AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (255 comments)

  1. Nickolaus

    boo hoo

  2. Other than ordnance and fuel, what expenses would training incur that would be avoided? Personnel are on the payroll, equipment is paid for, overhead is fixed, everyone has got to eat.

  3. Terry Moe

    The United States military is the biggest waste of money in the history of the planet. The fact that our Congress critters have finally worked up enough courage to trim a few bucks off its budget is encouraging, but we still have much farther to go.

    1. The biggest waste of money is entitlement programs. The military is the best investment there is.

    2. Seth Meyerson

      I think both are wasteful. The only thing government does well is grow govt.

      1. Government is not wasteful in defending civilization against the enemy. It is entitlements and meddling in the market that are the real problem.

    3. John Crawley

      Obviously you have not read any history.

      1. Seth Meyerson

        Like how well our cold war military did in the jungles of south east Asia… money got in the way of commons sense there.

        Or how bout IRAQ and AFGANISTAN. Our huge and expensive military was struggling to 150,000 troops on the ground! Again, too much money. Too many specialists and bureaucrats waiting around for 1 grunt to do the job.

        Between waste fraud and abuse and plain old stupidity we have a giant, inefficient, and tremendously ineffective gold plated and hollow on the inside military.

        We are still buying (badly) big stupid programs like the F22. And the DOD is a byzantine hall of the ridiculousness. Less money, not more will probably help performance. That beast need to be shrunk.

        So…. let money is probably the best path to go for improved performance.

        Along the same lines, look what more money did for public education in this country. I would laugh if it didn’t make me want to cry.

        Sometimes, less is more.

        1. Actually in SE Asia cowardice by upper leadership got in the way. The same was true in SW Asia (i.e. the Middle East)

          Dealing with inefficiency isn’t an excuse to cut spending.

          1. Seth Meyerson

            So we fixed our leadership issue. Vietnam was unwinnable because the team we were backing sucked. Just like Iraq. Just like Afghanistan.

            More money won’t help. Just more money wasted.

            Inefficiency is absolutely an “excuse” to cut spending. If someone does a bad job with the money you give them. Do not give them more. Give them less.

            I personally believe that government can never do as good a job at most anything as private sector. Thus, have the govt do as little as possible and leave the resources in the market.

            Only thing govt does well is grow govt and screw up free markets.

          2. Seth, Vietnam was won repeatedly only to be sabotaged by cowardice by either the Johnson administration or Democratic Congress. The team we backed was successful before being stabbed in the back. Your ignorance of history is insulting.

            There isn’t the waste you keep pretending is there. It is entitlement spending that is the waste.

            Inefficiency is NEVER an excuse to cut spending. Ever. Fix the inefficiency.

            You can’t leave defense to the market, though certainly the market can play a role in helping with it. People seem to have an insane hatred of US victory and it is both unhealthy and baffling.

          3. Seth Meyerson

            US victory? Like in Iraq? Libya? What did we win? Afghanistan what are we going to win? They are going to go back to the same as they were or worse after we leave. This was always going to be the case.

            We never could have won. Vietnam went back to being Vietnam the moment we left. The govt we were backing was corrupt. If we had stayed longer, it would have taken longer to fall. It would have cost more lives. In the end what would we have won. Nothing. Your ignorance of history is not baffling. For starters, there is a great book… read “A bright and Shinning Lie”.

            We made things worse for the entire population.
            Again we spend a gigantic amount on our military. Much of it is wasted. If we are not secure now, we will never be.

          4. Yes, victory in Iraq. We defeated Saddam, we defeated Iran’s insurrection attempt. Obama then threw it all away – same in Afghanistan. “They’ll go back to what they were when we leave.” Only if we refuse to fully secure success – when WE win, like in Europe, and we don’t throw it away, they never go back – they become a part of civilization.

            It’s us quitting that defeats the purpose – we need to stop- quitting and instead stay and finish the job completely. It didn’t cost anything in Europe and it wasn’t costing us anything in SW Asia. It’s QUITTING, not finishing the mission, that is always the problem.

            We made things fundamentally BETTER for the population – like we always do. Seth, you need to stop being a fool and start seeing the truth.

          5. For starters, there is a great book… read “A bright and Shinning Lie”.

            There is another book that should be read.

          6. A Bright and Shining Lie lives up to its title.

            Here are the real books to read -

            TRIUMPH FORSAKEN

            OUR VIETNAM NIGHTMARE

            TO BEAR ANY BURDEN

            RINGED IN STEEL

            BAD NEWS: THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

            There are others not off the top of my head that are worth reading where A Bright And Shining Lie is nothing but disinformation.

          7. Actually in SE Asia cowardice by upper leadership got in the way. The same was true in SW Asia (i.e. the Middle East)

            Cowardice was what kept the troops in SE Asia as long as it did. In the end too many of the troops got injured or wound up committing too many war crimes for Nixon to keep them fighting. He did the right thing by pulling them out. But you are still paying more than $20 billion a year in benefits for that conflict.

            Dealing with inefficiency isn’t an excuse to cut spending.

            The spending should be cut because it is not necessary. Neither Iran nor North Korea are much of a problem or danger for the United States so I do not see the necessity to go into bankruptcy just so that a few inside the military industry can get richer.

          8. False. Finishing the mission is why Americans forces stayed – and should have stayed. There were no war crimes – only defeat of Soviet-sanctioned imperialism thrown away by cowardice. It was wrong to quit – we should have stayed and thus brought REAL peace to the region by defeating Red imperialism.

            Vangel, you truly belong in a nut asylum to spew the insult you do.

          9. False. Finishing the mission is why Americans forces stayed – and should have stayed. There were no war crimes – only defeat of Soviet-sanctioned imperialism thrown away by cowardice.

            Of course they committed war crimes. And the Pentagon investigators knew all about it because they documented those crimes. Fortunately, someone pointed Nick Turse to the archives in the Library of Congress where those documents were stored and they have seen the light of day in a great book called, Kill Anything that Moves. The fact that the author devotes around 40% of the book to explanatory notes and references shows the documentary support for his claims.

            “…My Lai was not the full story of atrocities in Vietnam, and honestly facing the moral questions inherent in a ‘way of war’ is absolutely necessary to an effective military strategy. Turse documents a shortfall in accountability during the Vietnam War that should be disturbing to every reader.”
            —John Prados, author of Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945–1975

            “Nick Turse’s Kill Anything That Moves is essential reading, a powerful and moving account of the dark heart of the Vietnam War: the systematic killing of civilians, not as aberration but as standard operating procedure. Until this history is acknowledged it will be repeated, one way or another, in the wars the U.S. continues to fight.”
            —Marilyn Young, author of The Vietnam Wars, 1945–1990

            “American patriots will appreciate Nick Turse’s meticulously documented book, which for the first time reveals the real war in Vietnam and explains why it has taken so long to learn the whole truth.”
            —James Bradley, author of Flags of Our Fathers

            “This book is an overdue and powerfully detailed account of widespread war crimes—homicide and torture and mutilation and rape—committed by American soldiers over the course of our military engagement in Vietnam. Nick Turse’s research and reportage is based in part on the U.S. military’s own records, reports, and transcripts, many of them long hidden from public scrutiny. Kill Anything That Moves is not only a compendium of pervasive and illegal and sickening savagery toward Vietnamese civilians, but it is also a record of repetitive deceit and cover-ups on the part of high ranking officers and officials. In the end, I hope, Turse’s book will become a hard-to-avoid, hard-to-dismiss corrective to the very common belief that war crimes and tolerance for war crimes were mere anomalies during our country’s military involvement in Vietnam.”
            —Tim O’Brien, author of The Things They Carried

            I would suggest that you educate yourself by reading more but suspect that you need to learn how to add first.

          10. False. Citing that book is bogus because the book is bogus. Attempts at investigating atrocities have been an industry for two generations, and what they actually found was nowhere close to what you want to believe.

            Here are the facts -

            US tactics were dictated by civilian orders to restrain firepower.

            The US evacuated “free fire” fields before every mission.

            North Vietnam’s archives disprove all the myths told against American involvement.

            Where this idiot Nick Turse got these ideas in his head is baffling

          11. False. Citing that book is bogus because the book is bogus. Attempts at investigating atrocities have been an industry for two generations, and what they actually found was nowhere close to what you want to believe.

            About 40% of the book is citations, many of which are Pentagon documents found in the Library of Congress. They document plenty of crimes committed by American troops tired of fighting an enemy that they could not defeat for a reason that they did not understand.

          12. No, they don’t. The atrocity industry has been plugging along for some two generations and it always found there wasn’t any campaign of war crimes. It wasn’t us killing civilians – we were the ones saving their lives. It was the North Vietnamese killing civilians.

            American servicemen knew exactly what the enemy was and knew what the war was about – defeating Red aggression against South Vietnam.

          13. No, they don’t. The atrocity industry has been plugging along for some two generations and it always found there wasn’t any campaign of war crimes. It wasn’t us killing civilians – we were the ones saving their lives. It was the North Vietnamese killing civilians.

            Right. It must have been North Vietnamese spies who infiltrated the US military and wrote all those reports.

          14. No, it’s you and that author manipulating those reports.

  4. re: ” the military could shed excess equipment, dump excess facilities, get acquisition reforms in place, reduce redundancy, and overhaul the military’s compensation structure. ”

    isn’t that known as “prioritization”? The man was making a pointed reference to Congressional Pork Meisters!

    1. Seth Meyerson

      Amen

    2. What “excess equipment” is there? Excess facilities? Where?

      1. Seth Meyerson

        You haven’t heard about the base closing committee recommendations. How bout the B1 bomber.

        I though all that was “self evident”

        1. How about NONE OF THE ABOVE. There are no bases in need of closing nor need to retire the B1 bomber. What there is need for is to retire entitlement programs, government meddling against the market, etc. THAT is what is self-evident.

          1. sethwrkr

            Retire the B1? It isnt used? It isnt capable. Its mission is obsolete. I think you are right we should keep it around? What are you smoking.

          2. The B1 works. Period.

        2. The base closing commission made zero case for anything – and the same applies to the B1 bomber.

          What needs to be closed is the entitlement/welfare state that eats more trillions per year than the US spends on defense per DECADE.

  5. LOL…One way to save money is to buy history books for the Pentagon and the White House and use them to explain that World War II has been over for a long time. That means that it is OK to stop paying to defend Germany, Italy, France, and the rest of Europe from Russia and to stop the occupation of South Korea and Japan.

    1. There is no occupation of South Korea or Japan. And US defense requires overseas deployment of forces, so “defending” Germany etc. is a necessity that can never be removed.

