We need to STOP spending $700 Billion on defense every damn year!!!!

[KansasVoter]

This post is not a slam of President Obama. He has done exactly what he said he would do on Iraq and Afghanistan. But things, economically and fiscally have changed.

I look forward to comments against this rant, and would love to know where I am wrong. I seriously might be full of crap. Tell me if I am.

After reading a lot and listening to Barney Frank, there is no way we can continue to be the world’s police when it comes to the military. And the democrats need to take the lead on this since we know the "war profiting" GOP will never do it.

We will spend 670 Billion dollars this year on defense. The next largest is China at 95 billion dollars. China spends 13% of what we do! Which is unbelievable to me. 13%!

After China is the UK at 69 Billion, 10% of what we spend.

It is 32% of our budget. The highest of any major funding. Social Security is 20%, Medicare is 19%.

1.5 trillion is spent in the whole world on defense, of that we spend 44% of that. And we have 4.5% of the world’s population.

We have 11 fulltime aircraft carriers; the rest of the world has 10.

The list could go on and on and on.........

But I am not sure what this is gaining us? Are we safe, sure we are. Safer than any other country, I don't think so. More easy to attack than other countries, no way, much harder than European countries. We cannot afford to be the world’s police any longer. We need to tell the world we can no longer afford to keep the world safe and have other things to spend our money on. We will help equally in keeping the world safe, but cannot any longer fund 70% of it!

We are building schools in Iraq and Afghanistan and laying off teachers here. We have communities here with no hospitals and are building them in Iraq.

Let’s say we spent $100 Billion on defense every year. Hell, lets always say we will spend more than the next highest country. China spends $90 billion, we spend $100 billion. I am fine with that.

If we spent "only" $100 billion would we be attacked by China? I am sure we would not. Would Iran try pulling crap? No, because we can still kick the shit out of them if needed with $100 billion a year.

And if the unthinkable happened, and China attacked, I guess we scale up, draft people and fight them like we did in WWII. I think this country could do it successfully.

Would we have more terrorist attacks? How many more? 1? 5? Would $600 billion spent in this country on infrastructure, health care and energy independence be worth an additional terror attack every year? I think so, because we are losing 500 troops a year in unjust wars anyway. I don't want a terror attack ever, but at what cost? $600 Billion a year? And there is no proof the $600 billion will prevent all of them anyway.

We have 400,000 troops stationed outside this country. What if we had those 400,000 people building Solar Panels, Wind Turbines, Electrical Grids, Etc in this damn country? Is this a better use of our funds? I think so.

And I have to believe the money we send to defense industries now would be spent somewhere else and help those other industries the same amount. Infrastructure, energy, etc. And I bet we can employ as many people in building this country up as the military hires now. And if other countries needed to defend themselves and not rely on us, then that would increase exports for the military companies to those countries.

It comes down to this. What is the $700 Billion a year gaining us that $100 billion would not?

I know the chance of this happening is about the same as getting single-payer passed so it is very depressing. But I guess dreaming is ok!

Rant over!

[damntexdem]

1. We need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'd settle for that, for the moment.

[KansasVoter]

2. I agree. Step one!!

[Oregone]

10. Pulling out is never 100% effective

[humbled_opinion]

16. lol

and you usually wind up finishing yourself off... How lame.

[FrenchieCat]

3. My understanding is that Gates is looking at possibly a 100 billion dollar reduction.....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/28/879373/-BIG:-Gates-calls-for-100-billion-in-cuts-to-Defense-Budget

Sure it's on a 5 year timeline, and of course that's not everything, but it is more of a cut than ever seen before....because before, budgets have always increased.

[KansasVoter]

5. That is at least in the right direction.

[patrice]

4. DAMNED hard to understand, isn't it!!

:hi:

[grantcart]

6. Its starting

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday he wants to trim some of the billions of dollars the Pentagon spends on weapons systems and contractor services, part of a Pentagon-wide effort to find $100 billion in savings in the next five years.

Gates, who already plans to pare down the Pentagon's huge bureaucracy to save money, said that the Defense Department will focus on unnecessary spending by defense contractors that provide the military with everything from fighter jets to janitors.


The reality is that the deficit is going to demand not just the cuts listed above but big cuts.

