Obama has declared that the US should maintain the "strongest military on the planet"

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Barack Obama says US 'will maintain strongest military on planet', as Clinton confirmed top diplomat
President-Elect Barack Obama has declared that the United States should maintain the "strongest military on the planet", while aiming to restore his country's global moral leadership.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 1:26PM GMT 02 Dec 2008



Mr Obama promised greater use of diplomacy and greater emphasis on building alliances around the world as he formally introduced his national security team, which included Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

But the former Illinois senator, whose rise was built on his opposition to the Iraq war, delivered a message of surprising toughness that at times could have come from George W Bush.

Mr Obama said: "To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet."

With the responsibilities of office just seven weeks away, he added that his administration was "absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism".

<snip>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3540167/Barack-Obama-says-US-will-maintain-strongest-military-on-planet-as-Clinton-confirmed-top-diplomat.html

[GarbagemanLB]

1. Good. End the bullshit Republican meme of Democrats being weak on defense once and for all.

[Two Americas]

27. right!

How dare the Republicans accuse us of not being war mongers and imperialists? We'll show them!

[scarletwoman]

69. Yep.

We're no wimps, dammit!

[yardwork]

30. Democrats have been spending money on defense for years and it hasn't helped.

It doesn't matter what anyone says - the U.S. continues to spend trillions on defense while letting its people go without healthcare or other basic needs, and to the corporatist-Republican talking head machine Democrats will always be "wimps."

[Marrah_G]

87. It's how that money is spent that counts.

If it is thrown down the toilet and spent frivolousnessly or foolishly then it is bad.

We can have a strong military and a strong society that takes care of it's citizens.

It does not have to be the choice that the repukes try to make it.

[FormerDittoHead]

112. Exactly. We could cut it by TWO THIRDS and we'd still have the strongest military in the world.

It's time to stop using the military to implement Keynesian economics.

It's time to throw some of that money to things which, oh, MIGHT BE OF USE TO US like roads, bridges, dams, alternative energy R&D, education. Let's get some more bang for our buck rather than building destroyers which will never be used.

I'd rather be wasting $10 billion on education than on ships which will never be used:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3639737&c=AME&s=SEA

..or wasting $7 billion on alternative energy R&D rather than the $7 billion that went just into the R&D of stealth F117's, which are now mothballed:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={55E62F15-3013-4A2F-AB85-452B89303C95}&dist=rss

[scarletwoman]

145. Are you sure you don't mean Friedman economics? In any case, to the rest of your post: Hear! Hear!

Maybe I've got it wrong -- too lazy to google -- but my understanding is that Milton Friedman is the father of the Chicago University School of Economics -- the whole "supply side, globalism, deregulation, tax breaks to the wealthy, trickle down" kind of stuff.

My understanding has been that Keynes, who pre-dated Friedman, was more of a bottom-up sort of economist -- but I certainly could be wrong.

In any case, except for WWII (maybe), our military is used exclusively to make a very small number of people extremely wealthy. It most certainly has NOT been used for "defense".

sw

[FormerDittoHead]

151. FYI, 60% of the military goes to employment.

First off, you should check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism

The stealth destroyer which I cited was supported by Senator Kennedy, btw, and given the go-ahead for 2 units (which will never be used) because of JOBS.

I took a course in international economics. The instructor cited other Keynesians who claimed that printing more money would help the economy even if it meant hiring people to dig holes and bury the money! The argument is based upon the multiplier effect in that the money borrowed by the gov't will benefit the economy 4.x, so it didn't matter what the original money is spent for as the taxes @ ~25% made from the multiplier product would end up paying for the original funds. This would assume that the lending rate for the fed was roughly the same as the rate of inflation, so the interest expense would be a wash.

This is not *my* position, this is what she explained to us was contemporary Keynesian theory, and I think it's excessive.

But, I still can't get my head around that one, because I simply disagree with pissing away the original funds. I also think that government money should be spent in a way to ensure the equitable distribution of that money, and I think this is where we will agree - military spending is very centralized.

It just stands to MY reason that the PRODUCT of the spending should amount to something, like the things I list in my post above.

[scarletwoman]

155. Funny thing, I already checked out that wikipedia page before you replied to my post.

The first thing I noticed about that page on "Military Keynesanism" is that it says: "This article does not cite any references or sources."

So, sorry. Without some reputable citations, that wiki piece is just something that someone posted on the internets.

In any case, I'll stick with whoever it was who said, "For every bomb that is built, another child goes hungry." (or something like that -- I searched but I couldn't find the original quote)

sw

[FormerDittoHead]

156. Oh, we don't disagree.

You should check the other links on that google for Military Keynesianism. The one at Common Dreams is pretty good, but there's plenty out there so you can see I didn't just make it up.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-12.htm

Here's another very good article:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19817.htm

It isn't an academic rule of economics that I'm aware of, it's just one of those justifications for how much we spend on the military even in peace time, to maintain a stable economy even during the downswings of a business cycle. There's no question that it works to increase the GDP in numbers, but as we agree, it's not that efficient nor does it distribute the money equitably.

Your comment about children going hungry speaks to the old paradigm of "guns or butter" but at least in the 90's when I took this one course I'm thinking of, I brought that expression up and the professor said that today's economists look upon military expenditures as consumer expenditures, only with the money, we're buying stealth destroyers (in this case) instead of new cars.

But again, my point with this specific example is that IMO, if the gov't WERE to buy 667,000 new $15,000 cars and just gave them away, it would be better for the country (jobs, useful R&D, etc) than spending that same $10 billion on only two stealth destroyers which will never be used.

I only hope that Obama is up for that kind of change. Between that and universal single payer, I'd actually start to think the world can become a better place for my kids.

[scarletwoman]

157. Thanks. The thing about military expenditures is that most of it does nothing to add

to our quality of life. We're paying for stuff that only destroys other stuff and gets itself destroyed in the process.

