Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

Topic: When Will It Be Time to Cut Military Spending?
Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Thu 04/14/11 02:07 PM
On Tuesday, April 12, people in more than 35 countries, as well as Columbus, Dallas, Kansas City and dozens of other cities throughout the United States participated in the first Global Day of Action on Military Spending. In DC, they most definitely are sitting this one out. In fact, after weeks of budget brinksmanship, Congress emerged with a tentative so-called compromise that was unable to get a single cut made to spending on the US military. Christopher Hellman at TomDispatch recently added up all the hidden military-related spending in the budget and came to a startling number for fiscal year 2012. Something like $1.2 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a T. In this year's budget they admit to $670 billion or so, plus another $41 billion for Homeland Security and $76.6 billion for "military construction" and Veterans Affairs--an INCREASE over last year. After the long search for ways to shrink government spending, the compromise brings us a 16 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency but NO cuts to the military? The departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services -- which represent only about 15 percent of the budget -- are taking about 52 percent of the cuts. The Institute for Policy Studies estimates it costs taxpayers $1.2 million a year for each soldier in Afghanistan. To make up for the $141 million cut from Fish and Wildlife services, say, you'd only have to bring 117 soldiers home. The missiles that fell on Libya in the first day of the supposed “peacekeeping” mission cost the US over $100 million—and that was March 19. As of yesterday, the estimated cost is $608 million. Tomahawk missiles alone cost $1 million apiece. We knew that governors like Scott Walker were helping to manufacture a deficit to cut programs they wanted to target, even as they cut taxes for billionaires and the rich. Our Democratic president has given in to deficit hawking too. But to not make a single cut to so-called defense spending while attacking desperately-needed funds for jobs? Some call the budget deal a compromise. It is. But not a compromise between the parties. The killer compromise we should be talking about is the compromise both parties make with the war profiteers - to keep their cash coming and the killing and dying continuing, while people and all things public line up for the chopping block. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/13-2

35TOO Joined Sat 11/08/08 Posts: 10407	Thu 04/14/11 02:12 PM
On Tuesday, April 12, people in more than 35 countries, as well as Columbus, Dallas, Kansas City and dozens of other cities throughout the United States participated in the first Global Day of Action on Military Spending. In DC, they most definitely are sitting this one out. In fact, after weeks of budget brinksmanship, Congress emerged with a tentative so-called compromise that was unable to get a single cut made to spending on the US military. Christopher Hellman at TomDispatch recently added up all the hidden military-related spending in the budget and came to a startling number for fiscal year 2012. Something like $1.2 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a T. In this year's budget they admit to $670 billion or so, plus another $41 billion for Homeland Security and $76.6 billion for "military construction" and Veterans Affairs--an INCREASE over last year. After the long search for ways to shrink government spending, the compromise brings us a 16 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency but NO cuts to the military? The departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services -- which represent only about 15 percent of the budget -- are taking about 52 percent of the cuts. The Institute for Policy Studies estimates it costs taxpayers $1.2 million a year for each soldier in Afghanistan. To make up for the $141 million cut from Fish and Wildlife services, say, you'd only have to bring 117 soldiers home. The missiles that fell on Libya in the first day of the supposed “peacekeeping” mission cost the US over $100 million—and that was March 19. As of yesterday, the estimated cost is $608 million. Tomahawk missiles alone cost $1 million apiece. We knew that governors like Scott Walker were helping to manufacture a deficit to cut programs they wanted to target, even as they cut taxes for billionaires and the rich. Our Democratic president has given in to deficit hawking too. But to not make a single cut to so-called defense spending while attacking desperately-needed funds for jobs? Some call the budget deal a compromise. It is. But not a compromise between the parties. The killer compromise we should be talking about is the compromise both parties make with the war profiteers - to keep their cash coming and the killing and dying continuing, while people and all things public line up for the chopping block. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/13-2 SO NOW WE BETTER CUT FORIEGN AID,NO MORE HELPING OTHER COUNTRIES

