Weapons Spending in Perspective

[bobbymike]

Sorry, I don't get the cultural reference.

What is wrong is the deception about why.

You believe they are being deceitful. That doesn't mean they are being deceitful, just that you perceive it that way. As you appear to believe ANY spending on ANYTHING other than nuclear weapons is wasteful, I have to question your perceptions.

When the military is being cut like this the President should go on TV and say, "I am cutting defense spending because I believe our military is too big and spends too much AND I need the money for my domestic priorities"

Instead we are told it is a time of budget austerity and we are FORCED to cut defense spending to reduce the deficit.

In other words, because they actually believe domestic priorities are more important than the defence priorities you believe are, you believe they are being deceitful. Perhaps the reality is that they are making cuts in the areas they feel they can to in order, as you point fund the areas they have made policy promises in.

What threat is the US facing that requires massive militarisation of your society and continued excessive spending on defence?

I really can't see any. There are minor disagreements with Russia and the PRC at the moment but they are indeed minor. There is the terrorist threat but that is an internal security issue. Where is the big bogeyman like the fUSSR which presents an existential threat to the United States? :

..............perhaps, like me, you have wondered why it is that these people who are otherwise civil nonetheless can neither explain their positions nor stop talking, and their talk consists of nothing, nothing, nothing aside from childish personal attacks, slanders, sneers, and accusation, accusation, accusation. Why are they so angry? Why are they so noisy? Why are they so blissfully unaware of the vice, injustice, ugliness and evil they support?
-- John C. Wright

Good quote. I'll save it and use it in future the next time someone attacks me personally and calls me a "troll"...

The culteral reference was to top your every post with not just one but usually multiple eye roll emoticons although this post it seems you contained your emogastic affinity.

But let's look at a few points;
1) A Republican President says "we have no money for welfare, we must cut the budget to reduce spending and reduce the deficit" and then literally days later puts out a budget masssively increasing defense spending and increasing future years deficits. Would that not be deceitful?
- Now I know after reading that you are chomping at the bit to say "THAT'S WHAT REAGAN DID" No he was very clear on his spending priorities BUT if he did do 1) above he would have been deceitful.
2) When have I ever said spending on anything other than 'Nuclear Weapons' is wasteful? Answer never. I have ALWAYS said defense spending should be the federal governments #1 priority. I have said many times you can find waste anywhere in government and if you find it at DOD then cut it, I have never had a problem with that, although I am a proponent of plowing those funds right back into weapons R&D/modernization accounts.
3) Unlike you my read of global threats is not limited to today and it would be shortsighted to think that way. Plus there is the totality of history saying we have a tendency to quarrel from time to time. Hey anthropoligists have posited that even earliest man fought so maybe millions of years of history.

I know every few years someone, usually from academia, procliams the 'end of history' they have always been wrong.

As for my supposed 'militarism' General Macarthur said 'The soldier above all people prays for peace because he must bear the deepest wounds and scares of war" I am talking as a relative of soldiers and have seen the wounds and scars they have borne for my freedom. I will not put future generations at risk on the battlefield - or at home for that matter - without the most modern equipment and best funding we can afford as a nation.
I am not saying to spend trillions more but funding should be based on a national strategy matched to dollars AND YES we can differ on those amounts.

So let me end with this - you and I will never agree on pretty much anything with regard to this subject so continued posting of "I want more" or "I want less" is pointless IMHO.

 

[sferrin]

..............perhaps, like me, you have wondered why it is that these people who are otherwise civil nonetheless can neither explain their positions nor stop talking, and their talk consists of nothing, nothing, nothing aside from childish personal attacks, slanders, sneers, and accusation, accusation, accusation. Why are they so angry? Why are they so noisy? Why are they so blissfully unaware of the vice, injustice, ugliness and evil they support?
-- John C. Wright

Good quote. I'll save it and use it in future the next time someone attacks me personally and calls me a "troll"...

Fairly certain the intent there was to prod you into a bit of self-reflection.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Fairly certain the intent there was to prod you into a bit of self-reflection.

Some people have some difficulty with "self reflection."

 

[Orionblamblam]

... massive militarisation of your society ...

2.9% of GDP

 

[bobbymike]

... massive militarisation of your society ...

2.9% of GDP

Wife to Husband - Here is $1000 to spend on our family needs

1) $300 on food
2) $300 on healthcare
3) $250 put away for retirement/college
4) $121 on clothes
5) $29 dollars on a lock for the front door

What are you some kind of crazy home security 'extremist'?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Wife to Husband - Here is $1000 to spend on our family needs
...
What are you some kind of crazy home security 'extremist'?

Makes the husband wonder if maybe he married the wrong harpy, or if she's just trolling him. Can he put her on "ignore?"

The military has been in increasingly smaller portion of the FedGuv budget for *years.* An increasingly small portion of the GDP for *years*. And yet, for *years* (since 9-11) I've been hearing/reading people yapping on about how US society/culture is getting more militaristic or militarized. Fargin' facts, how do they work?

 

[sferrin]

Wife to Husband - Here is $1000 to spend on our family needs
...
What are you some kind of crazy home security 'extremist'?

Makes the husband wonder if maybe he married the wrong harpy, or if she's just trolling him. Can he put her on "ignore?"

The military has been in increasingly smaller portion of the FedGuv budget for *years.* An increasingly small portion of the GDP for *years*. And yet, for *years* (since 9-11) I've been hearing/reading people yapping on about how US society/culture is getting more militaristic or militarized. Fargin' facts, how do they work?

Well Rachell MadCow said it so it must be true.

 

[bobbymike]

Wife to Husband - Here is $1000 to spend on our family needs
...
What are you some kind of crazy home security 'extremist'?

Makes the husband wonder if maybe he married the wrong harpy, or if she's just trolling him. Can he put her on "ignore?"

The military has been in increasingly smaller portion of the FedGuv budget for *years.* An increasingly small portion of the GDP for *years*. And yet, for *years* (since 9-11) I've been hearing/reading people yapping on about how US society/culture is getting more militaristic or militarized. Fargin' facts, how do they work?

It possibly gets even sillier when the Husband says I needed a key for the lock (modernize the Triad, deterrence being the 'key' to national security ) for an extra 58 cents (that would be like adding $10 billion/year for this purpose) and she screams we're BROKE!!

Sorry to any female SP members just an analogy

 

[Rickshaw]

The culteral reference was to top your every post with not just one but usually multiple eye roll emoticons although this post it seems you contained your emogastic affinity.

Actually, I don't top them, I end them and use that emoticon to convey how much I disbelieve the points that many here make. I simply cannot believe some would have such simplistic views, particularly about nuclear weapons.

But let's look at a few points;
1) A Republican President says "we have no money for welfare, we must cut the budget to reduce spending and reduce the deficit" and then literally days later puts out a budget masssively increasing defense spending and increasing future years deficits. Would that not be deceitful?
- Now I know after reading that you are chomping at the bit to say "THAT'S WHAT REAGAN DID" No he was very clear on his spending priorities BUT if he did do 1) above he would have been deceitful.

Actually, I wasn't going to suggest that about Reagan. I was going to say that is what generally happens with most American Presidents from their generally right-wing perspective (and in case you're thinking I don't believe Democrats are left-wing, you're right, they aren't, from a world perspective).

I suspect though, that your views on the current Oval Office occupant are rather coloured by your perceptions on his spending priorities. Personally, I believe any nation as rich as the USA which does not provide an adequate social safety net for ALL it's citizens, including universal health care is being criminal.

2) When have I ever said spending on anything other than 'Nuclear Weapons' is wasteful? Answer never. I have ALWAYS said defense spending should be the federal governments #1 priority. I have said many times you can find waste anywhere in government and if you find it at DOD then cut it, I have never had a problem with that, although I am a proponent of plowing those funds right back into weapons R&D/modernization accounts.

You've answered the question yourself, so I won't bother.

3) Unlike you my read of global threats is not limited to today and it would be shortsighted to think that way. Plus there is the totality of history saying we have a tendency to quarrel from time to time. Hey anthropoligists have posited that even earliest man fought so maybe millions of years of history.

Care to point out these threats that loom so large on the global horizon.

