Colin Powell: Defunding NPR Won't Solve Deficit Problem, Congress Should Look At Cutting Defense

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

NEW YORK -- Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell disagreed with current proposals to cut the deficit on Sunday, saying that going after small programs one by one -- and not touching military and entitlement spending -- won't be effective in solving the country's long-term budget problems.

Last week, the Republican Study Committee, a conservative House GOP caucus, announced that it aims to return non-defense spending to 2008 levels and non-security spending to 2006 levels. It would cut funding for veterans programs, scientific research at the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, transportation, housing, education, legal services, foreign aid and the arts. The RSC proposal would save an estimated $16.1 billion by rolling back federal Medicaid funding, putting the burden for those patients on state and local governments.

snip...

The RSC document also doesn't go after defense spending, even though Republicans, Democrats and many Tea Party activists have all called for putting the military's budget on the table. Powell said that was a mistake.

"As we draw down from Iraq and as over the next several years as we draw down from Afghanistan, I see no reason why the military shouldn't be looked at," he said. "When the Cold War ended 20 years ago, when I was chairman and Mr. Cheney was secretary of Defense, we cut the defense budget by 25 percent. And we reduced the force by 500,000 active duty soldiers, so it can be done. Now, how fast you can do it and what you have to cut out remains to be seen, but I don't think the defense budget can be made, you know, sacrosanct and it can't be touched."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/colin-powell-defunding-npr-deficit-cutting-defense_n_812738.html

[Robb]

1. Wow, General.

That actually sounds reasonable. You might even be a decent enough ....



..Oh, yeah. Never mind. You get off the hook if you cure cancer, otherwise my "fuck you" dated February 2003 still stands. :hi:

[crim son]

2. My reaction exactly.

A lot of people trusted Colin's judgment at one time, and he screwed us. Anyway, what difference will it make what he says, or what anybody says?

[Can of Whoop-ass]

3. What can I say?

He loves PBS.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

47. + 1 Not interested unless he issues his opinions from prison.

War criminal.

[tomp]

60. but, but, he's buddies with obama.....nt

[lfairban]

91. Cut the guy a break!

Unlike other Republicans, Powell freely admits that he made a mistake, especially about the vial of anthrax.

His message on cutting the Defense Budget should be welcome by Democrats as it will have wide spread credibility.

[slay]

4. Regardless of what Powell says - we DO need to cut --defense--

*on edit - because of his involvement with Bush i don't really care what he thinks - but in this case he is right.

cut drastically - with a hatchet, not a scalpel. those bastards been robbin us blind for years based on fear and power.



*image from: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

[CBHagman]

5. Time to channel Eisenhower!

And I'm not being snotty; it is time to deal appropriately with the military industrial complex.

[gardentoad]

6. If they cut the defense budget,

They would have to bring more troops home. If they bring troops home those men and women will seek work and the unemployment figures will rise. This doesn't look good for any of our political leaders.

I don't support the wars or spending that much money on defense.
I'm just saying this is one of the reasons why neither side will do it in this economy.The other reason is that a few people are profiting so much.

[jwirr]

7. They can bring them home and not discharge them. They are being

paid and then we can use the money we spend in the ME here in the USA.

[DissedByBush]

10. Even bringing them home saves money

Aside from the obvious expenses of conducting a war, they all get danger pay for being over there.

[cutlassmama]

17. No. Leaving them there puts their lives at risk. Bringing them

home is a better alternative than letting them get blown up.

[bulloney]

21. It's not just the problem of finding employment for the troops when they return home.

So much of our domestic manufacturing is tied to the MIC. And it has been strategically spread out to many congressional districts, meaning that Members of Congress will oppose cuts that affect the defense contractor(s) in their district. I've seen Democrats and Republicans go around badmouthing military spending until someone talks about terminating a defense contract with a manufacturer in their district.

