Why is the defense budget always "off the table" in budget discussions ?

[steve2470]

Anyone wish to explain ? Thanks for your time.

[DJ13]

Cash Cow

[marmar]

1. The Military-Industrial Complex is sort of a shadow government.....

Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler warned us about this a long time ago.

[hootinholler]

16. It's morphed into the Military Industrial Security Complex

Eisenhower warned us as well.

-Hoot

[TheMuse]

2. Because the Repugs love the Military Industrial Complex

They infer that they love the troops. But they love the troops only as resources to be used and discarded by business that profit off of war and conflict. Of course in alot of American's eyes, not touching the defense budget makes them look strong on defense, when all it really is is another mechanism to pilfer America for corporate greed.

We do need to reduce the defense budget. We need to spend it smarter. We need to get rid of the empire. Only have bases where we are absolutely needed. Stop wasting money on bad technology (F-22). But, the a politician that suggests that will be called a troop hater by Rethugicans, and we know Dems hate to be called names.

[Owl]

13. Exactly.

[bherrera]

17. The Dermocrats seem to love the Military Industrial Complext too

I don't see so much difference between these two parties. They are both beholden in a corrupt fashion to powerful lobbies. The Military Industrial Complex, the Israel Lobby, and the Imperialist Lobby want a powerful US military. And thus you have one. Which can not win.

[valerief]

3. Because the pilferers get their money from the war budget. nt

[SomeGuynTexas]

4. Part of the problem dates back to World War II when they changed the name

It used to be called the "War Department" vs. the "Department of Defense." Truman changed it.

I think we ought to take a look at changing the name back.

Got War? Get budget.

Got no War? No budget.

Beat swords into plowshares and all that. And as soon as someone steps into our field (well, maybe not Arizona) we should beat those plowshares back into swords.

Words should mean things.

[Radical Activist]

5. It isn't. Several deficit commissioners have said they're looking at the defense budget.

Including Alan Simpson. It's one of the few good things I've heard about it.

[steve2470]

6. That's good news

Hopefully that isn't just lip service to "fairness".

[gratuitous]

8. First I've heard that

Has Simpson made any statements to the effect of the defense budget being a cash cow with a trillion or so tits? Have they held any hearings to invite anyone antipathetic toward the defense budget to testify about waste? Because short of that, I'm not persuaded that the Deficit Reduction Commission is very serious about seeking to reduce the deficit by cutting defense spending.

[Radical Activist]

11. You haven't heard it because

our professional left pundits are too busy looking for the latest sensational poutrage of the day to write about anything encouraging.

[gratuitous]

14. So, have they held hearings?

Have they gathered evidence and testimony about defense budget overspending, waste, and redundancies? Or at least scheduled hearings? Is there anyone on the commission as publicly antipathetic toward the defense budget as the co-chairman is toward social security and medicare? Because I will look forward to their report with a great deal more anticipation if the answer to any of those questions is anything but "Absolutely not."

I've seen this play before, and I didn't like it very much in the early 1980s. They need a better script, or at least some new actors.

[ThomCat]

7. Because if anyone dares to lower the military budget even by

a fraction of a percent, attack and smear machines roll into action.

Any politician that doesn't immediately swear allegiance to an INCREASED military budget in unAmerican, is helping terrorists, is working with our enemies, is helping to undermine our national security, etc.

Every company feeding off the military spending would fund the attacks.

Every conservative organization would fund the attacks.

Every Fundamentalist organization preparing for the Armageddon prior to the Rapture would fund the attacks.

Fox News and Rupert Murdock's papers would Repeat the attacks 24/7.

Every Republican would parrot the attacks to get free air time.

CNN would pick up the attacks and take them seriously, trying to copy Fox News and cash in on the story. All the other networks and all the papers would report on it as if it was big news and not a manufactured scandal.

Democrats would cave in immediately and propose increasing the military budget in order to appear tough on national security.

So the end result of trying to save money by lowering the pentagon budget would be that the pentagon would end up getting More Money instead of less because our party is full of cowards who cave in to manufactured scandals.

[steve2470]

9. excellent post, thanks ! nt

[Owl]

19. Well said. I agree. Even as the MIC bankrupts our economy and future, nothing is done to lower it.

[DailyGrind51]

10. Defense industry contributions buy a lot of friends in Congress!

[Terry in Austin]

12. Ooh, it's not nice to notice that -nt

[Odin2005]

15. Ask Ike.

[classysassy]

18. The Generals,Admirals and Congressmen and Women

are in bed with the MIC. and we the people are getting screwed.

[activa8tr]

20. "Barney Frank, Ron Paul Call For Cuts In Military Spending"

"The commission released a report in June, outlining how to cut $1 trillion in defense budget and reduce the deficit over the next decade, without compromising national security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/barney-frank-ron-paul-cal_n_685193.html


It's out there, you just have to look around for these things.