Skip to main content

Dick Cheney in his West Wing office on March 19, 2003. White House photo by David Bohrer.
Dick Cheney is all concerned that President Barack Obama is going to hurt the military and not support our troops by supporting food stamps for hungry people, including said troops. No doubt in Cheney-land, a president who wanted to strengthen the military wouldn't be planning to withdraw from Afghanistan, he'd be starting new wars, because you really know you have a strong military when everyone in it has been deployed a minimum of a half dozen times. But when it comes to the terrible, awful damage likely to be done by shrinking the military down from two-wars-at-once size, there's Cheney going to Sean Hannity to mutter about "enormous long-term damage to our military." It's a typical Cheney-Bush "be afraid" moment. But the truth is, our military is ... large.
Pie chart showing defense spending by country, 2010. US is by far the largest at $698 billion followed by China at $119 billion.
Click here for interactive chart.
Really, a few cuts are not going to imperil our national security. And Dick Cheney saying that we've always been at war with Eastasia doesn't actually mean we should be so scared that we start sending pallets of cash over to defense contractors. By contrast, food banks actually are running out of food.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, our military budget will be.... (13+ / 0-)

    ...plenty large even with the proposed budget cuts (too large).  Unlike Cheney, I'm not at all concerned about that.  What concerns me is this: will the United States have long-term jobs for those in the military who will be downsized, or will they follow down the same path as far too many vets and be unemployed and homeless?  

    The sad truth is that if you want to increase the likelihood of being homeless at some point in your life, then the thing to do is to join the military. We spend far too much on the military and far to little on our vets. Always have.

    Failure to Publicize Acts of Hatred Only Allows Them to Fester and Metastasize.

    by BoxerDave on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:19:01 PM PST

    •  Don't forget Cheneys' little invention.... (3+ / 0-)

      The privatization of war... 'private' contractors' without oversight or accountability, bleeding your tax dollars from that Federal Pie and putting our soldiers in peril.. for the profit of the MIC... follow the money.

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      Finché c'è vita, c'è speranza

      by gininitaly on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:44:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yellowbelly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        The record shows that Dick Cheney has been terrified of:
        Saddam's nonexistent yellowcake
        Students demonstrating against Nixon and the Vietnam War
        Mikhail Gorbachev
        Liberal history teachers
        Nelson Mandela's release from prison
        War with China over an airspace violation dispute
        Restrictions on the use of torture
        Trying al Qaeda suspects in US courts
        Losing the opportunity to occupy Iraq and its oil fields in
           perpetuity
        Being drafted to serve in Vietnam
        Lynne Cheney

  •  When that Japanese, Brazilian, Chinese, (8+ / 0-)

    French joint force invades Nebraska we will be sorry we didn't spend more.

    Actually in most states local citizens are so heavily armed that the US probably doesn't need any army at all, if invasion is what is troubling old Dick (though he personally would be as likely to shoot his own side).

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:25:15 PM PST

  •  Dick who™? (11+ / 0-)

    When did he serve?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:25:29 PM PST

  •  this may sound counter-intuitive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, sweatyb

    and I am not in favor of military spending going up up up, but right now it's the only stimulus package out there and very likely why we still have a sound economy, even though so many are left behind.

    First, spending on roads, buildings, green research, education would be way way way better. That would pump money into the economy and improve quality of life.  And what is said is that if we cut military spending, we'd have it for these other things, but that isn't the way things work.  And right now the only stimulus spending both parties agree is the military stimulus and it does pump money into the economy.  

    A war got us out of the great depression, but why? Because the government did a war stimulus package, manufacturing and labor (building ships and planes and hiring troops). Okay now the military is mostly manufacture/research, but that's jobs for scientists, and all the stuff that has to go into military support businesses.  The military budget is now heavy on tech, a lot of techies work in some capacity under the military budget.

    This is why I think we need to support the military budget and ask in return that we get a civilian stimulus package too.  

    •  WW2 Was 10x the Hiring and Even More Purchasing (9+ / 0-)

      than the New Deal programs. At least. And the New Deal programs were far more than the 2009 stimulus in terms of hiring.