In the mean time, we're spending hundreds of billions every year producing military equipment we don't need and will never use. Plus, every time we invade a country, we end up occupying that country indefinitely, costing U.S. taxpayers additional billions every year. If we had real leadership, we'd be undertaking some kind of a transition where we move these military jobs to an area where we're rebuilding this country's infrastructure and other domestic projects.

Military spending is like a crack addiction on our federal budget.

[StarsInHerHair]

59. like with Nasa there are other purposes for many now-military tech, for

instance Daisy Cutters could have their shrapnel removed and fire retardants loaded into them=good new "weapon" in our domestic fire-fighting arsenal; they explode downward and outward, a good pattern to snuff a forest fire. Drones could possibly scan our air quality and water quality, and most certainly help with search and rescue, instead of their current military incarnations. There are many more possibilities waiting.

[Dappleganger]

30. Welcome to DU.

They should bring them home and rebuild OUR infrastructure instead of a country who doesn't want us there.

[grahamhgreen]

54. Bring the troops home, send em to school, tax the rich to pay for it all, like

Your grandparents did.

[NickB79]

56. Bring them home and put them to work

Use them to build new schools, roads, transmission lines, rail lines, whatever infrastructure you can think of, HERE IN AMERICA!

They've been doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan now for years, so they should be up to the task at hand. This country is crumbling beneath our feet because we've let the basic infrastructure needed to sustain us break down (bridge collapse in Minneapolis, anyone?).

Have them rebuild our nation, save billions on bullets, bombs, fuel and hazard pay, and save lives to boot.

[Enthusiast]

62. There are thousands of better

uses for them than fighting an unnecessary war on the other side of the world. The war will do nothing to help reduce terrorism or extremism.

What do you mean by this: "The other reason is that a few people are profiting so much." Do you mean contractors aren't profiting so much? What?

[walldude]

80. Bullshit. The defense budget could be cut without touching

"war money".

Do you have any idea what is in the defense budget? Do you know we spend billions of dollars on weapons development? Development of weapons that... don't work.

Read Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse. There are billions being wasted on defense every year. Billions. Also the Pentagon is missing 2 trillion dollars. Thats TRILLION with a "T". They don't know what happened to it. :eyes:

That's your money. Republican, Democrat, Independent, we all chipped in so the Pentagon could misplace 2 trillion dollars. BTW that's about $3000 each for every man woman and child in America. Congratulations your 3 grand bought you excuses and lies.

[Lorien]

88. Oh, bullshit. They don't give a rat's ass about JOBS. They subsidize the corporations who outsource!

If they cared about jobs they could spend that money on infrastructure, schools, medical care, a National High Speed monorail project, green energy projects and development...but no, the reason we're there is because a handful of war profiteers are making shitloads of cash killing people and grabbing their natural resources. If we rebuilt our OWN Nation those troops would have safe jobs with better pay.

[dotymed]

8. IMO, we should cut out the "private contracts" completely.

Then our soldiers, if they actually get out of harms way, can stay employed in the military if they want to. I grew up as an "Army Brat", then there were jobs for cooks, secretary's, etc..
It is an asinine idea to "contract out" all of these jobs to a "for huge profit" private company, so TPTB can thrive at our expense. These companies should not even exist. Their CEO's get million dollar bonuses and obscene salaries and then they have the audacity to rip us off and endanger soldiers. Then, we fine them a small fraction of what they steal....If Smedley Butler could see what a "racket" the MIC is now, wow..what's the fucking use?

The military is "socialism", as are many public jobs like the Congress. How in the hell can these neo-cons scare people with a vision of Democratic Socialism. Our best Senator is a Democratic Socialist. If we listened to him, our country would be in pretty damned good shape.

[DissedByBush]

11. Contracting has its place

The Army doesn't have to pay full medical and retirement for those jobs.

Take cleaning an Army office building. They hire a cleaning company. The other option is taking highly-trained soldiers off their normal duties in order to accomplish what low-trained, minimum wage people can do. Soldiers used to get paid squat and were treated as so. Now they're pretty well-paid, making it a waste of money.

