Republicans abandon interest in defence

[Bonam]

All industrialized economies are headed for a big crash because they have made promises that cannot possibly be delivered. Greece is already hitting the wall and it is not pretty. The US will hit the wall too because the numbers simply do not add up - especially if you assume that the economy is only going to grow slowly.

People like democrats who want to believe in leprechauns and fairy dust are the problem. The republicans - despite their heated and sometimes contradictory rhetoric - are the only party in the US who shows any willingness to address this fiscal bomb. Now they have put their money where their the mouths are by allowing cuts to something that they think is important in order to get a equal amount of cuts to entitlement programs. This something to be praised rather than criticized.

Unfortunately, wrong. There were no significant cuts to entitlement programs. Only discretionary spending was cut, while the main entitlements (medicare and social security) were protected from sequestration. These programs remain ponzi schemes and ticking time bombs.

[Pliny]

That's completely nuts Pliny.

You mean the DFO is not a benefit???

[Pliny]

Unfortunately, wrong. There were no significant cuts to entitlement programs. Only discretionary spending was cut, while the main entitlements (medicare and social security) were protected from sequestration. These programs remain ponzi schemes and ticking time bombs.

There were no significant cuts to anything. There were only cuts to increases in spending, no actual cuts in spending

occurred.

[eyeball]

You mean the DFO is not a benefit???

I'm pretty sure Jimmy Pattison and Galen Weston would consider it an entitlement...not to mention user friendly.

Edited March 5, 2013 by eyeball

[Pliny]

I'm pretty sure Jimmy Pattison and Galen Weston would consider it an entitlement...not to mention user friendly.

And so the benefits grow....Do you collect EI in the off-season?

[kimmy]

I think many posters where either too young or just don't remember the 80s.......

I they insist on ignoring the obvious:

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/009_national_defense_1928.png

Why is the historical percentage of defense as a % of GDP important in determining how much it should cost to defend America right now? The threats aren't the same today as they were in the 1980s.

I'm also curious to know whether the costs of "homeland security" are included in those annual defense budgets. It seems to me that protecting Americans from "asymmetrical warfare" has become a bigger part of the national security puzzle, and if that's not reflected in the graph showing defense expenses, then maybe it ought to be.

-k

[Pliny]

Michael Hardner's digital time and date stamped money comes to mind.

Been tried. It would definitely increase consumption, even to the level of irrational exuberance, as everyone tried to

ditch their expiring currency.

[Guest Derek L]

Why is the historical percentage of defense as a % of GDP important in determining how much it should cost to defend America right now? The threats aren't the same today as they were in the 1980s.

I'm also curious to know whether the costs of "homeland security" are included in those annual defense budgets. It seems to me that protecting Americans from "asymmetrical warfare" has become a bigger part of the national security puzzle, and if that's not reflected in the graph showing defense expenses, then maybe it ought to be.

-k

Namely it allows a contrast between nations………..And even in the 80s or today, isn’t a true measure to gauge a potential opponent, for Soviet and the Chinese figures released by the Government are suspect and garbled by their defence industries being State owned………….

As to DHS being included as part of the percent, yes and no……….Though DHS has their own separate budget, they share many synergies with DoD, well also not being solely in existence to guard against asymmetric terrorism………I suppose one could muddy the waters further and include the CIA, but their budget was likely higher during the Cold War, but that can’t be confirmed with open sources…….

As to threats contrasted then and now………….I would be more concerned with what the Chinese could become within 10-20 years based on their current defence expenditures directed towards recapitalization and expansion of their military, then what the Soviets were stumbling towards in the early 80s……….The war on terror will be looked upon as a sideshow when compared to the next cold war.

[Pliny]

Why is the historical percentage of defense as a % of GDP important in determining how much it should cost to defend America right now? The threats aren't the same today as they were in the 1980s.

Defend America? Maintaining the global balance of power has been a big part of it...at least until Obama.

I'm also curious to know whether the costs of "homeland security" are included in those annual defense budgets. It seems to me that protecting Americans from "asymmetrical warfare" has become a bigger part of the national security puzzle, and if that's not reflected in the graph showing defense expenses, then maybe it ought to be.

And the TSA as well...a few billion there, for sure.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Why is the historical percentage of defense as a % of GDP important in determining how much it should cost to defend America right now? The threats aren't the same today as they were in the 1980s.

America "should" and has spent whatever it deemed necessary, but anybody pulling the defense spending card as extreme better have their facts straight, which is that entitlement programs for the social welfare state gobble up more of the federal and state budgets.

I'm also curious to know whether the costs of "homeland security" are included in those annual defense budgets. It seems to me that protecting Americans from "asymmetrical warfare" has become a bigger part of the national security puzzle, and if that's not reflected in the graph showing defense expenses, then maybe it ought to be.

Irrelevant for historical comparisons, which also did not include Roosevelt's job programs, NASA, the fight against polio, or food stamps.

[eyeball]

And so the benefits grow....Do you collect EI in the off-season?

What season? You must have me confused with a sporty.

[Guest American Woman]

The reasoning behind the offending is pretty hateful alright.

