Liberal Democratic Rep, Barney Frank, says, "Cut the MIlitary Budget"....

[bvar22]

"Sadly, self-described centrist and even liberal organizations often talk about the need to curtail deficits by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that have a benign social purpose, but they fail to talk about one area where substantial budget reductions would have the doubly beneficial effect of cutting the deficit and diminishing expenditures that often do more harm than good. Obviously people should be concerned about the $700 billion Congress voted for this past fall to deal with the credit crisis. But even if none of that money were to be paid back--and most of it will be--it would involve a smaller drain on taxpayer dollars than the Iraq War will have cost us by the time it is concluded, and it is roughly equivalent to the $651 billion we will spend on all defense in this fiscal year.

<snip>

"Spending on military hardware does produce some jobs, but it is one of the most inefficient ways to deploy public funds to stimulate the economy. When I asked him years ago what he thought about military spending as stimulus, Alan Greenspan, to his credit, noted that from an economic standpoint military spending was like insurance: if necessary to meet its primary need, it had to be done, but it was not good for the economy; and to the extent that it could be reduced, the economy would benefit.

The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/frank

I am glad to hear Democrats from the Liberal Wing finding their voices.

It is immoral to discuss cutting Social Programs ("Entitlement Reforms")while continuing to spend obscene amounts on the Military.

Thank You, Barney Frank

[slipslidingaway]

1. knr n/t

[Taverner]

2. Hell, I think we need to ELIMINATE the military

Reduce it down to just a National Guard, like we had in between WWI and WWII

[fuggbush21]

9. Thanks for advocating my job loss.

Sure, I've got job skills outside of the military, but when you cut the 3,000 other people in the Air Force, not to mention the Navy and Marine Corps equivalent of my job, I then have to compete with more then 6,000 new bodies in a limited career field, roughly half of them more qualified then I am.

What jobs are you going to create for the 2 million Active Duty Personnel? What about the almost equal number of Civilian Contractors? What are you going to do when the 4 largest tech industries in this country suddenly belly up because 50% of their business was taken away? How many jobs will that cost?

What is your plan to give all of us new jobs that are at least equally paying as what we currently have? Because if you don't have one, I respectfully ask that you shut up. Don't suggest solutions if you don't know how to enact them.

[Taverner]

10. Ahhh that's the beauty of my plan:

Transition ALL military not in the National Guard, Coast Guard or Embassy Guard Duty to a new workforce. They will be at home, cleaning up the mess we have in our hands. Fixing the levees, rebuilding after Katrina and Galveston, building bridges, etc.

Then, set up a transition into civilian life while these are being completed.

It would be crazy to just send out pink slips one day.

[Taverner]

11. Oh one more thing: Please tell me a time when the Miltary was "needed" since the Korean War

And for me, even that is debatable

Sure, the military employs a lot of people. So does Blackwater and Haliburton.

[newtothegame]

14. Darfur. Eh fuck it, they can figure it out on their own n/t

[Taverner]

15. Perhaps for the UN, but not for US

We have no credibility in that region anymore

[newtothegame]

16. I would agree but the UN has proven itself to be an inept organization...

Great at writing sternly written letters but no real power.

[Taverner]

18. Hmmmm...this would make the Freepers heads' explode, but why not turn our Military to the UN?

[fuggbush21]

20. Because enlistment rates would plummet.

We do not serve the UN. We serve the United States of America and it's Constitution.

[Taverner]

21. But thats just it - our military does not do that

Going into Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait or wherever does not serve America and it does not Serve our Constitution

[fuggbush21]

23. Well thats our decision to make.

And we make it when we Enlist, Reenlist, and Commission.

[mike_c]

29. your military has not "served" my country's interests in decades....

The U.S. military acts primarily as thugs for imperialism. You're tools of an insane and immoral foreign policy.

I agree with Taverner-- reduce the U.S. military to a token "readiness" force that maintains the existing hardware and the infrastructure needed to mount a defensive response. We need to take "force projection" away from self-serving politicians and the MIC.

[fuggbush21]

31. Well it's a good thing

that people with more foresight then you really decide how our military is handled.

[mike_c]

33. LOL-- I think you've stumbled onto the wrong message board, my friend....

:rofl:

[Taverner]

38. No I think he has good points. I just disagree with them nt

[fuggbush21]

17. I'm sure the people of Kuwait

and Bosnia appreciate what we've done. And I've been to Afghanistan. I know the people there appreciate being able to run their own country for a change. While I haven't been to Iraq, I know plenty who have and who will say the same thing. The deterrent factor that we served in Germany against the USSR and Japan/Korea as well for N. Korea and China. That aid that we've given to Africa over the last decade, who do you think has been doing a large part of it? Who do you think the first responders to the tsunami in SE Asia where? Care to know how many medical missions we provide to South America?

