Posted on 05/05/2018 8:32:47 AM PDT by davikkm
America is a country drowning in debt, slowly but surely, and the United States’ trillion dollar (annually) military-industrial complex, as Eisenhower put it more than half a century ago, is part of our national disaster. Before going all MAGA on me, just answer this question: when was the last time the US military defended the homeland? The answer is pretty simple if you know your history: in 1945. The sad truth is that the United States has world’s largest (and best funded) army, yet realistically speaking, it has no (military) enemies. No nation on Earth even comes close to having the capabilities of invading the US, and no desire to do so, or at least that’s how I view the world in 2018. Again, realistically speaking, the US military would do just fine with 20% of its actual budget.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Mr. Edd,
You positive that no criticism of our military budget is allowed. If you criticize our military spending you are either stupid or a traitor.
As a vet myself I ask you to retract that statement, or defend how spending of taxpayer funds by the military is above reproach or even discussion. Surely you aren’t as stupid or as fascist as you sound.
It’s a quick thought, but a very shallow and superficial one at that. If the measurements of whether a War threatens the US is to determine whether there is a swarm of enemies looking to make a beach Landing somewhere on the u.s. continent, that is a foolish image of what war has become and is bound to be in the future. It is a true truth that very few countries are in the position to launch at D-Day style invasion of Rhode Island. It also happens to be a true truth that numbers of countries wish to, oh I don’t know, launch missiles at the United States. Or perhaps explode an EMP device high above the u.s. continent. It is patently wrong to say that we are not focused on these types of threats. A writer sitting on his rear end in a comfortable office somewhere may not be in possession of an accurate assessment of these threats.
And quite frankly, it needs to be said that we would be able to spend significantly Less on the defense budget if folks like Bill and Hillary Clinton had not disseminated missile technology to the red Chinese. We have great numbers of people in Washington DC who are willing to sell out this country for their own gain by transferring technology to foreign Nations. This is been going on since the Rosenbergs. There is no question whatsoever that an overwhelming majority of the technology that we have built up over the years has been transferred to foreign countries, some of whom maybe and are our enemies. The Russians built the rivet for rivet duplicate of the B-29 in World War II. The Chinese have a fighter that looks astoundingly like our F-35. The Russians develop the space shuttle that looks exactly like our space shuttle. Giant quantities of our technological advancement have been transferred to our enemies. That is indisputable. Some of those enemies have the ability to develop impressive technology all on their own. But they very likely would never have been able to develop the foundations for their advanced technology without technological transfers made by profit-seeking members of the US government, and some of its contractors. The US defense budget is the US defense budget augmented by the requirements of keeping up with the transfers of technology that have occurred over the years to our enemies. And on those grounds, yeah, I would agree our defense budget as Maybe 170 % of what it needs to be. But we are constantly battling our own technology that insiders have transferred to foreign Nations.
“Of course, no one has shown aggression against us BECAUSE of our budget.”
Nobody ever surrendered staring down the barrel of a budget.
Our military budget, fully half spent on non-military things, should be justified to those who pay for it.
There is nothing wrong with that. In fact the military is obligated to do this.
“Re-focus on war-fighting”
This. Exactly this.
Yes, if you are saying that we spend a huge amount and much of it is wasted on corruption and bureaucratic waste. All those areas of government spend too much and their output is geared more toward extra employees and extra expense of local business that pay off politicians. Do we need the best military, yes. Do we have the best military, yes. Is the same true of other areas of our society, yes.
I blame the press. The press is bought and payed for and their news services trade news stories for favorable news. The answer to any government short coming is to spend more money. The swamp eats it up. Don’t worry if we need the weapons, or if the teachers suck. Spend more money hand the weapons will be useful and the teachers will suddenly learn computer programming.
Past spam, you’ve now gone to posting outright crap.
Everyone’s hand is in everyone else’s pocket and we like it!
To jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.
>
The problem with our spending is entitlements!
O & M spending on the government is insignificant compared to entitlements.
Everyone’s hand is in everyone else’s pocket and we like it!
>
Correction: Everyone HATES it, but thinks it’s the NEXT guy whom is going ‘to pay’, so they tolerate.
IMO, you want a 1-stop ‘fix’?? Eliminate 3rd party pay for taxes.
When the ‘employee’ *finally* sees the true cost of govt (not just some figure(s), THEN they (might) care.
Are 'we' better off since the handmaidens of globalization and free trade took over? Being the policeman of the world has made the US better off? We subsidize China's shipping lanes, we subsidize Saudi Arabias oil exports via our Navy, etc. Our interest our not in our control anymore. Nobody has stepped up to say No.
Rant about how the US cannot afford this or that, but never attack the real monster: Entitlements.
Its not only the Trillion dollar military industrial complex
Its the trillion dollar education industrial complex
its the trillion dollar medical industrial complex
its the trillion dollar welfare industrial complex.
Massive government debt and social engineering enable corrupt cronies in many different sectors.
Peace through strength. The author of the article apparently does not understand the concept. Yet we should continue to pour hundreds of billions into programs that clearly are ineffectual?
Many of those trillions have been absorbed by projects we aren’t supposed to know about, reportedly.
I only know what I read in the newspapers.
In essence, when a country uses the dollar as its trade and reserve currency and signs up as a US ally, it strengthens the US economy and gives the US Treasury the value of the seigniorage in creating that money. Commonly, countries that hold dollars as their reserve currency also buy federal treasury bonds as a way to earn interest on those reserves. In doing so, they finance our badly out of balance federal budgets -- which includes the massive deficits in Medicare and Social Security.
To be sure, there are good economic reasons why so many countries use the dollar as their trade and reserve currency, but there is also a strategic one. When such countries are in danger, including military danger, they can more easily call on the US for help. And by meeting our tacit and often explicit obligation to back economic allies with military help, we keep those allies helping finance our welfare state, including the Baby Boomer retirement wave.
Of course, much of the world often grumbles about US military strength, but far more rely on it for their security. Using the dollar and lending to the US government is a way of paying the bill. From their standpoint, what you see as a foreign military adventure is the cops they help pay for responding to a menace.
The theory of just enough is wrong. We have been doing that for decades. We want the other countries to exit the competition because they have no chance of competing. Just enough has encouraged the Chinese to become a direct competitor.
Living in the USA is great fun, and sometimes an intellectual adventure: one never knows when someone completely uninformed, and completely unqualified to judge the situation, puts an opinion out there for all to see. Like Chris Black.
Many mention President Eisenhower’s farewell radio address as if it was a compendium of unquestionable wisdom. Few give any evidence of having actually read it.
He did not say that the Evil Military Industrial Complex was stirring up trouble, inciting conflict so it could profit by selling stuff to the government.
He did say that the products of the Military Industrial Complex were indispensable for ensuring national survival and American liberty, therefore it behooved American citizens to keep a close eye on its activities, to wring every last ounce of utility and value from expenditures in the most efficient manner possible. Because the tendency of the Complex, if left to its own devices, was to veer away from making stuff and doing things for the good of the nation, toward making stuff and doing things for its own, more esoteric ends.
“...I’m sick and tired of our folks dying overseas ...” [Da Coyote, post 6]
“...our military budget is insanely bloated.” [NRx, post 8]
“...The single biggest reason nobody attacks us is BECAUSE of our powerful military. To say that nobody has the capability or interest to attack the US is downright false.” [ Wyrd bið ful aræd, post 13]
Troops can die overseas, or they can die on home soil. If it’s the latter, it might already be too late. If dying must be done, better that they perish ensuring the victory, than in defeat.
Many complain about “bloat” but few put forth workable alternatives. Americans are precious: we want national defense, but persist in believing it can be had on the cheap.
The realities of the situation are these: the system procurement shortfall has been unprecedentedly low, for well over a generation. The “Reagan defense buildup” - condemned by the Progressive Left amid shrieks of pain and howls of outrage - failed to achieve 2/5 of what original plans called for. The low procurement numbers continued through the end of the Cold War (prematurely declared over); many systems were halted far short of the original excessively modest numbers, and newer systems were delayed, cut short, or dropped altogether, to support increased O&M costs incurred fighting off the jihadists.
Most citizens today probably think we are facing unique and unprecedented challenges. The opposite is closer to the truth: foreseeing the level & nature of threat is always fraught with large uncertainties, and the lead times for developing and procuring systems are always long. The shortfalls in nuclear force upgrades and modernization are exposing us to greater risks every day.
Deterrence - a stated national policy - becomes tougher and tougher to enforce, if we never attack anyone, make endless protests about good intentions, and refuse to modernize, or procure enough stuff. It emboldens agressors, who are inveterate gamblers.
As a case in point: the United States spent significant sums, and used up great reserves of manpower and materials, on seacoast defenses, from the very inception of the Republic until 1949. But no adversary mounted an attack on these defenses surrounding the continental US, save for a few shells the Imperial Japanese Navy lobbed at a fortification at the mouth of the Columbia River, early in World War Two. Does this lack of direct use mean all those dollars were wasted? Or does it mean that prospective adversaries looked on what we had built up and became intimidated to a degree that induced them to dismiss attack plans, as foolish notions sure to fail?
Gauging these probabilities, divining enemy capabilities, and pegging the likelihood of future challenges, are necessarily subject to great uncertainties. The probability that we may be caught out may not be very big, but the consequences of guessing wrong, and failing to prepare, are ruinously large. If we are defeated, will our posterity thanks us for ferreting out fraud/waste/abuse, and saving them the burden of indebtedness by p[resenting a lean and mean budget, that fostered failure?
Americans also cling to the idea that if an operation is executed poorly, is plagued with blunders and failure, or suffers successes less than total, the moral and strategic justifications for undertaking it in the first place are diminished. As a concept and guide for action, this is insupportable: reasons for doing something, as distinct from the way something is done, are measured along entirely different axes. If we do something ineptly, that is not a reflection on the thing’s strategic validity.
Why post this tripe? Useless conspiracy nonsense nonsense
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.