You know, I wish the USA was as well mannered as the UK was when it's Empire started dissolving in it's own contradictions and would go as quietly into the shadows but I suspect it won't be.

I know every few years someone, usually from academia, procliams the 'end of history' they have always been wrong.

I remember how happy the Right in the US was to hitch it's wagon to Francis Fukoyama's claim when he made it. :

As for my supposed 'militarism' General Macarthur said 'The soldier above all people prays for peace because he must bear the deepest wounds and scares of war" I am talking as a relative of soldiers and have seen the wounds and scars they have borne for my freedom. I will not put future generations at risk on the battlefield - or at home for that matter - without the most modern equipment and best funding we can afford as a nation.

So, you've never served yourself? Well, as an ex-Soldier I can only suggest that your posturing is hollow until YOU have been willing to put YOUR life on the line for those freedoms you claim to hold so dear.

I am not saying to spend trillions more but funding should be based on a national strategy matched to dollars AND YES we can differ on those amounts.

If you can squander trillions on fighting pointless wars trying to impose your nation's views on other nations then, sure, why not?

So, you going to tell the little girl that her cancer treatment won't happen 'cause her family can't afford it and the Government is too busy wasting money on building new nuclear warheads to top new ICBMs? :

So let me end with this - you and I will never agree on pretty much anything with regard to this subject so continued posting of "I want more" or "I want less" is pointless IMHO.

I don't particularly want more or less of anything but I find your belief that only your views are valid rather reprehensible. Someone has to speak up for the opposition or otherwise this place becomes a mutual wank society which may please you but it gets pretty bloody boring after a while.

 

[bobbymike]

Your posts are so full of non-sequiturs, tendentious reasoning, ipse dixits and other logical fallacies as to make responding nearly impossible. You ramble off on tangents that makes me question your sanity. Modernizing the Triad, a little girl with cancer, really? This is a logical and reasonable response to you?

You could zero out defense and little girls will still get cancer this comment exceeds idiotic and asinine where there literally is no word to describe your so-called debate style.

Have you gone out to dinner or lunch this month? If yes shame on you that money you spent on a fancy dinner could have gone to 'Little Girl' cancer research. Your inhumanity knows no bounds?

 

[Arjen]

Your posts are so full of non-sequiturs, tendentious reasoning, ipse dixits and other logical fallacies as to make responding nearly impossible. You ramble off on tangents that makes me question your sanity.

Now would be the moment to *explain* why this is your opinion, or it's just another rant.

Modernizing the Triad, a little girl with cancer, really? This is a logical and reasonable response to you?

Asking the question and answering it at the same time. You apparently don't think it is logical or reasonable, K_M does.
Unlike with your earlier rant, you provide an explanation of your view.

You could zero out defense and little girls will still get cancer...

... but more little girls might get *treatment* with the newly available money.
Politics are about making choices, there's a sliding scale from spending nothing on defence (which K_M isn't proposing anyway) to spending less, all the way to maintaining defence spending levels. Different people will reach different conclusions. Real-life politics are about finding some sort of compromise, preferrably through reasoned debate. To which you contribute...

... this comment exceeds idiotic and asinine where there literally is no word to describe your so-called debate style.

...which is founded on...

Have you gone out to dinner or lunch this month? If yes shame on you that money you spent on a fancy dinner could have gone to 'Little Girl' cancer research. Your inhumanity knows no bounds?

... K_M having the temerity to feed himself, thus enabling him to continue in gainful employment, paying his taxes - of which part is spent on defence, another part spent on cancer treatment for those who need it, to continue with those examples.

Calling your opponents idiotic and asinine is part and parcel of *your* debate style, you've done it often enough when debating other subjects, you're doing it again now. Keep up the missionary work.

 

[sferrin]

We get it. You and KJ want bread and circuses. Unfortunately, as history shows, nations who neglect their defenses usually end up dearly regretting it. And you know what happens to those who refuse to learn from history.

 

[lastdingo]

We get it. You and KJ want bread and circuses. Unfortunately, as history shows, nations who neglect their defenses usually end up dearly regretting it. And you know what happens to those who refuse to learn from history.