I've recently finished a 4.5 year tour in Japan. My job gets me in on a lot of that "higher up" stuff, and I have seen what N. Korea and China is capable of doing and WANTS to do. The threat of us stepping in and putting a stop to it all is what keeps them from doing it. Kim Jung Il promised his father when he died that before he passed along he'd reunite the two Korea's. With his capability to produce nuclear weapons now, you can bet your ass that the ONLY thing stopping him from pushing south is our agreement with S. Korea to nuke anyone into the stone age who uses nukes against them.

The world is not a happy place. Preaching peace and love will only get people killed. The US Military is not a machine that is used to make our countries own power grow. It is used to keep the whole world from escalating into bloodshed. We swore to defend the US and the Constitution. But we also have an unspoken oath to defend those in the world who can't defend themselves. And that is why we need a military as large and as powerful as we do.

[Taverner]

19. But who appointed us world policeman?

I for one think we suck at it

[fuggbush21]

22. Well I think your wrong.

As does millions of people who now no longer have to wake up to things like this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MjdtULzbIHQ/SYofqxaIYSI/AAAAAAAACJ0/9ls8e8JG_Dw/s400/Destruction+of+Barmiyan+budda+Statues+in+2001+by+the+Taliban.jpg

[Taverner]

28. I understand - but think about how much our military costs

And how much of our budget goes to the military, when it could have gone to schools, or even the FBI.

Much of what we assign to the military, simple policing could fix. For example, catching Bin Laden.

If you look through history, it was Military Spending that killed the USSR. It was military spending that eventually took out Spain in the war against England.

I just have to ask: why do we need bases in Germany and Scotland? Are we really afraid of Austria and Sweden that much?

And yes, NK can be belligerent

But they're a paper tiger

They can't even erect a building for chrissakes

I just think our Empire days need to be over sooner than later. Empires are expensive, and we just don't have the cash anymore.

[fuggbush21]

30. N. Korea is anything but a paper tiger.

Leaving that AOR was a huge weight off of my shoulders. N. Korea scares the hell out of me, and it should scare the hell out of everyone. They will not care about using NBC weapons. They do not care how many will die if they ever cross that border. The second Korea war if it ever happens will be so bloody it'll eclipse anything fought since WW2. They have the largest Special Operations Force in the WORLD. They have enough chemical munitions stationed on the DMZ to make Seoul unlivable for years. They are anything but a paper tiger, take it from someone who just spent nearly 5 years training to fight them.

As for your military spending, we're going to have to agree to disagree. The US Military is not a self destructive force. I would argue that single entity of the US Goverment drives the economy more then any other single part of it. Destroying it would severely hurt our economy, and doing it with the troubles that we have now would probably cause irreversable damage.

[Taverner]

32. agree to disagree

As for NK, let me ask this - and don't take it the wrong way - but wouldn't you have been preparing for the worst case scenario? I just wonder how many of their weapons will even make it across the DMZ. Again, you would know better than me, but one of the lessons from WWII was "Don't use slave labor to make munitions." Just look at the Soviet Army of old for an example.

I just think about how much is spent on "defense" and how useful its been against, say, education, R&D or any number of programs that we direly need.

[fuggbush21]

36. We wheren't preparing for the worst.

I've been trying to tell you, what they bring will be the worst. Chemical and biological weapons will be used. Seoul will dissapear under an artillery barrage in the first day. We didn't prepare to fight a boogeyman. We prepared to fight N. Korea.

[mike_c]

40. I think that's utterly crazy...

...and precisely the sort of reason why the nation is better served by NOT having much of a standing military. You're prepared to fight North Korea for ideological reasons, and pretty poor ones at that. North Korea has never attacked America. North Korea exists largely because the United States couldn't keep its Cold War nose out of Korean's internal affairs during the 1950s. We CREATE bogeymen all over the world-- sometimes for ideological reasons but more often than not for economic purposes-- and then we fight them, or ballyhoo the necessity of fighting them some other day.

Our military stand-off with North Korea is a relic of Cold War anti-communist hysteria, with a generous measure of profit for the aero-space and arms industries thrown in to keep the pot bubbling.

As you suggested up thread, the world is not a safe and secure place-- that is true-- but WE don't need to go looking for fights all over that unsafe and volatile globe. But that's what we do. Mostly in support of the profits of the MIC and other U.S. corporate interests, rather than for any reasonable ideological purposes.

