Advocating cutting defense spending.

[beachman]

The budget will not be balanced until basically we cut defense spending, and certainly no major new intiatives such as a high speed rail system, or more health benefits, etc,..can go forward without some more funds, and raising taxes in a major way is not going to fly either, neither politically, nor economically. We have to compete globally, and there is a limit to taxation before firms move overseas.

So what it boils down to is that somehow, somewhere, we cut defense spending, and cut it a lot.

When is a democratic leader going to even dare talk about this?

I know we are at war, but it's time we get the troops out of Korea,Germany, Bosnia, Iraq, etc,...Heck, the Cold War is over.

[shraby]

1. Didn't you know? If we cut

defense spending where will the boys get their toys?

[Kanary]

2. Actually, Kucinich addressed this quite thoroughly.

You might want to check his website......... kucinich.us

Kanary

[beachman]

3. well, he did, but it gets lost come the general election

I think there are several issues that need to be addressed, but that politicians, and not just dems, are too afraid to tackle.

cutting defense spending
legalizing drugs to end the war on drugs
seriously investing in alternative energy in the same way we invest in defense

[Kanary]

4. It only gets lost if DEMs let it get lost.

There are petitions circulating.......go ahead and sign one...... make it a strong statement at the convention.

They'll be afraid as long as we let 'em.

Start agitating......... the RW did, and look where they are now.

Kanary

[Fenris]

5. Taxes need to be raised

Especially on the highest bracket. Troops should also be moved out of Cold War-era bases in Europe.

[K-W]

6. Our country wont be well until we do.

It is one of the main factors driving the current ugliness. Defence contractors have way too much influence and its only because the government is funding them thier profits.

That is why the neoconservatives have power.

[beachman]

8. I agree in part....

Even Ike warned us long ago of the power of the military/industrial complex. I am less sure it is as sinister as some think around here, but we can all agree that it eats up way too much money.

The problem is, to be frank, I think the democratic party is too chicken to take this on, but if they came out and just honestly told the American people the truth, that we cannot afford to spend more than the rest of the world combined, regardless of 911 or anything else, and that we have to find ways besides military intervention to get the job done, that it would be a winner.

Kerry says this sort of, and then says "stay the course." I can understand. We don't want to see Iraq dissolve into another Lebanon, but he comes off as waffling.

We need someone on the left to say that the best way to be fiscally reponsible is to create a smaller military. heck, come out for "smaller government" and use that tactic, but get this idea across.

Bush is weak on this point.

[K-W]

10. Well it all feeds into itself.

Defense spending is a crazy thing. Very few industries are as tied into thier government counterparts in the same way. The need for efficiency and secrecy in military issues has led to an integration which then started feeding into itself. It isnt sinister, none of this is sinister. Things happen for reasons.

So now youve got the defence industry very tied to the gov and using thier influence t make it more and more tied. Defence is a unique business as its entire profit comes straight from the government, this allows them to weather economic failures as long as they can stay essential. And if they get enough control of the government, they can dictate thier own profits. It isnt about being sinister, its like all business the product of many little peices all aiming for more money not knowing where the whole thing is going.

Until we sever the tie and cut defence spending, and almost more importantly socialize the military more, we can never get away from the neo-conservatives. It is there paranoid dellusions of military threats that give the military industry thier free ride.

[punpirate]

7. No leader in power now will do it...

... just as no person in power has done it for the last fifty years. The Congress and the corporate part of the military-industrial complex has blanketed the country with sites somehow associated with the complex. Trust me--there's not a single Congressman in the country that can argue for a reduced military budget without having some military or military-related installation threatened for closure in his or her district. It's a very symbiotic relationship. Corporations put installations in each and every district in the country, and then, Congressmen pushed for installations in their districts to bring federal dollars back home. It's pernicious, but still true.

We should cut defense spending, no question. But, it won't happen as long as a defense firm can target a Congressman's district and say, "well, if you cut defense, we'll have to close this facility" (unspoken, but true, in your and every other Congressional district).

[beachman]

9. a president could do it

Tell the military brass that they are gonna be fired if they use such tactics.

It wouldn't be so hard.

Reduce the heavy armor units in Europe.

Remove the troops from Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, and only keep minimal forces at bases around the world, as much for intelligence as anything, and keep the Navy pretty strong.

Heck, forget all the 2-war strategy, and let our allies like Japan and Taiwan defend themselves.

[punpirate]

11. Operative words are "now" and "in the past"....

No Congressman has successfully bucked the military budget alone.

No one, none, nada.

And even Eisenhower, who spoke against it, could stop it. It will take a concerted effort from the bulk of Congress, not a single member, not a single president.

Kerry won't do it alone--only an overwhelming majority in Congress can do it.

[SarahB]

12. How about making the Pentagon account for it as a start?

How making trillions have not been explained anyway?