"Fifty percent of the budget's taken up by defense"

[redqueen]

This is the issue.

If a candidate gets elected who will not cut the defense budget, and get us out of Iraq ASAP, we are doomed domestically. We're certainly doomed if junior steals it again.

That's just a fact.

50% of the discretionary budget. One half of all the money that's not already spent on existing programs will go to the MIC. 1/2.

Think it will stay 50%? It won't. It will grow, especially if the President-elect is big on the 'war on terra' or willing to continue the 'drug war'.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953

[mmm]

1. exactly

[iowapeacechief]

2. Put it on plastic?

Yes, this is the central issue. All else is subsidiary.

Guns AND butter?

Only with plastic.

Can't have it all without putting it on the credit card. When will we max out?

[trent21]

3. Wow

I never realized it was half. I knew it was high but not that high.

[redqueen]

4. The trick is 'discretionary'

See, there are two main parts to our country's budget: 'discretionary' and 'mandatory'.

And it's actually 51%

link

From the link:
Mandatory spending includes entitlements, money or benefits provided directly to individuals such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Federal Retirement. It also includes interest payments on the national debt.


By couching all debate on the military spending in terms of the entire budget, conservatives manage to pretend it's not much money. But it is. Way.

[PsN2Wind]

19. I"m not sure

that the 51% you say includes that part of the interest on the national debt that is payed due to past military spending (borrowing)

[redqueen]

20. You're right, it doesn't

The interest on the national debt is accounted for in the mandatory / entitlements portion of the budget. It's a whopping percentage of that portion, too! I think I read it was around 15%-20%... anyone know?

[newyawker99]

33. Hi trent21!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Saudi intellectuals' 9-11 theory

Shortly after 9-11, there was this panel discussion on Saudi TV, pretty unusual in itself, even more interesting, the participants weren't princes or oilboizz, just professors, writers, "intellectuals."

Their take: the Crusade is not only against countries with lots of oil and lots of Muslims, but a kind of corporate civil war as well: US defense companies against US everything else companies.

Another aspect of this, the consolidation of so much of the non-gun business into megasemimonopolies, i.e., Wal-Mart, AOL-Time Warner, etc.

[redqueen]

6. Wow that is interesting

And given the topic, frightening. After all, with so much money, and so many in power dedicated to maintiaining that income stream and protecting those in the game, what chance to the people have?

This is why it is so very important to focus on substance these days. Too much distraction...

[redqueen]

7. Kick for Awareness

:kick:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. This Is One Reason I Love Clark AND Kucinich

They're the only two who've had the GUTS to propose cuts in the military budget, and oppose the MIC.

DTH

[iowapeacechief]

15. Clark for cutting military budget?

Please say more.

[Capn Sunshine]

16. Clark cutting a military budget? For Spite, of course

otherwise I don't buy him putting a dent in the mothership.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. Whatever, Mike

Clark has called the military a "want machine," and has indicated his clear willingness to cut defense, even by as much as 25%. He specifically targeted the Air Force budget, as it is chock full of "toys" (my words, not his) and indicated there was a lot of fat that could be trimmed.

Clark has gone even further than Kucinich's 15%, and both of them have gone much, much further than the rest of the Democratic candidates' ZERO percent (at best).

Moreover, Clark is the one Democratic candidate who is BEST situated to actually get his military budget cuts through a hostile Congress, since he has the best credibility on this issue, and knows better than anyone the waste present in the military budget.

DTH

[iowapeacechief]

29. Clark on military spending thread?

There should be one, unless it's been done already.

[Nadienne]

35. Good for Clark!

And shame, shame on all those who think that the more we spend on military, the better it will be. Despite the bloated Pentagon budget, our troops in Iraq are inadequately protected. You think giving more to the military would fix the problem? If you believe that, you might also believe that tax cuts to corporations create jobs.

[redqueen]

9. See?

Just like free trade threads, it drops like a rock.

More fun to make jokes on that other thread!

[Mairead]

10. More exactly, RQ, on WAR, not defence.

Half of all our non-dedicated tax money is going to the war industry. According to the CIA, we're spending on the order of 6X what China is spending (and that's the optimistic guess -- it might be 10X!)

[redqueen]

11. Important distinction, Mairead!

Thank you for pointing that out!

[AnAmerican]

12. Keeping this one kicked

n/t

[Desertrose]

13. and the way we are kept in fear...of COURSE we need

to keep our war machines up and running and well oiled...