      1. You have troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Greece, Cyprus, Spain, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Greenland, Portugal, Pakistan, Qatar, KSA, Turkey, Djibouti, and other countries around the world. And I don’t see why it is necessary for the US taxpayer to pay for the defence of Europe, Japan, South Korea, or Africa. Neither do most of your taxpayers,

        1. We don’t have troops in Bulgaria or Greece or Spain or UAE or Greenland or Turkey – the only places have soldiers are Japan and South Korea. It’s necessary because international security requires having forces deployed overseas to defeat the enemy on HIS ground. You simply don’t have any credible argument here.

          1. Seth Meyerson

            We aren’t going to have a land war in either place. Whether our troops are there or not. More of a target really, forward deploying all of those forces.

          2. If you have a base you have troops. And contractors.

          3. Seth, there is no such thing as “they’re a target.” Forward deployment means being able to defeat an enemy on THEIR turf, not ours or our allies’.

          4. Seth Meyerson

            What enemy? NK has nukes that can’t reach any where else but Korea. Can you spell T.A.G.E.T.

            Germany? That is a cold war vestige. Russians are going to invade? Russians are most likely to invade Cypress to get all the cash they stole that now the Eurozone stole.(lol)!

          5. Seth, there is no such thing as “they’re a target.” Forward deployment means being able to defeat an enemy on THEIR turf, not ours or our allies’.

            When you station troops on the borders of another nation you become an invader who becomes a target for anyone who does not like the idea of occupation.

          6. Wrong. We are the defender – the enemy – be it Soviet- or Islamo-Arab imperialism – was/is the enemy.

          7. Wrong. We are the defender – the enemy – be it Soviet- or Islamo-Arab imperialism – was/is the enemy.

            The enemy has to be real. And that acts against the enemy have to be appropriate and measured. Giving up your freedom and running the country into bankruptcy is not a way to fight a few idiots hiding in caves.

          8. The enemy IS real – has been real for decades.

            What freedom is being given up? None.

            Running the ecomomy into the ground? False again. Defense spending is good for the economy. It is entitlements that are draining away money.

          9. What freedom is being given up? None.

            Been to an airport recently? See those kids being felt up by pedophiles? That freedom for a start.

          10. No freedom has been given up at airports. Criticizing airport security is one thing – claiming it has taken away freedom is a lie.

          11. No freedom has been given up at airports. Criticizing airport security is one thing – claiming it has taken away freedom is a lie.

            Some people can’t fly because they have the same name as some guy suspected of being a terrorist. Here you go:

            http://www.examiner.com/article/feds-strand-ndaa-critic-hawaii-using-no-fly-list-no-explanation-given

          12. False again. Stop posting these stories that are false on their face.

          13. Seth Meyerson

            Apparently I can’t spell TARGET!

          14. Seth Meyerson

            Mike,

            “the only places [we] have soldiers are Japan and South Korea.”

            I hate to say this, and I don’t usually but, you’re an idiot. Data Below.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg

          15. False, Seth. That map you cite merely proved MY point.

          16. We don’t have troops in Bulgaria or Greece or Spain or UAE or Greenland or Turkey – the only places have soldiers are Japan and South Korea. It’s necessary because international security requires having forces deployed overseas to defeat the enemy on HIS ground. You simply don’t have any credible argument here.

            Where you have bases you have troops stationed to operate those bases. And both the bases and the troops cost the taxpayer money. Like I said, more than 80% of the personal income tax revenue is going to fund military activity.

          17. False again, Vangel. We don’t have troops in those countries you pretend otherwise. Start being rational for a change.

          18. Oh no I’m not – your link as usual doesn’t make any case for your argument.

          19. Who exactly do you think works at your overseas bases in Bulgaria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Kuwait, etc.? And do you see Chinese or Russian bases all over the place? No. Even though you are the ones occupying Iraq it is the Chinese oil companies that are getting most of the contracts and the oil.

          20. “What enemy?” Putin’s Russia, for one. Being able to deal with Iran, for another.

          21. Putin’s Russia? Iran? You are a fool my friend. You are taking the same line that Romney took and that line was rejected at the polls even though his opponent was the worst and weakest possible. It is fools like you who have marginalized the GOP and have it less popular in the polls than Gaddafi was right before you decided that he had to go.

          22. Yes, Putin’s Russia and Iran. The Ayatollahs still rule Iran and their only reason for existence is war. The ex-KGB general wants Russia to become a neoimperial power again. And what does Romney have to do with this anyway?

          23. “DO you see Russian or Chinese bases all over the place?” Yes you do. You see Red Chinese aggression and militarism, you see the ex-KGB general steering Russia back to neoimperialism.

          24. “DO you see Russian or Chinese bases all over the place?” Yes you do.

            Mike is right of course. I accidentally found my way into the headquarters of Panda Express. 20 acres of that place is devoted to military espianage and training terrorists right here in the US. It is just outside of Area 51 near where I live in Vegas.

          25. “DO you see Russian or Chinese bases all over the place?” Yes you do. You see Red Chinese aggression and militarism, you see the ex-KGB general steering Russia back to neoimperialism.

            Where are the bases?

          26. Wrong question – the right question is – why do you oppose American victory?

  6. Or we could means test those 6 figure retirement salaries. Maybe we could be a tad bit more efficeint. For example do we really need to ship broken beds back from Afghanistan?

    How about all those weapons that the pentagon does NOT want? Do we really need twice as many nuclear missile submarines as the rest of the world combined?

    1. Yes we do. Doug, stop opposing rebuilding American power.

      1. You need to stop thinking that you are god, and that because you say something, that makes it true. What actual evidence do you have that we need as many nuclear missile submarines as we have, and exactly why do we need to send broken beds back from Afghanistan? If we leave them there will the “terrorists” somehow use them to make IED’s

        Your absolutest authoritarian attitude means one of few things. You are a successful psychopathic manager (doubtful it you are spending time here) or you work at some grunt work, and have a really crappy relationship with your children (My son has friends with parents like you)

        1. Doug, it’s not “thinking someone is God,” it is being realistic. Nuclear submarines are part of defense, inherently a necessity. And why do you keep talking about broken beds, anyway? It’s nothing.

          My attitude is about telling the truth – you’re not doing that.

          1. Seth Meyerson

            No one else has any where near the hardware we have. Buying and keeping more of it is not going to keep us safer.

            Most of it is the wrong stuff for the kind of low intensity crap we have been getting into anyway. Most of the low intensity crap we are getting into is pointless. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.

          2. False. Red China has it, Putin’s Russia has it, the Norks have it, Iran is building it on top of what it already has.

            And there is nothing pointless about winning in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

  7. Araminta Ross

    If the citizens had any sense, they would be walking around Capitol Hill and the White House with a sign that says ‘Support Military Readiness’.

    1. H. Skip Robinson

      If the Citizens had any sense, they would understand that the U.S. can afford to drastically cut defense spending, as it currently spends more than the top seven countries of the world spend on their defense, combined. If other countries can spend substantially less we should be able to as well and still remains secure. War is a Racket and those who promote it use fear as their meme. If our military is unprepared it is not for lack of money.

      1. Sheila C

        I would agree if you would stipulate that the first money no longer spent yearly is the money given to basically fund the UN. That and OUR SOLDIERS is why those other countries are so free of defense spending.

        1. Seth Meyerson

          No, I don’t think that’s it. Other countries are just not as stupid about military spending as we are.

          1. They’re not?

          2. Seth Meyerson

            They don’t have the resources to waste and they know it. Ok, North Korea is pretty stupid.

          3. Wrong, Seth.

          4. Seth Meyerson

            “Wrong Seth” is the best you got? Why don’t you try naaa naa naa naa naa. Same thing.

          5. That is the best he has. Note that he cannot argue against the CBO figures on military related spending and would rather resort to jingoism and name calling instead.

          6. The actual CBO figures oppose your argument, not mine.

          7. Seth, your claim was self-evidently wrong. I don’t need any more expressive retort; you simply need to reexamine your opinions, such as they are.

            There is no case against US victory or US superiority. Ever.

  8. Seth Meyerson

    I am a fiscal conservative. Our current competitiveness problems are the result of an intrusive and wasteful government spending. The DOD is as wasteful as any part of the govt. Until someone proves it, I am going with there is more than enough money. Spend it better.

    They cant even audit the pentagon. Can you believe the audacity of this? What if I told the IRS I am too big for you to take a look at my mileage records. Maybe in 10 years when I improve my systems.

    Clearly this is not acceptable and cannot result in anything but a morass, as it has.

    If the pentagon cannot account for money, perhaps it should receive not more money. Of course they can be audited. That is the nature of an audit is a representative sample where you can draw conclusions about the whole. I think the issue is not that the DOD can not be audited, but what an impartial conclusion is likely to be. Thus no audit.

    1. The argument about defense spending is stupid because virtually ALL government spending goes toward some form of entitlement – defense spending does not take up much of the government’s spending. There ISN’T enough money for the Pentagon.

      1. Seth Meyerson

        The fact that the govt wastes money elsewhere does not support that it does not waste money in the pentagon.

        If anything it suggest the opposite. The DOD is not well run and currently it “can not be audited”. On what basis do you say that there is not enough money? We spend more than the next 7 countries combined. What is enough?

        1. Wrong, Seth. Spending on entitlements is by definition a waste. Defense spending is a necessity. “What is enough?” Superiority over any enemy. We’re the world’s policeman whether we want to be or not and there won’t be peace until we stop trying to shirk it and instead stand up to the enemy.

          1. Seth Meyerson

            Wasteful spending is wasteful spending no matter if it is spending $4000 for a toilet seat or subsidizing crack cocaine through food stamps and free housing.

          2. Seth, wasteful spending is not the same as military spending. Wasteful spending is spending on something better left to the market – defense spending does not qualify.

          3. Seth Meyerson

            Wasteful spending = Wasteful spending

            No matter who does it. And the military does it a lot. Do you want me to Google for it, or would you rather I talk from personal experience.

          4. Seth, you don’t have any experience. You’re just a bitter old fool. Wasteful spending is ENTITLEMENT spending, NOT NOW AND NOT EVER military spending.

        2. We spend more than the next 7 countries combined. What is enough?

          Actually, I believe that you spend more than the next 40 countries combined. And many of the other big spenders are your allies. In 2008 total global military spending came out to around $1.5 trillion. At that time the US spending was around half that total, without counting all kinds of activities that are military related but hidden in budgets for the State Department, Department of Energy, etc.

          1. Seth Meyerson

            I’m inclined to agree with you Vengel. I disagree with the liberal point of view on most subjects, but they seem to be the only ones who will ever make cuts to the bloated sacred cow that the US DOD is.

          2. I’m inclined to agree with you Vengel. I disagree with the liberal point of view on most subjects, but they seem to be the only ones who will ever make cuts to the bloated sacred cow that the US DOD is.

