I was listening to Bob Brinker and his guest speaker Dean Clancey yesterday and haven't verified the numbers yet, but Bob Brinker said we spend about $740B on the military every year. He also said that China spends about $90B and that the USA spends far more than the rest of the world combined.Dean is the Legislative Counsel and Vice President of Health Care Policy at FreedomWorks.
My thoughts immediately went to the fact that China is a communist country so that $90B could represent the same value as $740B here in the states. I think we spend far too much on the military and that we occupy far too many countries. I'm tired of footing the bill to be the world's police and our government thinking that it SHOULD be our responsibility. Smaller government means smaller military.
An ex Marine (if there is such a thing) works on my crew. He did a tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan. I talked to him just last week about his experiences and what I heard strengthened my opinion that we need to GTFO of those areas.
Here's audio from the broadcast that I recorded on my dashcam. The first 20 or 30 seconds are a bit noisy but then it smooths out. You'll hear some background noise, but the audio is quite clear.
Flat taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes and excise taxes/tarrifs
10% fat in the military.
Dwight Eisenhower - beware of the military industrial complex.
Medicare recipients get back $3 of every $1 they contribute.
Medicare is rife with fraud, waste and abuse. It's well documented to be 10% and could be as high as 20%.
Debunking the sequester drama.
Shrink the government, grow the economy and give people more individual liberties.
Even the most casual observer would agree that WITHOUT QUESTION there is (tremendous) waste in the budget for the military, from planes and ships that the military doesn't want or need to God knows what else.
That should obviously be cut.
Should we gut our defense capability or put our troops in jeopardy or make them otherwise suffer unnecessarily. Obviously not.
I've read that 720 Billion number before Doug, divide it by the population of the USA (314 million approx.) and you get 2,356.00 per person per year. That's total population not taxpayers. If the defense dept. exists for the defense of the nation, and I believe that is all it should be for; then, Dave is correct that it doesn't take more than a casual observation to say something's wrong here. So where is all the money going? Rhetorical question, of course, we'll never know the truth and we 're supposed to just shut up and pay our taxes and "support the troops" I'm really tired of that bullshit, BTW.
Here's a nice little opinion piece to consider for the 345 people who think the military should just have a blank check without civilian oversight
Military Industrial Complex
(By Brandon Taylor and the LP Solutions Team)
The illusion that politicians have sold to us is that war is a necessity to preemptively protect America from foreign invaders. We have a Department of Defense that continues to commit blatantly offensive measures with drone strikes and military operations. These policies have agitated foreign interests and stir up conflict overseas. The Cato Institute's Benjamin H. Friedman notes, "we ignore the limits on our power that the [Iraq] war exposes and in the process risk repeating our mistake." Obviously this coercive war strategy is not effective, and it continues to threaten the lives of innocent people worldwide.
The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, employs a non-intervention principle and notes that a nation has the right to defend itself and nothing more. Libertarian policies will help alleviate the financial burden put on every U.S. citizen to continue to prop up a continuously inflating war machine that murders more than it saves.
The United States spent roughly $720 billion in 2011 to keep America 'safe.' That is roughly $2400 per American citizen, per year. Much of that goes to buying weaponry and facilitating operations overseas. That is not the policy of "defense." That is three quarters of a trillion dollars being added to an already ballooning debt, which has crushed the entire nation's economy. And it is all for what? Does anyone really think that much money is necessary for defense alone?
The United States Department of Defense has to start living up to its actual title. It should foster peace by allowing nations to sort out their own internal issues. The policy of foreign intervention using the U.S. military has produced mixed results at best, with cultural ramifications that have yet to be fully understood. None of these circumstances begin or end well, and American interventions only exacerbate an already tense situation. These policies have caused a lot of resentment towards the American people and their interests, and it would not have occurred had the United States taken a more diplomatic approach. Any nation should be given the time to sort out their issues independently for the sake of sustainable solutions.
Do not let the Department of Defense carry the flag of the United States and claim that it represents our nation. It is looking out for itself and, in doing so, has tarnished the reputation of a great nation meant to represent freedom and liberty for all. Let us take our nation's name back from special interests. Let us foster peace. Let us lead the way by example.
Let us work together with the Libertarian Party and truly become The United States of America.
