The brutal truth. We can no longer afford our military and our military excursions.

[MadHound]

As we sally forth into another Middle East war, the brutal truth is coming home to roost in this country; our military is sucking our country dry. Over fifty percent of our annual budget is spent on the military <http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm>. Meanwhile, here at home we are witnessing people dying from hunger and cold while our "leaders" contemplate even more draconian cuts to the very social services that help keep people out of poverty, that help keep people alive.

A small example, the proposed cuts in low income heating assistance for next year. The number on the table is a cut of 2.5 billion. Apparently, our debt is so dire that we must consign people to freezing next winter. Meanwhile, two weeks ago, we blew off 2.5 billion in Cruise missiles alone. Hey, we can't afford to insure that people keep warm in the winter, but we can provide one hell of a deadly pyrotechnics show for the people of Libya.

The overarching scream theme in our government these days is the debt. They're right, the debt is a huge problem, one that is dragging down our economy, dragging down our nation. But rather than cutting the excess out of the biggest ticket item, military spending, our government is now hell bent on cutting that money out of our own hides. Programs that help the poor, the middle class, that provide a modicum of comfort and security for our elderly, all of these are on the chopping block. But as we have seen time and again over the years, military spending is sancrosanct.

This is simply an untenable position. We can no longer sacrifice the well being of our population on the altar of the military. Down that path lies ruin, as was so very well illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and other empires throughout the ages. We can no longer afford to be the world policeman, we can no longer afford wars for empire.

The time has come for all of us to put a halt to such insanity. We need to force our leaders, by any means necessary, to stop this insane spending on the military. Our very futures, both individually and collectively, depend on this. Otherwise, we will continue down this long, painful road to ruin.

[Sherman A1]

1. Even the military understands this

and hence you have seen cuts (no where near enough, granted) on weapon systems and such.

[applegrove]

2. Just like Rome. I wonder if the rich in ancient Rome stopped paying taxes too? Does anyone know?

[Gravel Democrat]

11. Here's a pretty good read-doesn't say they stopped paying but...

many of the paragraphs in this article are eerie and troubling...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_rome


"...Moreover, the empire faced enemies on all sides due to its expansion into their territories, and huge sums of silver and gold were required to keep up its armies. To cope with both problems, the empire was forced to raise taxes frequently, and also to adulterate its coins, causing inflation to skyrocket into hyperinflation. This in turn caused major economic stresses that some historians regard as central in Rome's decline...

"...high taxes and heavy slavery are another reason for decline as they forced small farmers out of business and into the cities, which became overpopulated. Roman cities were only designed to hold a certain amount of people, and once they passed that, disease, water shortage and food shortage became common...

"... First, the incentive for local officials to spend their time and money in the development of local infrastructure disappeared. Public buildings from the 4th century onward tended to be much more modest and funded from central budgets, as the regional taxes had dried up. Second, Heather says "the landowning provincial literati now shifted their attention to where the money was … away from provincial and local politics to the imperial bureaucracies."


a fascinating read


***

http://costofwar.com

^^ your grankids future

[Blue_Tires]

42. Also, Rome had to increasingly rely on mercenaries

to fill out their military ranks...

[bigwillq]

3. K and R (nt)

[Marr]

4. When a person is suffocating, the body naturally

begins to shut down oxygen supply to the various systems of the body. The last organ to stop receiving oxygen is the brain.

This country would have to be stone dead in every system before the military were cut. The only system that would be allowed to hog the oxygen longer is Wall Street, I suspect.

[texastoast]

5. Trillion plus dollar deficit

Trillion plus dollars spent on the Oil Wars since 2003. Frankly, I'm seeing a correlation here.

[Shandris]

16. Regardless of your stance on the use of military power, when, why, and how...

...the strongest correlation is that we should never use our military without asking for sacrifice from EVERYONE, not just the lower and middle classes. Given that many military excursions primarily protect the interests of the wealthy, then it is completely counterintuitive to think that 'keep buying stuff', borne by the middle class, is going to be capable of paying for it.

The wealthy should have been asked to sacrifice all along, and I see no reason not to back-tax to get it. The rest of us paid OUR share, after all.

