Why Not Cut Military Spending?

[laststeamtrain]

Why Not Cut Military Spending?

By David Swanson
February 5, 2009

In the ordinary course of things in Washington, D.C., and on television, there are two separate conversations.

In one conversation, everything that the government spends money on (schools, transportation, police, etc.) must be trimmed back to save money. In the other conversation, the expenses of wars and the military must be unquestioned.

After what he said this week on ABC, it will be interesting to see whether Congressman Barney Frank is permitted on television anymore. He combined the two conversations.

After a right-winger proposed more tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy and denounced any spending programs as not being "stimulus," Frank pointed out that the largest spending program we've seen is the war on Iraq.

Host George Stephanopoulos clearly felt the force of some galactic wind about to suck him into a different dimension in which the two conversations are permitted to overlap. He jumped in and said "That is a whole 'nother show." But Frank faced the taboo head-on, saying:

"No it isn’t. That's the problem. The problem is that we look at spending and say oh don't spend on highways, don't spend on healthcare, but let's build cold war weapons to defeat the Soviet Union when we don't need them, let's have hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars going to the military without a check. Unless everything is on the table then you're going to have a disproportionate hit in some places."

<more>

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/020509a.html

[corruptmewithpower]

1. Heck yes, cut military spending!

[midnight]

2. Cut military spending.

[ChazII]

3. Which parts to cut?

Selfishly, I don't want this cut:
http://www.ctf.org/for-scientists/department-of-defense-nf-research-program/

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program
The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program in Neurofibromatosis (CDMRP NFRP) was established in 1996 with a mission to promote research directed toward the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of neurofibromatosis, as well as enhance the quality of life for persons with the disorder.

Since its inception the program has committed over $200 million to NF research. By keeping congressional staff apprised of the importance and success of this program, the Foundation and our constituents have played a key role in ensuring the program continues.

[SharonAnn]

7. It should be part of a health related budget. NIH?

[Optical.Catalyst]

11. Unselfishly, I want these programs cut

Strategic Missile Defense

F-22 Stealth Fighter

Reliable Replacement Warhead (nuclear)

That will do for a start in the first year. There is so much fat and waste in the defense budget, a frugal person could have a field day.

[mwooldri]

13. We need a defense spending review at the very least and look for waste.

Defense spending can stimulate the economy no end, see World War 2 as a good example of that.

However we have to better budget and ensure that we get the most (economic) bang for our buck. Things like Star Wars and future fighter plane development may seem from the average joe's point of view as a waste of money because they don't see the benefit coming out of it but we spend money on peoples' wages and buying stuff for these programs. Do we need new fighter planes or satellites in space that shoot out rogue missiles heading our way right now? Certainly we don't. But do spending on these programs keep people in jobs and everything that supports them in a job too?

I say we need to look at any waste and eliminate that. If there's that much waste in defense then yep, trim the budget. If not, then the thing to do would be to re-balance the priorities of the defense department and spend the money where we can get the bigger return, economically speaking provided it doesn't have too much of a political impact.

If we need a new fighter plane why not work with NATO and our other partners? I'm sure in 20 years European countries will be looking to start replacing their Eurofighters. Split the cost, get a good plane...

Mark.

[rossl]

16. Missile defense is a big one to cut

It's a complete waste - a bunch of no bid contracts handed out to military contractors that always run overbudget.

Even Robert Gates has complained about the wastefulness at the Pentagon. You probably don't even need to cut any programs to make a significant cut - just make sure the existing programs are run more efficiently.

Although cutting a few programs wouldn't be so bad...

[rossl]

17. Also, just get out of Iraq nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. Yes - I wonder if Obama is waiting to reduce the military budget? nt

[givemebackmycountry]

5. We spend more than every country in the world combined on Defense...

If we are so "moral" and so "good" and a "beacon of light" why?
Who are we so afraid of?
And why?
Cold war is over.
So is Viet-Nam.
Cuba?
Give me a fucking break.
Oh, that's right I remember.
That Dow Jones guy, whoever the fuck he is.

Shit, it's always the HOME grown terrorists that fuck us over.

[stillcool]

6. Here's why...

US Empire Will Survive Bush
By Arno J Mayer
Le Monde diplomatique
October 2008

The United States may emerge from the Iraq fiasco almost unscathed. Though momentarily disconcerted, the American empire will continue on its way, under bipartisan direction and mega-corporate pressure, and with evangelical blessings. It is a defining characteristic of mature imperial states that they can afford costly blunders, paid for not by the elites but the lower orders. Predictions of the American empire's imminent decline are exaggerated: without a real military rival, it will continue for some time as the world's sole hyperpower.