[Taverner]

41. Agreed

Honestly, I don't think NK could make it past the DMZ

They can't even finish a building they started years ago

[BreweryYardRat]

34. FWIW, I'm not in favor of cutting military jobs. Most rational people here probably aren't.

When it comes to cost, the pay for every single person in the military COMBINED is, I suspect, a very small percentage of the defense budget. Most of the bloat in the defense budget comes from these crooked fucking contracting companies -- Halliburton, KBR, etc... -- that have been making massive profits thanks to their connections with the Bush administration while either failing to do what they were contracted to do, or (at best) cutting corners to maximize their profits, sometimes at the risk of our soldiers' lives.

Hell, even the pay for most of the civilian contract employees would probably still be a very small percentage of the defense budget, given that most of the contracting companies' profits go straight to the people at the top.

Best way I can think of to cut back on the defense budget is to do a complete audit of all DoD expenses in the past decade, paying special attention to the contracting companies. Investigate all cases of gross corruption, and once we've got enough evidence, treat it as treason (which it is, in my opinion) and high treason in cases where the corruption resulted in soldiers getting killed -- like those shower electrocutions that've been happening. Seize assets from the companies equal to the cost of the contracts that can be proved to have been corruptly awarded/performed, and give the people involved in those cases jail time. In cases of high treason, in addition to seizing assets, make damn sure the CEOs, CFOs, and Boards of Directors are among the people charged, and once we've got a guilty verdict, sentence them to dance on air.

[mike_c]

37. well, I'm pretty rational, most of the time, and I'd welcome the loss...

...of at least fifty percent of U.S. military jobs unless the military is actively defending the nation from an attacking enemy or an imminent threat of attack. Threats to U.S. foreign policy and corporate interests? Meh.

We simply don't need much of a standing military if that organization's primary mission is defense. The only wars we're engaged in are wars that we started. Our military is a global bully. I'd be happy to see it largely disbanded and replaced by a peace-keeping readiness force that could respond in the short term and form the nucleus of a military call-up in the event of foreign attack.

The current bloated U.S. military is a remnant of World War Two, when the MIC decided not to stand down and return the nation to a primarily civilian economy. We haven't needed it for most of the last century, and I'd argue that having it, and using it immorally, has caused the United States far greater problems that it can ever solve.

[fuggbush21]

39. It actually makes up about 25%

If I recall correctly. Thats just the pay and benefits. Not the cost to equip us and everything. To ensure we have what we need to do our jobs.

[BreweryYardRat]

57. Sorry, I was counting war spending in with the defense budget.

It seems that's not part of the budget, but rather is funded by separate appropriations. My mistake. But yeah, you're right, it's about 25%. But the other main parts of the budget (Ops and Maintenance, Production, and R&D), and war spending need an audit. I want you guys to have the appropriate equipment -- hell, I've never been a fan of going for the low bid just because it's the low bid, so I'm willing to pay extra for quality -- but I don't want contractors delivering inferior equipment to you guys and getting paid for it like it's top-dollar goods.

[Sherman A1]

52. And what of the jobs that have been cut in other areas or have

never been established because of our support of the MIlitary Industrial Complex? I would suggest taking some time with President Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation. The resources (and people) can be redirected towards a variety of areas that will enhance the quality of life for all of us. Science, education, exploration, the arts, technology, transportation, health care, energy and more. We have spent too much on the things of war, we need to spend our resources on the things of peace.

[GeorgeGist]

58. Here's a job for you ...

think about becoming qualified for a job that doesn't require you to believe that you are a loser.

[Sherman A1]

53. Well Said!

While perhaps not just a National Guard, I would suggest a vastly reduced military.

[rurallib]

3. How could Obama halve the deficit in 4 years

1) Cut the military budget at least in half
2) stop both fucking wars.
3) close loopholes in taxes
4) go after offshore corps doing business in the US
5) increase IRS staff and audit all returns for with incomes over $250,000
6) legalize and tax marijuana
7) universal single payer HC

I am sure there are many more

[bvar22]

5. I support all those proposals.

:toast:

[Donnachaidh]

7. 4a -- set up punitive taxes on companies that outsource jobs and plants

and make them retroactive to the year 2000.

[Last Stand]

4. B...b...b..but, it's only HALF the budget, Barney!

All those angry RW'er's angry about their taxes being too high (sigh). We have a solution.