I'm on the run this morning, so I don't have time for an in-depth response, but I found the quote I was trying to remember last night when I posted:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Later,
sw

[John Q. Citizen]

168. Well said!

[niceypoo]

37. Our military budget is unsustainable at current levels

It is a welfare system for corporations. He could cut it in half and still make the same claim.

Who cares what republicans think, I dont.

[Ken Burch]

38. NOT GOOD. End any hope of passive progressive policies forever.

As long as we have to have "the strongest military in the world" domestic spending will always have to be cut to nothing. There's no reason to eternally trap ourselves in the last two years of the Johnson or Carter administrations. That's what being "strong on defense" dooms us to.

Bobby Kennedy died trying to save us from that.

[atimetocome]

113. Obama has promised to cut programs that do not work. Lets see

what he does with the many military related programs.

[Deja Q]

138. Pacifism only works when 100% or more of the population does it.

Charles Manson's victims thought he was a man of peace too. Much good it did them.

And does domestic spending have to be cut? I can think of all sorts of solutions. I bet President Elect Obama has too.

[MadHound]

60. Oh yeah, continue pouring money onto the pier of military spending

While the rest of the country goes broke. Gee, isn't this the same formula that bankrupted the Soviet Union?

[bvar22]

118. It is the formula that has bankrupted ALL empires.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Bill McBlueState]

96. That would indeed be good

But as much as I want Obama to end bullshit memes, I also want him to run the country well. "Running the country well" should include a reconsideration of how much military spending is really enough.

I remain optimistic.

[Deja Q]

136. *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner!

Obama knows the score.

Hippies shoving daisies into guns only think they do. Then the LSD wears off they get hungry for hippo shaped hamburgers.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Our military spending exceeds the sum total of all other countries.

We can spend far less and still maintain the "strongest military on the planet".

I trust that Obama understands this.

:patriot:

[scarletwoman]

3. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!

Whoopee.

[psychopomp]

9. I have lived on the other side of the planet for more than a decade

I think expats can appreciate the usefulness of a powerful military a bit more than Americans living stateside.

Now that the Chinese and Russians have stolen our stealth tech as well as our aerospace tech, I think it is a good idea to continue to spend resources to stay ahead of the curve. We don't have to spend more, just spend better. DoD budgets are notoriously bloated and wasteful.

[jwirr]

28. We need a smart military that looks at the 21st Century and asks

what types of defensive wars are we likely to be drawn into and what do we need or not need for this era. In the past we have just looked at weaponry and said "oh that looks good - put one of those in the basket also." We need to ask the hard questions not just support the military/industrial complex.

[Two Americas]

29. playoffs

I think we need playoffs. You can't know for sure who is number one without playoffs. That settle the question once and for all. We should have a sudden death elimination tournament - one loss, and your country is obliterated. The winners move on to the next round, until only two countries exist. Then we have a "Super Brawl" and there will be no more need for speculation and argument - the surviving country will be number one, world champion.

[scarletwoman]

68. Randy Newman comes to mind...

Political Science

No one likes us - I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money - but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us - so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

:hi:
sw

[pathansen]

52. How can we afford this? Shouldn't we finally focus on domestic issues?

[Mudoria]

161. We are indeed

:patriot:

[jenmito]

4. Do you have a problem with that? Is he breaking some campaign promise? n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

12. Yes, of course

The primary obstacle to gaining the much needed social services that we should be demanding of our government comes from the US governments' obscene focus on militarism. This is well documented.

Corporations love this spending as such largesse is a wonderful way to transfer wealth. Of course it represents theft from the commons.

I don't support corporatism or militarism so quite naturally I find such proclamations disturbing. I'm also disturbed when I find those who do not feel troubled by this and do not consider how this massive military build-up destroys the future for so many.

Priorities: We spend more on the Pentagon than the rest of the world combined spends on defense.

Yet: Only about two-thirds of children eligible for Head Start can be admitted to the program.
The United States now ranks 44th in the world in infant mortality, behind all the nations of Western Europe and the industrialized Far East, behind the former Yugoslav republic of Slovenia, and behind communist Cuba.

Although schools throughout the country are eliminating programs in music, foreign language and physical education, federal spending on education has fallen to less than 10% of the proposed 2005 Pentagon outlays.

Sixty-one million Americans are without health care coverage during some period of any given year; half that number are uninsured for the entire year. Many of these are children.



http://www.caucus4priorities.org/budget_analysis.php

[jenmito]

17. Did he break a campaign promise? Did you think, for any reason, that he was going to make our

military weaker/start a Dept. of Peace?

[eridani]

78. What we need to do is make our military USEFUL, which it at present is not n/t

[Radical Activist]

54. What your numbers tell us

is that Obama could drastically reduce the Pentagon budget, fund all the programs you mentioned, and still have the world's strongest military. I don't see anything in Obama's statement that is incompatible with your goals. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Ken Burch]

39. Big defense budgets doom us to Republican economic policies.

The LBJ years proved you can't have guns AND butter. And we can say as a certainty that no war will ever be progressive or with positive intent again, other than a war defending our own territory.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Should he had announced that we would step back and let another

country take that title? That would have went over really, really well with Americans, I'm sure.
He could have gone on from there...."you can call me Bambi".

The guy would have failed before even ever taking office. Sure there is 10% of the American population that would have hailed him as a Godsend....but I doubt any Democrat would have won the Presidency in America after that ever again.....ever. :eyes:

[MadHound]

61. Doesn't mean that we can't switch some of our spending from military to social programs

With over fifty percent of our budget going for the military, with our military budget larger than the next twenty eight countries on the list, I think that we can safely shunt some spending away from the military to social programs.

You know, the Soviets went down this same path, continuing to spend on the military over all else, look what it got them, a fine collapse onto the ash heap of history.

