you on the left just pretend that none of this would have happened.
That's all it is - pretend- because you have no logical argument - just statements by a lot of leftists that you can not have pre-emptive war no matter what or with no proof that Saddam would have done this you can not have pre-emptive war or that our efforts were just "neocon" whatever,etc.
Question for you: My answer has been given over and over again by me and many other conservatives on these blogs in The Nation (most recently by lvliberty1 in great detail), in various forms, showing what Saddam's intentions were, what a threat he was, and how everybody including Dems agreed he was a threat.
Why do you keep asking these questions, then? What don't you understand, or is it simple lib stubborness on your part?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 2:26pm
srjenkins at 12/20/2008 @ 4:46pm wrote:
<<Arguing about military spending as a function of GDP is the lie. >>
Why don't you explain why that is a lie?
Moreover, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not being ignored. It costs 1% of GDP, as against 14% for Korea, and 9% for Vietnam.
It is cheap in the sense that the US can afford it easily. And it is not costly in blood. On the first five days on Normandy the US suffered more fatalities than across five years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And back then our population was less than half of what it is today.
Do you really think, " previous military related debt" i.e., the cost of financing the debt accumulated by VN, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil War, etc., is a legitimate cost of defending ourselves today? Who here is the liar?
<< Soviet tanks and artillery never posed a threat to US.>>
No, and neither did Hitler's tanks and artillery. But they threatened Europe. And so did Stalin's tanks and artillery. They imprisoned half of Europe and shot people trying to flee. They would have grabbed the entire Continent, but for the US.
<< nuclear weapons represent any kind of advantage.>>
Then why did the USSR build a stockpile double ours?
<<bankruptcy of neoconservative thinking and how driven by fear ... think it was their God-given right to spend my tax money for bombs. >>
Talk to the people who lived under the Reds, they were driven by fear. But you, with your "better red than dead" mentality were driven by stupidity. Now your ilk generally receive far more in govt services than you pay out in taxes. If you are an exception, figure out how much of your taxes pay for excessive bombs in the US arsenal. I will refund that.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/22/2008 @ 6:07pm
Why do you keep asking these questions, then? What don't you understand, or is it simple lib stubborness on your part? Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 2:26pm
Unbelievably funny!! I don't remember asking a question. Not from someone who admittedly gets his information from 'rightwingnews.com'. We need to all be very quiet when the beast CHERMAK bloviates. And then there's this...
I understand stubbornness very well (I fight it constantly). Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/22/2008 @ 3:18pm
Even funnier... Well, then... maybe you should stop being so stubborn! What a hoot!
In short, we should all be afraid! (Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation), because 'they' are coming to get us! And 'You On The Left', stop asking all those inconvenient questions! (Kennedy assassination) You just make reality so troublesome when you actually know something! How presumptuous! Remember to be afraid, very afraid! We'll make more weapons and blow your kids apart, we'll blow their kids apart, and by the way, Merry Christmas! Yoo-Hoo! You on the left!!
I get it now, because I've been very quiet, asking no questions. The world should be flat, with just a few houses, most of them Banks, surrounded by barbed wire. A loudspeaker will play a tape loop of Marlon Brando saying '...the horror, the horror..." over and over again.
And finally there's this, just in...
Talk to the people who lived under the Reds, they were driven by fear. But you, with your "better red than dead" mentality were driven by stupidity. Now your ilk generally receive far more in govt services than you pay out in taxes. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/22/2008 @ 6:07pm
Your ilk?... if there just weren't any people out 'there', making your life so miserable, things would be perfect. VICTOR Hugo? Clearly NOT.
Posted by ficheye at 12/22/2008 @ 7:04pm
ficheye,
You said "Unbelievably funny!! I don't remember asking a question"
I suppose you may not have! My question (about asking questions) was to emile duBois! So what are you feeling guilty of?
Or are you and emile the same person?
You say, with sarcasm, that we should all be afraid (a common lib theme here on The Nation, that Conservatives are "afraid" but the enlightened are not)
First, you libs never explain how Conservatives that say we should fight back against our enemies are afraid.
Nor do you admit that the lack of fear you profess is only because you proclaim there is no threat to begin with. And many of you who say you are without fear are quaking in your boots that the planet is going to fry in 10 years because Algore says so!
And then you are so off the wall and rambling with your post that you (as part of mocking Conservatives who supposedly want inconvenient questions stopped) now drift into the Kennedy assassination.