But though they endure, overextended empires suffer injuries to their power and prestige. In such moments they tend to lash out, to avoid being taken for paper tigers. Given Washington's predicament in Iraq, will the US escalate its intervention in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia or Venezuela? The US has the strongest army the world has ever known. Preponderant on sea, in the air and in space (including cyberspace), the US has an awesome capacity to project its power over enormous distances with speed, a self-appointed sheriff rushing to master or exploit real and putative crises anywhere on earth. In the words of the former secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld: "No corner of the world is remote enough, no mountain high enough, no cave or bunker deep enough, no SUV fast enough to protect our enemies from our reach."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of establishing classic territorial colonies, the US secures its hegemony through some 700 military, naval and air bases in over 100 countries, the latest being in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Rumania, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Ethiopia and Kenya. At least 16 intelligence agencies with stations the world over provide the ears and eyes of this borderless empire.

The US has 12 aircraft carriers. All but three are nuclear-powered, designed to carry 80 planes and helicopters, and marines, sailors and pilots. A task force centred on a supercarrier includes cruisers, destroyers and submarines, many of them atomic-powered and equipped with offensive and defensive guided missiles. Pre-positioned in global bases and constantly patrolling vital sea lanes, the US navy provides the new model empire's spinal cord and arteries. Ships are displacing planes as chief strategic and tactical suppliers of troops and equipment. The navy is now in the ascendant over the army and the air force in the Pentagon and Washington.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is not new. In his farewell address in January 1980, weeks after the start of the hostage standoff in Tehran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter made it "absolutely clear" that an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf will be regarded as an assault on the US, and such an assault will be repelled by any means including military force. He said that the Russian troops in Afghanistan not only threatened a region that "contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil" but were at the ready "within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow".
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2008/10survivebush.htm

[Sherman A1]

9. I like this quote......

Donald Rumsfeld: "No corner of the world is remote enough, no mountain high enough, no cave or bunker deep enough, no SUV fast enough to protect our enemies from our reach."


Unless of course your name is Bin Laden, then you can hide pretty well it would seem.


This may be the reasoning, however in my opinion we need to cut military spending by 50%

[hay rick]

8. hooray for Barney.

Our military budget is vastly disproportionate to any plausible threat. Consider the following:

1. Our military budget equals the rest of the world's combined.
2. Our military budget does not include spending in the special appropriations for the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does not include the cost of such obvious military items as the VA, the CIA, and the majority of costs associated with nuclear weapons. It includes no attribution of interest costs for our soaring deficit.
3. A significant portion of the rest of the world's military spending is spending by our allies.

Our military spending is a more dire threat to our national well-being than the enemies it would protect us from. We currently have a declining median national income and that trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Our military spending is a national tragedy and disgrace. The media that ignores or actively props up this extraordinary boondoggle betrays America's citizens and their best interests.

[wuvuj]

10. Fear and the war on terror?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21906.htm


"If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.

The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated."


"The “war on terror” is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel’s territorial expansion."


What has happened after 9/11 is a continuation of what was going on before 9/11. The 9/11 terrorists were the fist individuals to effectively stand up to the NWO? The NWO response has been to essentially criminalize individuality...the war on terror is now a war on individual rights...plain and simple.

In this war...the NWO never takes responsibility for anything...much like Israel in Gaza...the US in the ME?

As long as US citizens condone and accept what their govt has done in the ME and elsewhere...it will go on...unless of course it begins to occur to them that they are as much the victims of NWO policies as say the people of Iraq, etc?

At this point the illusion of superiority and a protected status begins to fail. The same hubris evident in Iraq is evident on Wall Street? Evident in the loss of jobs and assets...etc?

Will they still wave the flag as they watch their house being foreclosed on? When they lose a job? When they live in a car?

[crimsonblue]

12. Cut $200 billion from the Defense Department

I don't care what you do with it, but take it away from DoD.

[classysassy]

14. The cost

over runs by contractors cost billions,if the cost don't come within 10% of the contract,the contractors should be denied further contracts.

[hay rick]

15. "centrists" ...

agreed to INCREASE military spending in stimulus bill while cutting aid ti states, food stamps, etc. Amazing.

[vinylsolution]

18. Eliminating wasteful spending at the Pentagon....

.... would free up more than enough money for universal healthcare.

What better way to start America's recovery?

[Rwalsh]

19. As long as it can done

without cutting jobs, I say go for it.

Now is not a good time to eliminate jobs.