Dave O, the DOD does not make the decision on where the military is deployed and what their purpose is after deployment. That comes directly from the president and with congressional approval if war is declared. Their goals are determined by the president and the state dept. The DOD does not set policy, they carry it out.
Actually Jack you are incorrect The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is a body of senior uniformed leaders in the United States Department of Defense who advise the Secretary of Defense, the Homeland Security Council, the National Security Council and the President on military matters. The composition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is defined by statute and consists of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), and the Military Service Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the National Guard,[1] all appointed by the President following Senate confirmation.[2] Each of the individual Military Service Chiefs, outside of their Joint Chiefs of Staff obligations, works directly for the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, i.e. Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force.
Then the Secretary of Defense and President approve or disapprove then the Joint Chiefs as the very top of the DOD set the approved policy for Armed forces to follow. Yes the President sets policy but his policy is mostly set from these gentleman's reccomendations.
THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEPLOYMENT KYLE!
The Joint Chiefs is the operating body for operations and the advising body to the SOD, ultimately, it is the President's decision to deploy (That is why he is called Commander in Chief), and congresses decision whether or not to fund the deployment.
No military commander can order a troop to deploy without the express direction of the President, Jack was not referring to day to day operations. And the President is limited in any deployment by congress in that there are limits to when and how long he can deploy without congressional consent
Kyle, you are correct with your copy and paste. They "advise" the president, they don't set policy. The president sets policy with his selected staff. That is what I was referring to in response to Dave's post.
And you wrong about another thing Kyle, Policy is politically motivated, the joint chiefs advise not on the policy, but on how to execute the policy once it is decided upon.
Yes, Jack that is correct. The President orders deployment as the C in C. Congress is supposed to declare wars, but we have in effect been fighting wars since 1950 without congressional declarations, even if they don't call 'em wars, they were and are. It is my long standing belief that Presidents and most members of Congress are acting in support of campaign donators and future employers and purveyors of fun junkets who make a lot of profit off of war and bloating the defense budget. Pres. Eisenhower was correct when he warned us to beware the Military-Industrial Complex. So when the writer of the piece I added to my comment talks about the Defense Dept's proper role, in my opinion he was by extension referring to Presidents and Congress as well. I could have explained that.
Just in case you think I'm out of touch or don't know what I'm accusing US PResidents of, here's an example to share. BTW the current POTUS is no better;
I am against blanket cuts in the US Military but not at all against cuts in Military Spending and Restructuring.
The little known fact however, is the bulk of the expense in Military Spending is NOT high Tech Weaponry or ammunition, rather it is manpower and sustainment.
For those who have an agenda and rail about the Military Industrial Complex (And you are only kidding yourself if you think that you do not have an agenda) this argument at present and the options before us are not about that at all, They are about an overblown government in general, even if sequestration goes through the Military Industrial Complex will still exist and wars will still continue and we will circle back to this discussion a decade or a generation from now.
The true question should be and actual is where should our Federal Dollars be spent, and where should the cost and responsibility be transferred to the States and localities?
As long as the bulk of government spending rest on the Federal level, this entire exercise is pointless because the real question gets side stepped.
Should we be in charge of our Government or should our Government be our rulers?
Constitutionally, the Federal Government has limited responsibilities
1) Foreign Affairs
2) Defense of our borders and 'The Interest Of The United States'
3) To allow for fair and unlimited interstate commerce
[Controlling Interstate Commerce is not the same, that came from the New Deal]
4) The printing and casting of currency [Relinquished with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1912]
5) The guarantor of our personal liberties.
As long as our elected members of congress 'Bring Home The Bacon' as a matter of political capitol, the question is really moot.
"Should we be in charge of our Government or should our Government be our rulers?" I absolutely know what "should" be and I think you and I are on the same page there Mark. I am not very sure where we are right now and that is where my outrage and concern come from.
I was listening to Bob
I was listening to Bob Brinker and his guest speaker Dean Clancey yesterday and haven't verified the numbers yet, but Bob Brinker said we spend about $740B on the military every year. He also said that China spends about $90B and that the USA spends far more than the rest of the world combined.Dean is the Legislative Counsel and Vice President of Health Care Policy at FreedomWorks.
