Defense budget

[maxr4clark]

Just read the morning paper, and found the article below. Also found a separate report that the Congressional Budget Office claims Iraq will need "billions more" in support in the coming years. The $50B expected to be requested after the election brings the total cost of Iraq--just so far--well over the $200B figure that Paul O'Neill was fired for admitting in public.

It is time for other Democratic candidates to support Clark in saying the Defense budget should be cut. The US defeated the USSR by out-spending them on defense. The war on terror does not require anywhere close to the amount of money we spent then! This is what Eisenhower meant by "beware the military-industrial complex".

---start---
President seeks 7 percent spending increase for Pentagon

By Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants to boost military spending by 7 percent to nearly $402 billion in fiscal 2005, the Pentagon said yesterday.

That would take the defense budget to levels exceeding those at the height of the Cold War.

The increase is needed to help pay for a raft of costly weapons and programs bolstered by the Washington, D.C.'s response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but would not include costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The administration is expected to make a request later in the year — most likely after the November presidential election — for an additional $50 billion or more to pay for those military operations.

The $401.7 billion request is in line with what the Pentagon a year ago projected it would seek as part of a long-range plan to boost military spending to $484 billion annually by 2009. It does not include military programs funded by the Energy Department, expected to cost about $20 billion in 2005.

"When you listen to the rhetoric coming from the Pentagon, one might get the impression that all the increases in spending since 9-11 have been closely related to waging the war on terrorism. But clearly this has not been the case," said Steven Kosiak, director of budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan defense think tank.

Meanwhile, President Bush yesterday signed a $373 billion omnibus spending bill that provides funding for 11 federal agencies.
---end---

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?c=1&slug=defense24&date=20040124&query=Pentagon

[snoochie]

1. I think they should join Kucinich

and state plainly that this will KILL our budget for domestic programs. Education, health care, social security, infrastructure... EVERYTHING will suffer because of bush militarism.

Which great nations in history had a huge military buildup they could scarcely afford?

What happened to them?

[maxr4clark]

2. It is hard to join Kucinich on budget issues

...because he wants to make tons of radical changes, almost all of which we could never afford. The budget is where activism meets practicality, and Kucinich comes down on the activism side on every issue. I'm more practical at heart.

The logic of your historical reference doesn't hold up to scrutiny, by the way. The same thing has happened to most nations irrespective of whether they've had a huge military buildup they could hardly afford. A lot of places outside the Roman Empire were ravaged by the barbarian hordes on their way to Rome. A lot of places that didn't have a huge military buildup fell to Rome as it expanded in the first place. Avoiding a huge military buildup doesn't seem to have much impact on your ultimate fate as a nation; but it sure makes more money available to make your nation a nicer place while it lasts--and it provides funds for making a difference in the rest of the world, too. So while I agree with you for the most part on how we should spend our money, your reference to history didn't make your point.

[snoochie]

3. You missed my point

I wasn't saying they should join Kucinich on his entire platform. I said they should join him in talking about how much that military buildup is going to impact our lives here.

And your second paragraph was silly. You're saying that since all nations fall then it doesn't matter why? :shrug:

My point was that if we build up this imperial military presence (and here's the important part) that we can't afford to sustain then the outcome is predictable.

[Virgil]

4. VA spends $80 Billion

The expenditures of the VA are part of what we spend on our defense. They act like their is no relationship between the VA and military spending.

[snoochie]

5. Who is 'they'?

Kucinich would cut very specific programs, NOT the VA budget.

Read Will Pitt's article on the Kooch, and find out what a real vet thinks about Kucinich.

One of Kucinich's biggest gripes is that they don't support the troops through the VA, only by sending them to die.

[snoochie]

6. Just another issue nobody cares about

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

:7