OK, if you are so smart (and you are because you are lib) then who killed JFK, and how many people were behind the murder of JFK? Enlighten me and everybody else here.
In case you are wondering the answers are 1. Lee Harvey Oswald and 2. One (1), Lee Harvey Oswald.
Oswald was emotionally mixed up beyond belief, and killed JFK to get attention, to show the world who he was and what he could do. He did not shoot from "afar", he shot from close range - the distance in Dealey Plaza is not what it appears on television or in photos. I have seen it.
Jack Ruby did not kill Oswald to "silence" him. He was a Dallas nightclub owner friendly with the police who was upset at what happened to JFK. He could come and go into the police building whenever he wanted, nobody questioned his being there.
Understand?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 8:36pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/22/2008 @ 6:07pm
It's a lie for the a couple of simple reasons. The most obvious is that military necessity isn't determined by GDP. We could make a new ratio like military spending / number of barrels of oil produced, and it would make as much sense of military spending / GDP. The only reason to use GDP is to make military spending look small.
But beyond that obvious point:
1. The numerator is wrong since it is taken from the Federal Budget, which hides about half the real spending on the military.
2. Military spending needs to be related to actual need. Ideally, the problems that need to be addressed, risk factors and costs all need to be calculated. To bring GDP into that equation is stupid policy making.
I could go on, but I think that pretty much gets the point across. So, I'll move on.
"Do you really think, " previous military related debt" i.e., the cost of financing the debt accumulated by VN, Korea, WWII, WWI, the Civil War, etc., is a legitimate cost of defending ourselves today?"
It is military expense, period. To pretend it isn't a military expense is to to lie about your expenses. We'd all like to say, "Oh, let's just forget about that"...but the bottom line is those are debts that have to be paid...and they are military expenses and need to be designated as such.
There are significant differences between Stalin and Hitler. I'll ignore the rest of this argument because it is based on conjucture.
"Then why did the USSR build a stockpile double ours?"
Their leadership had twice the bad judgment?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/22/2008 @ 9:05pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/22/2008 @ 6:07pm
As I mentioned above, we've paid six figures in taxes for years. If you were to pay us what the government takes to conduct wars, buy bombs and so forth that would be 40% - which would still be six figures. You'd likely be broke - and even if you weren't you certainly wouldn't want to hand over that amount of money.
While we are at it, I also served in the first Iraq war, in addition to paying taxes. Care to share your military service? It's been my experience that most people that are so gung ho about the military never served a day of active duty.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/22/2008 @ 9:10pm
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 8:36pm
Oh, indeedy do, do I ever understand... that you are far more obsessed with the Kennedy assassination than I am. But it's a useful symbolic roadblock when you are talking about nothing, as usual. You just hate 'libs' and want to show them a thing or two
And you also assume that I am a lib when I don't usually talk about things that are associated with 'the loony left'. It's just that your general point of view is so biased and judgmental (focus on mental) that I am purely making fun of you, because a normal discourse cannot possibly take place.
What I'm really focusing on is the bloggers who identify people that they are against as a vast group who are 'over there' somewhere, like we live in a separate country. There's no differentiation between anybody, just group everyone together who does not share your views as 'they' or 'you on the left' and then further define 'them' as lunatics.
I think that Emile and I share a love of beer and (soft) pretzels, and maybe a few other points, but let's be clear here: we make fun of some conservatives because of their undying love of diplomacy by the gun. I do not care for that approach. But, before I drift into a substantive commentary, I have to stop myself and wonder just who it is that I am talking to. The Wall is my conclusion.
So I say... Merry Christmas and PEACE on earth ( Not necessarily achieved by dope smoking, hippy dippy, 60's style, embrace your guru, give peace a chance style diplomacy).
And just to give you something to chew: Magic bullet defies the laws of physics! And, documents not made public until 2027 ( or thereabouts), whyzzat? If it's conclusively one guy, what's the problem? I'm sure that if you write them 'they' will straighten it all out for us.