Yes people...what good is extra money and healthcare and a job and.... and....if we aren't "secure" and if the terra-ists are always out there...waiting to steal the wonderful American way of life...you know...work for minimum wage of $2 per hour...juggle to make the house/car/creditcards/lifehealt&auto ins/payments and then...and then....with what is leftover...we can all shop at WalMart! Wheeeeee!

Well shucks, I'm sure happy...aren't you?? Keep me safe oh pretzeldentbooosh...kill them brownskin people!!! So yeah...lets give more to the military...bigger bombs..thats the ticket!!!
Peace
DR


(oh geez...ANOTHER Dean ad...I'm in AZ whooppee)

[returnable]

14. Kick

The real joke to me is that some folks here who make such an issue about Clark being a "product" of the MIC are so willing to back a man who is committed to funding it at its current rate.

Kudos to DK for continuing to fight the good fight :kick:

[no name no slogan]

17. "It's about the issues, stupid" (n/t)

:kick:

[redqueen]

18. LOL!

Love it!

But we're just a bunch of naive dreamers, don'tcha know? It's really about polls and fundraising, and who's the most marketable.

teehee :)

[redqueen]

21. KICK

Because this really is more important than the chart. :)

And because it's not only Democrats & liberals who think the military is wasting TONS of money!!!!

[ThirdWheelLegend]

23. kicks!

TWL

[Printer70]

24. Headline is misleading

50% of the budget does not go to defense. It makes up less than 20% of the budget. We CAN do things about the non-discretionary side of the equation by bringing cost containment to Medicare for example. Kucinich supporters need to stop stretching the truth, it dampens their cause.

[redqueen]

25. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you just used a republican talking point

And even worse, you use a republican 'solution' -- cutting Medicare benefits.

:wow:

[Printer70]

28. What the heck are you talking about?

What talking point?

And I didn't talk about cutting Medicare benefits so don't put words in my mouth. You can contain costs by doing things like pressuring drug companies to lower prescripton drug costs or having the government negotiate the costs of prescription drugs.

[OhioStateProgressive]

32. instead of just imposing laws that force them to charge less

compromise, compromise, compromise...everywhere I look

is america the land of no conviction anymore?

[Eric J in MN]

26. maybe the 50% figure counts not only present spending but paying down past

Maybe the 50% figure counts not only present spending but paying down past military spending which helped cause budget deficits.

[redqueen]

27. See post 4 - lumping it all together is a common right-wing tactic n/t

[iowapeacechief]

30. It's NOT stretching the truth to say 50 percent of discretonary spending!

Original message: "50% of the discretionary budget. One half of all the money that's not already spent on existing programs will go to the MIC. 1/2."

This is the whole point. Kucinich is the only one bold enough to risk NOT pulling his punches on military spending.

[revcarol]

51. Back to Dean's cost-cutting for Medicare, eh?

First he says it, then he doesn't, now he says it again?

Maybe cut all those high priced executives in Medicare, the way he wants to cut all those high-priced execs in the insurance industry?<heavy sarcasm>

[ThirdWheelLegend]

31. Hopefully Howard can see it..

TWL...KICK!

[diamondsoul]

34. Kicking

and why are so few people willing to talk about this??

[snoochie]

36. This is so important

We're supposed to be electing someone different, so that voters will have a choice in Nov. If both options will ruin our country financially, what kind of choice is that?

Put the two most important issues facing our nation right now (defense budget and free trade) together, and I don't see how anyone could vote for anyone but Kucinich.

And yeah I know many Americans are concerned about the war on terror, however check out C-Span today at 2:00 ET and watch "An End to Evil" with Richard Perle and David Frum. These guys are calling for measures that would make conservatives SICK. They are driving away not just Republican voters but also Independent and Libertarian voters with their 'big brother' tactics.

Put Kucinich (who voted against the Patriot Act, one of the few on the Hill with the courage to defend our freedom) up against Bush (who listens to the advice of people like Perle and Frum), and who do you think most people would vote for?

[diamondsoul]

37. Lord, you should hear Tom Ridge on

C-span2...."You're job is to sow fear. You will not succeed in the United States." Um, wanna try that again Tom? If they weren't successful your dumb-ass wouldn't have a job!

[Nadienne]

38. Funny, isn't it?

The wonderful things they say that are the opposite of the truth. Sinking empty rhetoric to a whole new level.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

49. "electing someone different"

We are working for that, too bad Koppel's polls and money fan fair is still a hit among the kids!

[MadHound]

39. Great point to bring up RQ

And unfortunately our leadership refuses to learn this lesson from the Soviet Union, or empires throughout history. The Soviet Union tottered and fell because it couldn't continue to fund the military. The British and Roman Empires did the same. And we are on the bring of following them into the abyss. Fifty percent. As opposed to the 0.8% of federal money spent on welfare programs. A telling comparison.

Another little fact. This fifty percent figure doesn't include the monies spent on CIA paramilitary operations and other covert ops. More money down the rat hole.

[mopinko]

40. from jim hightower's "thieves in high places"

a great read, full of fun facts, like-
"the war resister's league calculates that 1/2 of nasa's budget, and 1/2 of fema's budget goes to reconnaissance and other military functions...
more that 1/3 of foreign aid goes to military and police operations abroad...
the stupid drug war, a waste of $19 billion ...is increasingly being converted into a military operation abroad...
tens of billions a year for past militarism both to former soldiers and interest paid on the national debt, more than half of which comes from past military buildups (thanks giipper)...
the doe budget supplies billions to pay for the military's nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear waste...
plus $38 bill for homeland security...
the total slice of bush's budget allocated to military purposes is not 17 cents, but 56 cents out of every tax dollar."

personally, i think it was bill clinton's intention to cut into this fat pie, and that is what really led to all the opposition to him by the powers that (really) be.

and because i really love this speech, and can't figure out why we haven't gotten this through our thick skulls 50 freakin' years later, i am posting a longer piece than red queen started this thread with.


Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities. It is two electric plants, each serving a town of sixty thousand population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging upon a cross of iron.... aspire to this: the lifting, from the backs and from the hearts of men, of their burden of arms and fears - so that they may find before them a golden age of freedom and of peace.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, "The Chance for Peace," April 1953
Speech writers Emmet John Hughes and C. D. Jackson

[snoochie]

41. Thanks

We should have learned this by now, you're right. But this country is focusing instead on sports and materialism.

I hope we don't face the same fate as Rome and Russia. I fear if we don't do a U-turn now (not a slowing down, hoping for real change later, as more 'moderate' Dems would suggest), that we've waited too long already.

[snoochie]

42. Kick for mopinko's info from Hightower's book

Alarming stuff!

[leftbend]

43. Another Kick !

Thanks Redqueen, good stuff.

[Tweed]

44. Absurd

We should be able to cut at least 5% off of that.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

45. 5%, hopefully a lot more..

Kucinich is calling for 15%, Clark is also calling for cuts.

TWL

[SahaleArm]

46. Heck 10% is $40+ billion dollars - I'd take that n/t

[ThirdWheelLegend]

48. btw Welcome to DU

sorry a little late... but

WELCOME :)

TWL

[iowapeacechief]

47. Military spending is THE issue...

...and I believe all the candidates realize their ability to achieve anything else depends on getting military spending under control. But as long as we Americans fear for our safety and believe military spending equals security, we will pay endlessly with little complaint. We are easily guided by fear, and we've proved it again and again.

More than any other candidate, Dennis Kucinich is addressing this dilemma straight on. Most of the others try to look "strong" on "defense" and don't know how to break out of the trap, even if they want to.

Clark and Kerry have the military credentials--and the inclination--to challenge the war-spending hawks, so both can do much to lead us away from fear. But only Kucinich is articulating a vision and developing plans for creating demonstrably reliable security alternatives that do not depend on weapons and military forces.

Sooner or later, we must move toward the priorities envisioned by the Department of Peace proposal. See the House bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.01673:

That's where we must go. If not now, when? If not Dennis, who?

[redqueen]

50. Gratuitous Kick

This and the continuing occupation of IRAQ and the sputtering economy will be the defining issues of this election.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

53. Those pesky issues!

When you get down to it, Kucinich is miles beyond the rest.

TWL

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. TRANSCRIPT: Clark Attacks the MIC

Pursuant to a request above, here is some more information on Clark and his position on the MIC:

A caller asked a question about Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex.

General Clark: "I think General Eisenhower was exactly right, I think we should be concerned about the military-industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today you've consolidated all these defense firms into just a few large firms, like Halliburton, and with contracts and contacts at the top level of government. You've got most of the retired generals are one way or another associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Department of Defense because I just figured it was time to make a new start. But I think the military-industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex. And I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war but about creating conditions for peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for peace, advocates for economic development abroad, not just advocates for better weapon systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military-industrial complex."

http://nhpr.org/view_content/5339/

Approximately 35:30 - 37:00.

DTH

[ThirdWheelLegend]

54. Good statement.

I really like this statement from him. Honestly I am still a little weary of Clark but I like this.

TWL