[Kahuna]

75. Frenchie...

:loveya:

On yeah: and.."call me Bambi." Nice touch. :)

[Beartracks]

6. Thanks for the chart!

It's easy to see now why Social Security is crippling the budget. :sarcasm: :rofl:

[Common Sense Party]

47. Ummm...Social Security and Medicare are not part of "discretionary"

spending. I don't know what that little entry on that chart is for. But you need to look at the whole budget, not just discretionary, and you'll see how huge the entitlement spending is. And it's unsustainable at the current rate.

[Clio the Leo]

7. A strong DEFENSE is not the problem.....

... it's too strong of an OFFENSE. This is not football. :)

I have always believed in what John Kennedy said...

We dare not tempt (our enemies) with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

[jenmito]

8. If you have a problem with that, you should read post #7. n/t

[uponit7771]

10. reThugs have defined defense for so long, I pray Obama redefines it into what founding father wanted

[Unsane]

11. That graphic is daunting.

[Metta]

13. That disturbed me, too. Seems to be another foolish hawk proposal.

thanks for the chart. :toast:

[lurky]

14. He could cut the military by half,

and we would still have the strongest on the planet. Just sayin...

[Colobo]

15. Good. We need a strong, wisely used military force.

[latebloomer]

16. Huh, that's strange!

I had always read that Social Security and Medicare took up the largest part of the federal budget.

The "defense" spending is obscene. Talk about overkill! What a waste.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. They do, but they are entitlements not discretionary spending

And they are mostly funded via payroll taxes.

[latebloomer]

21. Aha- Thanks!

[Zynx]

20. Social Security and Medicare are not included on that chart. Their administrative costs are, but not

the transfer payments. They are the largest items.

[Zynx]

18. What do you expect? "I want to drop to the #3 or #4 with a trajectory down to #10."?

[Hippo_Tron]

22. We can cut defense spending and still have the strongest military in the world by far

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

[AllentownJake]

23. I'm sure I want to establish the department of peace

and turn all our aircraft carriers to floating homeless shelters will be a winning strategy for us?

[Ken Burch]

40. It doesn't have to be a choice between "strongest military in the world" or unilateral disarmament

What part of "we have enough weapons already" do you not understand

To be a hawkish president is to be a right-wing president. The war budget is kept high mainly to keep us from dealing with human needs.

We all know Obama couldn't be any different from Reagan or either Bush if he keeps war spending high.

[TheWraith]

51. I hope to hell that you're being sarcastic with that last sentence.

Otherwise you're way out of touch with reality.

[AllentownJake]

83. Actually the war budget is kept high

to replace weapons they plan to use on people. Less social spending is an unintended consequence they like but their first priority is killing.

Not going into foolish wars with no exit strategy in itself reduces the need to replace bombs and equipment that is used or destroyed.

[elkston]

24. Obama is standing up for us. He's telling our enemies - "Don't f-ck with Us"

Believe it or not, there are those who wish to harm us and are too far gone to be talked out of it. We must be able to defend ourselves.

[eridani]

79. Imperial military domination of the rest of te world has nothing whatsoever to do with defense

The military is not defending you anyeay--it's defending corporations.

[jefferson_dem]

25. Like, duh...

What's he supposed to say?

...And he's right. We should strive to maintain the strongest military title while, at the same time, steadfastly working to restore global moral leadership.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. What a harrowing thread

HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.” “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).
the government's deceptive pie chart.



Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

[Starry Messenger]

32. It's been a harrowing week.

This is light. You should have posted "Clinton" in the title if you really wanted to see some action.

[Radical Activist]

57. You seem to imply that Obama will keep military spending where it is.

But he didn't say that, did he? How much do you think the US could cut military spending and still have the world's strongest military?

[MadHound]

64. Gee, at least in half

Our military budget is larger than the next twenty eight countries on the list, combined. The amount of money we spend on military is obscene, and a waste. All we're doing is following the Soviet Union, spending so much money on the military budget that all else falls apart and we slide into oblivion.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

124. Have you any citations

where Obama has stated he will be cutting the US military budget? I haven't seen any and would genuinely be interested.

I'm not interested in the US having the strongest military. Everyone knows the US military is used to strong arm other countries for corporate gain.

I'm more interested in the US having the strongest social fabric and as part of that the best health care in the world. I'm more interested in the US having the best food system and lowest infant mortality in the world.

The focus on US militarism, no matter (especially?) if it's pandering, is completely reprehensible.

[Radical Activist]

146. Yes.

During the campaign Obama spoke frequently about where he would be spend money domestically if we weren't spending it in Iraq. Clearly, he plans to divert some military spending to other areas.

You're the one making the claim that Obama is keeping military spending where it is. Do you have a citation to support your argument? Or is this just more of the "expecting the worst" routine?


Additionally, this is right on the official website:

Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement: An Obama-Biden administration will realize savings by reducing the corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting. This includes launching a program of acquisition reform and management, which would end the common practice of no-bid contracting.Obama and Biden will end the abuse of supplemental budgets by creating a system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget. Obama and Biden will restore the government's ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps. They will order the Justice Department to prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and abuse.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

159. It seems

you do not have any citations.

I haven't seen any either. Perhaps they don't exist.

[Radical Activist]

160. I just gave two citations.

It seems you're determined to believe the worst about Obama despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Radical Activist]

163. Isn't it nice to have a President who shares your views?

Here's another link. Feel free to make another post supporting Obama's efforts to cut defense spending instead of misleading people about his stance.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/11/barack-obama-military-spending-pentagon.html

[Orwellian_Ghost]

166. What are you talking about?

Nowhere in the article is there any mention of cuts in Pentagon spending.

Even eliminating programs does not guarantee a reduction in spending and there is only hemming and hawing on that point as is usual.

Do you seriously think the next administration is going to reduce military spending? If this does not happen will you then reassess your capacity to clearly analyze what sits right before your very eyes.

