All Republicans agree on Defense Spending
Posted: 14 September 2011 02:37 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  491
Joined  2008-02-25

I overheard Shawn Hannity say the other day “All Republicans agree on defense spending.”  I take that to mean that they all agree that defense spending should either not be cut or increased.  When I was younger I thought the reason for massive defense spending was the cold war with the Soviet Union.  Now that the cold war is over and nobody is going to invade us conventionally I’m not clear why the same people who are freaking out about deficits don’t see massive defense spending as a bigger more probable threat to the US than conventional invasion.  Is it just fear?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2011 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4244
Joined  2010-08-15
brightfut - 14 September 2011 02:37 PM

I overheard Shawn Hannity say the other day “All Republicans agree on defense spending.”  I take that to mean that they all agree that defense spending should either not be cut or increased.  When I was younger I thought the reason for massive defense spending was the cold war with the Soviet Union.  Now that the cold war is over and nobody is going to invade us conventionally I’m not clear why the same people who are freaking out about deficits don’t see massive defense spending as a bigger more probable threat to the US than conventional invasion.  Is it just fear?

Or could it just be profits?


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=907187
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/jul/22/usa.politics
http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/151-congressmen-profit-from-war/3283/
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/01/17/pm-how-the-militaryindustrial-complex-lives-on-today/
etc.
etc.
etc.

[ Edited: 14 September 2011 07:01 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2011 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4805
Joined  2007-10-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 14 September 2011 06:52 PM

Or could it just be profits?

Ya think?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2011 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

No, I don’t think that the tea party people are militaristic for reasons of profit. I think that they sincerely believe that maintaining military superiority by spending more than the rest of the world put together will assure our security. In this they are horribly wrong—and they don’t even understand why. They really should read that book from about ten or fifteen years ago, whose title was something like “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”, which introduced the phrase “imperial overstretch”. They’re making the same mistake that Spain and England made.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2011 04:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14

I think it’s not so much that your average tea party regular is militaristic for reasons of profit. It’s rather that the funding for tea party candidates might come in part from companies that profit from it. Though it’s seemed to me that their funding comes more from oil and gas, I haven’t looked into it.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2011 12:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

President Dwight Eisenhower warned in the 50’s of a military-industrial complex that will tie the American economy to war. Even though most historians write that war is actually bad for the economy in general as most industries have to be nationalized freezing prices and wages, we’re not technically at war. Haliburton is a classic example of industry married to the military. We also have hundreds of military bases and businesses that cater to military personnel. I don’t mean to imply that we should deny our servicemen and women services either. We now spend 18% of our GDP on the military. Imagine how much could be saved if some of them were closed. We could use the money for more positive services. How about technology that could lead to soft energy for instance?

Cap’t jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile