BF2S Forums Why Defense Spending (and all other spending) Must Go Down for U.S.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Are we really going to have to get into this whole thing about working for the people as opposed to taking form the people? You know when I speak of wealth redistribution what I am talking about and you also know it is growing exponentially.

Agreed, which also comes from military expansionism.

Conservatives always seem to turn a blind eye to that.  I'm willing to admit that entitlement spending needs to be cut back, so now all you have to do is admit that military spending is overboard.

lowing wrote:

What is your objection to a community building its local economy on the local industry? Or are you still trying to maintain that working for profit, building for profit is evil? I think we already covered this in your last post, and that notion is beyond the reality of the world in which we live.

If your argument is that working for profit is better, then you should be against having entire local economies dependent on military spending, because that is dependent on the government's budget, not spending that is governed by the market.

lowing wrote:

We are at war within those countries Turquoise, the fight is there, or would you rather have it here?

Paranoia doesn't strengthen your argument.

Yes, we're at war, but we're reaching the point where we will need to withdraw soon.

Working FOR the people Turq. Working FOR the people. It is not a blind eye, it is a necessity of our time.

reality check. The local economy is dependant solely on the local population. be it farmers, IBM, or military personnel. There is no reason to expect a town outside a military base NOT to be dependant on the local population with money to spend for survival. IE the military personnel. Get real.

Nothing paranoid about it, we are at war, and if we let our guard down we will be sucker punched.

I agree, the war is draining. This has nothing to with the justification of it however IMO.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-23 15:32:50)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Working FOR the people Turq. Working FOR the people. It is not a blind eye, it is a necessity of our time.

That's no more a strong argument for military spending than it is for entitlement spending.  You could argue that welfare is for the people just as much as the military, because it makes it easier for people to get by between jobs.  It provides a transition period where people can get back on their feet.  That's equally as much a necessity as national defense.

lowing wrote:

reality check. The local economy is dependant solely on the local population. be it farmers, IBM, or military personnel. There is no reason to expect a town outside a military base NOT to be dependant on the local population with money to spend for survival. IE the military personnel. Get real.

Reality check.  You made the argument that you didn't like forcing people to be dependent on government money.  By building up towns with taxpayer money via military spending, that directly makes a town dependent on government money.

The point is...  the military industrial complex intentionally set up a system where every state has a certain amount of dependency on military spending.  I understand why they did it, because it is very practical for their interests.  However, it's no different than when a state is dependent on a public works project, for example.

Conservatives like to pretend that they are against such dependency on government funds for industry, but they are no different from liberals in this respect, other than the industries they favor for said dependencies.

No working for the people is a far sight different than working so someone else doesn't have to. Working for the people means working for the govt. providing a skill set the govt. needs to function, because ya know, the govt. is made up of humans. Welfare provides a life style, it does not provide a transition, especially when you can benefit  more through entitlement than you can earning a living. Stop trying to pass along that working for anyone including the people is the same thing as entitlement, it won't fly.

Not the same thing and you know it, everyone is dependent on everyone else to survive. It is a co-existence and a mutual benefit regardless of the players, the difference and you know it, is, the entitle do not contribute to that co-existence, they take form it and give nothing back.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

No working for the people is a far sight different than working so someone else doesn't have to. Working for the people means working for the govt. providing a skill set the govt. needs to function, because ya know, the govt. is made up of humans. Welfare provides a life style, it does not provide a transition, especially when you can benefit  more through entitlement than you can earning a living. Stop trying to pass along that working for anyone including the people is the same thing as entitlement, it won't fly.

Uh... no.  Welfare provides a base amount to live off of.  The vast majority of people who start receiving welfare leave it within a few months.  The few who choose to live off of it would find another way to exploit the system anyway.

You have to remember that someone willing to live off of welfare permanently is either not the kind of person who would look for legitimate work to begin with or they are handicapped in some way that prevents them from getting a legitimate job.  A certain small percentage of the population fits this description in every society.  You can't escape that.

lowing wrote:

Not the same thing and you know it, everyone is dependent on everyone else to survive. It is a co-existence and a mutual benefit regardless of the players, the difference and you know it, is, the entitle do not contribute to that co-existence, they take form it and give nothing back.

It's not a benefit to the system as a whole when budgets are nearly impossible to cut because of interests spread throughout the country in a strategic manner.

For example, it's very difficult to close any military base in the U.S.  It doesn't matter if the base isn't really needed anymore, because the local constituents will fight to keep it around, and the applicable politicians will defend it.  Another piece of the puzzle is that military industries work the same way.

In fact, you can draw a direct parallel between how this works and how the auto bailouts worked.  The auto industry has its satellite industries spread throughout the U.S. in such a way that letting GM fall would have created a lot of economic and political fallout.  Not only were unions powerful in pushing for the bailouts, but so were satellite industries of automakers.

It's the same exact tactic, and it's why bailouts are hard to avoid and why budgets are hard to cut.

