Yep but that will not stop the right from wailing and screaming about reducing government!

Fine, cut the defense budget by 50%. The US spends way too much money being the worlds police force.

I don't see why we can't have a spenidng freeze across the board, including entitlements. We are not talking cuts here, but a freeze. Politics gets in the way of simple common sense solutions sometimes. If Obama tells us we are going to save only $250 in 10 years, then what's the point of all the spending freezes which will probably make some people unhappy? I think people would be will to accept an accross the board freeze (or even a slight cut) if it produced substantial results, at least then the pain would be worth it because the debt would be going down. Sometimes hatchets are the best solution.

There actually will be a military reduction as the wars wind down. But I doubt anyone has the balls to touch the military budget, at least until the government hits the wall when all it can afford is the entitlements, debt interest and defense. Too many barrels of pork flowing out of the Pentagon on both sides of the aisle and its way too easy to be attacked as being weak on defense. Of course, there's always all those foreign bases.
But you never know when the Krauts or Nips are gonna try again.....

I guess when you up to your hit pockets in debt, switching from premium gas to regular gas is going to save the day.

We need to trim all spending drasticly. Just cutting the growth isn't going to do anything for the US. Waste, fraud, and pork has to be cut out of every nook and cranny if we are going to pull ourselves out of the mess we hav created for the last 50 years.

Fine, cut the defense budget by 50%. The US spends way too much money being the worlds police force.

I couldn't agree more. Let's close 98% of the military bases as well.

Glenn Greenwald is a true liberal that talks real issues... All of you pragmatic boot lickers out there should take some notes.

There actually will be a military reduction as the wars wind down.

When has this ever been true, and why would it be true now?

Remember when George W. Bush said he wouldn't fire a 2 million dollar missile to blow up a $10 tent? Maybe there's more wisdom in that statement than many are willing to admit.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Read the whole speech here:

It really is pretty foolish to whine about the deficit without even being able to consider the rationale for the ever increasing military budget.
Seems that a former General and President warned us about exactly this. My bet though is if Obama even hinted at cutting or even freezing military spending there would be cries of traitor, appeasor, etc. by the flag waving fools and those who make billions from the unnecessary military spending.

Here's the problem, you reduce military spending you are going to see major job losses. The military industrial complex employs hundreds of thousands, if not millions. So, these corporations, and the military, essentially are like the big banks, if they hurt, we all hurt.

That is too true taxman, but a gradual transition to non defense industries is possible.

Ex. Several years ago the navy closed the Philadelphia naval yard with the fear of putting thousands out of work, Kovendar (sp?) came in immediately and they now build container ships there employing the same if not more people. The same can be done elsewhere.

Tax, you are right on with your statement about the MIC. The vast majority of the money spent there is in the US. It realy is our modern day WPA project. Cut that and unemployment will climb out of sight.

My bet though is if Obama even hinted at cutting or even freezing military spending there would be cries of traitor, appeasor, etc. by the flag waving fools and those who make billions from the unnecessary military spending.

Well, he can either be a great 1 term President, or a mediocre 2 term President. If that's what he's concerned about, I think we know what kind of President he's going to be. I personally don't think that's the case...he's simply a whore for the military industrial complex just like the Presidents before him...as evidenced by his 700+ billion dollar military spending bill.

There actually will be a military reduction as the wars wind down.

When has this ever been true, and why would it be true now?

#6 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2010-01-27 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Until late in 1941. We don't need no stinking military

#10 | POSTED BY TAXMAN

Fair point, but to what end? We can't continue to subsidize unnecessary jobs forever. At some point we need to transition people into sustainable jobs or we're just making a bigger problem for ourselves down the road.

ok, cut the military by 15%, cut aid to all foreign countries by 15%, cut aid to groups like acorn by 15%, cut welfare by 15%....... and so on

It really is pretty foolish to whine about the deficit without even being able to consider the rationale for the ever increasing military budget.
Seems that a former General and President warned us about exactly this. My bet though is if Obama even hinted at cutting or even freezing military spending there would be cries of traitor, appeasor, etc. by the flag waving fools and those who make billions from the unnecessary military spending.