The Western World spends so insanely much more than its threats combined that it could easily cut back a lot before any talk about defensive inadequacies would be justified.
So far, any cuts are not relevant to alliance defence, but only to offensive capabilities.

Wife to Husband - Here is $1000 to spend on our family needs

1) $300 on food
2) $300 on healthcare
3) $250 put away for retirement/college
4) $121 on clothes
5) $29 dollars on a lock for the front door

What are you some kind of crazy home security 'extremist'?

You misunderstand GDP for consumption. It's not. Much of it is savings/investment, in order to replace depreciated hardware/infrastructure.
Consumption is much lower.
Besides, a reallocation of government consumption (such as DoD budget) into government investment (such as infrastructure) would grow the GDP in the medium term.

Finally, the 29$ would be no investment "on a lock for the front door", but for burglar equipment to break into someone else's house. DoD spending is largely not about defense, but about offense.

 

[sferrin]

We get it. You and KJ want bread and circuses. Unfortunately, as history shows, nations who neglect their defenses usually end up dearly regretting it. And you know what happens to those who refuse to learn from history.

The Western World spends so insanely much more than its threats combined that it could easily cut back a lot before any talk about defensive inadequacies would be justified.
So far, any cuts are not relevant to alliance defence, but only to offensive capabilities.

I'd explain how wrong you are but honestly, it's not worth the effort. Judging by the quantity of wisdom in this comment I'd literally have to start from the ground up for anything I'd say to even make sense to you.

 

[bobbymike]

Your posts are so full of non-sequiturs, tendentious reasoning, ipse dixits and other logical fallacies as to make responding nearly impossible. You ramble off on tangents that makes me question your sanity.

Now would be the moment to *explain* why this is your opinion, or it's just another rant.

Modernizing the Triad, a little girl with cancer, really? This is a logical and reasonable response to you?

Asking the question and answering it at the same time. You apparently don't think it is logical or reasonable, K_M does.
Unlike with your earlier rant, you provide an explanation of your view.

You could zero out defense and little girls will still get cancer...

... but more little girls might get *treatment* with the newly available money.
Politics are about making choices, there's a sliding scale from spending nothing on defence (which K_M isn't proposing anyway) to spending less, all the way to maintaining defence spending levels. Different people will reach different conclusions. Real-life politics are about finding some sort of compromise, preferrably through reasoned debate. To which you contribute...

... this comment exceeds idiotic and asinine where there literally is no word to describe your so-called debate style.

...which is founded on...

Have you gone out to dinner or lunch this month? If yes shame on you that money you spent on a fancy dinner could have gone to 'Little Girl' cancer research. Your inhumanity knows no bounds?

... K_M having the temerity to feed himself, thus enabling him to continue in gainful employment, paying his taxes - of which part is spent on defence, another part spent on cancer treatment for those who need it, to continue with those examples.

Calling your opponents idiotic and asinine is part and parcel of *your* debate style, you've done it often enough when debating other subjects, you're doing it again now. Keep up the missionary work.

You just lack basic comprehension?
1) I called the comment idiotic and asinine not a person you understand the basic difference? While KM called me personally 'simplistic' and 'reprehensible'. He even adds that my posts aren't valid because I have not served in the military AGAIN questioning me personally. But that's typical KM attacks me personally while I reference the nature of his 'comment' and you're offended at me. You poor little victims
2) KM was referencing choices about 'additional' spending Triad modernization OR cancer treatment/research. If he spends money on a restuarant, not just food, which would be more expensive then a vegamite sandwhich at home means HE COULD have used the extra he lavished on the restuarant food for VOLUNTARILY given to a charity. But you claim the US is not a compassionate nation yet far and away gives more to charity at home and abroad then any other nation by far.

But I love you leftists you only look at taxes to pay for things like cancer research some of us give thousands per year in voluntary donations for good causes. You see I CAN HELP personally through my large charitable givings while I CANNOT built a new ICBM. I put my time and money where my mouth is, while you claim to be compassionate because the government FORCES you to be. Yes so compassionate you need the force of government taxation to 'give' to the poor little girl with cancer, hmm interesting.