            I do not think that the liberals are all that much better because they do not stand on principle any more than conservatives do when the chips are down. When it comes to foreign policy and military spending the lesser of two evils is still evil. And let us note that Nixon ended the Vietnam War and Ike ended the Korean conflict. GOP presidents are not any worse historically than Democrats. The current problem with the GOP is the infiltration by the Trotskyite neoconservatives.

          3. No Vangel, we don’t. US defense spending in 2008 was less than $500 billion – and it hasn’t increased.

        3. Seth Meyerson

          Pointing Daly back at this post… hello! ; )

      2. How can you say that defense spending does not take up much of the government’s spending when funding of all military related activities is almost equal to all if the individual income tax paid? Didn’t they teach you guys math?

        1. Vangel, because you are the one who doesn’t understand reality. Entitlements take more per year than the military gets per decade.

          1. Military = .7 trillion per year. 10 times that, (a decades woth) is seven trillion. You are making the claim that the US spends seven trillion a year on entitlements, or at least twice the total us spending. Sorta true, if you include all spenidng by all governments
            http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ But I am sure that you used this kind of math to conclude that Romney was going to win in a landslide, and still do not understand why he lost. Here is a clue. You can not count.

          2. Military spending isn’t over $500 billion. And entitlements consume over $5 trillion per year – it’s reflected in the deficits. Military spending has never contributed anything to deficits – exactly the opposite has always been the case.

          3. Military spending isn’t over $500 billion.

            Really? What is it? Where are your sources?

          4. My sources are the real world. Military spending is in the $480 billion bracket. It is the ONLY spending that ever gets cut. These entitlement pyramid schemes are never touched.

          5. My sources are the real world.

            Listen to this man folks. “His sources are the real world” Not sure what his source of grammar is, since in my world one does not mix plural (sources) with singular (world) nouns when describing one thing, but clearly he nose better. And he can only tell us about it, since if we were to be exposed to the “real world” it would blind us like the light made blind the inhabitants of Platos cave.

            Mike not only has brilliance beyond our comprehension, but is an unlimited source of compassion, shielding us from a truth that would overwhelm out punny minds.

          6. My sources are the real world. Military spending is in the $480 billion bracket. It is the ONLY spending that ever gets cut. These entitlement pyramid schemes are never touched.

            Where do you get that figure from? The Pentagon budget, without even counting the spending on the wars is bigger than that. You have not added in the nuclear arsenal, which is in the DOE budget, the CIA and the drone programs, DHS, NRO, NSA, VA, and many other costs. They all matter and are directly attributable to military activity.

          7. Because that other spending you want to include ISN’T.

          8. Because that other spending you want to include ISN’T.

            You must be using the Bill Clinton dictionary to come up with the meaning of the word ISN’T. Get another one.

            We know that you spend around $120 billion for veteran benefits. Hell, you were still paying for benefits to children of Civil War veterans, the Spanish American War, and all the wars fought since then. The bill for Vietnam benefits alone is more than $20 billion. And those drones are not in the Pentagon budget but are funded by CIA budgets. The nuclear arsenal is not in the Pentagon budget but in the Department of Energy. And all that money to Turkey, Israel, and Egypt comes from budgets buried on the books of the State Department, not the Pentagon.

          9. It’s deconstruction to justify an opinion that has no legitimacy, Vang. Get over it. We spend less on defense than you want to pretend and it’s wrong. We need to spend more; the spending that needs to go is entitlement/welfare spending – THAT is what dwarfs everything else.

          10. Military = .7 trillion per year.

            That does not take into account the VA spending, the interest on the borrowing used to fund past wars, and a number of other activities. Personal income tax revenues in 2010 came out to be around $900 trillion. FICA revenues came in slightly lower. It is clear that total military related spending is higher than SS and Medicare spending even though it comes from general taxation while SS and Medicare are funded out of payroll taxes that were passed for the purpose of funding SS and Medicare. Your friend is a fool but even you do not go far enough.

          11. Seth Meyerson

            Mike… you just cant add. If you cant add, all of your logical processes are suspect.

          12. Seth, I can add – Vangel’s numbers are false. I’m the one telling the truth here – you aren’t; Vangel isn’t.

          13. The military related activities take more than 80% of all personal income taxes. That is about the same as goes for SS and Medicare but those are funded directly by the contributors. Ignorance is no excuse my friend.

          14. You persist in having it backwards – the military doesn’t have 25% of budget. SS and Medicare are not funded by the contributors (the lie used to justify their existence, BTW) – they are funded by BORROWING money.

          15. I merely point to the CBO, which shows that military related activities take up a bigger proportion of the budget than SS and Medicare. And I suggest that you and Larry do some reading about funding because that is what FICA taxes are supposed to pay for.

          16. You keep pointing to numbers you want to deconstruct to make you look good. The actual numbers are much smaller. If the numbers were what you say they were the military would be far stronger than it in fact is. You’re the one who need to do better study about funding because the facts are against you – entitlements are kept alive only on BORROWED MONEY.

          17. You keep pointing to numbers you want to deconstruct to make you look good. The actual numbers are much smaller. If the numbers were what you say they were the military would be far stronger than it in fact is. You’re the one who need to do better study about funding because the facts are against you – entitlements are kept alive only on BORROWED MONEY.

            The CBO shows that even the Pentagon budget alone without any of the war funding, VA, nuke arsenal, spy satellites, drones, DHS, etc., is bigger than your total number. Which means that you are either a fool or a liar.

          18. No, it doesn’t, the CBO numbers show LESS to defense spending than your deconstruction attempt wants to pretend. What it means is you’re not honest about anything here.

          19. No, it doesn’t, the CBO numbers show LESS to defense spending than your deconstruction attempt wants to pretend. What it means is you’re not honest about anything here.

            You have shown to have reading comprehension problems. I cited numbers and provided links. Please do the same and we can discuss this properly.

          20. No, you pretended to cite numbers – the actual numbers are not on your side.

          21. No Seth. It has to go UP. Entitlement spending is what is pushing up deficits – NOT military spending. Military spending has ZERO effect on deficits – now and forever.

            Start changing your opinions.

  9. Seth Meyerson

    Our current competitiveness problems as a nation are the result of an intrusive and wasteful government. The DOD is as wasteful as any part of the govt. Until someone proves it, I am going with there is already too much money allocated.

    They can’t even audit the pentagon. Can you believe the audacity of this? What if I told the IRS I am too big for you to take a look at my mileage records? Maybe in 10 years when I improve my systems.

    Clearly this is not acceptable and cannot result in anything but a morass, as it has.

    If the pentagon cannot account for money, perhaps it should receive smaller and smaller amounts of money, utile it is a manageable amount of resources for them.

    Of course the DOD can be audited. That is the nature of an audit is a representative sample where you can draw conclusions about the whole. I think the issue is not that the DOD can not be audited, but what an impartial audit is likely to yield. Thus no audit.

    1. Seth, the ONLY drag on our competitiveness is entitlement spending and the government’s refusal to stop meddling in the market, be it Wall Street, the healthcare industry, whatever it is. The government refuses to face the fact – proven every time implemented – that deregulation improves economic performance. The government has no business with any kind of entitlement program – what it always does is create a pyramid scheme where artificial demand is created where no supply exists. It’s why entitlements – all of them – are on borrowed money life support and have been for some two generations. The lie told to justify these programs is they are funded by the contributors, but that money dried up over 30 years ago – now it’s all funded by borrowed money.

      The Pentagon has ZERO responsibility for US competitiveness problems. Not now and not ever.

  10. Seth Meyerson

    Pentagon cannot be audited? Outrageous! I think we should cut their budged by 10% for every year it takes to get an impartial audit done. Perhaps they will do a better job managing resources if they have less.

    I will just tell the IRS I am too big to audit and that they will have to wait ten years until I can clean up my systems enough to be able to be audited. How bout that?

    1. Here’s a better idea – get the hell over it. Defense spending is legit. The problem is all ENTITLEMENT spending.

      1. Seth Meyerson

        Cut em both… let God sort em out.

        1. No. Defense is a necessity – entitlements are a pyramid scheme.

          1. sethwrkr

            Cut em both… let God sort em out. (“Self Evident”)

  11. Sheila C

    I simply do not understand how it is that the department of DEFENSE is funding cancer research, among other things, out of its budget while our troops on the front lines can not get the supplies they need do to supposed budget shortfalls. I find it OBSCENE the life saving equipment being provided to our soldiers BY CHARITY (look into Troops Direct) while politicians sit in the safety of their guarded offices trying how to walk the line between Reid’s mandate of “making the cuts hurt” and being reelected. The vast majority of the federal budget is being spent in a fashion that is NOT supported by the constitution (ie; dept of ed) while complaining about the 20% spent on something directly mentioned as the JOB of the federal government, DEFENSE. Sickening. Get your priorities in order DC or we will all suffer for it.

    1. I simply do not understand how it is that the department of DEFENSE is funding cancer research, among other things, out of its budget while our troops on the front lines can not get the supplies they need do to supposed budget shortfalls.<b?

      Shouldn't you be more worried about why it is that you have troops fighting on front lines in foreign wars?

      I find it OBSCENE the life saving equipment being provided to our soldiers BY CHARITY (look into Troops Direct) while politicians sit in the safety of their guarded offices trying how to walk the line between Reid’s mandate of “making the cuts hurt” and being reelected.

      And some find it obscene that the funding of military activities requires more than 80% of all revenues coming in from income taxes. Why is this necessary in a world where you have no more major enemies to fight and nobody that can threaten a direct military attack?

      The vast majority of the federal budget is being spent in a fashion that is NOT supported by the constitution (ie; dept of ed) while complaining about the 20% spent on something directly mentioned as the JOB of the federal government, DEFENSE.

      LOL…Read the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. They opposed standing armies during peace time. And before you go on about being in a perpetual war note that the Constitution requires that Congress declare one.

      Sickening. Get your priorities in order DC or we will all suffer for it.

      What is sickening is the inability to understand that it is your militarism that makes taxpayers and consumers suffer.

      1. Eisenhower, who by the way, was well acquainted with the Military (look it up) and their grasping ways, warned us against the military industrial complex. Maybe someone can explain why we need twice as many nuclear missile submarines as the rest of the world, or as many carrier battle groups as the rest of the world.

        How exactly do one of these stop a terrorist with a bomb around their waste? Let me guess, the missiles have bomb sniffing dogs strapped to their noses.

        We have only two potential nation state enemies, China and Russia that are worthy of note. RE china. As Quido said, “I would not kill him. He owes me money and you can not collect from a dead man”

        100 nuclear bombs detonated over cities will end global warming and probably a large part of civilization and agriculture, so all this other stuff is superfluous

        1. Maybe someone can explain why we need twice as many nuclear missile submarines as the rest of the world, or as many carrier battle groups as the rest of the world.