And BTW a "lesser increase" is not a reduction unless you live in the world of Orwell.

[Radical Activist]

167. "President-elect Obama wants to slash wasteful military spending."

A google news search turns up many articles that say the same. I can't figure out if you're stubborn or lack reading comprehension. How many times did Obama have to say during the campaign that he wants to stop spending so much money in Iraq and use the money at home instead?

Nowhere is there evidence for your implication in this post that Obama will keep spending levels the same. Why are you so eager to believe anything negative about Obama when there's no evidence to support your assumption but so quick to dismiss anything that shows he's doing the liberal thing? You don't seem to be approaching this with a fair and open mind.

[Two Americas]

31. it's a miracle

Obama has turned people into hawks.

Just a couple of years after the majority of people here were citing the war in Iraq as the most important issue, just a couple of months after many people here were saying that support for the IWR was the main reason to reject one of the two leading candidates, we have turned into a bunch of "America first!" saber rattlers.

This is real change, perpetual all-encompassing change. Every couple of months we get to change all of our positions.

[jefferson_dem]

33. The belief that America should couple military superiority...

with positive global moral leadership is not "America first! saber rattling".

Some may actually argue that the fucked-up IWR is anti-thetical that goal.

Get a grip.

[Two Americas]

36. sure

No problem. I didn't expect anything different, and have many grips, thanks. I am just pointing out the vast discrepancy between what many people were saying then, and what they are saying now.

Then - "We need to run to the center in order to win, then we shift to the Left."

Now - "We needed to run to the Left to win, but now reality dictates that we must govern from the center."

One of dozens of examples.

[Truth2Tell]

41. It was predictable. I'm pretty sure

it's going to get pretty lonely being an advocate of peace when a Democratic President wages war.

[ecstatic]

44. I want peace more than anything; but as President, it is his job

to make sure this country has a strong military presence. He is our Commander in Chief. It does NOT mean we will wage wars all across the globe. It just means, do not f*ck with us! As long as we are FAIR (which isn't the case now), then I concur.

[Ken Burch]

55. We need to focus on defending our own territory.

That's all our Pentagon should be for. Not the Middle East. There can't be a sane reason for us to bomb Iran or Pakistan. And the world likely won't recover if we do.

[mvd]

34. Defense spending is too high

And it's been spent inefficiently. A strong defense is ok, but Bush-like spending on it is not IMO.

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. ....

To understand the real weight of military Keynesianism in the American economy today, however, one must approach official defense statistics with great care. The “defense” budget of the United States—that is, the reported budget of the Department of Defense—does not include: the Department of Energy's spending on nuclear weapons ($16.4 billion slated for fiscal 2006), the Department of Homeland Security's outlays for the actual “defense” of the United States ($41 billion), or the Department of Veterans Affairs' responsibilities for the lifetime care of the seriously wounded ($68 billion). Nor does it include the billions of dollars the Department of State spends each year to finance foreign arms sales and militarily related development or the Treasury Department's payments of pensions to military retirees and widows and their families (an amount not fully disclosed by official statistics). Still to be added are interest payments by the Treasury to cover past debt-financed defense outlays. The economist Robert Higgs estimates that in 2002 such interest payments amounted to $138.7 billion.

Even when all these things are included, Enron-style accounting makes it hard to obtain an accurate understanding of U.S. dependency on military spending. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress that “neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing” or “details on how the appropriated funds are being spent.” Indeed, the GAO found that, lacking a reliable method for tracking military costs, the Army had taken to simply inserting into its accounts figures that matched the available budget. Such actions seem absurd in terms of military logic. But they are perfectly logical responses to the requirements of military Keynesianism, which places its emphasis not on the demand for defense but rather on the available supply of money. - Chalmers Johnson, Republic or Empire?

And is it just me, or does 'absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism' sound an awful lot like 'we will continue to stand firm against Communist aggression in Southeast Asia'?

[leftstreet]

42. No it's not just you

Communist aggression, Terrorism, The British Are Coming, whatever

[leftstreet]

43. K&R

[Occam Bandage]

45. You're making an awfully big deal over an entirely meaningless statement.

Nothing he could realistically do would drop our military to #2 status.

[AJH032]

46. President Clinton, in his first year, dramatically reduced military spending

and yet we still had, by far, the strongest military. I'd like to see President Obama do the same, starting with the Iraq war.

[MadHound]

65. Dramatic and Clinton aren't the two words I would use when it comes to military spending

Clinton cut the military budget by aprox. two percent over the course of his two terms.

[amborin]

48. we need a strong military to give punch to our diplomatic endeavors

but we need smart military spending

not on some insane and stupid missile defense system that will never work and would only provoke

we need smart and rational military spending

and---maybe O said that to shut down the rethug meme

[earth mom]

49. WTF? I don't think this is what the people voted for.

:grr:

[dbmk]

62. Well, its what he said all along.

He even said he would expand the manpower of the military.

[sufrommich]

63. You think the American people don't want to have the strongest

military in the world? Which country do you think the American people would be comfortable handing that title over to? Who would take it?

[Kahuna]

72. Really? Do you think you know what 69 million people were thinking???

:rofl:

[Marrah_G]

88. Yes- this is what people voted for- this is not something new.

Obama never claimed to be anti-military or a pacifist.

[mkultra]

101. Its what i voted for

a strong national defense costs much less than an a strong aggressive military policy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

106. It Absolutely Is. Well, Maybe Not The Fringe Wacked Out Far Left Fringe Zealots, But Yes For The

rest of us.

[smalll]

50. OMG! Obama wants to keep us number one armaments-wise!

Cue the "progressive" under-handed bus toss! (How dare he not come out for defeat!)

[Radical Activist]

56. Being invaded by Canada is now a major progressive goal

from what I can tell after reading this thread.