#9 | Posted by dann

A year before his JFK asked Congress to spend 50 cents out of every dollars in the budget for Defense. The day he was killed, JFK was bragging in Fort Worth about his increase in Defense Spending in his budget

Iraqi-even if a President proposed a large cut, do you think the reps and senators would do it, given the money the Pentagon flows into their districts and contractors into their pockets?

Even cutting a useless program brings howls from them, never mind a big contract or a base.

It realy is our modern day WPA project.

Great analogy.

#13 Iraqibukkake> Well, he can either be a great 1 term President, or a mediocre 2 term President.

Or take door #3: a lousy-to-mediocre one term president. Hey, don't great 1 term Presidents get a second term??

The military should not be exempt from a spending freeze at minimum, or potentially cuts. I'm sure there is a lot of waste in the military, including some pork barrel spending just to please politicians in certain states/districts. The military budget needs to be gone through with a fine tooth comb.

"A year before his JFK asked Congress to spend 50 cents out of every dollars in the budget for Defense. The day he was killed, JFK was bragging in Fort Worth about his increase in Defense Spending in his budget"

WE were still in the cold war then weren't we Tim, who is the majority of ships, planes, etc. defending us from now???

Russia??
China??

The so called "war on terror" doesn't really require many or most of the weapons systems we spend billions on today. Everyone knows most of it is pork for defense contractors.
Oh, and the brilliant plan to privatize the military is costing more billions.

Until late in 1941. We don't need no stinking military

This isn't 1941. We aren't bombing Dresden. We fight hundreds of uniformless soldiers, maybe a thousand or two at a time at the most. Suggesting that they both require the same approach is why we're currently bogged down in two military fronts with no end in site.

Remember when George W. Bush said he wouldn't fire a 2 million dollar missile to blow up a $10 tent? Maybe there's more wisdom in that statement than many are willing to admit.

Coulda blown up a shitload of $10 tents for what Bush pissed away in Iraq. Maybe one of them would have had that guy, binforgotten in it.

"Remember when George W. Bush said he wouldn't fire a 2 million dollar missile to blow up a $10 tent?"

In hindsight the 2 million dollar missile was far cheaper than what he ended up doing. We could have fired an awful lot of missiles for a trillion dollars and we wouldn't have lost thousands of troops. Oh well, I guess is spilled milk now and we aren't supposed to be mentioning the mistakes of the Bush administration any more according to the same folks who cheered on his insane wars.

Iraqi-even if a President proposed a large cut, do you think the reps and senators would do it, given the money the Pentagon flows into their districts and contractors into their pockets?
Even cutting a useless program brings howls from them, never mind a big contract or a base.

Here is a perfect opportunity to make the right eat their words about fiscal responsibility...while putting them on defense.

Or take door #3: a lousy-to-mediocre one term president. Hey, don't great 1 term Presidents get a second term??

It was Obama's line...which is why I used it.

There actually will be a military reduction as the wars wind down.

#3 | Posted by northguy3

Whistling past the graveyard---Iraq to a degree but not completely. No way in Afghan.

Peace time military spending (no wars) is about 4% of GDP.

Under president Clinton and Bush before the Wars the Military acounted for about 13% of the Federal budget.

Well, he can either be a great 1 term President, or a mediocre 2 term President.

#13 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Hallmark Obama who will allow others to be put in the "crosshairs" and avoid being a leader---this guy is so focussed on himself and his own preservation its' laughable.

"Peace time military spending (no wars) is about 4% of GDP."

Too bad that a certain former Gov. of Texas decided that if he got to be president he would make sure he was a war time president.

I can't help but laugh at the Left here, because they seem to be pretending that warmongering and excessive defense spending is the exclusive property of the Right.

"President Barack Obama will ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned."

Sounds like the "mistakes of the Bush Administration" are continuing.

Whistling past the graveyard---Iraq to a degree but not completely. No way in Afghan.

There will be only small special forces and drone groups in Iraq and afghanistan by 2012. Though Obama seems to be able to work with Yemen with no combat troops.

And Tyler-other than the trillion pissed away by Bush in Iraq, nobody on the left is making any claim that the Dems ain't in the pork barrel as much as the Reps.

"It really is pretty foolish to whine about the deficit without even being able to consider the rationale for the ever increasing military budget."

The rationale behind a big military budget is less about defense than it is creating jobs. Things don't get built nowadays unless the requisite amount of congressmen get a requisite piece of the action in response for their support. If I remember correctly, the development and production of the $57 billion dollar B-2 project was spread across all 50 states.

Cutting back on defense costs would result in the elimination of thousands, even tens of thousands of high paying union jobs. That's why democrats will often support a robust defense budget. In 2000, Gore's outlays for military spending exceeded those of Bush. It wasn't because he was more hawkish, it was because it looked better from an employment perspective. It also gave the perception of being stronger on defense.

Funny how Glenn Greenwald describes military spending as discretionary when it is specifically called for in the constitution. Yet for the entitlement programs, because they are not called for by the constitution and were acts of congress with requirements for fixed growth, he considers non-discretionary spending.

Military spending is simply another government budget that is out of control. There must be actual CUTS across the board to turn this ship around. Not lip-service freezes, no sacred cows, actual CUTS.

The main problem is the dead wood and partisan hacks in D.C. that love the status quo. We need a real turnover of power from the entrenched incumbents that serve only the narrow interests of their local constituency's to the detriment of the nation. The new blood of politicians that are savvy enough to get the work done, but "green" enough that they lack the political corruption and gamesmanship of the current band of bozo's.

Barack Obama speaks in platitudes and oversees a cesspool in D.C. while Polls show that the nation has little or no faith in this congress and are becoming angry at what is perceived (right or wrong) as a lack of leadership in this President.

Let's hope that the new congress in Nov. and B.O. find the intestinal fortitude to do what's right.

Funny how Glenn Greenwald describes military spending as discretionary when it is specifically called for in the constitution.

Please quote the minimum amount the Constitution requires to be spent on the military for "common defence", And the sections that require bases in Korea, Germany, Okinawa. The Founding fathers were opposed to a large standing army. Hence the "well regulated militia" that the gun nuts seem to ignore.

"To provide and maintain a navy;"

(No standing army required)

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" (was Iraq actually invading the U.S. or just leading an insurrection?)

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Funny how the gun nuts see the second amendment but only part of it and none of Article One.

"Funny how Glenn Greenwald describes military spending as discretionary when it is specifically called for in the constitution. Yet for the entitlement programs, because they are not called for by the constitution and were acts of congress with requirements for fixed growth, he considers non-discretionary spending."

He didn't make up the terms for crying out loud.
Amazing.

"That's why democrats will often support a robust defense budget. In 2000, Gore's outlays for military spending exceeded those of Bush."

What are you babbling about???
I honestly think they have completely lost touch with reality.

"I can't help but laugh at the Left here, because they seem to be pretending that warmongering and excessive defense spending is the exclusive property of the Right."

I don't think anyone here thinks that. I think the consensus is that it is corporate lobbyist driven spending and Congress in general is at that trough.

DANNI - If you and other libs of your ilk would extend your zeal for cutting military expenditures to include entitlements, we may have a breakthrough of sorts.

But alas, you, as our representatives, would never be able to cut the budgets of your own pet programs, only those of your opponents. Any gains made by cuts you make to programs YOU think are expendable would quickly be appropriated to feed the entitlement machine that you are so fond of, leaving us financially in worse shape than we are today.

Any gains made by cuts you make to programs YOU think are expendable would quickly be appropriated to feed the entitlement machine that you are so fond of, leaving us financially in worse shape than we are today.

Let's see what your conservative icons managed as far as fiscal control

Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965-1969 0.05 Trillion higher debt
Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969-1973 0.07 Trillion "
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 0.19 Trillion "
Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 0.18 Trillion "
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 0.65 Trillion "
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 1.04 Trillion "
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993 1.40 Trillion "
Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 1.12 Trillion "
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 0.42 Trillion "
Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001-2005 1.88 Trillion "
Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005-2009 3.02 Trillion "

And do you think conservatives are prepared to cut social security and medicare? Even the teabaggers would rebel against that, given that most of them leaching off both.