          Choose one of the two reasons. First, you are exceptional and so good that you are never a threat. Second, the military industrial complex is good at trading votes to get what it wants.

          How exactly do one of these stop a terrorist with a bomb around their waste? Let me guess, the missiles have bomb sniffing dogs strapped to their noses.

          Terrorists have never really been much of a problem because fools who hide in caves and are total nutcases cannot do much harm before they get taken out. They are a convenient scare tactic to fool the electorate into supporting growing government no matter what the cost.

        2. Eisenhower’s speech was not about military spending as much as warning against a runaway welfare state. Military spending is never bad.

          The US needs carrier attack groups to patrol the oceans and attack the enemy when the enemy becomes a problem.

          “How does one stop a terrorist with a bomb around their waist?” Wrong argument. Virtually all terrorism is basically infantry assault by proxy backed by states – Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Iran of the Ayatollahs, etc.

          The nuclear bombs argument is self-defeating nonsense.

          1. “Eisenhower’s speech was not about military spending as much as warning against a runaway welfare state. Military spending is never bad. ”
            By what power of the mind did you conclude that Eisenhower was warning against a runaway welfare state since he never used the word entitlement or the word welfare in that context. Did you even bother to read his speech?
            Here is the key segment: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

            How do you get a warning against a runaway welfare state from that? Here is what I get. You are a conservative christian republican who is also a creationist, and was truly surprised that Romney lost.

            Here is another gem:
            Wrong argument. Virtually all terrorism is basically infantry assault by proxy backed by states – Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Iran of the Ayatollahs, etc.

            You mean like the car bombs, 9/11, the train bombs in Europe. The bus bombs everywhere. I do not recall any infantry there. And I know of no evidence that linked Hussein to any of these attacks, or Iran for that matter, though I suspect that Iran now meddles in Iraq, something that there is no evidence to support that it did in any meaningful before we deposed Sadam.

            Like most conservative republicans you confuse your view of the world with how the physical world actually is, and your only explanation for all the surprises is various grand consparicies. You can offer no evidence to support your views because none exists

            And your final statement.
            The nuclear bombs argument is self-defeating nonsense.
            I see no meaning in that. The fact that you do not understant it does not mean that it is devoid of sense, it simply means that you have demonstrably limited powers of understanding.

          2. Doug, Eisenhower was deeply conservative philosophically. He’d seen the damage liberal social engineering had already wrought in the 1930s. You need to stop pretending he was distrustful of the military when the fact is it was the welfare state the Democratic Party wanted to expand that was the problem – and still is.

            “You mean like car bombs…?” Virtually all terrorist attacks are infantry-style ambushes. And international terrorism is state-sanctioned war. “I know of no evidence linking Hussein to any of these attacks…..” He was caught repeatedly before 2001 arming terrorists, and all the thousands of Iraq Intelligence Service documents found after 2003 showed him arming terrorists everywhere. The lack of evidence claim is a baldfaced lie. The fact is Saddam was directing international terrorism and we FINALLY nailed him and his empire.

            It is liberals who confuse how the world works. You’re the one not offering evidence to back a view that is self-evidently false. The burden is on you, not me.

            You’re the one who doesn’t understand the meaning of anything.

          3. “You need to stop pretending he was distrustful of the military when the fact is it was the welfare state the Democratic Party wanted to expand that was the problem – and still is.”

            Saying it does not make it true. His warning was against the military industrial complex. He never warned agains the welfare state. He never used the term. You can not produce evidence to the contrary. You can only pretend that my evidence does not exist. This is called denial.

            What is your definiton of an infantry style ambush? I would think that it involves something like soldiers actually engaging other armed people. Not one or a few people leaving bombs among civilians. The only instances of several people in any sense engaging others and actually staying, as opposed leaving bombs were people from Pakistan killing Indian civillians. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary.

            Also I noticed that your claims were not supported by amy actual links. How about this for a claim. Last Xmas Santa came to your house, and as a gift to humanity, replaced your brain with one cloned from the easter bunny. And I offer as much evidence as you have.

            Also, in terms of logic, one is not expected to offer evidence for the absense of something. That is, when I say ” “I know of no evidence linking Hussein to any of these attacks…..” It is like someone saying “I know of no evidence that my daughter is a whore.” If that were you saying that you would not be expected to prove that negative. If I were making the assertion, about someones daughter, I would be expected to prove my assertion.

            Perhaps having made the concept almost personal, you will now understand the difference between asserting a negative and a positive. The burden is not upon the person to prove a negative or the absense of evidence.

          4. “Saying it does not make it true.” Wrong – its existence makes it true. His warning was against government in general – the welfare state. Military spending he sustained; never did he try to reign in a complex that did not in fact exist. For the umpteenth time re-read his speech and get over this myth that he was afraid of the military.

            Infantry-style ambush is what it is – you need to stop pretending that terrorism is some impossible “ghost” campaign of car bombs etc. because it isn’t; it involves terrorists launching attacks and resistance being offered; that’s how terrorists are being killed.

            You whine about not providing links – I don’t have to because the facts are there in front of you. That you still talk about not knowing of any evidence that Saddam Hussein was directing international terrorism merely proves what a fool you are because it was open fact he was directing international terrorism; what you’re doing is lying to yourself and everyone else. There is no right by yourself or anyone to say “I know of no evidence….”

            There is no case against US superiority and the more you try to create one the more foolish you are.

          5. I believe I may have said that unless you supplied actual evidence that I was not going to respond to you, but I will make an exception here: And I am going to include this as an example of stupid in the book that I am writing.
            (enter the two words orwells boot into any search engine and the result that comes back at number 1 will be mine. ON both bing and yahoo, I am number 1,2 and 3.)
            This statement : “Saying it does not make it true.” Wrong – its existence makes it true. strikes me as the single most idiotic remark in this entire debate. “It is not even wrong.” (Wolfgang Pauli) Hell, it is not even coherent. If you have a job, is it third assistant janitor?

          6. Doug, you’re responding to me because you are the one without a credible argument. You persist in a falsehood about his speech and about the world in general. The most idiotic remark in this debate is anything you claim.

            The fact remains his speech was about the welfare state – but you don’t want to admit being wrong.

          7. That you’re proven wrong about Saddam Hussein is just one indication you don’t have an argument. Take your sham book and burn it.

          8. Saying it does not make it true. His warning was against the military industrial complex. He never warned agains the welfare state. He never used the term. You can not produce evidence to the contrary. You can only pretend that my evidence does not exist. This is called denial.

            There are three options.

            1. He is a deluded fool.

            2. He agrees with us but is just playing games.

            3. He is a Democrat looking to make Republicans look even stupider on defense spending than they already are.

          9. You’ve obviously run out of excuses, so here’s the deal – it’s called me calling it as it actually is.

          10. Eisenhower’s speech was not about military spending as much as warning against a runaway welfare state. Military spending is never bad.

            Really?

            “Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

            Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

            This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

            In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

            We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

            When it is excessive and unnecessary military spending is just as ‘bad’ as other wasteful spending. You now have one soldier committing suicide each day thanks to the waging of unnecessary wars that have killed and maimed many within the military. You are still paying benefits to a survivor of a soldier who fought during the Civil War. You are paying for benefits accrued during the Spanish American War and World War I. Compensation linked to World War II benefits cost you around $5 billion a year the Korean War benefits come out to around $3 billion and Vietnam benefits are costing taxpayers around $20 billion. If we do not count health care the benefits for soldiers who fought in the two Iraqi wars, and the war in Afghanistan come out to around $12 billion per year with more than four in ten veterans applying for disability. Eisenhower warned the country about a permanent military industry and large standing armies that could be used wherever politicians wanted to send them. Sadly too many people are too ignorant to figure it out.

          11. You’re refusing to read the entire speech. The fact is Eisenhower was more concerned with the welfare state than defense spending. The fact also is THERE IS NO SUCH THING as “unnecessary” or “excessive” military spending – as he himself made clear by sustaining the strongest US military power ever seen.

            And his words about security and liberty merely restate of the obvious – that the “military-industrial complex” in fact did NOT exist.

            The US never waged an “unnecessary” war, and the claims about suicide rates are totally bogus. Every war that happened was because of enemy aggression and the US responded to stop enemy aggression. And the so-called “permanent military industry” is nothing – the “permanent” entitlement state is what eats up trillions that should not be spent.

          12. The US needs carrier attack groups to patrol the oceans and attack the enemy when the enemy becomes a problem.

            The US needs no more patrols than other nations. And given the changes in technology carrier groups are pretty useless against a capable enemy.

            The nuclear bombs argument is self-defeating nonsense.

            What part?

          13. Vangel, the US does need more patrols. Always. It needs forward deployment and force projection.

            The nuclear bombs argument is self-defeating nonsense. “What part?” All of it.

          14. Vangel, the US does need more patrols. Always. It needs forward deployment and force projection.

            LOL…You are playing games because there is no way you can be as stupid as you seem.

            The nuclear bombs argument is self-defeating nonsense. “What part?” All of it.

            You haven’t even defined what the argument is yet. Are you saying that we should have no nuclear weapons because their use can never be justified or are you saying that we should have nuclear weapons? Or do you not even have an idea what you are saying because you are just playing a game?

          15. I’m saying we need SUPERIORITY, and that requires having nuclear weapons – ALWAYS.

          16. I’m saying we need SUPERIORITY, and that requires having nuclear weapons – ALWAYS.

            Really? How exactly did nuclear weapons help you when other nations are also capable of using them? The way I see it the more that there are the higher the chance that some fool will set one off. How would you justify using one against innocent people? And if you do use them against innocent people how can you claim that it is wrong for others to attack innocent Americans?

            The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than you an imagine.

          17. Easy – superiority forces the enemy to stand down. “The way I see it……..” Stop – the way you see it is inherently dishonest.

          18. Easy – superiority forces the enemy to stand down. “The way I see it……..” Stop – the way you see it is inherently dishonest.

            Get a dictionary so that we understand what you mean. On this planet reality matters.

          19. That’s why reality is on my side, not yours.

          20. That’s why reality is on my side, not yours.

            It is? When was the last time you guys won a war by following your advice?

          21. Vietnam and Iraq. It was the advice of the cowards who were more scared of US victory that ruined things.

          22. Vietnam and Iraq. It was the advice of the cowards who were more scared of US victory that ruined things.

            Right. Those damn Republicans. They pulled the troops out of Vietnam and let the corrupt South Vietnam regime collapse. Victory would have kept it in place as the US slowly went bankrupt and more and more young soldiers died so that the chikenhawks could pretend that they were real men.