[Kahuna]

74. How dare he, indeed!!!

:rofl: Woo boy! This is going to be an interesting 4 years. Somehow the "progressive" branch think that they are responsible for 69 million votes and are going to hold President Obama hostage...or else! :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

53. So he could cut military spending in half or more

and still fulfill that pledge. I'm sure people will use it as more "proof" that Obama is moving right.

[OneBlueSky]

58. he can do that and still cut defense by 50% or more . . .

not that he will, mind you . . . but he sure as hell should . . .

[alwysdrunk]

59. Good. We need to have strong defenses.

We don't need pre-emptive war, but that is another subject.

"The American people don't want their money wasted on welfare or at the Pentagon"

Smart, efficient military spending will be the Obama defense legacy.

[eridani]

80. Imperial bullying not only has nothing to do with defense, it actually detracts from defense

9/11 happened because Bush couldn't be bothered with dealing with an actual threat--too busy planning the theft of Iraq's oil.

[DevonRex]

100. Having a strong military has nothing to do with imperial bullying.

I wonder why you keep making that giant leep.

[eridani]

109. Well, then, explain what 700+ military bases all over the world has to do with defense

The Romans and the British got by with less than 40.

[DevonRex]

117. Having military installations does not equate to imperialism, either.

I would say that the Iraq occupation is imperialism but Obama wants to get out of Iraq and Gates is already working on expedited withdrawal from that country.

[eridani]

120. What are they for, then?

Why not get rid of most of them? Why in bleeding hell are there even such things as NORTHCOM, SOUTHCOM, CENTCOM and AFRICOM? What if the Chinese decided that they needed a NORTHCOM to deal with "threats to their security" in North America? what would you call that?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

121. Please show me

an unequivocal statement from Obama that he wishes for complete US troop withdrawal in Iraq and an unconditional end to the occupation.

[mkultra]

102. your assuming Imperialism into defense

a strong national defense and an aggressive military policy are two separate things. you will need to go beyond your assumptions.

[eridani]

111. 700+ military bases all over the world have nothing whatsoever to do with defense n/t

[mkultra]

150. 700+ military bases have nothing to do with his statment

but i agree, they equate to imperialism. The goal is to teach the center that the conservative principle of sticking our troops in every country is really just aggression. We have to show them what DEFENSE really means which requires that we calm their nerves in the process.

[Kahuna]

66. With all the enemies bushco left us, he's right!!!!!! I don't see a problem

with that. :shrug:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

123. Well let's look at this

"Mr Obama said, " To ensure PROSPERITY here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest MILITARY on the planet.""

He ties together America's greed and/or wantoness (calls it prosperity) with peace

That statement shows the personality behind the United States' actions. It also shows that these politicians get up there and preach as if they are speaking for me personally.."we all SHARE the belief", Obama says.

Yes, the United States needs the World but the World does not need the United States with its massive appetite for consumption on this planet and placing the military in far flung locations around this planet to ensure its continued pillaging.

Obama says, "We can not tolerate a world where innocents are being killed by extremists."

He speaks of needing the largest military on the planet and speaks of how killing innocents can not be tolerated. Sounds a wee-bit twisted.

Why oh why do so many Americans continue to fling themselves at the feet of government? Has not the last 40 years alone been enough in-yer-face proof that they do not care?

Any wonder now why most of the World looks at America as a bunch of greedy, spoiled whiners while American missiles land in other country's neighborhoods?

[Monk06]

67. The US navy which is the bulk of US military force maintains 11 carrier strike groups

none of which could have prevented the attack on
Mumbai. The 150,000 US combined land forces are
bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, their equipment
worn out and their future battle readiness compromised
by lack of relief.

Barack must be reciting from a script he doesn't believe in
because the US Military is tapped. Nuclear options are being
are on the table with the IRan situation. That is why the
Russians are going ape. They know the US is out of options
regarding maintaining its military dominance and they are
preparing for the worst.

[Captain Hilts]

115. USN has smallest # of hulls since BEFORE the First World War. nt

[Thothmes]

164. Unlike the Navy before WWI

the current count of U.S. Navy ships (286?) consists of only Carriers, Cruiser, Destroyers, submarines and Amphibs, ie warships. The pre WWI count consisted of all warships plus oilers, colliers, tenders, tugs, supply ships, virtually anything that floated in the Navy inventory. The support force for the operational Navy is the Military Sealift Command. They now operate the oilers, supply ships, salvage vessels etc. with civil service crews.

[Festivito]

70. That needs to be compared to other countries and a full budget.

That budget analysis only covers some of our budget.

When compared to other countries we could cut our spending in half and still spend more than ALL THE OTHERS put together.

We could also cut our military spending in a major way, maybe on-tenth, and still outspend EVERYONE ELSE.

I have no idea what the actual fractions would be, just that it needs to be addressed since we blew a bunch of money on bankers who blew a bunch of OUR money on a get-rich scheme that hamstrings us all.

[Festivito]

90. That DOES NOT INCLUDE interest payments.

That's got to be a couple hundred billion by now.

[harun]

71. I have no problem with having the strongest military if it costs about

half as much as what we pay now.

[polichick]

73. He's covering himself so that he can build a foreign policy on diplomacy...

...without the other side accusing him of being "weak on defense" ~ same reason he picked the team he did.

Doesn't mean he'll need to put the same amount of money into it.

[eridani]

76. So, what does it have to be strong enough to do?

Not seeing any realistic analysis of actual threats. I mean to American people, not to corporate whores.

[eridani]

77. Military spending is destroying any chance we have at prosperity n/t

[mkultra]

103. Incorrect

WAR is destroying our chances at prosperity. Defense does not.

[eridani]

107. If "defense" includes a useless missile shield, it sure does

You are right that actual necessary defense would not harm infrastruture investment.