Posted by ficheye at 12/22/2008 @ 9:27pm
"I love it and want this nation to live up to the ideals of Jefferson. And often it does not. So I try to change it. That is my right. It's called free speech. And free thought. Perhaps you have a problem with that concept. Maybe you should live somewhere in which the people cannot criticize the government." Posted by philbq at 12/22/2008 @ 07:55am
Little over-sensitive, aren't we? If I depised this country's history so much, I sure wouldn't live here. But, that's just me. I can't do anything about the Indians, except immigrate back to Europe. You are certainly free to say whatever you want. Please cite any statement I wrote that suggested you don't have a right to free speech. And nope, I don't have a problem with that concept.
As far as criticizing the government, well, I'm all in favor of that. But when you make a silly statement like "the US is a global imperialist empire", expect most intelligent people to disagree.
"I love this country: the land and the people. It is the government I criticize."
And who elects the government, philbq?
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 12:15am
"So stop the stupid "America-love-it-or-leave-it" crap." Posted by philbq at 12/22/2008 @ 07:55am
Funny, I don't remember starting the "stupid America-love-it-or-leave-it-crap"
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 12:26am
Twillie-- name another nation who has reached across the globe to overthrow democracies (Iran-1953), install dictatorships (Chile-1973). You can't. Russia is imperialist on its borders, so is Israel. But the U.S. invades or bombs anywhere it wants anytime. That is imperialism on a global scale. That was my term, and it is accurate. U.S. propaganda spouts freedom and democracy, but for the last 50 years, U.S. actions have been very different. These are facts of history. I believe in freedom and democracy, and I want my country to promote that.
Posted by philbq at 12/23/2008 @ 12:46am
Talk to the people who lived under the Reds, they were driven by fear.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/22/2008 @ 6:07pm
I did this on a plane once. I sat next to a woman (I'd guess born early '70s) and we talked about he current changes occuring in home country. I think it was Czeck Republic.
You guys would have loved her. Everything was America's fault.
It was terrible that the older people were living through such turmoil. The State could no longer afford the promises it made and capitalism is meaning young cab drivers make more than professors (her father).
But wasn't freedom better? Well no, the financial security was better and the only reason there wasn't liberty was because of the Soviets and there never would have been any Soviets if Truman hadn't given her country to the Soviets at the end of WWII so it's all America's fault.
How can you say Truman gave your country away? The US had spent everything it had to liberate Britton, Italy, France, Germany... We just didn't have the military resources to stop Stalin. We didn't so much give your country to Stalin as it was an acknolegement that we lacked the resourses to stop him. I mean if you are going to hold the US responsible for giving your country away, don't you have to also hold Russia responsible for, you know, actually invading the country and killing your soldiers and establishing a occupation force?
To which she replied, well she never thought of it that way. But it's still America's fault.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/23/2008 @ 07:03am
except immigrate back to Europe.
you cannot immigrate back to europe, you can emigrate back to europe.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 08:51am
U.S. propaganda spouts freedom and democracy, but for the last 50 years, U.S. actions have been very different.
try 150 years, Phil.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 08:51am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/23/2008 @ 07:03am
The "Why do you hate America?" tactic is no more intelligent when wrapped in personal anecdote.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 08:54am
The "Why do you hate America?" tactic is no more intelligent when wrapped in personal anecdote.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 08:54am
1) I don't care why you hate America.
2) The anecdote wasn't an argument for any particular proposition or opinion (that could be intelligent or dumb)
3) The point of the story was that I was fascinated when I had the opportunity to talk to someone who actually grew up behind the Iron curtain.
4) The anecdote is a testement to the effectivenes of Soviet Propaganda. Even though they hated the Russians, the Russians weren't to blame: It was America's fault for telling the Russian they could have her country.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/23/2008 @ 09:24am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/23/2008 @ 09:24am
"The anecdote wasn't an argument for any particular proposition or opinion (that could be intelligent or dumb)."
Sure it was. Or have you reached such a state that people are going to start having to explain your own anecdotes to you? I'm thinking you may want to see a physician; there may be deficits.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 11:13am
"except immigrate back to Europe. you cannot immigrate back to europe, you can emigrate back to europe." Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 08:51am
I can emigrate from the US, and immigrate to Europe. You emigrate FROM, Blanche. Sheesh, pick up a dictionary.
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 11:24am
"Twillie-- name another nation who has reached across the globe to overthrow democracies (Iran-1953), install dictatorships (Chile-1973). Posted by philbq at 12/23/2008 @ 12:46am
Funny, I don't remember US troops invading Iran and Chile. What history books are you reading?