My thoughts immediately went to the fact that China is a communist country so that $90B could represent the same value as $740B here in the states. I think we spend far too much on the military and that we occupy far too many countries. I'm tired of footing the bill to be the world's police and our government thinking that it SHOULD be our responsibility. Smaller government means smaller military.
An ex Marine (if there is such a thing) works on my crew. He did a tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan. I talked to him just last week about his experiences and what I heard strengthened my opinion that we need to GTFO of those areas.
Here's audio from the broadcast that I recorded on my dashcam. The first 20 or 30 seconds are a bit noisy but then it smooths out. You'll hear some background noise, but the audio is quite clear.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41511865/Brinker_Clancy.mp3
Interview highlights - military and other points:
Flat taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes and excise taxes/tarrifs
10% fat in the military.
Dwight Eisenhower - beware of the military industrial complex.
Medicare recipients get back $3 of every $1 they contribute.
Medicare is rife with fraud, waste and abuse. It's well documented to be 10% and could be as high as 20%.
Debunking the sequester drama.
Shrink the government, grow the economy and give people more individual liberties.
Even the most casual observer
Even the most casual observer would agree that WITHOUT QUESTION there is (tremendous) waste in the budget for the military, from planes and ships that the military doesn't want or need to God knows what else.
That should obviously be cut.
Should we gut our defense capability or put our troops in jeopardy or make them otherwise suffer unnecessarily. Obviously not.
I've read that 720 Billion
I've read that 720 Billion number before Doug, divide it by the population of the USA (314 million approx.) and you get 2,356.00 per person per year. That's total population not taxpayers. If the defense dept. exists for the defense of the nation, and I believe that is all it should be for; then, Dave is correct that it doesn't take more than a casual observation to say something's wrong here. So where is all the money going? Rhetorical question, of course, we'll never know the truth and we 're supposed to just shut up and pay our taxes and "support the troops" I'm really tired of that bullshit, BTW.
Here's a nice little opinion piece to consider for the 345 people who think the military should just have a blank check without civilian oversight
Military Industrial Complex
(By Brandon Taylor and the LP Solutions Team)
The illusion that politicians have sold to us is that war is a necessity to preemptively protect America from foreign invaders. We have a Department of Defense that continues to commit blatantly offensive measures with drone strikes and military operations. These policies have agitated foreign interests and stir up conflict overseas. The Cato Institute's Benjamin H. Friedman notes, "we ignore the limits on our power that the [Iraq] war exposes and in the process risk repeating our mistake." Obviously this coercive war strategy is not effective, and it continues to threaten the lives of innocent people worldwide.
The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, employs a non-intervention principle and notes that a nation has the right to defend itself and nothing more. Libertarian policies will help alleviate the financial burden put on every U.S. citizen to continue to prop up a continuously inflating war machine that murders more than it saves.
The United States spent roughly $720 billion in 2011 to keep America 'safe.' That is roughly $2400 per American citizen, per year. Much of that goes to buying weaponry and facilitating operations overseas. That is not the policy of "defense." That is three quarters of a trillion dollars being added to an already ballooning debt, which has crushed the entire nation's economy. And it is all for what? Does anyone really think that much money is necessary for defense alone?
The United States Department of Defense has to start living up to its actual title. It should foster peace by allowing nations to sort out their own internal issues. The policy of foreign intervention using the U.S. military has produced mixed results at best, with cultural ramifications that have yet to be fully understood. None of these circumstances begin or end well, and American interventions only exacerbate an already tense situation. These policies have caused a lot of resentment towards the American people and their interests, and it would not have occurred had the United States taken a more diplomatic approach. Any nation should be given the time to sort out their issues independently for the sake of sustainable solutions.
Do not let the Department of Defense carry the flag of the United States and claim that it represents our nation. It is looking out for itself and, in doing so, has tarnished the reputation of a great nation meant to represent freedom and liberty for all. Let us take our nation's name back from special interests. Let us foster peace. Let us lead the way by example.
Let us work together with the Libertarian Party and truly become The United States of America.
Dave O, the DOD does not
Dave O, the DOD does not make the decision on where the military is deployed and what their purpose is after deployment. That comes directly from the president and with congressional approval if war is declared. Their goals are determined by the president and the state dept. The DOD does not set policy, they carry it out.