          23. Republicans? It was DEMOCRATS who ran the war and then stabbed the US (and Indochina) in the back on it. The South Vietnamese regime wasn’t corrupt – on the contrary, as antiwar activist Li Thi Anh notes in “To Bear Any Burden,” the US press exaggerated everything to make things look negative there. And don’t talk about bankruptcy that didn’t exist.

          24. Seth Meyerson

            Eisenhower “Welfare Speech”? LOL…

            I think we probably don’t need 10 nuclear powered carriers. Why don’t we drop it to 5 for a while…. You think all our enemies are going to jump on us.

            How does the rest of the world get along without carriers? Does Russia have 1? Does China have a mini? Jeez. We have too much.

            Please turn of the paranoia. We would be better off with a smaller lighter military for a large variety of “self evident” reasons that “I don’t need to provide data to support”.

          25. Yes we need ten carrier groups – more than ten actually. 15 is a better number.

            Russia has carriers and Red China is building them specifically to challenge the US fleet.

            There is no “self-evident” anything for your argument. The only self-evident argument is the US needs to expand, never retract, its strength.

          26. Yes we need ten carrier groups – more than ten actually. 15 is a better number.

            Russia has carriers and Red China is building them specifically to challenge the US fleet.

            Carrier groups are easy to destroy. Not long ago a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of one of your groups during an exercise in the South China sea. Most of your ships can be destroyed by missiles that are launched from over the horizon and can be carried by all kinds of vessels. They are just a waste of money designed to fleece taxpayers and make the military contractors rich.

          27. NO they aren’t. They attack and defeat these threats.

          28. I agree with mike: This story:
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html is made up.

            And the thousands of references to this story are also fake. And in the “REAL WORLD” as mike knows, the US carriers have shields that would protect them from any torpedoes. They also have underwater phasors that would prevent from detonating so even a nuclear torpedoe would be useless.

            Isn’t that right mike?

      2. Seth Meyerson

        80% of income tax revenue does not go to military spending.

        We probably DO need a standing army. Hello.

        1. 80% of income tax revenue does not go to military spending.

          Sure it does. Take the Pentagon and all the off-budget war spending and you have around $600 billion. Add DHS costs, the cost of the nuclear arsenal that is under the Energy Department budget, the drone program run by the CIA, Veterans Administration spending, the NASA military spy satellite costs, the NSA, military aid through the State programs, foreign aid to Turkey, Israel, Egypt, and other ‘allies’, and add in all the interest that you are paying on the debt taken on to fight past wars. You are looking at more than $1 trillion in funds being eaten up by military related activities. (Let us not forget all those Department of Agriculture programs funded by the military, housing programs that are funded by the military, etc., but are not on any military related budget or those pensions that pop up for civilian contractors on the budgets of other agencies.) Total personal income tax paid comes out to around $1.3 trillion. So yes, your military bills are much higher than you are led to believe.

          1. Seth Meyerson

            I will buy that for a nickel.. And of course like some businesses are too big to fail, the DOD is too big to audit. It is just disgusting.

          2. No, Vangel, it doesn’t. Your insistence otherwise proves you to be a fool. Entitlements eat up over $1 trillion, military spending isn’t half that.

          3. Numbers: IRS individual and corporate income taxes. about 3 trillion. Devense dept spending about .7 trillion. Even if you doubled that, which seems a stretch, you would still be at less than 1/2 of IRS taxes.
            For those who can not count, You know, those republicans who were, and maybe still are, genuinely shocked by the recent election loss, here are pictures: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

            Retirees and vetrans combined make up a total of another 7%. So either the 80% figure is a drug induced hallucination, or if accurate is the result of a vast hidden conspiracy that Vangel should not have revealed, and that problem will be addressed :-)

          4. Numbers: IRS individual and corporate income taxes. about 3 trillion.

            Go and look up how much the individual income tax component was. In 2010 it came out to around $900 billion. Corporate taxes, which I have not talked about came out to around $190. The FICA taxes, which fund SS and Medicare came out to around $870 billion. (Figures are approximate but you can easily check the exact numbers by going to the CBO reports.)

            Devense dept spending about .7 trillion.

            That does not count other military related spending. You have to add the cost for veteran benefits (remember that you were still paying out for the Civil War as of a few months back), the cost of the intelligence services and DHS, as wells as the interest on the debt taken on to fight previous wars. You do that and the numbers come out to more than $900 billion. That is more than the revenues from individual income taxes.

            Even if you doubled that, which seems a stretch, you would still be at less than 1/2 of IRS taxes.

            Please read exactly what I wrote. I stand by the numbers because I got them from the CBO a few months ago when this debate first came up. It is quite clear that when you look at the funding for military related activities you are spending more than the revenue that comes from individual income taxes. (As I said, the FICA taxes go towards SS and Medicare spending with the surplus spent for the general budget, which may include military related activities.)

            I would be more than happy for you to go into the CBO statements and pull out the exact numbers. I did it a while ago and posted them on this site before but do not want to go through it again because most of the jingoists have no regard for the facts. Now if you can explain to me why it is wise to spend your personal tax revenues to fund military related activities I am more than happy to listen.

          5. Seth Meyerson

            Clearly, at least to me, military spending has to come down.

            Retirement age is going to go up.

            Inflation is coming – we are printing a lot of money.

            and Daly is an idiot.

          6. For those who can not count, You know, those republicans who were, and maybe still are, genuinely shocked by the recent election loss, here are pictures: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

            The budget for the nuclear arsenal is in the Department of Energy and has little to do with Hagel. The drone program is run by the CIA. His military satellites are at least partially paid for in the NASA budget. The charts do not include the VA, interest on borrowing to fight previous wars, etc., and I do not believe that it counts fully all of the direct defense related costs In fact, the article makes this clear. We read:

            “All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon’s underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.
            (Note that this figure does not, however, include benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as “defense spending,” then the number goes up significantly.)”

            Retirees and vetrans combined make up a total of another 7%. So either the 80% figure is a drug induced hallucination, or if accurate is the result of a vast hidden conspiracy that Vangel should not have revealed, and that problem will be addressed :-)

            According to your source. You are looking at $718 billion plus $127 billion for the VA without accounting fully for the intelligence operations and the interest on the debt that should be attached to previous military related borrowing. (I figure one third of interest payments should go to military related borrowing.) Individual income tax revenue is less than the total military spending, which means that I used too large a safety factor when making my claim.

          7. Seth Meyerson

            Vengle definitely has a point…. Pork pork pork

          8. Vangel, stop it. You’re making the whole thing up – the ACTUAL numbers are much smaller.

          9. Vangel, stop it. You’re making the whole thing up – the ACTUAL numbers are much smaller.

            Only if you consider spending more than the take from all individual income tax returns small.

          10. The ACTUAL spending is smaller – much smaller.

          11. My bad. I confess that I read income tax, not individual income tax. Yep. The military does tend to suck money. One wonders how this country survived from 1990 to 2002 with such a low defense budget.
            Oh wait. That is why were attacked on 9/11. If only we had more aircraft carrier battle groups and nuclear submarines and more troops stationed abroad those terrorists never would have attacked us.
            And how did we ever survive from 1970 to 1982 right before small government no deficite Reagan took over and ran out deficite trough the roof?

            I am surprised that none of the resident whackos here has claimed that 911 was a false flag operation

          12. I am surprised that none of the resident whackos here has claimed that 911 was a false flag operation.

            While you are waiting for that you might really enjoy this.

          13. I usually do not watch videos but I enjoyed that entertaining bit of information more than anything that has come from this site in the past 24 hours. Thanks.

            I think that most of the rest of this discussion can be summed in
            Is not!!
            Is to!!!
            Is not!!
            Is to!!!

            Although one side at least supplies supporting evidence.

          14. Look in the mirror for nutiness instead of whining about
            the discussion.

          15. No, Vangel, it doesn’t. Your insistence otherwise proves you to be a fool. Entitlements eat up over $1 trillion, military spending isn’t half that.

            Let us talk facts.

            First I do not defend entitlement programs and would like many of the programs to end. But when I look at SS and Medicare I see that they are funded out of FICA taxes and note that your law says that once the funding is insufficient the benefits can be cut.

            But when I look at military spending I see it being funded from individual and corporate income taxes. If the OMB is to be trusted, the budget for the Pentagon and its wars was around $740 billion. Add around $140 billion for the VA funding, close to $48 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and you are looking at $930 billion. That is $30 billion more than the 2010 personal income tax revenue.

            As far as I am concerned only a fool would claim that spending every cent taken in as personal income tax on a peacetime army is a good thing.

          16. Then here are facts -

            1 – Entitlements are funded by far more than just FICA taxes; they consume several trillion dollars PER YEAR – multiple times more than anything that goes to defense.

            2 – the $930 billion figure is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is at best half that.

            3 – peacetime armies are ALWAYS needed. They are a self-evident necessity. Always.

          17. Seth Meyerson

            I like Vangel’s math specifically is wrong with it? Name calling is the product of emotion not logic.

          18. Seth Meyerson

            Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
            Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
            Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
            Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
            Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
            Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
            Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
            Total Spending 683.7 billion +3.0%

            In 2010…..Probably is not inclusive of a bunch of adders for the wars.

          19. Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
            Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
            Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
            Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
            Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
            Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
            Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
            Total Spending 683.7 billion +3.0%

            In 2010…..Probably is not inclusive of a bunch of adders for the wars.

            Shouldn’t the VA count as military related activity? How about the drone program run by the CIA? What about the NRO and NSA satellites that are either off budget or a part of the NASA budget? How about including the cost of the nuclear arsenal, which is under the Department of Energy? What about the share of the interest paid that is due to debt taken on to fight previous wars? The $20 billion you pay for each year for benefits to veterans who have fought in Vietnam is certainly not counted by the Pentagon because that is a VA thing. As I have argued, you add up ALL MILITARY RELATED SPENDING and you are looking at more than the take in personal income taxes each year. That is not healthy for the economy.

        2. We probably DO need a standing army. Hello.

          Not in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Poland, you don’t. Your military related bills are destroying your economy and your way of life. Capital destruction is no path to security or wealth.

          1. Seth Meyerson

            Ok.. our military bills are a few percent of GDP. They should be less. I think it is spent wastefully, but ultimately who is going to stop NK or Iran from waxing one of the nations you mention…. who by the way, have standing armies.

            Aside from this… get your facts strait!

            All of the countries you mentioned have standing armies.
            Costa Rica doesn’t. Guam, Kiribati, Saint Vincent, St Lucia, Vatican City… etc… and LOL do not have standing armies.

          2. Ok.. our military bills are a few percent of GDP.

            They are a lot higher than what you are being told because when the numbers are put together about half of the military related activity is ignored. It is very dishonest to ignore the money spent on VA, civilian employee pensions, the money to fund the nuclear systems, the budget for the NRO, NSA, CIA, the drone program costs, DHS, or the interest on debt taken on to fight previous wars.