[Oregone]

6. But how will we be safe?

[rrneck]

8. Increase

State Department funding by about a billion dollars. We need to learn how to get along with people. Unfortunately, there's no money in diplomats. But there's tons of money to be made in F-22's.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Cut the military budget to actual defense needs instead of

1) A corporate welfare program for the aerospace and weapons industries

2) A tool for every overgrown "Risk" player who thinks the U.S. should run the world

3) A free weapons program for every repressive foreign government that claims to be "anti-Communist" or "anti-terrorist"

We already have a larger military budget than the next 16 largest countries COMBINED. I'm sure that cutting it back to the next 8 largest countries combined will still keep us safe--from the enemies that we've made through our previous military ventures.

[G_j]

24. well stated nt

[Ishoutandscream2]

48. I raise a "well stated" and give you a "very well stated"

"A corporate welfare program for the aerospace and weapons industries." Brilliant.

[pleah]

13. K&R

[robinlynne]

25. at last, a little bit of reality is seeping in to their minds?

[fascisthunter]

26. didn't ya get the meme... we have money to kill but no money...

to aid the those who need it to survive. Come to think of it, this government of ours is pretty consistant.

[Occam Bandage]

27. I'd be happy to cut 10% of the military budget. A quarter, maybe, depending on what was cut;

you'd have to make a strong argument to me that your cuts would neither result in significant job losses, quality of living drops for military members, or cuts to R&D/sciences funding.

[Bjorn Against]

35. Finally someone speaks the truth

I am sick of always hearing about the "wasteful spending" on programs that help the poor when we have real wasteful spending to fund the warlords. It is time for big cuts in the military budget.

[Retired AF Dem]

42. I did my 30 year commitment

For all the assholes that think that they can do a better job with less money, well good luck. We have tried to do this many times in the past and all it accomplished was producing more deaths on our side.

[Bjorn Against]

43. Spending money on sending people to war is what produced those deaths, not a lack of money.

If we weren't going into unnecessary wars then there wouldn't be people getting killed in those wars. Military spending doesn't save lives it only leads us into wars that result in more death and destruction.

[Retired AF Dem]

44. Anything you say

And those soldiers that had to train with brooms when we entered world war 2? I'm not talking politics I'm talking reality. Military folks dont die for who is president they die because their country sent them.

[Bjorn Against]

45. In reality we never had to go to war with Iraq or Vietnam.

How many billions have been spent to produce those thousands of dead bodies? "The country" does not send people to die in a war, the military does and that military is run by the president. As past history has shown us presidents lie, and they especially like to lie about matters of war. That is reality whether you like that reality or not.

[Retired AF Dem]

47. the military does and that military is run by the president

That is right. The military does not send people to war the President does. It will be a sad day when the military tells the president to fuck off and go and fight your own damn war. Repulican or Democrat. And since Democrats have sent more military off to die than Repulicans have most likely it will be a Democrat president they tell this to.

.

[bvar22]

54. "..a sad day when the military tells the president to fuck off .."

I would celebrate that day.

I would LOVE IT if the Military would tell a president:
Unless you give us...
1)A Declaration of War
2)A specific Military Objective
3)An Exit Strategy,
......your orders are illegal, and we are required by law to refuse them.
:woohoo:

[Retired AF Dem]

55. I would celebrate that day.

Why would you? If the military did tell the President to fuck off the next step would be the Military taking over the country.

[bvar22]

56. The use of our military is specified in the Constitution,

and requires a Declaration of War from the Congress.
The President has some very limited discretionary powers.

He does NOT have the power to unilaterally invade a country that has not attacked us.
He does NOT have the power to order the military to violate the Geneva Convention or any other standing treaty.
If he does so, the military is OBLIGED BY LAW to refuse the order.

I would celebrate a return to a Constitutional Democracy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Bravo for Barney. But, I have doubts that congress or Obama have the guts to do it.

It's a helluva a lobby that the Pentagon and the "defense" industry have.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. And they thrive by keeping right-wingers scared

The classic case is the woman in the suburbs of Minneapolis who declared in a newspaper article that she was voting for Bush (2004) because the Russian school siege had made her fear for her children's safety.

Yeah, lady, if you really think that terrorists are going to take over your child's school in the outer suburbs of Minneapolis, then you deserve whatever lousy government you get.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. They are very adept at playing the Bogeyman Card.

:hi:

[bvar22]

51. That is where WE come in.

There ARE Democrats that oppose the escalation of the WAR/OCCUPATION in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, they have no voice in the Obama Administration or The Media.
We can help to amplify their voice.
That is ALL we have left.

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[mmonk]

59. Why don't we start a movement based on Frank's bravery

in speaking the truth?