You equated the DOD, it's employees, it's budget and the VA along with other departments as Agents of Jingoism. You were vet are you an agent of jingoism?
This tone started from your faulty economic logic that less taxes and more money into the military will fix our economic woes and that there are fat and lazy free-riders on the Dole who are dragging the country down.
The fact is that Since Before WWII the Percentages of the Military Budget as compared to the total Budget has SHRUNK consistently. From OVER HALF of all expenditures to less than 20% on a routine basis.
Meanwhile social programs and other functions NOT authorized under the Constitution have expanded to over 60% of the budget. Even if you take Social Security and it's funding source OUT of the equation the Federal Budget both mandatory and non mandatory ARE LARGER than the consistent military Outlays.
You want to make complaints about people not getting enough funding? Explain to me why hastily constructed barracks buildings from WWII are STILL housing troops today?
Again, let me state, the Social Programs in the Federal Budget have Ballooned to be the lions share of the Federal Budget. I do not deny that there are needy people I do however STRONGLY disagree that EVERY SINGLE APPROPRIATION is going to pay for people who are destitute and
The people profiled numerous times as 'victims' of Katrina who STILL don't have some sort of self support methods and don't seek it are PROOF of that fact. New Orleans was IMPORTING labor for the reconstruction efforts from other states.
The fault is is that the unnecessary invasion of a country that was not a clear and present danger, and was absolutely known not to be one, but for the falsified intelligence, is an extraordinary expense that must be paid for. "Economic Conservatism" as you appear to like to use it, is a misnomer because it is not conservative to pay for huge grand new expenses on the credit card and then blame all the bills that have been building up for years.
Now on a whim and a lie, we have invaded Iraq and embedded ourselves in a foreign occupation and counter-insurgency in an expensive and fruitless war without end, dumping treasure in bucket-loads to impressively drive armored vehicles all over a foreign desert and occasionally shoot at stuff.
So your contention is that Prior to the Iraq invasion everything was good and that the amount of spending was on target all things considered? That the Budget Deficit is ENTIRELY the fault of the War in Iraq. Is that your contention?
If so the numbers don't bear that out. The 2001 Deficit swing started under the Clinton Administration. Bush didn't set the FY2001 budget, Clinton did. The down swing starts just prior to 2001. That's a combination of factors, the economic downturn expanded federal budget spending and all exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks.
Another way to look at it is percent of GDP and Gross Numbers.
Here's Military Expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Notice that when Military spending was a Significantly LARGER portion of our federal Budget the Differences between Gross and Public Debt were much closer together. Even coming out of the great depression. However, when you look at the expansion in the 80s and 90s, the federal spending on all fronts expanded while the military expenditures shrank (peace dividend) in proportion to federal budget size.
Let me say that again. Military Expenditures have trended down, consistently over the past 40 years with the occasional upsurge and drawdown again. You cannot blame the budget deficit on Military expenditures and operations. They're JUST not that big a fraction any more. It's domestic spending which has ballooned. Even if you look JUST at discretionary expenditures, Military expenditures have STILL gone down since 1962.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
TANSTAFL
Date: 2008-02-29 06:03 pm (UTC)Address the point SIR.
You equated the DOD, it's employees, it's budget and the VA along with other departments as Agents of Jingoism. You were vet are you an agent of jingoism?
This tone started from your faulty economic logic that less taxes and more money into the military will fix our economic woes and that there are fat and lazy free-riders on the Dole who are dragging the country down.
The fact is that Since Before WWII the Percentages of the Military Budget as compared to the total Budget has SHRUNK consistently. From OVER HALF of all expenditures to less than 20% on a routine basis.
Meanwhile social programs and other functions NOT authorized under the Constitution have expanded to over 60% of the budget. Even if you take Social Security and it's funding source OUT of the equation the Federal Budget both mandatory and non mandatory ARE LARGER than the consistent military Outlays.
You want to make complaints about people not getting enough funding? Explain to me why hastily constructed barracks buildings from WWII are STILL housing troops today?
Again, let me state, the Social Programs in the Federal Budget have Ballooned to be the lions share of the Federal Budget. I do not deny that there are needy people I do however STRONGLY disagree that EVERY SINGLE APPROPRIATION is going to pay for people who are destitute and
The people profiled numerous times as 'victims' of Katrina who STILL don't have some sort of self support methods and don't seek it are PROOF of that fact. New Orleans was IMPORTING labor for the reconstruction efforts from other states.
The fault is is that the unnecessary invasion of a country that was not a clear and present danger, and was absolutely known not to be one, but for the falsified intelligence, is an extraordinary expense that must be paid for. "Economic Conservatism" as you appear to like to use it, is a misnomer because it is not conservative to pay for huge grand new expenses on the credit card and then blame all the bills that have been building up for years.
Now on a whim and a lie, we have invaded Iraq and embedded ourselves in a foreign occupation and counter-insurgency in an expensive and fruitless war without end, dumping treasure in bucket-loads to impressively drive armored vehicles all over a foreign desert and occasionally shoot at stuff.
So your contention is that Prior to the Iraq invasion everything was good and that the amount of spending was on target all things considered? That the Budget Deficit is ENTIRELY the fault of the War in Iraq. Is that your contention?
If so the numbers don't bear that out. The 2001 Deficit swing started under the Clinton Administration. Bush didn't set the FY2001 budget, Clinton did. The down swing starts just prior to 2001. That's a combination of factors, the economic downturn expanded federal budget spending and all exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks.
Another way to look at it is percent of GDP and Gross Numbers.
Here's Military Expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
Notice that when Military spending was a Significantly LARGER portion of our federal Budget the Differences between Gross and Public Debt were much closer together. Even coming out of the great depression. However, when you look at the expansion in the 80s and 90s, the federal spending on all fronts expanded while the military expenditures shrank (peace dividend) in proportion to federal budget size.
Let me say that again. Military Expenditures have trended down, consistently over the past 40 years with the occasional upsurge and drawdown again. You cannot blame the budget deficit on Military expenditures and operations. They're JUST not that big a fraction any more. It's domestic spending which has ballooned. Even if you look JUST at discretionary expenditures, Military expenditures have STILL gone down since 1962.