(Again, this post is from a purely military-neutral stance.)

[AKDavy]

6. Unfortunately, war has been very good for...

Wall Street.

[NHDemProg]

7. 50 percent?

Seems a bit high. But I'm going by the White House numbers.

[MadHound]

9. The White House, and government in general, plays games with the numbers

There is the Defense Dept. budget, the official numbers concerning military spending. However other military spending goes on, that is counted towards the budgets of other agencies, even though it is still indeed military spending.

For instance, our nuclear warhead fleet is under the auspices of the Dept. of Energy. Thus, money allocated towards the upkeep, upgrade and maintenance of that fleet is counted towards DOE expenditures, rather than military or DOD spending. This happens time and time again throughout the budget. It is how the government keeps the public in the dark about how much we're really spending on the military.

And this doesn't even count the countless billions spent on "black box" military ops undertaken by the CIA and other such alphabet agencies. The money for this isn't listed as defense spending, in fact it might not be listed at all. Our Congressional members have little or no idea what it is being spent on, or in some cases, how much is being spent. But it is military spending nonetheless.

[eridani]

38. The way to make it seem lower is to include Social Security and Medicare under general revenues

This is total bullshit, of course.

[niyad]

8. we never could.

[WinkyDink]

10. What we cannot afford is all those people back home in search of non-existent jobs.

[MadHound]

17. And for less than one tenth of our military budget,

We could fund a true jobs creation program that would provide jobs for the unemployed, repair and upgrade our declining infrastructure, and give our economy the serious boost it needs.

But instead we're committing that money to kill innocents abroad.

[Initech]

12. I'm beginning to think our budgets are just made up.

And my reasoning for this is that we can't afford *ANY* programs that might actually help people, nor can we afford *ANY* government salaries. But lobbing 200 cruise missiles to Libya when they cost $2 mil a piece? Fuck it! Push the button!

[Zanzoobar]

13. Why is it a brutal truth?

It's an economic reality.

Regarding your last line about putting a halt to such insanity, go ahead. Give it a try. Lead by any means necessary. You'll be painted insane. You'll be forgotten before your compatriots can settle in for a cigarette.

Somebody has to be the first to sacrifice. I think it should be you.

[sudopod]

14. Why are you even here? nt

[Zanzoobar]

15. To discuss? It's called, "General discussion."

YRU here? It's not called "General dismissal", after all.

[MadHound]

19. Given your two posts on this thread,

This one is perhaps the most ironic.

[MadHound]

18. And yet it doesn't have to be an economic reality,

We do, after all, still live in a democracy.

As far as being painted as insane, somehow I doubt it. More and more people are waking up to the insanity of our military spending, even conservative rednecks in the heartland.

And as far as one person, myself or somebody else, putting a halt to the madness, sorry, but again this is a democracy. It's going to take the work of a lot of people. Are you in, or are you simply content to stand back and let others do the heavy lifting? Perhaps your comfy position in live affords you that luxury, however the reality of what is going on in this country means that millions of others simply don't have the same luxury as you.

[Zanzoobar]

28. When someone says, "By any means necessary"...

It usually means they are advocating aggression in the event diplomacy is ineffective.

I'm all for changing the status quo, but I'm not volunteering my neighbors to head the spear.

Go for it. I'll be right behind you.

[MadHound]

30. Your take on my phrasing is just that, your take

Your interpretation of language varies from mine, as mine varies from others, etc. etc. It is the nature of humanity and communication.

As far as you being right behind me, I generally interpret that to mean that you are wanting others to do the heavy lifting while you wait to see which way to jump. In other words, you want the benefits without having to do the work. Sadly, there are far too many people like you, which is what has precipitated us into the current position we're in.

Congratulations, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Zanzoobar]

32. I'll be part of the solution

You lead, I'll follow. To many cooks spoil the stew.

[MadHound]

33. Mmm-hmm,

Bridges, get your red hot bridges!:eyes:

Have a good evening.

[krispos42]

20. Sure we can.

The wealthy, though they desire the financial benefits of such wars, use their money and the power and influence inherent in that wealth to avoid paying as much to the federal treasury as possible.