Except that military defense is a govt. function and the automobile industry is not. Competition drives the private sector, the military is driven by need, and the expectations of the people to remain free and secure, a function of govt.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Except that military defense is a govt. function and the automobile industry is not. Competition drives the private sector, the military is driven by need, and the expectations of the people to remain free and secure, a function of govt.

While military defense is a government function, that doesn't justify having the most powerful military in the world.  Any power that exceeds your need for defending yourself from invasion is not defense.  Part of the defense budget is truly defense, but we spend far more than we need to for solely defense of our own country.

Now, it is true that we have charged ourselves with the defense of our allies and business interests, but the Constitution does not specifically demand having the most powerful military in the world.

The point is...  any defense of our current level of power is not based on constitutional rationales.  I'm not saying that we have to strictly abide by the Constitution for the level of power we choose to have, but it is worth noting this, since a large part of your argument seems to depend on this.

In short, being the world's police is not what our founders intended.  I think that this is worth thinking about.

Someone has to be king of the hill. It is better to be the US than most realistic alternatives. I have no problem with this.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

While military defense is a government function, that doesn't justify having the most powerful military in the world.  Any power that exceeds your need for defending yourself from invasion is not defense.  Part of the defense budget is truly defense, but we spend far more than we need to for solely defense of our own country.

Now, it is true that we have charged ourselves with the defense of our allies and business interests, but the Constitution does not specifically demand having the most powerful military in the world.

The point is...  any defense of our current level of power is not based on constitutional rationales.  I'm not saying that we have to strictly abide by the Constitution for the level of power we choose to have, but it is worth noting this, since a large part of your argument seems to depend on this.

In short, being the world's police is not what our founders intended.  I think that this is worth thinking about.

Someone has to be king of the hill. It is better to be the US than most realistic alternatives. I have no problem with this.

There is such a thing as a multilateral alliance.  A coalition force that is truly more evenhanded in distribution of power would be more likely to maintain peace, since no one power would have the temptation to flex its might.

Except these other nations would bitch up a storm if we neglected them and pulled out leaving them to fend for themselves. Forcing them to spend money on what they loathe the most, their own defense.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There is such a thing as a multilateral alliance.  A coalition force that is truly more evenhanded in distribution of power would be more likely to maintain peace, since no one power would have the temptation to flex its might.

Except these other nations would bitch up a storm if we neglected them and pulled out leaving them to fend for themselves. Forcing them to spend money on what they loathe the most, their own defense.

Of course they would.  They bitch at us no matter what, which is why I always take their criticism with a grain and sometimes a bucket of salt.

I'm not suggesting this to appease them.  I'm suggesting this because, in the long term, a balance of power has a stabilizing effect on the world.

There has never been a balance of power in history that I can think of, how would you know?  At least we agree on European hypocrisy regarding their  loathing of a real military defense and the how they feel about the US.

I thought thsi thread was about how the US is spending too much on the military. Despite what lowing has been saying I see no arguments that the current level of defence spending is sustainable or warranted. The balance of power can be maintained without spending vast sums of money to keep afloat a bloated industry. If I may be so bold as to qwuote myself:

So is any of the defence spending to do with the undoubted vested interests re defence contractors in governemtn/politicans entering defence industries etc rather than actual neccesity? Cos a cynic like myself might consider all that money better spent clothing and feeding the poor of the world rather than upkeeping a bloated military that seems to spend a lot of time fuelling conflicts rather than preventing them.

I'm not saying NO money should be spent on defence. I'm saying the number of nations that could potentially pose a threat ot the US are vastly outweighted by the US's allies. The threats are magnified out of all proportion i order to maintain spending on defence, thanks in large part to vested interests in govt and the powerful, invluding the media (fear sells dontcha know?). I'm also saying that a lot of that money spent on defence could be spent on beter things which will almost certainly REDUCE the need for defence spending in the first place.

And yes, whatever you may think, the best way to ensure peace is not to finance war.

Incidentally, regarding 'humanitarian aid', turq pointed out earlier the US is one of the world's biggest providers, but from what I can gather doing a VERY quick search just now is that the US has one of the world's LOWEST amounts of assistance as a percentage of GDP (something like 0.7 per cent - and how much GDP was spent on 'defence' again?). not only that but have a look at which countries receive this aid. The biggest reeciever is..ISRAEL (at least up until a few years ago)! Not exactly fucking third world eh? Further, the biggest chunk of aid is in the form of MILITARY FINANCING! So your humanitarian aid often simply serves to boost the defence industries coffers. Again, not good

Turquoise wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Incidentally, regarding 'humanitarian aid', turq pointed out earlier the US is one of the world's biggest providers, but from what I can gather doing a VERY quick search just now is that the US has one of the world's LOWEST amounts of assistance as a percentage of GDP (something like 0.7 per cent - and how much GDP was spent on 'defence' again?). not only that but have a look at which countries receive this aid. The biggest reeciever is..ISRAEL (at least up until a few years ago)! Not exactly fucking third world eh? Further, the biggest chunk of aid is in the form of MILITARY FINANCING! So your humanitarian aid often simply serves to boost the defence industries coffers. Again, not good

True.  Israel isn't exactly our most reputable ally.  We really do need to distance ourselves from them.