            They should be less. I think it is spent wastefully, but ultimately who is going to stop NK or Iran from waxing one of the nations you mention…. who by the way, have standing armies.

            Who cares if NK has a standing army? It does not have the resources to invade anyone. And the last time I looked at the history books Iran had not invaded another major country for centuries. The military spending has done more damage to your nation than either North Korea or Iran could.

            Aside from this… get your facts strait!

            In 2010 individual income tax revenues came to around $900 billion out of a total revenue of around $2.2 trillion. As I pointed out when you add the Pentagon budget, the off-budget war funding, the VA, Department of Energy spending on the nuclear arsenal, the CIA drone program, the close to $90 billion spent on the intelligence agencies, DHS, etc., you are looking at almost all of the income tax revenue spent on military activity.

            All of the countries you mentioned have standing armies. Costa Rica doesn’t. Guam, Kiribati, Saint Vincent, St Lucia, Vatican City… etc… and LOL do not have standing armies.

            As I said, your Founding Fathers thought a standing army to be very dangerous because it was a threat to liberty.

          3. None of those claims Vangel makes are in any way true. Your attempts to link other areas to defense spending are bogus.

          4. None of those claims Vangel makes are in any way true. Your attempts to link other areas to defense spending are bogus.

            Name the claim and I can support it with data that I have already provided on a number of occasions. Stop with the jingoism and deal in facts and reality.

          5. Yes we do. Defense requires FORWARD DEPLOYMENT of forces. The US has forces in Germany etc. because there is no alternative to it. Our economy stuggles because of entitlement spending – military spending doesn’t harm anything.

          6. This statement is so removed from the physical world as I observe it, that I will not offer any more remarks other than to say “It is not even wrong”, first used by Wolfgang Pauli, a person who, I am fairly certain, Mr. Daly never heard of.

          7. Yes we do. Defense requires FORWARD DEPLOYMENT of forces.

            Really? You mean you defend yourself by attacking someone or threatening to attack them?

            The US has forces in Germany etc. because there is no alternative to it.

            Sure there is. Germany has a strong economy and can have its own army to defend itself.

            Our economy stuggles because of entitlement spending – military spending doesn’t harm anything.

            As I pointed out above, when we examine military related spending for 2011, not counting the cost of interest on debt taken on to fight previous wars, we see $30 billion more budgeted than the total personal income tax revenue taken in during 2010. That does far more harm to the economy than North Korea or Iran ever could.

          8. It means having forces to stop an attacker on HIS turf.

            Germany has its own army. So what?

            Your deconstruction of spending is simple dishonesty. The US spends more on entitlements per year than on defense per decade.

          9. It means having forces to stop an attacker on HIS turf.

            You need a dictionary.

            attacker |əˈtakər|
            noun
            a person or animal that attacks someone or something.

            Germany has its own army. So what?

            Let Germans pay for the defense of Germany.

            Your deconstruction of spending is simple dishonesty. The US spends more on entitlements per year than on defense per decade.

            I just looked up the facts from the CBO and added up everything that was related to the military. I do not ignore the cost of military satellites because they are a part of the NASA budget, drones because they are part of the CIA operations, the cost of the NSA, NRO, the nuclear arsenal that is under the Department of Energy budget, or the cost of benefits looked after by the VA. When I add up everything I get a number that is higher than what is spent on SS and Medicare. But the SS and Medicare spending comes out of FICA taxes specifically allocated to pay for benefits. If you wanted honesty you should have a tax specifically paid for military activities but if that was in place the troops would be home quickly as taxpayers finally figured out just how many lies were told to them by fools such as you who have done all they could to weaken the United States of America and have done more harm than foreign enemies ever could.

          10. 1 – I don’t need a dictionary – you do.

            2 – No. Germany’s defense is OUR defense too.

            3 – No, you looked up the facts and because they oppose you you engaged in deconstruction. Entitlements are paid for by borrowed money – FICA etc. stopped paying for them over a generation ago. Two years ago even Barack Obama admitted they survive on borrowed money.

            4 – There has never been any weakening of the US by committing to defense. Never. The lies told are by liberals. They are the ones who refuse to see the real world.

          11. And for Mikes Next act he will show us how Romney really won the election, but it was stolen from him by an evil cabal of Jewish Liberal Bankers. As were all the house and senate elections. And that Nate Silver is part of the Jewish Conspiracy (Really, have you ever seen someone who looks more Jewish) who faked polls to give cover to the fraud, using Jewish math.
            You know Jewish Math, it is used for Jewish Science that got Einstein in trobule with the Germans

          12. 1 – I don’t need a dictionary – you do.

            Since you make up your own meaning for words and live in your own little world I can understand this sentiment. But the rest of us live up here on earth and use words in their proper context with proper meaning most of the time.

            2 – No. Germany’s defense is OUR defense too.

            It is? How about Bulgaria’s defense? Nigeria’s? Or India’s? Why exactly should American taxpayers pay for the defense of other nations? You never seem to explain that part.

            3 – No, you looked up the facts and because they oppose you you engaged in deconstruction. Entitlements are paid for by borrowed money – FICA etc. stopped paying for them over a generation ago. Two years ago even Barack Obama admitted they survive on borrowed money.

            The government took in pretty close in FICA taxes to what it paid out last year. It did not take in any money specifically allocated to the military even though what it spent on military related activities was more than the revenue that came in from personal income taxes.

            4 – There has never been any weakening of the US by committing to defense. Never. The lies told are by liberals. They are the ones who refuse to see the real world.

            The liberals are just as cowardly as the conservatives. Both keep paying for useless weapons programs and keep the troops fighting long after the error was realized and they should have been pulled back home.

          13. 1 – I don’t make anything up – that’s your raison d’etre.

            2 – Because our defense is inherently tied to that of the legitimate states. The world does not allow isolationism – not that it ever did. It’s not something to be ashamed of – on the contrary it is something to embrace.

            3 – You insist on talking ragtime. The FACT is entitlements are sustained only by borrowing money. Period.

            4 – There is no such thing as a useless weapons program. Liberals as always are the ones who are at fault for defense weakness.

          14. 1 – I don’t make anything up – that’s your raison d’etre.

            You make up meanings for words that mean something different. (Or you lie. Pick one.)

            2 – Because our defense is inherently tied to that of the legitimate states. The world does not allow isolationism – not that it ever did. It’s not something to be ashamed of – on the contrary it is something to embrace.

            I agree that it is nothing to be ashamed of. In his Farewell Address George Washington said to stay away from entangling foreign alliances but to trade with all nations. There is nothing to be ashamed with that even if some of the idiots on the right wrongfully think of open commercial relations with all the nations of the world isolationism.

            3 – You insist on talking ragtime. The FACT is entitlements are sustained only by borrowing money. Period.

            Although I love Joplin I am not that big a fan of ragtime. Give me bee-bop any day. But looking from your responses it is clear that you are one of those experimental atonal, no-taste, no-sense music types.

            4 – There is no such thing as a useless weapons program. Liberals as always are the ones who are at fault for defense weakness.

            The Pentagon has pointed out many useless systems. The problem is that both sides love the pork no matter what damage it does to the economy.

          15. 1 – Wrong again. I don’t make anything up, I call it as it is.

            2 – Entangling alliances? Defending other nations is not a crime; it’s a necessity. It’s the idiots on the left who refuse to get it.

            3 – You’re talking ragtime. Period.

            4 – Wrong. It’s not pork and never will be. Entitlements are pork.

          16. 1 – Wrong again. I don’t make anything up, I call it as it is.

            You don’t see well. Just as you don’t read or think well.

            2 – Entangling alliances? Defending other nations is not a crime; it’s a necessity. It’s the idiots on the left who refuse to get it.

            The idiots on the left are just as bad on this as the idiots on the right. Neither side has a clue, which is why you are bankrupt and hurtling towards the abyss just as England did.

            3 – You’re talking ragtime. Period.

            You’re talking nonsense. Period.

            4 – Wrong. It’s not pork and never will be. Entitlements are pork.

            If it squeals like a pig and looks like a pig it is a pig. As I wrote above, you don’t see well.

          17. 1 – I read better than you. I understand facts better than you. And the facts are on MY side – not yours.

            2 – False. We’re “bankrupt” only on entitlements – spending on defense doesn’t bankrupt the legitimate powers, of which we are the best. And the only idiots out there are the left.

            3 – I’m calling it as it is. You’re not.

            4 – Cliches won’t make you right.

          18. 1 – I read better than you. I understand facts better than you. And the facts are on MY side – not yours.

            You can’t even figure out what the words mean. Like I said, try getting a dictionary.

            2 – False. We’re “bankrupt” only on entitlements – spending on defense doesn’t bankrupt the legitimate powers, of which we are the best. And the only idiots out there are the left.

            First, when was the last time you actually won a war? Second, it isn’t just SS and Medicare that will drive you into bankruptcy. Defence related activities consume more than the revenue that comes in from personal income taxes. That makes the idiots on the right, who support more and more military spending, just as stupid as the idiots on the left.

            3 – I’m calling it as it is. You’re not.

            Since you don’t see, read, or hear ver well, ‘calling’ anything is irrelevant.

            4 – Cliches won’t make you right.

            But the facts do.

          19. 1 – Your constant dictionary retort merely shows you don’t have any argument.

            2 – Vietnam and Iraq were wins thrown away by liberal politicians. Defense activities don’t drag down any economy; it is entitlement spending that always does that. Entitlements are what are consuming money left and right.

            3 & 4 – Don’t talk about facts you have no grasp of.

          20. 1 – Your constant dictionary retort merely shows you don’t have any argument.

            No. It merely points out that you do not understand the meaning of the language. When Ike talks about the danger of the military industrial complex he does not mean the welfare state. You need to get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the words that he uses because you are distorting them when you provide an interpretation of what it was that he said clearly.

            2 – Vietnam and Iraq were wins thrown away by liberal politicians. Defense activities don’t drag down any economy; it is entitlement spending that always does that. Entitlements are what are consuming money left and right.

            Yes. The ‘liberal’ Nixon threw away Vietnam. And the ‘liberal’ Bush decided to withdraw and leave Iraq in the hands of Tehran’s friends. You might want to pick up that dictionary my friend because words do not mean what you think they do on this planet and in this language.

            3 & 4 – Don’t talk about facts you have no grasp of.

            I grasp the facts, thank you. They are quite clear and do not require mangling the language to create a narrative that explains them.

          21. 1 – I understand the meaning of the language fine. You’re the one refusing to understand that Eisenhower was making a point about domestic spending by citing a military context. Military spending was not – and is not – a problem.

            2 – It was the Democratic Congress that threw away victory in Vietnam. It was Barack Obama who is throwing away victory in Iraq. And you lecture me about not understanding language?