Or guarding a base. I was a soldier long ago having to guard a base. It took a lot of time away from my regular job because there was about a week every month or so when I did nothing but guard duty. I admit I usually liked it because I got to sit around effectively doing nothing instead of my normal job. Now they contract rent-a-cop companies for routine gate guard duties.

[LynnTTT]

20. Exactly.

When did this start. I have a relative by marriage, employed by a private company, to manage the repair of helicopters. I don't know how much he is paid exactly, but I'm told it's substantial. All of the mechanics are subbed also. Why doesn't the army train their own guys.

[Recursion]

52. They do train some of them

There are three levels of maintenance. Level one happens at the unit, and is done by the military avionics guy. Level two is done at a shipyard for ships (that's the level I work at) or the equivalent for helicopters and planes and is done by a combination of military and civilian people. Level three is done by the manufacturer (Boeing, Textron, whatever) and uses their employees. I think it makes sense.

On the one hand, I get the idea that the military should be self-sufficient. On the other hand, I get the contrary idea that they should focus on their main goal of fighting wars. Up until only a few years ago the Navy and Marines still had servicemembers cooking and serving food in mess halls in the US; that doesn't really make sense to me.

[dotymed]

64. The military does train it;s own guys

then they leave the military and go to work for a private contractor.......win-win except the taxpayers. We should be exploring the greedy wealthy and their tax cuts.

[snappyturtle]

25. +1000

[Enthusiast]

63. You are so right!

KBR leased us regular SUVs in Kuwait for $5000 per month. Nice profit margin cushion there.

[Yupster]

9. Can we not do both?

With a $ 1 trillion defecit, can't we look at everything to cut, big little and in between?

As far as PBS goes, I can't justify public financing for it any more. It made sense when there were three other channels. Today there are hundreds.

I watch PBS but I also watch NatGeo, Discovery, the Science Channel, Animal Planet, etc.

I can't think of a reason why one of those channels should get government money while none of the rest of them do, and even if I could see why one of them should get it, I don't see why we'd pick PBS over any of the other ones.

[forty6]

35. DELETE

[1gobluedem]

36. 170 million people use public broadcasting every week

Especially in areas that have few options for national and international coverage and non-commercial news and information. You can get more facts here: www.170millionamericans.org.

Cutting funds for public broadcasting would put hundreds of people out of work, cause hundreds of stations to fold, and give people ONLY the option of commercially-spun news and information.

It's VERY important.

[Yupster]

49. Interesting website - thanks

It says PBS gets just 14 % of its funding from the government.

So why does it need the government money?

Can't it find that 14 % on its own? If $ 170 million people listen to it each month, can't they work out a way to get an average of a dollar a year from each of them? With all the high profile rich celebrities that love PBS, why is replacing 14 % of their funding a big deal?

Couldn't one free Barbra Streisand and one free Bruce Springstien concert more than make up for the government's money?

[1gobluedem]

66. That's just PBS, the network

It's the member stations that get the bulk of federal funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; grants that are used to pay for people and programming. If those CPB grants go away many stations -- TV and radio -- would shut down or have to drastically alter their programming.

[Patchuli]

57. PBS is free and not all of us

have the cable fee monthly for those other channels. PBS is educational and available to people.

[drm604]

81. Those cable channels aren't a replacement for PBS.

Have you seen the Discovery channel recently? Sure, I like Mythbusters, but there is little or nothing on Discovery that compares to shows like NOVA. I don't get NatGeo but I understand that's been going downhill also. Corporate networks tend towards the lowest common denominator. Nonsense about people hunting ghosts is more profitable than a symphony.

PBS is a source of worthwhile fare that wouldn't survive in the marketplace. It's also a source for viewpoints that corporate networks don't want to air.

[LanternWaste]

85. PBS yet fills a niche that other channels have failed to.

The Science Channel is little more than The Prophecy Channel.
Animal Planet is little more than "Bad Owners/Bad Animals Channel.
Etc.

PBS yet fills a niche that other channels have failed to.