In a few years the paying the interest of the debt will exceed the $ 700 billion a year on defense spending.

Deficit hawks have already indicated that the defense budget will not simply have to reduce expensive weapons systems but much larger cuts.


Here are recent articles the drumbeat is everywhere:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/cut-the-military-budget/58282/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/209424-an-analytical-framework-for-deficit-hawks

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024224.php

http://www.beezernotes.com/wordpress/?p=3234



Fiscal conservatives will leave the militarists hanging and join for a common front for a smaller military budget.

Ironic that Bush's wars mishandled from the start will end up creating the transition that Cheney and Rumsfield fought so hard.

[cutlassmama]

15. It's a start. The government could also stop the billions in subsidies to the

oil companies too.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Why do you call it defense? When the Russians did it it was naked

aggression... now not so much.

[KansasVoter]

12. True!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. The money could be spent at home

money could be best spent on home security - protecting installations. I don't think having troops on the ground in places like Afghanistan is useful. The present administration doesn't want to look weak infront of Cheney and the right (warmongers). You can always tell you are doing the wrong thing if Bill Kristol supports it. Why don't they use intelligence and diplomacy properly around the world? Why do we have such ooutdated war equipment. Billions could be used in improving education, infrastructure, support for small businesses, a single payer health system etc.

[KansasVoter]

11. I agree. Securing borders against terrorists!

[earthside]

9. Don't kid yourself ...

... we are spending well over a trillion dollars a year on the military and military related items.

The Energy Department spends billions to maintain and research nuclear weapons.

The Veterans Department would not be so large and expensive if this nation weren't constantly engaged in wars.

What about the CIA ... and all the other 'spy' agencies that feed information to the Pentagon?

Then there is the interest that accumulates from portions of the deficit associated with all of this military spending.

It is the cost of empire that is driving this Republic into the deep, deep ditch.

What we really need to do to get our economy on the positive side is cut the military budget in half -- then use that savings to reduce the annual deficit and 'stimulate' with infrastructure (especially interstate rail) improvements.

Of course, that is not going to happen since Democrats and Republicans will never let themselves be seen as "soft" on defense. Besides the fact that military contractors have facilities in every state and almost every Congressional district in the nation -- and they find ways to give big bucks in campaign contributions.

[KansasVoter]

13. This country really sucks at times.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Strong diplomacy and clever intelligence is better than old fashoned wars

no one really fully explained why we attacked Iraq.

[humbled_opinion]

14. Nothing wrong with your assesment but

1. Cutting defense budgets while we are still fighting wars is a poltical non-starter you will get called every name in the book because no matter how you slice it the opposition will say you are leaving our soldiers with inadequate equipment to do their job. Good start would be to end all wars and occupations and bring our troops home.

2. Someone would have to study to find out what percent of our GDP is in military equipment procurement, when you make substantial cuts in the DOD budget you are going to leave massive scars in the private sector. Civilian contractors and all the people employed by civilian companies that support the Military Industrial Comples, Just what we need right now another 6 - 8 percent unemployed because of defense cuts...

3. Huge cuts in DOD budget would also cause a massive reduction in the size of the force structure of active duty memebers, another massive employment hit, not to mention the base realignments that would have to be done and the base closures that would follow putting whole cities and towns out of business. In a recession as deep as this one the last thing a President could do is cut defense spending on the scale you are suggesting.


So the Nasty Repukes will give Obama a very hard time next year when they win back Congress and go to town as defecit Hawks making Obama cut every social program that exists, they will overhaul in the name of personal responsibility, the poorest among us will be sent back to the stone age. The question is will Obama conform under the immense pressure that will be brought as they chime on about mandates and public opinion being on their side and anti-socialist type rhetoric with more tax cuts for the rich and less spending on the poor...

and you know who's fault it will be ?

Obamas' thats right I said it. He had an opportunity, many in fact, and he squandered them all he ran from his ideals, he morphed his positions, he played a game of Bipartisanship and got labled a divider, had he stuck to his principles, had he argued in favor of Progressive Ideas and indoctrinated the public in what real change meant, had he ended these wars of choice, as he said he would, had he really brought the change that we needed then Democrats would be riding high into these elections much as Bush had used 911 to ride high into the 2002 elections that brought more Repukes into power.