      Military is about the least stimulative spending; much of it goes to high income tech co's and earners.

      Cut the military to the bone and re-task the contractors to alt energy and climate change. That'll require massively more middle and lower income workers, it'll be in all states and almost all districts, and unlike Pentagon, climate change response will actually defend the United State.

      And it doesn't matter that the contractors aren't in the climate biz. They'll learn. Better they should blow a trillion dollars learning or hiring subcontractors than that they remain on the tasks they're on now.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:36:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  if that would happen (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Calamity Jean

        I would agree, totally, but it wouldn't, and we're not supposed to care about deficits.  We need to ask Krugman.

        •  What Would Happen (0+ / 0-)

          Let's say we ignore the option of shifting the Pentagon support to the economy to the more productive (and better defense) direct stimulus to American education, healthcare, labor and production, because "it wouldn't happen".

          Why aren't we ignoring the option of reducing the Pentagon budget on its own? That's about the same probability of "it wouldn't happen".

          Except they might. Only if we ignore them are they guaranteed not to happen.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:45:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  No surprise that the gun loving USA (6+ / 0-)

    is number one in military spending.
    The 4th of July is a holiday of explosions.
    Something is in our national DNA that likes the sound of bone shaking bangs and booms.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:27:52 PM PST

    •  To Some Extent It's the Other Way Round. (5+ / 0-)

      Within living memory the NRA favored background checks and some other popular gun control policies.

      It's when they shifted to be an arms industry mouthpiece that they went all gun-fundamentalist. It's at least partly true that the number one military spender has helped make the US so gun loving.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:39:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's not just the guns (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      it's training, and research. With no more conscription, the teens who needs jobs join. And then they get training, and many earn degrees.

    •  Colonizers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      crystal eyes

      We have a lot of benefit from the cultural reboot of a country only a century or two old. A lot of bad baggage left behind.

      Unfortunately, we rebooted by colonizing. And so the baggage we kept was seeing ourselves as colonists in a frontier. Which means (in our minds) we could move on if we want, despoil someplace else if we use this place up. And it means we know our claim to it is based on unjustifiable (and often inhuman) crimes, so we're insecure about our claim.

      So our culture is to be anxious, overcompensate by shooting, and distrusting people who aren't in our tribe, so they must be "indians": subhuman threats to our lives and property. Untroubled by destroying the land.

      Growing out of that immature, cavalier and insecure attitude has been inhibited by glorifying myths about the actual colonization, like the version Hollywood (built at the edge of our Manifest Destiny) has programmed us with for the past century.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:50:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We spend too much money on DoOffense especially (8+ / 0-)

    On hardware, the people not so much which is another very rotten American tradition since the so-called American Revolution.

    Don't pay the people who actually fight during or after is a really rotten disrespectful way to run a military.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:34:46 PM PST

    •  but we don't care about deficits (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior

      and while there are wiser uses, the military does invest in research and technology.  The money does get into our economy, it isn't just adding to wealth of the less than one percent. The military provides education to lower income teens, and gives those teens a future. it's been non-racist for years, not non-sexist, but non racist.  

      We need to spend more on everything else, not less on the military. In a smarter country we'd we could spend more rationally, but we don't have a smarter country, and the only place where there is agreement is on the military.  The military is the head start program for talented poor teens.  It's all there is for many of them.  

      •  No problem with paying humans but we spend (4+ / 0-)

        TOO much money on stuff, the stuff that doesn't dork but makes the evil MIC richer.

        But America hates humans which is why killing people in war is so easy.

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:03:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I can't get behind the military as stimulus (3+ / 0-)

        I would rather have no stimulus at all than get duped into the idea that wasting more and more money on an already overly bloated MIC is somehow our only hope.  That's like just asking for a coup.  If we haven't already had one, which I suspect we have.  CT aside, all the money is going to the Pentagon and Defense Contractors--none of it to the soldiers.  If Congress approves the funding for an extra, oh, 50,000 troops, watch what happens.  I'll bet they won't employ even one additional soldier and the money will instead be funneled back to the contractors.  They'll just say they had "more pressing needs".  Remember, once they get their money, it doesn't matter what they said they needed it for; they get to spend it anyway they want.  And the idea that the additional funding will someone get used to stimulate the economy is laughable to me.