ME countries are happy enough with American military products.

Speak softly and carry a big stick always worked out pretty well. Peace is not produced by simply spending it on humanitarian aid. UN has fucked up so many times I think it should be kept simply as a diplomatic forum. Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur Never again my fucking ass. Oil for food scandals, trading food for sex. If American troops are bad then you haven't read the shit UN peacekeepers do...

ruisleipa wrote:

I thought thsi thread was about how the US is spending too much on the military. Despite what lowing has been saying I see no arguments that the current level of defence spending is sustainable or warranted. The balance of power can be maintained without spending vast sums of money to keep afloat a bloated industry. If I may be so bold as to qwuote myself:

So is any of the defence spending to do with the undoubted vested interests re defence contractors in governemtn/politicans entering defence industries etc rather than actual neccesity? Cos a cynic like myself might consider all that money better spent clothing and feeding the poor of the world rather than upkeeping a bloated military that seems to spend a lot of time fuelling conflicts rather than preventing them.

I'm not saying NO money should be spent on defence. I'm saying the number of nations that could potentially pose a threat ot the US are vastly outweighted by the US's allies. The threats are magnified out of all proportion i order to maintain spending on defence, thanks in large part to vested interests in govt and the powerful, invluding the media (fear sells dontcha know?). I'm also saying that a lot of that money spent on defence could be spent on beter things which will almost certainly REDUCE the need for defence spending in the first place.

And yes, whatever you may think, the best way to ensure peace is not to finance war.

Incidentally, regarding 'humanitarian aid', turq pointed out earlier the US is one of the world's biggest providers, but from what I can gather doing a VERY quick search just now is that the US has one of the world's LOWEST amounts of assistance as a percentage of GDP (something like 0.7 per cent - and how much GDP was spent on 'defence' again?). not only that but have a look at which countries receive this aid. The biggest reeciever is..ISRAEL (at least up until a few years ago)! Not exactly fucking third world eh? Further, the biggest chunk of aid is in the form of MILITARY FINANCING! So your humanitarian aid often simply serves to boost the defence industries coffers. Again, not good

and this has already been addressed. The US does not only spend money on OUR defense we spend money on the defense of Europe and other allies around the world. You benefit from US protection, your countries do not have to spend money on defense because the US has you covered. IF we are to cut spending, it should be cut in the defense of Europe. But we all know that is not going to happen. How would you be able to finance your entitlement if yo had to pay for your protection as well?

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nothing paranoid about it, we are at war, and if we let our guard down we will be sucker punched.

LOL
F22s aren't really helping protect you though are they?

There is tons of scamming in there, eg it costs $7.00 to airfreight a MRE to Afghanistan compared with $0.15 by ground transport.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/shanahan.pdf

Still Boeing needs to sell C17s so air-freight it is.

Nope the F22 isn't in the fight now, but when it is needed it will be the baddest mother fucker in the air.

Which is going to be really handy for engaging SUVs packed with gas canisters in New York.

ruisleipa wrote:

And yes, whatever you may think, the best way to ensure peace is not to finance war.

Not financing war is a good way... to get caught with your pants down.

ruisleipa wrote:

regarding 'humanitarian aid', turq pointed out earlier the US is one of the world's biggest providers, but from what I can gather doing a VERY quick search just now is that the US has one of the world's LOWEST amounts of assistance as a percentage of GDP (something like 0.7 per cent - and how much GDP was spent on 'defence' again?). not only that but have a look at which countries receive this aid. The biggest reeciever is..ISRAEL (at least up until a few years ago)! Not exactly fucking third world eh? Further, the biggest chunk of aid is in the form of MILITARY FINANCING! So your humanitarian aid often simply serves to boost the defence industries coffers. Again, not good

Incidentally the Navy was/is on the scene in:

9/11-New York City

Sri Lanka

New Orleans

Haiti

Liberia

Somalia

NAthANSmitt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

And yes, whatever you may think, the best way to ensure peace is not to finance war.

Not financing war is a good way... to get caught with your pants down.

That hardly addresses the issue at hand.

Spending insane amounts of money on war is a good way to help yourself go bankrupt and make people hate you.

NAthANSmitt wrote:

Incidentally the Navy was/is on the scene in:

9/11-New York City

Sri Lanka

New Orleans

Haiti

Liberia

Somalia

So?

NYC - well yeah it's in America innit. Ditto New Orleans.

Liberia - merely evacuated US citizens.

Somalia ditto iirc.

Sri Lanka? wut?

I'm not fucking anti-US. I just disagree with spending shitloads on weapons and then saying 'we're making the world safer'.

Exactly which bit of what I've said makes me anti-US?

I'm fucking GLAD Finland is rather irrelevant tbh. It helps make it a nicer place to live tbh.