Instead we have an electorate divided, people that are so afraid of Obama because they are simple minded and listen to Limpball et.al. The right had a plan of destruction and they carried it out. How the heck did Scott Brown get elected as MA Senator? HOW? The people of America are in a bitter mood.

[KansasVoter]

17. I agree......

#1 has to happen first!

And I know the jobs would hurt initially, but long term we could fix that.

Use bases for other things.

But no one will really allow a massive energy change either.

[pezDispenser]

24. agreed #1 needs to happen first

but #2 wouldn't necessarily result in another 6% to 8% unemployment. That money could be directed to other public works projects (think infrastructure) or the savings could be applied to small biz / personal tax cuts. #3 falls in line with this also.

But I agree, its a complex topic. If only someone would have warned us about this 50 years ago...

[humbled_opinion]

27. I had assumed the OP

was talking about defecit reduction. If you could successfully cut DOD spending there is no way in hell (politically speaking) that you could spend that money anywhere. The context would only exist in defecit reduction... LOL if it was a matter of cutting defense to take care of our sick and elderly then we would/should/could have done that a long time ago...

[pezDispenser]

31. good point

[ProSense]

19. "What is the $700 Billion a year gaining us that $100 billion would not?"

Given that $300 billion is for benefits and there are other considerations like how each country defines its budget, do you know that a straight comparison can be made?

[Bobcat]

20. Defense?

Not so much...it's a jobs/PROFIT program. It provides cover for the transfer of obscene amounts of public dollars into private (individual) hands.

[mopinko]

21. i'd be happy with the rooting out of all the other wilkes-

hunter-abramoff type scams. that kind of corruption is widespread, imho, and can be cut without anyone having any room to say that we are getting soft. it makes us look tough, and saves money. start there.

if you have never seen the old hbo movie 'the pentagon wars' with kelsey grammer, put it in your netflix cue. it is priceless, and based on a true story.

[ShadowLiberal]

22. Agreed, many large empires that fell apart made this same mistake

A lot of big empires that fell apart made the mistake of spending way too much money on the military while neglecting stuff like the economy, and the mounting debt their large armies were building up. Off the top of my head, some of the biggest fallings from this.

-The Mongol Empire, the Mongols invested WAY too much money to invade Japan, and then failed, twice (after the first failure they sent a MUCH larger army, only for a huge storm to wipe out most of their ships and the troops on them before they landed). This is what did in the Mongol Emperor in charge of China.

-The Soviet Union, I've read that at the time the Soviet Union fell they were spending nearly 2/3's of their entire budget on the military, even though their economy was in horrible shape and couldn't pay for it. Reagan saw this hole in the Soviet empire and helped stir up trouble where Russian troops were, we armed the very terrorists we fight in Afghanistan in order to help them fight the Soviets, because the Soviet army had already invaded, and like today, the terrorists and others didn't like the presense of foreign rulers.

A lot of other empires have had debt as a big part of the problem for why they fell.

[KansasVoter]

25. Thanks! Interesting!

[Arkana]

23. I think we should shave off some of that money to use on a UI extension.

[Uzybone]

26. Agreed, trim the Defense Budget by 50% then start looking for more to cut

It is too bloated.

[donheld]

28. k & R

[uponit7771]

29. The cost is closer to 1 trillion for defense "related" expenses but we need JOBS!!

...Ok, that money really doesn't get us that much jobs either but...

Trickle down anyone?

WTF would anyone vote for that guy....

sigh

[FlyByNight]

30. It's not "defense"

The Pentagon budget is empire maintenance: one-sided SoFAs; 700+ bases located worldwide (at least the ones we know about); outrageously expensive and redundant weapons systems; the potential militarization of space, about half of discretionary spending, etc.

Excluding the imperial occupation of Iraq-ghanistan, the Cold War was "won" (the USSR was outspent) by spending roughly half the amount spent now and then we had thousands of warheads pointed at us. The Pentagon budget is nothing but very narrowly targeted, very inefficient economic stimulus.

All great nations and empires dissolve eventually. We'll be no different whether there's a D or R in the White House.

:mad: