Read It and Weep

KK -

This is what gives Dems a bad name when it comes to national defense. On the one hand, you want to cut defense spending, yet how many Dems criticized Rumsfeld when he sent troops into Iraq without properly armored Humvees? You can't have it both ways. Good equipment costs money. National defense is the first responsibility of the Federal government. It can fail in many other ways, but if it fails in that category, what state can send has an adequate militia to defend us? (Cue sound of crickets).

Redbus, why frame this as a democrat/republican thing? I tend to look at this in a broader sense, not a partisan-centric one. Specifically, what accomplishments could be made in a number of areas if we as a country or as a species were capable of curing ourselves of our war disease - meaning accomplishments that could benefit everyone, not just persons of a particular ideology or class. Maybe war is too deeply a part of our nature, but if we don't set worthy goals then we will keep making the same mistakes humans have made for thousands of years- until we eventually consume ourselves and perhaps the earth in the process. Think missed opportunity and potential on a cosmic scale because we failed to learn how to control our darker natures. Btw, those who imagine there is a god waiting in the wings to bail us out of our bad behavior only contribute to the problem... imho, since it tends to reduce the need in the minds of some for accountability. We need to grow up before our cleverness and foolishness destroys us.

On the one hand, you want to cut defense spending, yet how many Dems criticized Rumsfeld when he sent troops into Iraq without properly armored Humvees?

I think the answer to that is not sending troops into Iraq in the first place.

from the original article:

What if? Well, this year, that would mean devoting $680 billion to investments in infrastructure. That’s more than $200 billion more than Oberstar’s entire proposed transportation reauthorization bill, which was itself a large increase over the previous transportation law.

Wait...we did pass a $787B stimulus, right? Having said that, I will agree to the broader question of trimming defense spending. See here and here.

Our military expenses are close to half of the combined military spending on the planet. We also spend just over twice as much as the next country (the EU actually). I would love for someone to try making an intelligent argument as to why we should actually increase this madness.

None of this would come as a surprise to Ike if he was still around, afterall he predicted it. Something about the desirabilitiy of learning from history comes to mind..

Problem is those Humvees were not armored yet we were and still are buying weapons we do not and will not need, just not the kind that armor things to protect our troops(we do but it sadly seems to not be the focus). I also think the emperor is a bit naked when we give weapons to our future enemies only to then HAVE TO re-tool and buy new equipment now that surprise they are now fighting us(see Taliban or Pakistan in just a few years I would guess). I have no issue with defense spending I have an issue with insane defense spending based on pumping up the economy to build arms when we could invest in other ways if we wanted to build domestic production. Every year the budgets balloon further to the point that a "cut" is actually a smaller percentage of growth not an actual cut. Other parts of our defense spending that are driving us into a financial grave are policing the world without financial support from those who wish us to do so and our Empire America problem of having bases all over the world that oddly cost money to run.

Defending the country is very important but if we stopped building everything today and just maintained our nukes no one is gonna come try to steal our twinkies(I do not support this but it is true), NO ONE. There will be emerging threats that we need to attend to like of the cyber variety but I would like to note that the amount of gov compared to GDP did not rise so high under Bush due to social programs but defense spending(speaking only of the quick rise). There are many sane cuts that could and really should take place but since it will hurt the rural districts where Repubs get voted in they will be cut over their dead bodies not because it hurts our defense, because it hurts jobs in their districts that are totally reliant on the military industrial complex. The "miracle" economy of Reagan was heavily reliant not only on borrowing wheelbarrows of money but also from spending that borrowed money with US Arms and defense manufacturers to create jobs, well that and a ballooning prison population due to the war on drugs and other issues. When you pay people to create jobs and have less people that are available to be hired surprise surprise unemployment goes down but of course now we have to pay for that, and if we continue on this course we will have to pay for brand new stupid programs. Advantages do exist, dont get me wrong. A good deal of American innovation has come by way of research started or controlled by the military industrial complex but if we just invested in the research it would have been a good deal cheaper. So in closing keep spending money on defense but please can we stop spending more than the entire world combined every year? How many planets do we plan on going to war with at the same time?

The US spends more than the next five countries in the world does on defense. Either we're really hated or we're really paranoid. Why not just drop bales of money on the bad guys; they'd be dead, and the third world ecoomy would get a boost from the new kind of collateral damage.

Ford class carriers will cost about 4.5 billion each to build, and this does not include 14 billion for development. Seems to me it's time to start pounding some of our fancy new swords into plow shares.

Sorry all Jchem has the real numbers I was looking at numbers spent over all which is where I got "the entire planet combined" fallacy, my bad.

Reaching back in history department: France and other countries have cleaned our clock with regard to railroads Nuclear, and other areas. We all have been asleep at the switch. Our defense budget is no excuse, many people, Dems and Reps and you and me have dropped the ball.