[mkultra]

108. well, i guess you can assume what every new promises into this that you want

that would allow you to remain chicken-little. Simple fact is we know that he stands against an immoral war in Iraq and is promising insure that we have the strongest military in the world. There is a significant amount of air between those two statements, they do not juxtapose.

[eridani]

110. We could cut military spending in half and still have the world's largest military

"Strong" and "large" don't necessarily go together. Why not first define what our military has to be strong enough to do?

[mkultra]

149. You just made my point

Thats why he said "strongest" not largest. Defining the goals for our military is a much larger discussion. I would try not to panic until you actually hear something that would indicate aggressive intentions.

I personally would believe that to guarantee the DEFENSE of America would require us to be prepared to defend ourselves from multiple aggressors on our shores.

[eridani]

162. I agree with the "on our shores" part 100%

Nothing we have done since the end of WW II has been devoted to that end, however. At least in the "hot war" department.

[bunnies]

81. As opposed to what?

"Hey guys, uh, I've been thinking and I've come to the conclusion that having the strongest military in the world is highly overrated. I mean, wouldnt it be great to be weaker than China and Russia for a while?"


Yeah. Thats genius. :eyes:

[w4rma]

82. Considering how far behind the nearest military spender is, we can cut costs and still be #1. (nt)

[Orsino]

84. Maintaining one rather than squandering it sounds pretty damned good...

...though I'm sure Obama was mostly trying to placate the nuke-em-all military fetishists.

[pecwae]

85. CALL CONGRESS RIGHT THE FUCK NOW!

They can tell PE Obama exactly how and where he should cut defense spending IAW DU.

[jefferson_dem]

135. I'm sure your congressmember will be really interested in the message about...

how the US should no longer strive to maintain military superiority now that Obama has been elected.

[Marrah_G]

86. Good- I want a strong military with a WISE leader.

[ima_sinnic]

89. oh boy, "change." with the DLC running things, "change" is just an empty slogan

the only "change" is in the actual identity of the players. the game is still the same.

next time, I will not be suckered by stupid, meaningless campaign slogans. The DLC and all warmongering Democrats and politicians can kiss my peace-loving, diplomatic ass. We have more than enough weaponry to wipe out the entire planet several times over. SO WHAT? that just shows where our priorities lie: death and destruction and blood-profits first, humanity a very distant second.

[stillcool]

94. It is who we are...

and it is what we do, and have been doing for at least 50 years. Why is it that you would expect one man to dismantle all that has been built before he is even President? Is that really the change you believed in? A Superman that would single-handedly take on and destroy all that is wrong with our government? Is he, and he alone responsible for the change you seek in our government?

[eridani]

99. Good point

Changing our total dependence on the military-industrial complex is a lot like trying to turn a battleship around with an outboard motor.

[ima_sinnic]

104. he could say something like, having the hugest arsenal in the world

is less important than peace and cooperation. He doesn't need to parrot the warmonger line of bullshit--unless he WANTS to, that is.

Having the hugest fucking military in the universe did NOT deter the 9/11 attackers, so why and how is it so goddam essential to our "security" as a "deterent"? Those who want to attack will attack despite our wetdream bullshit nuclear arsenal. Those whom we treat as equals, without judgment of their economic system and way of life that might be different from ours, without stealing their resources or exploiting their people, whom we treat with diplomacy, courtesy, amd fairness will be less inclined to attack and more inclined to engage in a cooperative relationship. But that would destroy our American warmongering way of life, so of course that's not going to happen. It is much more profitable to chest-beat and strut out our bombs and missiles and superweapons and engage in murder, plunder, rape, and mayhem than to engage in diplomacy and cooperation.

[stillcool]

148. What do you think will fall first...

the empire or the nation? Obama can say anything you would like him to, and you can say anything you like about him, but that won't change the fact that the Pentagon now wields an enormous amount of power in this country, and around the world. No President, especially one that is not yet President, is going to change that fact. Actually, nothing will change without a substantial number of 'we the people' lobbying our government, and that won't happen unless there is a 'we'...but what the hey...maybe out of the ashes some 'unity' will form. In the meantime "Fuck Obama".
...From 1999...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/Money_Talks.html
Money Talks:
The Implications of U.S. Budget Priorities
by Robert L. Borosage
Foreign Policy in Focus
Special report from Institute for Policy Studies and Interhemispheric Resource Center

In FY 1999, the United States spent over $276 billion on its military. This figure includes outlays of the Pentagon and the Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs plus more than $27 billion spent on the intelligence agencies-about half on tactical military intelligence and half for intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). With this budget, the Pentagon fields a military force without rival in the world. It sustains over 1.4 million men and women in active duty plus another 870,000 in the reserves. Standing forces include 10 active Army divisions, three Marine divisions, 13 active and seven reserve Air Force fighter wings, and 12 aircraft carrier battle groups (11 active), plus around 7,200 deployed nuclear warheads capable of being launched from the ground affixed to MX and Minuteman missiles, by sea from Trident submarines, and by air from B-52 and B-2 bombers. The Pentagon has basically completed its post-cold war drawdown and, with minor reductions, plans to sustain this force structure indefinitely. The Pentagon budget also includes over 770,000 civilian employees, almost 40% of total executive branch civilian personnel.
The $276 billion does not include the cost of military pensions or the Veteran's Administration-another $43 billion in FY 1999-nor the military's share of the national debt, a good portion of which was amassed either in active wars or in the massive Reagan military buildup in the 1 980s. Loan guarantees offered by the Defense Department to promote arms sales are also an obligation not included in that national security figures.
When you think of big government, this is it. The military establishment issues over half of all government paychecks. It makes about two-thirds of government purchases of goods and services. It sponsors 53% of all government research and development. It is the nations second largest health care insurer and provider and the largest day care provider. It runs the worlds largest educational enterprise. It manages over 5,000 properties on lands with a total land area about the size of the State of Ohio. Outside of China, it is without rival as the worlds largest bureaucracy.
It is also without question the largest source of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. It employs over 4O,000 accountants and budget analysts to manage over 250 accounting systems. In 1990s, the General Accounting Office reported that the Pentagon was unable to account for $250 billion of more than $1.2 trillion worth of property, equipment, inventory and supplies. Yet, it continues to disburse billions of dollars without records of what it is purchasing. As conservative Republican Senator Charles Grassley has said: "We have financial chaos in the Pentagon. We have meaningless accounting numbers....We have meaningless cost estimates. The Pentagon also provides the pork, or pet projects, that both conservatives and liberals can love. Senator John McCain estimates that $5 billion in pork-barrel special interest projects-primarily weapons or construction projects that the Pentagon did not ask for- were larded into the FYI999 defense budget.
----------------------
The frustration for all reformers is that most Americans are not prepared to stand up strongly on these issues, deferring to the judgments made in Washington. While caring about domestic concerns, such as violence and health care, the public does not perceive the trade-off between military spending and domestic investment. Only dramatic events and concerted effort-like the Americans held hostage in Iran or the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war-are sufficient to move majorities to demand either more or less spending for foreign affairs.
Given an acquiescent public, elite opinion and the military-industrial-intellectual complex wield enormous clout. Bureaucratic inertia-reinforced by the built-in lobby of military forces, veterans, contractors, base-dependent communities, and conservative legislators-renders either reform of the Pentagon or dramatic reductions in military spending very difficult. The powerful military lobby makes it easier to increase spending in the wake of an international crisis such as the Kosovo war than to decrease it in the absence of any serious threat.