            3 – No, you don’t grasp the facts. It’s why you spew the garbage you spew.

          22. 1 – I understand the meaning of the language fine. You’re the one refusing to understand that Eisenhower was making a point about domestic spending by citing a military context. Military spending was not – and is not – a problem.

            He was talking about the military industrial complex. Period. And annual military related spending is bigger than the annual revenue coming from individual income taxes. The people who pay income taxes may have trouble with that because they may consider $1 trillion of expenditures to be a problem.

            2 – It was the Democratic Congress that threw away victory in Vietnam. It was Barack Obama who is throwing away victory in Iraq. And you lecture me about not understanding language?

            It was Nixon who ended the war. It was the Democrats who began the war. Just as it was the Democrats who began the Korean War and Ike who ended it. Obama is not doing anything that Bush did not propose for Iraq. Bush had an exit plan and Obama is following it.

            3 – No, you don’t grasp the facts. It’s why you spew the garbage you spew.

            LOL…You try to make up crap about Eisenhower, confuse Nixon with the Democrats and accuse an idiot who is following Bush’s plans as being radically different than Bush. Sorry but you are just as stupid as the Democrats that you seem to despise so much. Actually, on the foreign policy issues they are a lot smarter than you are.

          23. 1 – For the umpteenth time he was NOT talking about the military industrial complex. It didn’t exist. It has NEVER existed. The military has always been the one part of government that has to justify itself; it is the one part of government treated like dirt by all corners. Annual military spending is dwarfed by entitlements – military spending over a decade is lower than entitlement spending in just ONE year. $1 trillion in expenditures? That’s an ANNUAL budget for entitlements, and that figure is low. Military spending isn’t half that.

            2 – It was not Nixon who ended the Vietnam war, it was the Democratic Congress – getting a North Vietnamese cease fire is not the same as ending the war; Democratic betrayal of the South is what ended the war – or more accurately is what gave Hanoi and its Red masters the South. Also, it was Stalin, Mao, and their North Korean puppet who started the Korean War – and yes, Eisenhower did end it by quietly vowing to unleash nuclear warfare on Red China should they not cease and desist.

            “Obama is not doing…..” You lose the argument right away – Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what Bush wanted.

            3 – I’m the one who is telling the truth about Eisenhower here. You’re the one who is dumber than a bag of rocks in this discussion.

          24. Mr. Daly lives in the world of humpty dumpty.

            “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
            Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
            “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
            “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
            “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
            “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
            Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”[21]

            Except that Mike is not the master of anything. My suspicion is that if he had kids, they do not like him much either.

          25. Hey mike. Does there exist a single instnce of a single person outside of, say, a sanitarium, or a web site like whackjobsareus.org that has a point of view like yours that claims 1. that there is NO military industrial complex, and 2. That Eisenhower was referring to the welfare state when he used the term.

          26. Our friend is a neoconservative and those boys came from the left with the knowledge of how to mangle and misuse the language. In his dictionary the words that you and I use have far different meanings.

          27. Seth Meyerson – no, the military bills are not that expensive – it is ENTITLEMENTS that need to be less – FAR less. “Who is going to stop NK or Iran…?” We are.

          28. Nobody has to stop NK or Iran other than those that are directly threatened by them if they ever choose to be aggressive.

          29. Seth Meyerson

            Cmon Vengle, wherever you live, you have probably been the beneficiary at least indirectly of the US involvement in the cold war and WWII.

            You would either be speaking German or calling your buddies comrade if it weren’t for the US being good at building tanks airplanes and bombs.

          30. Cmon Vengle, wherever you live, you have probably been the beneficiary at least indirectly of the US involvement in the cold war and WWII.

            What is lost is the fact that without American entry in WWI there would be no Lenin or Hitler to worry about in WWII. Without the prolonging of WWI the Karensky government would not have fallen and there would have been no Treaty of Versailles to allow Hitler and his idiots to come to power. As for fascism or communism, they are not a threat over a long period of time because central planning does not work.

            You would either be speaking German or calling your buddies comrade if it weren’t for the US being good at building tanks airplanes and bombs.

            I was born in Eastern Europe. Communism fell because central planning does not work, not because of the US. It is hard to hang on for power for long when you cannot produce enough food, shoes, clothing, and shelter in your economy while free economies are flourishing.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17iAint-_pc

          31. Vangel, the Soviet empire collapsed more by the inability to win the arms race and the ineptitude of Gorbachev than because of its overall economic problems which were real enough.

            US entry into WWI is not what led to the creation of Soviet Russia – it was German victory over Russia that did that.

            Soviet expansionism proved that they were a threat – short and long term. The central planning argument doesn’t change that – a predator state becomes a long term danger when it is not stopped.

          32. Vangel, the Soviet empire collapsed more by the inability to win the arms race and the ineptitude of Gorbachev than because of its overall economic problems which were real enough.

            The data shows that the USSR did not react to much of the increase in military spending by the US because it had bigger problems with ineffective central planning. What did the US do after the USSR collapsed; it adopted more central planning.

            US entry into WWI is not what led to the creation of Soviet Russia – it was German victory over Russia that did that.

            The Russian government fell and Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky took over in July 1917. The problem was that he kept Russia in the war and that gave the Bolsheviks the upper hand with the peasants. Had the US not entered the war in April 1917 the war would have ended and Kerensky Government would not have fallen in the October Revolution that put Lenin in power.

          33. Wrong. The USSR wanted to win the arms race and found out it wasn’t happening. Even with that its collapse was because of Gorbachev’s ineptitude. You’re also wrong about Russia in WW1 – the war was being won by Germany until the US entered to defeat it. Russia collapsed because Germany knocked it out; it dropped out of the war in 1918 (making possible transfer of German forces to France). The Bolsheviks never had any upper hand with peasants.

          34. Wrong. The USSR wanted to win the arms race and found out it wasn’t happening.

            It is a myth. The data shows that the USSR did not respond much to the American build up because it had bigger issues to worry about. I provided a link to a lecture where Robert Wenzel went through the known data.

            Your ignorance is showing. Try learning a bit before you post.

          35. No, your response is a myth. Red Russia kept going in the arms race it had started long ago and found it couldn’t keep up. Don’t cite Robert Wenzel because he isn’t telling the truth. It was well known long ago that Red Russia was keeping going with the arms race.

    2. Clearly you do not understand the military industrial complex. It is like evolution on fast forward. The unworthy / stupid get sick and die. The worthy get rich and suck off of the taxpayer.

      Now how do we know that the unworthy really are unworthy. Because they get sick and die. That is how evolution works. It is the definition of evolution. Unfortunately for normal folks, in a pressure cooker situation like war, evolution tends to favor psychopaths, and not the good kind like Steve Jobs, but the bad kind like Clinton and Bush who are out ONLY for themselves.

      Eisenhower warned against this over 50 years ago. He was a man who knew something about the Military with many years of first hand experience dealing with them in a real war.

      1. There is no military-industrial complex and never was. Eisenhower’s speech was about the budding runaway welfare state. Eisenhower knew military spending is a necessity. We ARE the world’s policeman whether we want to be or not.

        1. Seth Meyerson

          Daly

          They wont submit to an audit. Can you really say that DOD dollars are spent efficiently and effectively?

          Should we spend more on military? Should we spend less? Is it just perfect where it is?

          1. Stop spending on entitlements – they are by definition a pyramid scheme, a creation of demand where there is no supply, and they eat up multiple times more than the MOST defense spending ever has. Education, etc. need to be privatized.

            Yes we should spend more on the military because there won’t be peace until we establish superiority to where no enemy can challenge us.

          2. Seth Meyerson

            More?!! How much more? What is enough? Why aren’t we there already. We spend more that the next 7 countries combined. If we do not spend enough yet, we must be spending it badly, if we still need to spend more to be unchallenged?

          3. Seth Myerson – yes, more. More to where the US’ military muscle is bigger than now – a larger fleet, stronger air force, stronger army. We do NOT spend more than other countries – on the contrary we spend less.

          4. “We do NOT spend more than other countries – on the contrary we spend less.”

            Either you are illiterate and can not read and use speach to text software for all of your information, or you can not count. Perhaps you are just swimming the the river “THE NILE”

            Here are pictures. Just clik on the link
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

            Surely even you can see that we spend way more than any other country. Almost as much as the rest of the world combined.

            of the top 15 countries by budget, only Saudi Arabia (an ally by the way) spens more than us as a percent of GDP

            and there are 22 countries that spend more than us as a percent of GDP. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html, but only one first world country, Israel who I believe is an ally. The rest are thrid world, mostly arab / african countries with the military ability of the keystone cops.

            But we all know that the CIA are liberal pacifist bleeding hearts.

          5. Seth Meyerson

            Amen

          6. Doug, That you’re quoting the unreliable Wikipedia on military expeditures merely proves you wrong. The fact is we spend less than other countries. We’re the only nation that actively opposes defending itself. It has to stop.

          7. I also gave a link to the CIA factbook. Oh… I forgot. The internet is part of the liberal welfare complex, and no information derived from there can be considered reliable. The internet was not created by DARPA, but by liberal nerd-hippies.

            You are welcome to put forward your own information. Good luck with that. Plucking information from your own hallucinations does not work so well. Feel free to post anything that supports what you have to say. I will bet you $20.00 that there exists no more than three sources that will support your claim that any country in the world spends more on defense than we do. I suppose there might be something like “FundamentalistWhackJobs.org” that somehow produces some numbers to support your assertions. But before you take my bet, consider this:

            http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/11/rebuttal-of-10-myths-about-defense-spending/

            Where this particular whackjob does show that china outspends the US by the simple expedient of claiming that 1=3. Maybe they are really christians and confusing money with the trinity. I do not know. But if you take my bet, it is subject to this rule. 1=1, not three.

            I thought that it was cute how the author in the above, mentioned “off the books” expenditures. Like our military has none of those. Except maybe for veterans benefits, and their share of the interest on the debt that they wracked up with trillion dollar wars.

          8. Doug, you’re quoting the unreliable Wikipedia. Stop pretending that you’re saying something truthful. The US spends less on defense than other countries – it is self-evident fact. You need to stop pretending otherwise so we can have a rational discussion.

            You hate American victory – that is what motivates your entire argument. If it didn’t you would not be making these self-evidently dishonest assertions that you do. You want to mock the truth, it makes you less than human.

          9. Let me say. I offer a link to the CIA factbook that you ignore. Instead you rely on name calling: that is the rhetorical technique of those who have neither the evidence nor the logic to support their arguments. And if by chance they had either, they would not have the IQ necessary to organize them into a coherent argument, so they go back to 5th grade (2nd grade??) name calling. Until, and unless you can present actual information to support your statements (about the 12th of never is my guess) I will ignore you in the future.