[Lorien]

90. Every civilized Nation has public television. It's the last thing worth watching

and it offers the best programming for children; plus it EMPLOYS many people (though at very low wages. I have many friends who work for PBS). Why should they get government money? so that there's ONE place on TV that is not 100% in GOP hands. NPR has the best news coverage in the US, and that is worth preserving.

[justiceischeap]

92. Every dollar outside of gov't funding for PBS is fought hard for

If they don't get grants, entire departments can be done away with at a moments notice, adding to our already rising unemployment numbers.

Plus, as others have said, some people can't afford NatGeo, Discovery, Science Channel, Animal Planet, etc. To add to that, PBS is the MOST TRUSTED news source in the US. Do you really want to do away with that by cutting their funding? And when this country has a deficit, (R)s always clamor to do away with arts funding, saying it's unnecessary. When I went to high school, I wasn't on a science or math track, I was on the arts path. I don't know what I'd do if I were in school now, with arts cut out of so many public schools. Not all of us are meant to be "brainy," some of us our meant to be creative and if we let (R)s start hacking away at the minuscule amount of money they give to fund public radio and tv, we may as well throw in the friggin' towel.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Strelnikov_]

13. I assume we will not be seeing Gen. Powell around Iowa this summer n/t

[Strelnikov_]

14. Sounds like Powell is the next SecDef when Gates leaves in the near future n/t

[colsohlibgal]

15. Alright Colin!

Defense spending is the 900 lb elephant in the room. WWII is not happening again, Russia has their own problems, and as David Stockman said on "Real Time" China is not going to nuke all their crap in all the Wal Marts in our country.

Colin really owes us after carrying water for the WH chickenhawks on the Iraq invasion.

[liberal N proud]

16. The GOP is so focused on entitlement spending

Their objective is to strip this government to the point that it only governs the military.

The reason military spending is never on the table is because the defense lobby is so powerful that wars are started just to support it.

[snappyturtle]

28. I heartedly agree. I personally know a defense contractor who doesn't

pay his employees well and he's raked it in for years. Now that he is readying for retirement the business is on the block to Northrup Grumman(SP?)....it's a small employer so it's not like they'd be unleashing 100's of people into the job sector. Enough is enough. imho

[struggle4progress]

73. Here's what Powell actually said:

... But the real money in the entitlements, it's Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. And unless we do something about those, you can't balance the budget. You can't fix the deficit or the national debt by killing NPR or National Endowment for the Humanities or the Arts ...

STATE OF THE UNION WITH CANDY CROWLEY
Interview with Colin Powell
Aired January 23, 2011 - 09:00 ET
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/23/sotu.01.html


:(

[BlueJazz]

18. You Sons-a-Bitches....you ignorant, illogical Sons-a-Bitches. You want to cut..

1.veterans programs,
2.scientific research at the Department of Energy,
3.Homeland Security,
4.transportation,
5.housing,
6.education,
7.legal services,
8.foreign aid
9.The arts.
10.federal Medicaid funding

In 10 days the wars cost us taxpayers 7 1/2 billion...which means in 22 days we spent your "Cuts"
on some stupid, fucking war.

God-Damn you all...you Mother-Fuckers...

I know I can't and won't but I'd love to take each of you into a room and just beat the living shit out of you....you disgusting pieces of human garbage Scumbags.

[dotymed]

23. Not to mention

if the wealthy paid a progressive income tax, just like in the good ol' days.

[driver8]

70. Right on, BlueJazz!! +1000!!!!! n/t

[saras]

19. You don't have to attack the troops to cut the military budget

Military support for current troops - stays the same
Social, medical, psychological support for troops - increased.

Homeland security - dismantled.
New secret intelligence agencies - defunded and dismantled.
CIA - dismantled and replaced with something competent and accountable.
Boondoggle weapons pork contracts - slashed.

There ya go.

[bossy22]

40. which boondoggle weapons should be cut in your opinion?

many of them have been or are in the process of being cut

[KillCapitalism]

22. I disagree with these cuts.

The military is about the only employer hiring nowadays.