Pentagon Watch..http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/Pentagon_watch.html

[pampango]

91. That will be his easiet promise to keep since he can cut the military by 90% and

it will still be the "strongest military on the planet". :)

[OnionPatch]

92. Exactly.

Hey, I'm a peace-loving liberal and all, but I WANT us to have the world's best military. We can do that and still cut waaaaaaay back.

[harun]

158. Correct, that is why he didn't say "I plan to increase military spending"

Big difference.

[stillcool]

93. Empire vs Nation..

which falls first?

The Mega-Pentagon: A Bush-Enabled Monster We Can't Stop
The Pentagon has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasury that won't be easily undone by future administrations.
by Frida Berrigan, Tomdispatch.com
www.alternet.org/, May 28, 2008
--------------------------------------------------
The attacks of September 11, 2001 decisively ended that debate. The Bush administration promptly declared total war on every front -- against peoples, ideologies, and, above all, "terrorism" (a tactic of the weak). That very September, administration officials proudly leaked the information that they were ready to "target" up to 60 other nations and the terrorist movements within them.
The Pentagon's "footprint" was to be firmly planted, military base by military base, across the planet, with a special emphasis on its energy heartlands. Top administration officials began preparing the Pentagon to go anywhere and do anything, while rewriting, shredding, or ignoring whatever laws, national or international, stood in the way. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld officially articulated a new U.S. military posture that, in conception, was little short of revolutionary. It was called -- in classic Pentagon shorthand -- the 1-4-2-1 Defense Strategy (replacing the Clinton administration's already none-too-modest plan to be prepared to fight two major wars -- in the Middle East and Northeast Asia -- simultaneously).
Theoretically, this strategy meant that the Pentagon was to prepare to defend the United States, while building forces capable of deterring aggression and coercion in four "critical regions" (Europe, Northeast Asia, East Asia, and the Middle East). It would be able to defeat aggression in two of these regions simultaneously and "win decisively" in one of those conflicts "at a time and place of our choosing." Hence 1-4-2-1.
And that was just going to be the beginning. We had, by then, already entered the new age of the Mega-Pentagon. Almost six years later, the scale of that institution's expansion has yet to be fully grasped, so let's look at just seven of the major ways in which the Pentagon has experienced mission creep -- and leap -- dwarfing other institutions of government in the process.
----------------------------------------------------------
1. The Budget-busting Pentagon: The Pentagon's core budget -- already a staggering $300 billion when George W. Bush took the presidency -- has almost doubled while he's been parked behind the big desk in the Oval Office. For fiscal year 2009, the regular Pentagon budget will total roughly $541 billion (including work on nuclear warheads and naval reactors at the Department of Energy).
The Bush administration has presided over one of the largest military buildups in the history of the United States. And that's before we even count "war spending." If the direct costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Global War on Terror, are factored in, "defense" spending has essentially tripled.
--------------------------------
With the war added to the Pentagon's core budget, the United States now spends nearly as much on military matters as the rest of the world combined. Military spending also throws all other parts of the federal budget into shadow, representing 58 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government on "discretionary programs" (those that Congress gets to vote up or down on an annual basis).
The total Pentagon budget represents more than our combined spending on education, environmental protection, justice administration, veteran's benefits, housing assistance, transportation, job training, agriculture, energy, and economic development. No wonder, then, that, as it collects ever more money, the Pentagon is taking on (or taking over) ever more functions and roles.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Military_Budget/Mega_Pentagon.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/TrillionDollarPentagonSale.html
t's Time for a Trillion-Dollar Tag Sale at the Pentagon
by Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com
www.alternet.org, October 29, 2008