We all do realize that our infrastructure's soundness is exactly equal to our national security right?

That's why the Public Option is so important. Healthy citizens make muccccchhhhh better soldiers in time of need. Better works for the GDP. And heck they need rail transport to get their sundries,, food etc. And roads, and schools [ignorance breeds instability] and police, and fire, and so on and so on.

What's this got do with the public option? A bit astray.

How much of our misnamed "defense budget" is truly necessary for our defense from the invading hordes and how much is really devoted to the expansion and preservation of the American Empire? Providing for the common defense is the first order of the federal government; international expansion and empire building are not.

If you question the assumption that "defense spending" is actually for defense, you may get a very different perspective than if you blindly accept that assumption.

Just out of curiosity, are we ALL for reduced defense spending and ending the current wars?

If you want to reduce the defense budget, why don't you get our President to end American involvement in the two major wars we're currently in?

Second, consider what could be done with the $400 billion plus we spend each year simply to pay the interest on the national debt. The argument about what could be done with the defense budget is kind of like arguing about what my family could (hypothetically) do without that car payment money while ignoring the $50k in credit card debt that's rising by $10k a year.

Professor, what does it matter whether we are ALL for that or not?

What I think matters much more is that if you voted for Obama, then why are you letting the guy ignore your wishes so wantonly?

What is it that a groupthink exercise at TMV is supposed to accomplish that 60 million votes cast for Obama did not?

ProfElwood asks "are we ALL for reduced defense spending and ending the current wars?"

Not necessarily. I prefer, as a matter of fiscal and constitutional responsibility, that we break out essential defense spending from moneys put into the defense budget that are essentially for other purposes. At that point, we can readily appropriate what is necessary for defense and have a debate, and congressional vote, on whether to appropriate for the other purposes. We need to begin asking critical questions, and I will be so presumptuous as to suggest a few; 1. does the defense of the US require ground troops in Europe? 2. does the defense of the US require propping up dictatorial regimes in, say, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? 3. are interventions like Kosovo or Granada necessary to the defense of the US? 4. assuming that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were necessary to our defense, how is it necessary to our national defense to use the military budget to engage in nation building in those countries? 5. Sacrilege to some, but a legitimate question I think, is a separate Marine Corps necessary to the national defense?

This would not mean that we cease all such activities, simply that we redefine them in terms of whether they are necessary to the actual purpose of defense. In an honest debate, where we cull out that which is truly necessary for defense and that which is not, it is likely that some ventures would be discontinued and others continued as being in the national interest, though not strictly necessary for defense. Those ventures would, in essence, become discretionary spending.

To put this in conservative, strict constitutional constructionist terms, we have expanded the meaning of "defense" far beyond anything comprehensible to the framers of the constitution when the common defense was made the first order of the federal government.

Btw, I agree with Andy that savings should be considered as a means of paying down, or slowing the growth of, the federal deficit. Moving money from one project to another is no more than choosing which thimble the pea is under as you push it around the table. It is not fiscal responsibility.

Just out of curiosity, are we ALL for reduced defense spending and ending the current wars?

I don't know if we are ALL for reduced defense spending and ending the current wars, but I am...

If we were to cut our military budget by 50% or more, bring our troops home from Asia & Europe and invest that money in our physical, social and educational infrastructure, we would be far better off, except for the industrialist & financiers who are supplying all the military equipment.

It's been over a decade since I voted for a mainline candidate, when I had a choice. Personally, I don't think McCain would have been that much different, since his campaign mostly amounted to being Obama-lite. Just like I know that most people were against the bank bailouts, it's nice to find an area of agreement in a place where we spend a lot of time (respectfully) disagreeing.

Amen.

The Constitution specifically mentions the defense of the nation. It also specifically mentions "post roads" (infrastructure). Why could we not spend trillions on both, and do away with all of the other unconstitutional crap that the federal government pays for?

We could. The problem is, we won't.

Post roads are only roads, JD. Infrastructure is bridges, tunnels, dams, etc. The Constitution does not mention bridges, tunnels, or dams. It does not mention "infrastructure." If you read the Constitution literally, funding the building and maintenance of highways (arguably -- highways didn't exist when the Constitution was written, so that's a bit iffy) would be constitutional, but doing the same for bridges, tunnels, and dams would be unconstitutional.

Actually, bridges and tunnels have always been considered parts of a road. Dams probably wouldn't fit in, though.

what accomplishments could be made in a number of areas if we as a country or as a species were capable of curing ourselves of our war disease

The "war disease" as you call it is incurable. The sooner we face that reality, the better. That doesn't mean we shouldn't promote peace, because we should. "Talk softly" but also "carry a big stick." We don't need any more federal programs that will needlessly siphon off money that we need for defense.