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Thu 04/14/11 02:20 PM
On Tuesday, April 12, people in more than 35 countries, as well as Columbus, Dallas, Kansas City and dozens of other cities throughout the United States participated in the first Global Day of Action on Military Spending. In DC, they most definitely are sitting this one out. In fact, after weeks of budget brinksmanship, Congress emerged with a tentative so-called compromise that was unable to get a single cut made to spending on the US military. Christopher Hellman at TomDispatch recently added up all the hidden military-related spending in the budget and came to a startling number for fiscal year 2012. Something like $1.2 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a T. In this year's budget they admit to $670 billion or so, plus another $41 billion for Homeland Security and $76.6 billion for "military construction" and Veterans Affairs--an INCREASE over last year. After the long search for ways to shrink government spending, the compromise brings us a 16 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency but NO cuts to the military? The departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services -- which represent only about 15 percent of the budget -- are taking about 52 percent of the cuts. The Institute for Policy Studies estimates it costs taxpayers $1.2 million a year for each soldier in Afghanistan. To make up for the $141 million cut from Fish and Wildlife services, say, you'd only have to bring 117 soldiers home. The missiles that fell on Libya in the first day of the supposed “peacekeeping” mission cost the US over $100 million—and that was March 19. As of yesterday, the estimated cost is $608 million. Tomahawk missiles alone cost $1 million apiece. We knew that governors like Scott Walker were helping to manufacture a deficit to cut programs they wanted to target, even as they cut taxes for billionaires and the rich. Our Democratic president has given in to deficit hawking too. But to not make a single cut to so-called defense spending while attacking desperately-needed funds for jobs? Some call the budget deal a compromise. It is. But not a compromise between the parties. The killer compromise we should be talking about is the compromise both parties make with the war profiteers - to keep their cash coming and the killing and dying continuing, while people and all things public line up for the chopping block. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/13-2 SO NOW WE BETTER CUT FORIEGN AID,NO MORE HELPING OTHER COUNTRIES Funny how that isnt going to happen, they will cut medicare, social security, teachers pay, food stamps, head start, libraries, public transportation, but not aid to Israel and other governments.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Thu 04/14/11 04:40 PM
Haven't got a clue bout how badly they lie by institution do you?... Or is it proper to call this 'spin'. "The Institute for Policy Studies estimates it costs taxpayers $1.2 million a year for each soldier in Afghanistan. To make up for the $141 million cut from Fish and Wildlife services, say, you'd only have to bring 117 soldiers home. " Hello... Soldier is a soldier... No matter where he/she is in the world... Truth... It costs taxpayers the same per soldier in the military NO MATTER WHERE THAT SOLDIER IS STATIONED... Bringing 117 soldiers home would not 'cut' a darn thing from the budget... It would just make 117 soldiers 'safer'.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Thu 04/14/11 04:42 PM
as far as the OP... We can 'cut' military spending when there are no countries in the world that have a 'standing' army... Till then it would be rather foolish...

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Thu 04/14/11 06:00 PM Edited by Bestinshow on Thu 04/14/11 06:01 PM
as far as the OP... We can 'cut' military spending when there are no countries in the world that have a 'standing' army... Till then it would be rather foolish... I would think this country is hardly worth defending. Our way of life? come on we rank near the bottem in the western world. How can we justify these expenses? The only logical explanation is that when you cant win the war of words or actions you must be a bully. So since we have no moral high ground no life style worthy of envy for the rest of the world to follow we have to be the biggest uglies brute we can be. All the while bankrupting ourselves on steroids and die of cancer on the inside.

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Thu 04/14/11 06:44 PM
I am sorry you think this country to be not worth your defense. No problem. I will defend it for you. this country is the best place on earth... bar nun.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Fri 04/15/11 05:06 AM
I am sorry you think this country to be not worth your defense. No problem. I will defend it for you. this country is the best place on earth... bar nun. Realy what do we have to defend that is worth a trillion dollars? Let me make this simple. If a person lives in a one room shack wears raged clothes and cant afford dental care or medical care why on earth would that person need a home security system, a guard dog and a night watchman?

35TOO Joined Sat 11/08/08 Posts: 10407	Fri 04/15/11 11:20 AM
I am sorry you think this country to be not worth your defense. No problem. I will defend it for you. this country is the best place on earth... bar nun. YES ITS WORTH DEFENDING , BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TO DROP A SMALL NUCLEAR DEVICE ON AFGANISTAN WHERE THE TERORIST WHERE HIDING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE RUSSIA AND CHINA WOULD HAVE SAID GO FOR IT...... PLUS SAVED ALOT OF AMERICAN LIVES........

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Fri 04/15/11 08:04 PM
Afgans are humans also.

TallandSlender Joined Wed 08/26/09 Posts: 1145	Fri 04/15/11 08:16 PM
When the American Empire falls. Not too long, now. Rome fell for 3 reasons Morale decline Over extending it's military. Fiscal irresponsibility. Sound familiar?

greeneyeman Joined Wed 04/13/11 Posts: 350	Fri 04/15/11 08:25 PM
We can only cut on military when we have restored or improved foreign relations. This may take some time though. We also must try to stay technologically advanced to reduce costs in the military. With our national deficit we may have problems in this. If we restore relations we can cut on the military spending bill which outweighs any country in the world. Perhaps this money can be redirected in education and health care. I am not a politician so I don't have the details of how easy that can be done. I am sure there are better suggestions on the matter here in the forums.