Actually Jack you are
Actually Jack you are incorrect The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is a body of senior uniformed leaders in the United States Department of Defense who advise the Secretary of Defense, the Homeland Security Council, the National Security Council and the President on military matters. The composition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is defined by statute and consists of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), and the Military Service Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the National Guard,[1] all appointed by the President following Senate confirmation.[2] Each of the individual Military Service Chiefs, outside of their Joint Chiefs of Staff obligations, works directly for the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, i.e. Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force.
Then the Secretary of Defense and President approve or disapprove then the Joint Chiefs as the very top of the DOD set the approved policy for Armed forces to follow. Yes the President sets policy but his policy is mostly set from these gentleman's reccomendations.
THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEPLOYMENT KYLE!
The Joint Chiefs is the operating body for operations and the advising body to the SOD, ultimately, it is the President's decision to deploy (That is why he is called Commander in Chief), and congresses decision whether or not to fund the deployment.
No military commander can order a troop to deploy without the express direction of the President, Jack was not referring to day to day operations. And the President is limited in any deployment by congress in that there are limits to when and how long he can deploy without congressional consent
Kyle, you are correct with
Kyle, you are correct with your copy and paste. They "advise" the president, they don't set policy. The president sets policy with his selected staff. That is what I was referring to in response to Dave's post.
And you wrong about another
And you wrong about another thing Kyle, Policy is politically motivated, the joint chiefs advise not on the policy, but on how to execute the policy once it is decided upon.
Well said Mark.
Well said Mark.
But you all digress. Back to
But you all digress. Back to the poll, the answer is YES. The DoD is another bloated government entity that can stand its share of cuts.
Jerry, what gov. agency isn't
Jerry, what gov. agency isn't bloated. The current president loves big gov.
Just answering the poll,
Just answering the poll, Jack.
Yes, Jack that is correct.
Yes, Jack that is correct. The President orders deployment as the C in C. Congress is supposed to declare wars, but we have in effect been fighting wars since 1950 without congressional declarations, even if they don't call 'em wars, they were and are. It is my long standing belief that Presidents and most members of Congress are acting in support of campaign donators and future employers and purveyors of fun junkets who make a lot of profit off of war and bloating the defense budget. Pres. Eisenhower was correct when he warned us to beware the Military-Industrial Complex. So when the writer of the piece I added to my comment talks about the Defense Dept's proper role, in my opinion he was by extension referring to Presidents and Congress as well. I could have explained that.
Jerry, I was agreeing with
Jerry, I was agreeing with you.
Just in case you think I'm
Just in case you think I'm out of touch or don't know what I'm accusing US PResidents of, here's an example to share. BTW the current POTUS is no better;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34054.htm
I am against blanket cuts in
I am against blanket cuts in the US Military but not at all against cuts in Military Spending and Restructuring.
The little known fact however, is the bulk of the expense in Military Spending is NOT high Tech Weaponry or ammunition, rather it is manpower and sustainment.
For those who have an agenda and rail about the Military Industrial Complex (And you are only kidding yourself if you think that you do not have an agenda) this argument at present and the options before us are not about that at all, They are about an overblown government in general, even if sequestration goes through the Military Industrial Complex will still exist and wars will still continue and we will circle back to this discussion a decade or a generation from now.
The true question should be and actual is where should our Federal Dollars be spent, and where should the cost and responsibility be transferred to the States and localities?
As long as the bulk of government spending rest on the Federal level, this entire exercise is pointless because the real question gets side stepped.
Should we be in charge of our Government or should our Government be our rulers?
Constitutionally, the Federal Government has limited responsibilities
1) Foreign Affairs
2) Defense of our borders and 'The Interest Of The United States'
3) To allow for fair and unlimited interstate commerce
[Controlling Interstate Commerce is not the same, that came from the New Deal]
4) The printing and casting of currency [Relinquished with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1912]
5) The guarantor of our personal liberties.
As long as our elected members of congress 'Bring Home The Bacon' as a matter of political capitol, the question is really moot.
I don't see how anyone can
I don't see how anyone can argue that point with you Dave, Since Truman and the Korean conflict that issue has been steadily becoming more prominent.
"Should we be in charge of
"Should we be in charge of our Government or should our Government be our rulers?" I absolutely know what "should" be and I think you and I are on the same page there Mark. I am not very sure where we are right now and that is where my outrage and concern come from.