They do this by lowering taxes on both earned and unearned income, exempting income from taxes, creating tax loopholes, deductions, and credits only available to the wealthy, privatizing large sectors of the economy, assembling corporate monopolies, creating lucrative investment opportunities, gutting unions, pushing globalization to lower the costs of labor and thus increase profits, etc., etc., etc.


So, we CAN afford this war. We chose not to because the majority of the money (and thus the majority of the free speech) is controlled by a handful of people that do not want to pay for the war AND have the ability to pass the costs onto somebody else.


Namely, everybody not rich, and future generations.


Yay unbridled capitalism!

[MadHound]

23. I'm not talking about a specific war,

I am talking about our military in general. We simply cannot afford to continue our current levels of military spending.

Even if the rich were paying their fair share, we couldn't afford it. The rich were being taxed at a rate upwards of 90% during WWII, and yet we still ran up massive wartime deficits.

Military spending is simply unsustainable at rates that have risen so far above normal peacetime levels.

[krispos42]

27. Well, World Wars are a special case.

That is such an effort by a nation that it can't be done under the normal rules of budget.

But, these aren't World Wars we're playing with. So, if we had rational taxes on income and inheritances, protective tariffs, and universal single-payer health care, we'd be a lot better off and able to afford fighting a couple of "brush wars" at a time.

But that would cut into corporate profits and wealthy incomes, so that's out.

[MadHound]

31. But our current military expenditure, as a percentage of our GDP,

Far outstrips that ratio we had during WWII. In other words, we are spending more of our wealth on war than during WWII.

Increasing taxes simply isn't going to do the trick, we have to shrink our military.

[krispos42]

45. I don't think so.

The US GDP is $1,400 billion. The Pentagon budget is about $700 billion, or 5%.

I found this.




http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php


:shrug:

We have a very large economy, so the dollar amount is big. And it's a big chunk of the federal budget, about 22%, and a huge part of the discretionary budget, which doesn't include SSA or Medicare.


I agree that the military should be shrunk by a fair amount. We have something like 700 bases overseas; that's simply ridiculous!

[quaker bill]

21. First, the notion that we have to sacrifice the poor is BS

We are going to, no doubt, but we do not have to. We simply need to tax those who have all the money as opposed to taxing those who don't.

Now as far as the military is concerned. I am with you. But here is the bottom line, if you maintain the largest and most powerful military the world has ever seen, occasionally, you will be asked to use it.

The real cost is not in military operations, which while expensive, pale in comparison to creating and maintaining readiness. We already paid for all the bombs and bullets they are using, the equipment to fire them, and the trained soldiers to do it accurately.

If you are truly interested in stopping military adventurism, you need to shrink the military to the point where using it is no longer an adventure. Only a life or death demand should justify its use. If the resources are scarce enough, folks will consider their use much more carefully. This is the size military we need.

[MadHound]

24. You're right,

And that is exactly what I'm trying to point out. We need to shrink our military spending, period.

One point though, once a weapons system, from bullet to bomb, is paid for, we're not through actually paying for it. Rule of thumb on military expenditures is that over the lifetime of that weapons system, for every dollar paid to make and purchase it, another ten dollars will be expended on maintaining it, guarding it, keeping it in battle ready condition. Thus, a fifty cent bullet will wind up costing up five bucks by the time it is fired. A fifteen million dollar Cruise missile will wind up costing us one hundred and fifty million by the time it land in Tripoli.

But yes, we absolutely must shrink our military.

[quaker bill]

29. True, readiness is the real cost item.

Keeping all that stuff and the troops ready to go at a moments notice, that is where the real bucks go. We could cut by somewhere between 50 and 75 percent and still have a very powerful force. It would have to be planned carefully, but it could be done.

[themadstork]

36. I once advocated cutting defense spending by 80% on a right-leaning forum

You'd think I suggested that we colonize Pluto. Lecture after lecture about how "grateful" I should feel for our beloved military.

[quaker bill]

39. We should feel grateful

I know folks who have served honorably. We should also downsize.

