OT: Military budget

[briansd1]

[quote=Casca] To the extent that tax dollars are misspent on defense, the trail usually leads back to some Congressman’s district, or is non-defense spending larded into the defense budget to hide it.[/quote]

The enlistment-to-grave social costs are growing and will be huge.

It used to be that soldiers served the nation then went home to resume life as normal folks. We now have a huge military “labor union” to feed.

[Anonymous]

[quote=2-stroke triple]At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.[/quote]

I haven’t heard this one before, but I suppose it is plausible. Can you provide a source?

But like another poster mentioned, military expansion provided a pretty good return on investment back then (ethical issues aside…) I don’t think we are seeing the same kind of returns these days.

[Anonymous]

[quote=2-stroke triple]At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.[/quote]

I haven’t heard this one before, but I suppose it is plausible. Can you provide a source?

But like another poster mentioned, military expansion provided a pretty good return on investment back then (ethical issues aside…) I don’t think we are seeing the same kind of returns these days.

[Anonymous]

[quote=2-stroke triple]At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.[/quote]

I haven’t heard this one before, but I suppose it is plausible. Can you provide a source?

But like another poster mentioned, military expansion provided a pretty good return on investment back then (ethical issues aside…) I don’t think we are seeing the same kind of returns these days.

[Anonymous]

[quote=2-stroke triple]At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.[/quote]

I haven’t heard this one before, but I suppose it is plausible. Can you provide a source?

But like another poster mentioned, military expansion provided a pretty good return on investment back then (ethical issues aside…) I don’t think we are seeing the same kind of returns these days.

[Anonymous]

[quote=2-stroke triple]At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.[/quote]

I haven’t heard this one before, but I suppose it is plausible. Can you provide a source?

But like another poster mentioned, military expansion provided a pretty good return on investment back then (ethical issues aside…) I don’t think we are seeing the same kind of returns these days.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Obama can’t afford to go after the military. Because he’ll be attacked for being weak on defense.

A Republican will have to do it.[/quote]

That would have been one advantage of having McCain in office. He had the credibility and the scruples to do it. Although I’m not sure anyone has the influence at present.

I do think the population will eventually wise up to the scale of defense spending and tire of paying more than half their taxes for protection from vague, nonspecific threats (e.g. the latest CIA announcement).

Doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon though.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Obama can’t afford to go after the military. Because he’ll be attacked for being weak on defense.

A Republican will have to do it.[/quote]

That would have been one advantage of having McCain in office. He had the credibility and the scruples to do it. Although I’m not sure anyone has the influence at present.

I do think the population will eventually wise up to the scale of defense spending and tire of paying more than half their taxes for protection from vague, nonspecific threats (e.g. the latest CIA announcement).

Doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon though.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Obama can’t afford to go after the military. Because he’ll be attacked for being weak on defense.

A Republican will have to do it.[/quote]

That would have been one advantage of having McCain in office. He had the credibility and the scruples to do it. Although I’m not sure anyone has the influence at present.

I do think the population will eventually wise up to the scale of defense spending and tire of paying more than half their taxes for protection from vague, nonspecific threats (e.g. the latest CIA announcement).

Doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon though.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Obama can’t afford to go after the military. Because he’ll be attacked for being weak on defense.

A Republican will have to do it.[/quote]

That would have been one advantage of having McCain in office. He had the credibility and the scruples to do it. Although I’m not sure anyone has the influence at present.

I do think the population will eventually wise up to the scale of defense spending and tire of paying more than half their taxes for protection from vague, nonspecific threats (e.g. the latest CIA announcement).

Doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon though.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]Obama can’t afford to go after the military. Because he’ll be attacked for being weak on defense.

A Republican will have to do it.[/quote]

That would have been one advantage of having McCain in office. He had the credibility and the scruples to do it. Although I’m not sure anyone has the influence at present.

I do think the population will eventually wise up to the scale of defense spending and tire of paying more than half their taxes for protection from vague, nonspecific threats (e.g. the latest CIA announcement).

Doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon though.

[blahblahblah]

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

But at the turn of the 20th century, how big was the federal government? Did it have a Department of Education, a Department of Energy, etc…? What about HUD, Social Security, or Medicare offices?

The US will continually increase military spending and war until it is forced to stop.

[blahblahblah]

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

But at the turn of the 20th century, how big was the federal government? Did it have a Department of Education, a Department of Energy, etc…? What about HUD, Social Security, or Medicare offices?

The US will continually increase military spending and war until it is forced to stop.

[blahblahblah]

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

But at the turn of the 20th century, how big was the federal government? Did it have a Department of Education, a Department of Energy, etc…? What about HUD, Social Security, or Medicare offices?

The US will continually increase military spending and war until it is forced to stop.

[blahblahblah]

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy budget was 60% of the entire federal budget. I think we need to put things in perspective.

But at the turn of the 20th century, how big was the federal government? Did it have a Department of Education, a Department of Energy, etc…? What about HUD, Social Security, or Medicare offices?

The US will continually increase military spending and war until it is forced to stop.

[Author]

Posts