Jess642 Joined Sat 03/31/07 Posts: 22732	Fri 04/15/11 08:43 PM Edited by Jess642 on Fri 04/15/11 08:44 PM
I am sorry you think this country to be not worth your defense. No problem. I will defend it for you. this country is the best place on earth... bar nun. YES ITS WORTH DEFENDING , BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TO DROP A SMALL NUCLEAR DEVICE ON AFGANISTAN WHERE THE TERORIST WHERE HIDING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE RUSSIA AND CHINA WOULD HAVE SAID GO FOR IT...... PLUS SAVED ALOT OF AMERICAN LIVES........ Really?....the Middle of nowhere...as you call it, is someone's country, their homeland...their livlihood, and their history... How would the US have enjoyed a similar fate?...think Canada and Mexico would have said, go for it? Your country's economic fragility is a direct causative of the insane amount of monies poured into what has already been...in so many arenas....how quickly you've forgotten Iraq...and the George Bush's of this shameful history of man. What an awful mindset to have....I am so glad you live on the other side of this planet, and that you have nothing but an inffectual keyboard at your disposal.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sat 04/16/11 01:23 AM
They cut military spending as soon as he took office. Wow get with the times already.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 04/16/11 04:43 AM
They cut military spending as soon as he took office. Wow get with the times already. Here is a sample of some of the so-called budget cuts: 1. Department of Defense budget- The DoD’s budget for 2010 was $685 billion, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Wikipedia. Obama called for a reduction in the DoD budget by $400 billion….over 12 years, which averages out to $33 billion a year. This cut is still pending a Pentagon review which leaves Obama with some wiggle room. Compare the money that the US spends on military industrial corporate welfare and illegal wars to China, with the second largest military expenditure, in the amount of $150 billion. Who is the DoD’s real enemy? It appears to be the American taxpayer and the US economy. http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/the-war-on-the-us-economy/

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sat 04/16/11 08:06 AM
They cut military spending as soon as he took office. Wow get with the times already. Here is a sample of some of the so-called budget cuts: 1. Department of Defense budget- The DoD’s budget for 2010 was $685 billion, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Wikipedia. Obama called for a reduction in the DoD budget by $400 billion….over 12 years, which averages out to $33 billion a year. This cut is still pending a Pentagon review which leaves Obama with some wiggle room. Compare the money that the US spends on military industrial corporate welfare and illegal wars to China, with the second largest military expenditure, in the amount of $150 billion. Who is the DoD’s real enemy? It appears to be the American taxpayer and the US economy. http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/the-war-on-the-us-economy/ I am talking from 2009. He cut it and 25% of my co-workers lost their jobs at my site alone.

boredinaz06 Joined Sun 10/15/06 Posts: 22764	Sat 04/16/11 08:20 AM
N E V E R

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 04/16/11 09:48 AM
They cut military spending as soon as he took office. Wow get with the times already. Here is a sample of some of the so-called budget cuts: 1. Department of Defense budget- The DoD’s budget for 2010 was $685 billion, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Wikipedia. Obama called for a reduction in the DoD budget by $400 billion….over 12 years, which averages out to $33 billion a year. This cut is still pending a Pentagon review which leaves Obama with some wiggle room. Compare the money that the US spends on military industrial corporate welfare and illegal wars to China, with the second largest military expenditure, in the amount of $150 billion. Who is the DoD’s real enemy? It appears to be the American taxpayer and the US economy. http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/the-war-on-the-us-economy/ I am talking from 2009. He cut it and 25% of my co-workers lost their jobs at my site alone. Prove it. I dont believe you.

35TOO Joined Sat 11/08/08 Posts: 10407	Sat 04/16/11 10:32 AM
Afgans are humans also. YES BUT NOT THE TERROIST IN AFGANNISTAN

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sat 04/16/11 11:20 AM
I am sorry you think this country to be not worth your defense. No problem. I will defend it for you. this country is the best place on earth... bar nun. YES ITS WORTH DEFENDING , BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TO DROP A SMALL NUCLEAR DEVICE ON AFGANISTAN WHERE THE TERORIST WHERE HIDING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE RUSSIA AND CHINA WOULD HAVE SAID GO FOR IT...... PLUS SAVED ALOT OF AMERICAN LIVES........ they wouldn't be able to mine anything if they nuked it....workers can't work in radiation...