Having the most powerful military in the world, more powerful than the world has ever seen before, did very little for us on the morning of 9/11/01. All the best guns in the world (and we had them), when pointed in the wrong direction are of little use.

A relatively miniscule investment in social justice at the right time and place, might have made all the difference. One will never know this because something untried is also unproven, but one can know that the trillions we actually spent on defense did not prevent these attacks.

There is a reason that terrorists choose to come here, and it has nothing to do with our "freedoms" or the fact that our women do not wear burkas...

[david13]

22. You know this. I know this. And quite a few others know it. But.

And what a big whopping what; does Barack Obama know this?
It sure don't seem like it.
Do the democrats in Washington know this? Well, there is a real slam dunk, ain't it?
dc

[MadHound]

25. Actually I'm certain that Obama knows this, as has every other president since WWII,

The trouble is, it is those very same members of the MIC that buy our politicians and put them in places of power. And once in power, if you try and buck the MIC, you are in for a world of pain.

[david13]

26. I think that is it entirely. I do not think Barack Obama could

control the monster at all.
But let us hearken back to that quitter, who had never been a quitter, the one who was not a crook, but who stood things down in Vietnam.
How did he do it?
But maybe it could be done in those days. I certainly wonder if it could be done today.
In the early 70's there was some backlash against the Vietnam war. It has been greatly exaggerated, but there was some real substance to it; it did exist; it was growing; it was far reaching.
And today do we have anything like that? I don't see it. All I see is military gung ho. The population has been totally brainwashed into believing that we have to be at war in many places, and all the time.
dc

[BzaDem]

34. At this point (and for at least the next year), the issue is politics (not money).

Republicans propose cuts because they want cuts for their own sake. Democrats propose cuts because they either believe they need to politically to win over voters (which is wrong in my view), or because they think this is the best way to head off deeper cuts (which might be true). But it has nothing to do with the debt. Cutting defense spending does NOT redirect money to domestic spending, unless the Republican house passes a bill redirecting defense spending to domestic spending.

In reality, we don't need cuts right now. We need another 300 billion stimulus or so (at the very least), as progressive economist after progressive economist has said repeatedly. This will remain true until we leave our liquidity trap, and demand rises to the point where short term interest rates can safely rise above 0. The reason we are not getting a second stimulus has NOTHING to do with the debt (after all, 30 year interest rates are at roughly the lowest level in decades). It has everything to do with politics.

Republicans will continue to pretend we are not in a liquidity trap, and that economic principles that would apply out of a liquidity trap apply now. But that is laughably false, and we should be doing our best not to give aid and comfort to a ridiculous fact-free argument.

[MadHound]

35. No, it does actually have to do with the debt

Our credit rating is teetering because of our debt load. The dollar's status as the reserve currency of the world is going away at an ever increasing rate. The debt load means that our economy is sailing into an ever increasing headwind.

We do have to cut spending. That is a fact.

However what Congress is doing is indeed playing politics. They are deciding which tiny little program, relatively speaking, gets the axe, while both party leaders ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room that is sucking up all the oxygen, namely military spending.

You want another three hundred billion stimulus program, great, I agree. But let's get that money from the military rather than borrowing it, or sacrificing social services.

[BzaDem]

37. The markets think that is bunk. If you are so sure of your position, why aren't you shorting the 30

year T bill? Given that the rates are at record lows (indicate the market is willing to give us money for 30 full years at near the lowest rate in decades), you would stand to do quite well.

[patrice]

40. K&R

[BrendaBrick]

41. Barney Frank on Charlie Rose 3-21-2011

Interesting to note the comparisons Frank makes between WWII and present day on this subject:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11560

[bvar22]

43. Come ON!...Get withThe Program!

Join the Parade!
We have a BRAND NEW BoogieMan,
and a Brand New WAR to WIN!


You're either with us,
or you're with The Communists AlQaeda Saddam Gaddafi!
USA!..USA!...USA!
Fighting Tyranny with Tyranny for over 60 years!
Only MORE Bombs, Cruise Missiles, and Gunships will solve this problem!

[Scuba]

44. Why not? Is China cutting off our credit? ....

... don't they believe that our great, great grandchildren will pay them back?