            When information shows me that I am wrong, I learn something. The last time you learned something was when you got your current job as assistant janitor or whatever it is you do or did.

          10. Doug, stop. You’re quoting the unreliable Wikipedia. I’m relying on obvious truth. You’re not learning anything because you keep pretending what you think is true. The fact is what you think is not true. The US spends less than other countries on defense; it shows in the fact of opposition to defense spending and the weakness of the military. Stop insulting everyone’s intelligence and face the fact we don’t spend enough and we don’t spend more.

          11. You have been given data that comes from the CBO and the CIA. Even the Wiki references list the same type of sources. The fact is that you do not care about facts because you are either stupid or just having fun and saying what you know not to be true.

          12. No, you’re giving me ragtime. I know what the real data is. It’s opposite of what you want it to be. The fact is you are the one who is wrong.

          13. Listen to this man folks. He KNOWS!!! Mike Daly is part of the innalektul elite that has access to the inner most secrete knowledge of everything. We know that because he tells us. He Knows what the real data is, he said so.

            And it is so shocking that he can not actually show it to us. If he did, than our minds, not being as great and wonder ful as his, would just explode out of our heads as great gobs of mucus

            Mike: We all bow berore your onmiscient presence.

          14. You keep speaking ragtime demanding I show you what you already see in front of you. It’s not about you wanting proof – it’s about you wanting sham justification for making excuses.

          15. No, you’re giving me ragtime. I know what the real data is. It’s opposite of what you want it to be. The fact is you are the one who is wrong.

            I am just using the CBO data.

        2. Did you even bother to read his speech. Are you saying that Eisenhower was a fool or a liar?

          In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

          And where exactly in the above paragraph do you get any reference to a welfare state, buding or otherwise. Seriously man … what have you been smoking?

          1. I read his speech – what I’m saying is people who interpret his speech as an attack against “militarism” (which doesn’t even exist) are the fools and the liars. The reality is Eisenhower was more concerned with the REAL issue – the desire for spending on entitlements that was surging in national politics.

            There is no military-industrial complex and never was – what must be guarded against is the culture of entitlement. Entitlements are the dead weight on the economy.

            You’re the one who needs to reexamine how serious you are.

          2. “There is no military-industrial complex and never was –”
            So, you are making the claim that the military industrial complex to which Eisenhower referred does not exist and that he was either lying or a fool. Or are you claiming the military insudtrial complex was a code word for the welfare state / entitlements, but that while leaving office, president Eisenhower was to much of a coward to use the term entitlements for fear of offending — who exactly?

            Do you have any actual evidence to support those assertions?

          3. Doug, the fact of opposition to US victory and US preparedness and the utter refusal of the dominant culture to embrace US victory or power is prima facia proof there is no military industrial complex and never was.

          4. Doug, the fact of opposition to US victory and US preparedness and the utter refusal of the dominant culture to embrace US victory or power is prima facia proof there is no military industrial complex and never was.

            So — was Eisenhower lying, or was he a fool. Given your statement, I see no other possibilities. Also, in the actual physical world, there is no such thing as proof, only evidence. Simply repeating the same statement over and over will never make a false statement true. It will not even make it less false.

          5. I read his speech – what I’m saying is people who interpret his speech as an attack against “militarism” (which doesn’t even exist) are the fools and the liars. The reality is Eisenhower was more concerned with the REAL issue – the desire for spending on entitlements that was surging in national politics.

            I take it then that you have a reading comprehension problem. That would explain a few things.

          6. No Vangel – you’re the one with a comprehension problem, because you are ignorant.

          7. Once More Around The Block

            His speech is much more than either of you are making it out to be by taking just snippets. Section 5 of his speech goes on to say, in a very prophetic vision of today’s crisis:

            “Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

            Remarkable speech that you should read all of first:
            http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

          8. I did read all of it. I see nothing in your paragraph that in any dimishes the stated threat of the military industrial complex, or that addresses specificially “entitlements” And with regard to “entitlements” we could to cut back those by means testing all those gov and military figures drawing six figure pensions.

            To those who wish to reduce or get rid of entitlements, what exactly other “entitlements” did you have in mind? Are you to ignorant or to afraid to say?

            Maybe you would like to get rid of Social Security. I will say to you what Eisenhower said. You are stupid
            http://blogs.courant.com/susan_campbell/2011/07/words-of-wisdom-from-pres-eise.html

            Perhaps you think that he might have been against medicare. If so then why this:
            In 1960, outgoing President Eisenhower did sign into law Kerr-Mills, the forerunner to Medicare. That gave grants to states for health care for the aged poor. But it didn’t work very well; by 1963, only 28 states were participating.

          9. Doug, you DIDN’T read it to persist in thinking Eisenhower was afraid of the military. You need to be more objective than you’ve been so far.

            As for Kerr-Mills – so what? It was basically nothing.

            “What entitlements do you have in mind?” Social Security, Medicare, the welfare state – all bankrupt, all on borrowed-money life support, all of which consume more trillions per year than the military spends per decade.

            You are the one who is stupid, Doug. There is no military-industrial complex and there never was.

          10. “Doug, you DIDN’T read it to persist in thinking Eisenhower was afraid of the military. You need to be more objective than you’ve been so far.
            Can you show me the quote that indicates to you where I said that Eisenhower was afraid of the military.

            Here is his quote: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

            So when you say “You are the one who is stupid, Doug. There is no military-industrial complex and there never was.”
            You are claiming that Eisenhower is also stupid, as it certainly would appear to any sober person with a triple digit IQ that there was, in fact, a military industrial complex.

            Feel free to explain how Eisenhower was speaking of something that did not exist.

            and not only do I agree with Eisenhower that the Military Industrial complex exists, I also agree with him that anybody who wishes to get rid of Social Security is stupid. I usually do not do arguments from authority, but in this case the definitive authority, the man who created the phrase military industrial complex is also on the side of the actual information that is relevant to the situation, and his description of people like you seems accurate.

            Stupid. Unwilling or unable to accept information from the physical world that is contrary to their point of view.

            You could of course win this argument by showing that Eisenhower did not actual call people like you stupid. Hard to do, since he put it in writing to his brother, and that letter still exists. And you could show that by Military Industrial complex he was really referring to crack whore welfare mothers or the easter bunny union.

          11. Doug, that quote you keep citing means nothing because there was no undue military influence in 1960 or any other time. The military-industrial complex DIDN’T EXIST. You’re the one who is being stupid here.

            Again, RE-READ THE SPEECH. Eisenhower was more concerned with a runaway welfare state. The definitive authority on the issue is what ISN’T there – the military-industrial complex. That makes you a fool.

            You cannot defend Social Security because it has been bankrupt for some two generations thanks to being inherently an unsustainable economic model that created demand where there never was any supply – the fact is eats up more per year than the military gets per decade makes you a fool for holding the opinions you do.

          12. Name calling: The rhetorical method used by someone who has neither evidence nor logic to support their view. If they had either one, they would not have the brain power to present an argument, so they resort to 5th grade name calling.

            You presented no actual evidence. You simply say that Eisenhower did not mean what he actually said, and the MIC to which he referred was a figmant of his imagination.
            Your statements on the other subjects are also lacking in supporting evidence. I will ignore you in the future unless and until (about the 12th of never would be my guess) you produce actual evidence as opposed to saying that my evidence does not exist.

          13. Doug, the truth is the truth and it is 100% against you. The proof is there in front of you – you just persist in denial.

        3. Whether or not you like it or not, Ike’s speech was clearly against the military-industrial complex. Try looking up the text and reading it again.

          1. No – you need to re-read it and change your opinion. His speech was about a welfare state, not defense spending.

          2. No – you need to re-read it and change your opinion. His speech was about a welfare state, not defense spending.

            I have read it and it remains what it always was; a warning against a peacetime military-industrial complex that would threaten individual liberty and destroy the nation from within. There is no mention of welfare and no record of Ike ever being much of the type of fiscal conservative that some try to make him out to be.

          3. No, you HAVEN’T read it because you refuse to see what it actually is – a warning about DOMESTIC federal spending power spoken in a military context. His own actions (“Taft was more liberal than me in domestic affairs”) as well as that speech show hos fiscally conservative he was.

          4. No, you HAVEN’T read it because you refuse to see what it actually is – a warning about DOMESTIC federal spending power spoken in a military context. His own actions (“Taft was more liberal than me in domestic affairs”) as well as that speech show hos fiscally conservative he was.

            Choosing to take drugs is your business. But it does seem to be impacting your ability to reason.

          5. Telling the truth is what I do – look in the mirror for drug use.

          6. Seth Meyerson

            Daly is nuts. It is good to see crazy now and again. Best not to forget its real and out there!

            Liberals and conservatives unite against crazy!

          7. The one telling the truth is nuts? Look in the mirror, Seth – I’m the rational one here.

  12. sethwrkr

    According to the Pentagon, there are now 963 generals and admirals leading the armed forces, about 100 more than on Sept. 11, 2001. Meanwhile, the overall number of active duty personnel has declined to some 1.5 million from 2.2 million in 1985, even though the Army and Marine Corps have grown since the Sept. 11 attacks, to carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The salary cap for generals is about $180,000, up from $130,000 a decade ago, according to Todd Harrison at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a private research group in Washington. Like all officers and enlisted personnel, generals have the benefit of the military pension system, which gives everybody who serves 40 years a pension equal to their base pay.

    “General Motors did not set out to become a benefits agency that occasionally built a car,” said Arnold L. Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general and head of an independent board appointed by Mr. Gates to examine Pentagon spending. “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

    Salaries and benefits, however, are the least of it. The biggest costs are created by the generals’ staffs — including security details, senior advisers, communications teams, schedulers and personal aides. Mr. Harrison said that the annual cost of salary, benefits and staff for each of the military’s highest-ranking generals and admirals — 40 four-star and 146 three-star — easily exceeded $1 million.

    “When you have a head dog, you also have a deputy dog, then a deputy deputy dog, and a deputy deputy deputy dog,” General Punaro said. “The layers are suffocating the bureaucracy.”

  13. sethwrkr

    5. Military golf. Of course, generals and admirals aren’t the only ones who get to enjoy some of perks of being in the U.S. armed forces. Although lower-ranking service members don’t get private jets and personal chefs, U.S. taxpayers still spend billions of dollars a year to pay for luxuries that are out of reach for the ordinary American.

    The Pentagon, for example, runs a staggering 234 golf courses around the world, at a cost that is undisclosed.

  14. sethwrkr

    6. “The Army goes rolling along!” Vacation resorts aren’t the only explicitly non-defense-related expenditures of the Department of Defense. According to a Washington Post investigation, the DoD also spends $500 million annually on marching bands.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content