        This is, basically, what we always feared and figured:  in the end, Congress won't allow cuts to military spending, but they're happy as sh#t to cut food stamps, unemployment insurance, head start, etc., etc.  You know, all those "useless" programs that give money to people sitting on their couch eating bon bons (according to them).  Time to play the same damn game.  No more for the military--hell, cut them deeper--until and unless Republicans relent and restore generous spending on the people who really need the help and who WILL stimulate the economy.  I can't say this with any more passion or conviction...F#@K THE MILITARY (and the horse they rode in on).  Time to play hardball and stop begging for GOP crumbs while giving them everything they want.

        "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

        by costello7 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 02:57:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  We need more intelligent diplomacy and far less (4+ / 0-)

    threatening the world with, and actually carrying out, military interventions. We already have far more military power than we're ever likely to need.

    Having said that, though, with the collapse of American manufacturing and the outsourcing overseas of other jobs, the military is just about the only chance left for so many young Americans to get any kind of start in life.

    In other words, we're in real deep shit.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:39:41 PM PST

  •  "We have always been at war with Eastasia" (3+ / 0-)

    I was just thinking about that this morning.

    The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

    by amyzex on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:47:04 PM PST

  •  Why yes, actually (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    costello7, Ky DEM, Calamity Jean
    Cheney thinks, Obama "would rather spend the money on food stamps than he would on a strong military or support for our troops."
    What kind of a nation would rather spend its wealth on food for the poor instead of guns and wars?  My nation.

    I'm still mad about Nixon.

    by J Orygun on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 02:20:05 PM PST

  •  not so much: cuts for SNAP & other safety net (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Calamity Jean

    essentials remain embedded in the budget.

    No, the thing we need is to spend more on people and less on stuff. In the military and outside it.

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 03:01:19 PM PST

  •  No sooner did the NYT post an article on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wendy Slammo

    yesterday than the scripted trolls came out with the exact same talking points about inviting aggression to pay for welfare. OBVIOUSLY these people are given their marching orders and canned scripts by various GOP and RW outfits. Perhaps THIS site isn't as shill-infiltrated as some of us suspect, but clearly, employing paid and volunteer shills to troll the comments sections of blogs and media outlets with disruptive talking points is a core tactic of the right.

    If we can't nuke every other country 17 times over, then some lazyass welfare queen with her 14 kids--each from a different father--gets a bonus check something something. This has been a central meme on the right for decades.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 05:38:58 PM PST

  •  But those cuts mean DICK CHENEY (5+ / 0-)

    makes less $$$. And that is not acceptable. In fact it's "enormously damaging". N/T

    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

    by rocksout on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 05:40:49 PM PST

  •  Defense spending is the reason there's not (4+ / 0-)

    "enough" money in the budget for other things.

    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

    by rocksout on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 05:42:53 PM PST

  •  Terrorist Toaster (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid, Calamity Jean

    You will never convince a guy who had elective surgery to re-do the wireless on his pacemaker so Bin Laden couldn't launch a cyber attack on Dickey's Ticker that we shouldn't spend every dime on defense.  Hell, he probably thinks his toaster and dishwasher has been compromised.  Since he will never serve time in jail, I think a miserable life afraid of his lawnmower is a perfect sort of Twilight Zone end for this Uber-Aggresive Chicken Hawk

    "This is our version of capitalism: a system of economic policies that benefit the extremely wealthy, and the rest survive as best they can."-- Chomsky

    by truthronin on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 05:46:25 PM PST

  •  This from the scumbag (5+ / 0-)

    who slinked up and down the halls of CIA, leaning on analysts for cherry-picked "intel" to support his — and his PNAC buddies' — decade-long campaign to invade Iraq (note how well that turned out), sent American troops into the meatgrinder ill-equipped, rang up a truly impressive casualty count (military and civilian) and, in the bargain, dropped the ball at Tora Bora where the entire post-9/11 melodrama could've ENDED!

    I liked him better with the artificial pump. At least, we could look forward to battery failure.