"I believe in freedom and democracy, and I want my country to promote that." Posted by philbq at 12/23/2008 @ 12:46am
How do you promote it? By asking dictators like Stalin, Hussein, and Ortega to please, pretty please, hold elections?
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 11:32am
Funny, I don't remember US troops invading Iran and Chile. What history books are you reading?
both countries' gov't were overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup d'etat. no one said anything about troops.
you like to argue agaisnt the starwmen you erect. ohne mich, mein Engel
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 12:29pm
strawmen.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 11:32am
Overthrow isn't always accomplished through an invasion force. Sometimes it only takes material support. Which history books have you been reading?
Also, you are avoiding inconvenient facts like Saddam Hussein's rule was made possible by the US and all the right wing dictators we supported - Ortega's opposition being an interesting example.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 12:41pm
dictators like Stalin, Hussein,
were US allies.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 12:42pm
both countries' gov't were overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup d'etat. no one said anything about troops. you like to argue agaisnt the starwmen you erect. ohne mich, mein Engel Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 12:29pm
Good job, emile. you're right. Now read philbq:
"Twillie-- name another nation who has reached across the globe to overthrow democracies (Iran-1953), install dictatorships (Chile-1973). You can't. Russia is imperialist on its borders, so is Israel. But the U.S. invades or bombs anywhere it wants anytime. That is imperialism on a global scale. That was my term, and it is accurate. U.S. propaganda spouts freedom and democracy, but for the last 50 years, U.S. actions have been very different. These are facts of history. I believe in freedom and democracy, and I want my country to promote that." Posted by philbq at 12/23/2008 @ 12:46am
Russia was imperialist way beyond its borders, as the USSR. Chile's government was run by a KGB-installed el presidente. The USSR had its hands in Asia, South America, and Africa. The CIA was not as interested in installing dictators, as it was in stopping Soviet influence in South America.
Part of promoting freedom and democracy is stopping the bad guys. Part of stopping the bad guys is making alliances. There are lots of politicians in the US who would have been happy to let Stalin go down. FDR decided that the other bad guy in Europe was more of a threat to the US.
Ortega is a great example. Support or opposition to the Sandanistas was pretty much along party lines.
Funny thing-those on the right are no better at predicting the future (i.e what a tyrant Hussein would become) than those on the Left (i.e. that the Sandanistas would devolve into election-stealing thugs.)
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 1:28pm
The difference, of course, is the US government never funded death squads on "the Left".
I'd take the position that the US government shouldn't be supporting "democracy" in any form outside of its own borders. The very idea is the anti-thesis of democracy.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 3:15pm
Chile's government was run by a KGB-installed el presidente
this is a stupid lie by a stupid poster. Allende was democratically elected.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 5:00pm
REGARDING SRJNKINS
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
KVH: Butter over guns.
HPirovano: our military spending, relative to GDP, is near historic lows
srjenkins: Arguing about military spending as a function of GDP is the lie.
HPirovano: explain why
srjenkins: military necessity isn't determined by GDP. We could make a new ratio like military spending / number of barrels of oil produced, and it would make as much sense of military spending / GDP. The only reason to use GDP is to make military spending look small.
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is how you justify calling me a liar? That is your view of truth and lie! You offer jibberish.
You say, GDP "is wrong" and "stupid" as the measuring stick for judging the guns and butter balance. But you offer no isometric yourself.
You are confusing whether we can afford to spend as much as we do , with whether our military spending is efficient, and whether our power in the world might not be more strengthened with investments on a different order. For example, Ike's Interstate Highway System.
It comes down to this: you think it is virtuous to oppose military spending because the protection and advancement of US interests are not a priority for you. That's because you and your friends deem the US, as the champion of capitalism, a force for evil, not for good; hence you don't relish a powerful America. At the same time you admitted you were not bothered by the Soviet Union's huge arsenal, and that's because you, like your crowd, considered it a force for good.
Yes, you are confused, and it starts with a very liberal notion of truth and lie. Are you so quick to suspect others of lying because you are a routined liar yourself?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/23/2008 @ 5:02pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/23/2008 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is all nonsense. you are arguing with yourself.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 5:08pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/23/2008 @ 5:02pm
The old, let's throw sand technique. Very well.
"But you offer no isometric yourself."
Try constant dollars.
"You are confusing whether we can afford to spend as much as we do..."
You are confusing GDP with government receipts - that only works if the government owns everything.
"...whether our power in the world might not be more strengthened..."