NORTHGUY -

Yes, I personally am ready to cut those programs. Along with the pay and benefits for ALL government workers, and the bloated state and local budgets as well. While we're at it, we can cut the hell out of foreign aid and the U.N.

This is no time for partisan posturing. I hate the ridiculous spending regardless of the party in power and detest the "They did it too" or "They did it worse" attitude used as an excuse to run up the debt.

If you are going to take a large portion of my income, you had better spend it as if it were skin being flayed from your own back!

I've said often that the Right is all for government spending so long as they get to blow stuff up and kill people with the money.

It really is true.

GOP Response: Gov't "Trying to Do Too Much" -

Interpretation: "WE want to be the ones to quadruple the national debt like Reagan, or, if we can't pull that off, more than double it like we did when we ran Congress and the WH last."

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Why stop with the military. Cut everything... Cut *all* gov spending by 10, 15, 20, 25%. Pick a number. Balance the budget and move on. Cripe, in our department (work) we have cut our budget by 15% last year and 10% again this year. Yet we delivered the same number of projects last year and are planning to do so this year.

Iraq #5

>> "eliminate 98% of military bases..."

... follow-up to #47 ...

Outstanding proposal! Why not make it 100% reduction though? That would align even better with your philosophy - yes?

Maybe dump all police and fire too??

JM

It's funny that many people in the U.S. are having to find ways to cut their own budgets just to make ends meet, and yet so many people want to avoid doing the same thing in the federal government. I can image many politicians, and those feeding at the federal trough, looking at budget cuts with the same enthusiasm a vampire has for crosses. ;~)

Obama is just paying lip service by calling for small cuts and seems to want everything else in the federal budget to be run as it has been for years. The Bush/Obama idea of spending more money and further raising indebtedness of future generations is going to be derailed, one way or another. The Republicans as a whole are better at paying lip service to fiscal responsibility, but have almost no track record when it comes to actually tackling the problem.

We need to elect politicians who are going to take on the tough job of cutting spending, I mean SIGNIFICANTLY cutting spending. Politicians running for office this November had better come to grips with this fact or they will be further disenfranchised from the public at large.

Military Spending for R&D and excessive new arms is a little outrageous. We are spending insane amounts for the F-22. Why?

We built the F-16 in 1976. In 33 years, not a single one has been downed by the enemy. Not one. But we continue to spend trillions developing new aircraft with incredible speed and agility. At this point, because of the sophistication of missiles and electronics, because of the sheer incredible engineering of even early 80's aircraft, we are 30 years ahead of other nations even being able to fly in the same airspace. Our in air technology is so great that we could strap wings to a mini-vans and 90% of the world couldn't even spot it let alone shoot it down.

Syncophant,

The F-16 is a great plane AND a great value - it delivers capability at a 'reasonable' price. But, it has become obsolete. Hell, the vaunted F-14 Tomcat is gone now - despite its glory in Top Gun. The F-22 is the next iteration of the deservedly-vaunted F-15 - a fighter that not only bests or matches the best dog-fighting capabilities that the rest of the world has to offer; but it does so in a manner that makes it superior for decades to come - stealth. The Euro-fighter can match (but not exceed) it in dog-fighting capabilities. Fine. But the Raptor is all-but invisible to the Euro-fighter's radar - which means a Raptor can shoot-down a Euro-fighter without even having to utilize its dog-fighting capabilities.

Anyhow, we need to adapt our air superiority to both match the current landscape and anticipate the future landscape. In that vein, I support limiting the production of the ridiculously-expensive F-22. The F-35 provides the more cost-effective and versatile platform needed by the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The F-16 and the Harrier drew all sorts of foreign-buyers for a reason. The F/A-18 replaced the F-14 for a reason.

My biggest, and only, beef with the F-35 is that it's supposed to replace the A-10 Warthog. It doesn't even closely match up with the mission - the A-10 is, to date, the best ground-support airplane ever produced...by a wide margin. We either need to resurrect production of it, or need to engingeer an even better replacement.

From what I've seen the farm subsidies have been one of the most abused methods to buy off voters and it's treated like a holy grail, which obviously means it's a Republican backdoor scam.