The reason behind the offending is pretty hateful.

[Pliny]

What season?

The EI season.

[Guest American Woman]

The EI season.

I think some fish all year round .....

[Pliny]

I think some fish all year round .....

Wouldn't that deplete the stocks? I think only natives can fish all year round but not commercially...wink wink nudge

nudge!

[Guest American Woman]

Wouldn't that deplete the stocks? I think only natives can fish all year round but not commercially...wink wink nudge

nudge!

I thought commercial fishermen fished for different things during different seasons year round - but admittedly, I really know nothing about it.

[Pliny]

I thought commercial fishermen fished for different things during different seasons year round - but admittedly, I really know nothing about it.

It's a bit difficult to keep things out of their nets that are not in season. Although, I think eyeball used to do some

shellfish farming in the off-season. But I probably know as much as you about it.

I like to rib eyeball about the DFO. DFO = Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[ReeferMadness]

Fortunately, the U.S. doesn't depend on Canadians to determine who "deserves it", like another member here who suggested that about 9/11 victims.

No, the U.S. starts stupid wars and then twists the arms of its allies so that your illegal actions get the fig leaf of an international consensus.

[ReeferMadness]

That is correct to some degree……….but drastic cuts in the United States defence budget won’t only effect American national security, but a great many allied nations, Canada included, that reap the benefits of security for their own nations garnered by US assets, coupled with US defence research…………A great many nations are able to spend less on their own defence due to American defence spending levels……..

In other words, the Americans can’t afford to subsidize other nations defence any longer.

Every time somebody repeats this nonsense, it just pisses me off all over again.

Post WWII, maybe you can point out one time that having an over-militarized neighbor was an asset. Because I can point to lots of pointless wars we got dragged into, the cold war where the entire world was held hostage by the US and the USSR, the political pressure to support the US arms industry (anyone remember the Arrow?). We're a terrorism target in part because we took part in the idiotic invasion of Afghanistan (where the west is getting its collective ass kicked, by the way).

Anyone who seriously believes that living next to an aggressive, heavily armed neighbor makes you safer needs lessons in history and critical thinking skills.

Edited March 7, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[Guest American Woman]

So "blowback" only applies to some?

It applies to democracies - were people are responsible for the actions of their governments.

And here I thought it would apply to people. Apparently, though, only some people can react emotionally and it's totally understandable - as others can't. Talk about a blatant bias.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Post WWII, maybe you can point out one time that having an over-militarized neighbor was an asset.

Oh, that's easy. Canada made billions of dollars during the Vietnam War exporting war materials like defoilants (Agent Orange), napalm,

aircraft parts, copper, brass, plate armour, ammunition, explosives, etc. to the USA. Canada has benefited from U.S. satellites (e.g. GPS, weather, and communications) and launch services since the early days of the space program, having no domestic capability to put payloads or Canadians into orbit. Canada has been able to purchase military and civilian aircraft developed from American programs at great savings for design and development. Canada has been able to spend far less on domestic and NATO commitments in part because of U.S. defense collaborations. Computers and information technology developed from U.S. defense contracts / R & D continue to aid Canada, including this very MLW forum, hosted in Texas. More than three quarters of Canada's exports flow easily to the great war monger to the south.

Edited March 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

No, the U.S. starts stupid wars and then twists the arms of its allies so that your illegal actions get the fig leaf of an international consensus.

The U.S. didn't start your empire's biggest wars (WW1 & WW2), but it sure as hell finished them.

[Guest Derek L]

Every time somebody repeats this nonsense, it just pisses me off all over again.

Post WWII, maybe you can point out one time that having an over-militarized neighbor was an asset. Because I can point to lots of pointless wars we got dragged into, the cold war where the entire world was held hostage by the US and the USSR, the political pressure to support the US arms industry (anyone remember the Arrow?). We're a terrorism target in part because we took part in the idiotic invasion of Afghanistan (where the west is getting its collective ass kicked, by the way).

Anyone who seriously believes that living next to an aggressive, heavily armed neighbor makes you safer needs lessons in history and critical thinking skills.

Shouldn’t that read neighbours? I for one would rather live next to the United States then the former Soviet Union or Communist China…………But I guess you have a point, I wouldn’t have wanted to be Hungarian or Korean in the 50s……..Good thing our “over militarized” neighbour never invaded us…

And we got dragged into “pointless wars”? Really? Did the Americans “force us”? If the Americans exert so much influence over us, perhaps we should “over militarize” ourselves….

[Guest American Woman]

And we got dragged into “pointless wars”? Really? Did the Americans “force us”? If the Americans exert so much influence over us, perhaps we should “over militarize” ourselves….

My thoughts exactly. I get so tired of the 'the U.S. dragged us into it' mentality, as if all of our allies are blameless jellyfish with no minds of their own.

[bush_cheney2004]

My thoughts exactly. I get so tired of the 'the U.S. dragged us into it' mentality, as if all of our allies are blameless jellyfish with no minds of their own.

Agreed..the only thing Canada got "dragged into" for the Iraq War #2 was lucrative oil services contracts after the invasion was over.