I am not concerned with how US "power in the world might not be more strengthened". If anything, if we must spend on "defense", we should be spending on doing it in our own border.
"It comes down to this: ..."
It comes down to the fact that amateur psychology makes you sound like an idiot and your ideas about America's power, relationship to capitalism, communism and "the left" show a provincial naivete that might have been acceptable in the 1950s but is downright ignorant 50 years later.
"Yes, you are confused, and it starts with a very liberal notion of truth and lie."
A liberal notion of truth and lie? In your mind, is that akin to making up stories about people's motivations and ideas rather than actually understanding them, and do you think it is a "liberal" problem? (Hint: read over you own post and see if it applies. OW! Don't tell anyone. You might be a closet liberal! You are already half-way there with your preoccupation with reading "The Nation".)
It's a real shame that you try to speak on behalf of conservatives here and do such a bad job of it.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/23/2008 @ 6:06pm
there is no evidence that Hugo reads the Nation.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 6:42pm
"Chile's government was run by a KGB-installed el presidente this is a stupid lie by a stupid poster. Allende was democratically elected." Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 5:00pm
Ever heard of the Mitrokhin Archive, Blanche? Of course not. I'll give you time to google or wiki it. Allende was in bed with the KGB for more than a decade before he was elected. Don't mistake your flaming ignorance for a "stupid lie".
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 10:10pm
Don't mistake your flaming ignorance for a "stupid lie".
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 10:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Excuse me? You seem to have accepted Mitrokhin's hand-written notes about documents he claims to have seen as absolute fact - and then somehow you went from Mittrokhin's claim that Allende gave the KGB 'political intelligence' to "Chile's government was run by a KGB-installed el presidente".
Kind of a stretch, don't you think?
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 10:09am
before he was elected.
thank you for repudiating your stupid post and agreeing with me.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:21am
Excuse me? You seem to have accepted Mitrokhin's hand-written notes about documents he claims to have seen as absolute fact - and then somehow you went from Mittrokhin's claim that Allende gave the KGB 'political intelligence' to "Chile's government was run by a KGB-installed el presidente". Kind of a stretch, don't you think? Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 10:09am
Yes, I've accepted his hand written notes. What would you accept? Xerox copies? Notes typed up on his iMac?
Allende "stated his willingness to cooperate on a confidential basis and provide any necessary assistance". The KGB spent a lot of money to influence the election, and gave money to a left-wing senator to persuade him not to run, so the vote wouldn't be split.
So no, not much of a stretch at all.
And, let's face it, Lillian. If the CIA had a similar relationship with a right wing politician, you wouldn't have ANY problem referring to him as CIA-installed.
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 10:30am
"before he was elected. thank you for repudiating your stupid post and agreeing with me." Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:21am
Great comeback, Blanche. He continued to be a KGB tool after he was elected, too.
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 11:01am
Yes, I've accepted his hand written notes. What would you accept? Xerox copies? Notes typed up on his iMac?
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Well how about the actual documents? Or something, you know, resembling actual 'proof'. You know, like the declassified US government documents that show how Nixon demanded and Kissinger delivered the CIA coup.
BTW, you did notice that you are defending a CIA-sponsered military coup, one that overthrew a democratically-elected president of a foreign nation, and installed the ruthless General Pinochet, who, for the next 17 years, imprisoned hundreds of thousands and killed or 'disappeared' at least several thousand of his 'enemies'...
...right?
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 4:38pm
I'm not defending anything. I'm refuting philbq's statement below. Don't put words in my mouth.
"Twillie-- name another nation who has reached across the globe to overthrow democracies (Iran-1953), install dictatorships (Chile-1973).
"Well how about the actual documents? Or something, you know, resembling actual 'proof'."
Actual documents? From the Soviet Union? That's a joke, right? Was there a Soviet Freedom of Information Act passed that I didn't hear about?
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 9:53pm
Actual documents? From the Soviet Union? That's a joke, right? Was there a Soviet Freedom of Information Act passed that I didn't hear about?
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 9:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Don't you read? Brace yourself, here's some news for you...
...there is no Soviet Union anymore. That's right. In the 'con' fantasy, they give credit to their nimrod, brain addled leader Reagan for causing the old Soviet Union to fall apart. But of course, the rest of the world understands that the old USSR rotted from the inside out.
Do try to keep up.
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 10:38pm