    Hades awaits, Dick.

  •  Better things to do? (5+ / 0-)

    I don't think it gets repeated often enough: When Cheney was called to serve his country, he chose deferment. Five times. Whenever he opens his mouth about the military or protecting his country, he should be asked the question: What better things to do did you have, Mr. Cheney? What a coward.

  •  people dont even know the round numbers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    of defense spending and government budgeting in general.

    i guess thats by design.

    i wonder who came up with the 1940 reference, and what was it meant to imply.  ww2 started in 1939, the buildup had already started even in january 1940 much less december 1940.

    the number i found, we had 175,000 troops in the mid 1930's.

    our military budget in 1939 was about 1 billion, adjusted for inflation that would be about 40 billion today.

    our real military budget all things considered is close to a 1000 billion. i guess that is also by design that it is spread over many many departments. the embassy building in iraq for instance, built at a cost of about a billion dollars, staffed by thousands of people, not in the defense budget. foreign aid, always influenced by military objectives, not in the defense budget.

    so, cost one trillion, tax receipts, maybe up to 3 trillion since i checked, total federal budget, about 3.5 trillion.

    feel free to correct me i am being general.

    drones are a cost effective way of generating enough new terrorists that calls to cut military spending will fail.

    by just want to comment on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 05:49:41 PM PST

    •  another number (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Santa Susanna Kid

      a trillion divided by 300 million is $3,333. the defense bill for every man woman and child.

      drones are a cost effective way of generating enough new terrorists that calls to cut military spending will fail.

      by just want to comment on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:08:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Plus Interest (0+ / 0-)

      Even if you just count the defense spending's share of the deficit (as its share of the total), that's about $20B on which we'll also pay about 50% interest, so another $10B+.

      But since at least $600B of the $1000B+ is unnecessary, waste and counterproductive to defense, that's all new debt. Which will cost $300B in interest. The actual direct cost of this insane Pentagon is closer to $1.5 TRILLION.

      And that doesn't count the $1.5T in "off budget" annual war expenses we had in Iraq + Afghanistan for a decade. Plus interest that's over $2.25T, so total of over $3.75T annually.

      Which is larger than the entire rest of the budget expense at $3.5T. And that rest also includes expenses caused by the war, not to mention opportunity costs for not spending that money on something constructive (or actualy defending us) instead...

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:59:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the defense budget (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, Ky DEM, happymisanthropy

    should be cut at least 20% now and reduced every year until it meets and doesn't exceed the needs of defending america from any imaginary boogie man the right can dream up.

  •  Fuck Dick Cheney, the guy is just a rotten-to- (3+ / 0-)

    the-core über capitalist, who makes all of his filthy money on oil and military ventures. The guy is pure scum. He is just making sure he still gets his piece of the pie.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:08:56 PM PST

    •  capitalism? (0+ / 0-)

      Cheney's worked for the government for almost his entire career, the remainder spent working for contractors getting fat on the government tit.  Getting fat through contracts that he promoted before he left government.

      Politics means controlling the balance of economic and institutional power. Everything else is naming post offices.

      by happymisanthropy on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:40:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This Despicable POS is an idiot (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anastasia p, Buckeye54, Calamity Jean

    Threat from who? Canada? Mexico? I bet this prick beats off to Red Dawn.

  •  "Going to imperil our national security." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Calamity Jean

    Read: Going to imperil Halliburton cash flow.

  •  Fuck Darth Cheney.. and the horse he rode in on. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid, Calamity Jean

    That prick just wants the gravy train to continue for his military contractor friends, he doesn't give one flaming fuck about the troops or the real world level of spending we need as a country to defend ourselves.

    They are talking about cutting housing, commissaries and healthcare for the troops but want to spend even MORE money on the F-35?

    Does anyone pay attention to the FACT that the F-35 now costs more than TWICE what it was supposed to originally cost,  cannot fly in or near thunderstorms, or fly in temperatures below 60F, or haul actual real live weapons YET....    But IF we keep funding that steaming black hole of failure Lockheed Martin promises they will eventually make it actually do SOMETHING besides look cool in power point slides.  

    I thought the military would learn SOMETHING from the massive failure the Commanche Helicopter program turned into. and massive amounts of money they wasted over the ten years that they flogged that turkey before it finally rolled over and gasped it last breath.

    Nope... the F-35 is on the exact same track of wasting Billions with not ONE aircraft that even remotely meets the original contract specs, and NONE that can fly in any scenario remotely resembling actual combat.  

    I hear it is by far the baddest looking airplane to ever sit on a flight line looking all high tech and dangerous.  Unfortunately despite all the money spent on it, that is its only ability, to sit on the flight line looking high tech and cool.  

    What you allow, is what will continue.

    by Nebraskablue on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:45:54 PM PST

  •  Don't forget the obvious (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocGonzo

    Its about the money.
    Cheney's speech may sound more patriotic than the Kochs asking for less regulation,
    but it's still all about Haliburton contracts.

    Hate Speech must remain legal. It reminds us that the hate is still out there.

    by SmallTownHick on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:51:33 PM PST

  •  I find that chart interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Calamity Jean

    Russia, once considered to be our greatest threat, now spends no more on defense than France or the UK.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:59:22 PM PST

  •  End the Free Global Police Force (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid, Calamity Jean

    We should shut down all of our foreign bases except where we are actually fighting or required by treaty (like in the Sinai Egypt/Israel - and we should renegotiate those down).

    Or we should charge other countries for the service of US military protection that they don't have to do themselves (or pay for). Did you see Captain Phillips? You and I (and the UK's taxpayers) are paying for all that. And it's protecting mostly the property of the foreign shipping companies and their foreign cargo, not just the tiny Americans on the deck of those supertankers.

    Either way we should spend no more than $300-400B annually on the Pentagon. And that includes the CIA, NSA and the rest of the "military intelligence". And that includes all the contractors. And any "off budget" expenses, like the entire Iraq War. If we're going to spend beyond preparedness for actual warfare, Congress has to declare war and explain the costs (including interest for the new debt).

    I'm OK with the US being the global police, so long as we follow international law in international spaces and UN resolutions inside any other country. But the globe has to pay for it, not me. If they don't, they can police themselves.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:42:43 PM PST

  •  Heartless Cheney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid, Calamity Jean

    This Dick should have spent time in the real military instead of sending other peoples daughter and sons to fight his wealthy friends wars.  How few of the wealthy send their own.  They have a billion and one excuses not to send them.  Time for him to really shut up.  He is the farthest from a human that a robot can get. He only lives this long because we pay for his healthcare.  His pact with the Devil is what keeps him alive.

  •  A poor comparison (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not saying the amount we spend is currently too low or high. Rather, that defense spending levels should be measured by our needs, not what other countries spend. Unlike other countries we are Democracy's global policeman and a large part of our defense spending is directed at the protection of countries around the world, not just our own.

    •  Might be time to rethink that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      Nothing against, oh let's say Taiwan, but if my choice is kicking people here off food stamps or providing Taiwan with a free defense force I know which one I'm going to pick.

      Most of the countries we're protecting are quite wealthy and one reason they're wealthy is that they don't have to pay much for their defense.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 05:36:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think (0+ / 0-)

        Germany, France, Great Briton, Japan, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Kuwait, South Korea, Canada, Afghanistan, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Australia, Brazil, Greece Guam, Israel, Italy, Spain, Den mark, The Netherlands, Greenland, Pakistan, Portugal, and the countless others who rely on the power and prestige of the U. S. would disagree.

  •  Why Isn't Dick Cheney in Prison? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Or at least on trial somewhere?

  •  5X (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    We should limit our military spending to the combined total of the next five largest military budgets in the world. That's my 5X plan. It's a sensible limit because if we're fighting the next five largest countries, probably we're on the wrong side.

    I suggest we cut about $35 billion per year for ten years from the military budget. We could put that money into converting military jobs to civilian jobs. That would get us down in the range of $400 billion, about what it was during the Clinton years.

    From there we could determine how much to cut to make it reasonably related to our needs.

  •  The concept is so simple (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    More spending on the military puts more money in Cheney's pocket.  Of course he is in favor of it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site