------------------
Tag Sales and Savings
If the Pentagon sold off just the buildings and structures on its officially acknowledged overseas bases at their current estimated replacement value, the country would stand to gain more than $119 billion. Think of this as but a down payment on a full-scale Pentagon bailout package.
In addition, while it leases the property on which most of its bases abroad are built, the Pentagon does own some lucrative lands that could be sold off. For instance, it is the proud owner of more than 11,000 acres in Abu Dhabi, "the richest and most powerful of the seven kingdoms of the United Arab Emirates." With land values there averaging $1,100 per square meter last year, this property alone is worth an estimated $48.9 billion. The Pentagon also owns several thousand acres spread across Oman, Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Belgium. Selling off these lands as well would net a sizeable sum.
Without those bases, billions of dollars in other Pentagon expenses would immediately disappear. For instance, during the years of the Global War on Terror, the Overseas Cost of Living Allowance, which equalizes the "purchasing power between members overseas and their U.S.-based counterparts," has reached about $12 billion. Over the same period, the price tag for educating the children of U.S. military personnel abroad has clocked in at around $3.5 billion. By shutting down the 127 Department of Defense schools in Europe and the Pacific (as well as the 65 scattered across the U.S. mainland, Puerto Rico, and Cuba) and sending the children to public schools, the U.S. would realize modest long-term savings. Once no longer garrisoning the globe, the Pentagon would also be able to cease paying out the $1 billion or so that goes into the routine construction of housing and other base facilities each year, not to mention the multi-billions that have gone into the construction, and continual upgrading, of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And that's not the end of it either. Back in the 1990s, the Pentagon estimated that it was spending $30 billion each year on "base support activities" -- though the exact meaning of this phrase remains vague. Just take, for example, five bases being handed back to Germany: Buedingen, Gelnhausen, Darmstadt, Hanau and Turley Barracks in Mannheim. The annual cost of "operating" them is approximately $176 million. Imagine, then, what it has cost to run those 750+ bases during the Global War on Terror years.
Some recent Pentagon contracts for general operations and support functions overseas are instructive. In March, for instance, Bahrain Maritime and Mercantile International was awarded a one-year contract worth $2.8 billion to supply and distribute "food and non-food products" to "Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and other approved customers located in the Middle East countries of Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia."
In July, the French foodservices giant Sodexo received a one-year contract worth $180 million for "maintenance, repair and operations for the Korea Zone of the Pacific Region." These and other pricey support contracts for food, fuel, maintenance, transport, and other non-military expenses, paid to foreign firms, would disappear along with those U.S. garrisons, as would enormous sums spent on all sorts of military projects overseas. In 2007, for instance, the Army, Navy, and Air Force spent $2.5 billion in Germany, $1 billion in Japan, and $164 million in Qatar. And this year, the Pentagon paid a jaw-dropping $1 billion-plus for contracts carried out in South Korea alone.

[mtnsnake]

95. Hillary made him do it

[atimetocome]

114. you

forgot your sarcasm icon. you do know you are talking of the goddess of peace. I hope you still believe that.

[mtnsnake]

152. Dam she's pretty

As SOS, the Goddess of Peace will soon be spreading the seeds of good will and diplomacy across the earth. Thats a fact. Good times ahead.

[Bill McBlueState]

97. It's been said a few times upthread, but this is important

We could slash military funding significantly and still have the strongest military on the planet. I hope that's what Obama's thinking about.

[Ken Burch]

125. If it was that, I could live with it.

We're screwed if he tries to out-Truman Truman, though. That's where the ballgame ends.

[Freddie Stubbs]

98. That chart is misleading, as the money for education does not reflect what is spent by the states

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

105. GOBAMA!!!!! Agree With Him Completely.

Absolutely we should want to maintain the strongest military on the planet. But at least now we'll have an adult in charge of it.

[bridgit]

116. America is worth defending against enemies; her defense contract, procurement, and R&D matrix...

is a waking Byzantine nightmare in need of focus, restraint in the name of liberty, and in other cases flat-out better ideas. If in the event she ever needs them most, she needs just & moral thinking war planners, and not defense industry liaisons. America is worth defending against a landscape of escalating, deadly, amorphous challenges; and even as a man of peace & calm I believe Barack Obama understands that.

[HeraldSquare212]

119. We could halve defense spending and still have the strongest military on the planet.

[Mass]

122. This thread is surreal. Did Obama announce he intended to increase the Defense budget, because

otherwise, this is only boilerplate language reported by another British tabloid.

Does anybody seriously think Obama was going to say that he wanted the US military to become second or third? So, if he did not announce anything specific, it is ridiculous to get all excited on that.

[Danger Mouse]

126. Oh noes!!! How dare he!!! I want RUSSIA AND CHINA to have stronger militaries than us!!

That would be a great idea!!! FREE MUMIA!!

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

128. Did you really just call DUers that? Or did you forget to say you're kidding?

[pork medley]

129. why? is there anything funny about what I said?

[DevonRex]

130. If you weren't kidding or being sarcastic, that's quite an insult to us all.

[pork medley]

139. sometimes the truth hurts

[TK421]

141. I notice you have Jesus for an avatar....that is pretty strange

do you have one of those stupid fish stickers on your car too? ( assuming you're old enough to even drive, that is ).

[pork medley]

142. i also quote gandhi in my sig line

what's your point

[TK421]

143. It's kind of funny, don't you think? given the language you used in that first post

do I really have to explain this to you?

Are you truly that stupid?

[DevonRex]

144. I waited for the irony to sink in. I guess it never did or he was too

embarassed to reply. :hi:

[TK421]

147. Maybe he is no longer with us? (sniff,sniff) I never asked him his real name

his interests, hobbies, what he wants to be when he grows up....I sure hope he writes.:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

131. I love internet psychics.

When did you first learn you had this ability?

[DevonRex]

132. Heh heh. Probably when he predicted Obama would lose. Oh wait...

[Starry Messenger]

137. :)

:hi:

Then there comes the psychic backpedaling afterward of "Oh, I meant 'lose' in a larger cosmic sense, of course."

[TK421]

133. You forgot dirty hippies

[Danger Mouse]

134. Fail.

[Alexander]

140. He could slash military spending and still maintain the strongest military.

Withdrawing our troops from Iraq and canceling our Halliburton contracts would be a great start.

[Ichingcarpenter]

153. If we cut it half we would still be 3 times stronger than China and Russia

I have no problems with it.

[Hosnon]

154. As we should. nt.

[LWolf]

165. Which is what

keeps domestic social services chronically underfunded.