[texshelters]

72. The military is the worst job creator for a $1 we have and

education and transportation create more jobs per dollar.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peri.umass.edu%2Ffileadmin%2Fpdf%2Fpublished_study%2Fspending_priorities_PERI.pdf&ei=Xa49TcLOAoP-8AbZr7i0Cg&usg=AFQjCNHJuJVbdCyx1V0G1-CMKs576owBGA

The military creating jobs is a misdirect perpetrated by defense contractors and NBC (GE) and other news outlets and mostly benefits high paid executives.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[reformist2]

24. The length of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is mind-boggling.

It's been NINE YEARS. When the f are we going to leave???

[Supersedeas]

71. an exit strategy wasn't part of the invading President's plan

[lib2DaBone]

26. The Republican Advisory Committee has suggested De-funding AMTRAK...

The Federal Govt subsidizes Airports, runways, and control towers. But Repukes are against rail.

The United States will be the only so-called industrial country without national rail service.

USA.. USA.. we're number 4... we're number 4... rah rah

[reformist2]

27. Do they always do the polar opposite of what's right???

We ought to be upgrading our rail system, not defunding it.

[SaveAmerica]

83. #4 is being generous

[and-justice-for-all]

29. Close a majority of overseas bases and end the middle east occupations.nt

[harvey007]

31. That's a no-brainer

Of course we should cut the bloated military budget.

[texshelters]

32. The only way to cut the deficit is to go after

military spending first!

The Republicans just prove again how out of touch they are with reality.

Here's my budget, and it would erase the deficit in 10 years:

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/the-deficit-of-truth-and-ideas-the-surplus-of-lies-and-greed/

The Sustainable Defense Task Force comes up with over a trillion in cuts from the military without risking security:

http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf

Thank you General Powell for speaking out as a (former?) Republican that actually cares about the deficit and America.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[bossy22]

39. the sustainable defense task force plan is so short sighted

its not even funny. It trades future force structure for current structure- meaning you will have a procurement nightmare come 2020 when you have to replace almost ALL of your equipment. what we need is steady state procurement to stabilize the defense industry and bring costs down.

How long can we continue asking our pilots to fly fighter jets that fall apart due to old age?
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/06/nation/na-f156

our cold war era equipment is on the verge of just falling apart and needs to be replaced. it doesnt mean it needs to be replaced 1:1 but we still need new equipment. We are in the process of replacing 70 cold war era attack subs with 48 new ones. We are replacing 18 ballistic missle subs with 12. this needs to continue if we want to save money in the long run. Stopping such things as submarine production (which the task force suggests) will mean that it will cost triple to replace our current equipment when we absolutely have too. How much longer can we continue to operate ships that are well past their service life?

our procurement strategy needs to follow a general guidline of replacement- sort of like our air craft carriers- when 1 gets built, another one retires. This is so the fleet gets replaced over time and you arent stuck replacing 11 carriers all at once

on edit: the blame can be placed not with the military itself but with the clinton and bush II administrations- they continually underfunded procurement or wasted procurement money on these stupid "super weapons" that ended being too costly to actually produce

[boppers]

41. Why replace it at all?

"it will cost triple to replace our current equipment when we absolutely have too"

When was the last time we used a ballistic missile submarine in a war? What has it cost to run and maintain that crap that never gets used?

[bossy22]

42. actually it does get used

first off its a deterrent- ballistic missle subs provide an almost undetectable nuclear deterrent- and as long as nuclear arms still exist we must maintain our own deterrent as well

also these subs due alot more than just nuclear missle housing- they house special ops teams and deliver them to remote locations undetected. They also are excellent recon equipment to monitor internation maritime movements- our SSN's have been used to even fight pirates by monitoring "mother ships" without being detected

subs and aircraft carriers are probably the two must indispensible peices of hardware in the navy's arsenal..not to mention building such craft requires highly skilled manufacturing jobs

[boppers]

43. I'm sure al queda feels deterred.

Yeah, they're quaking in their boots.

[bossy22]

44. al-queda is not a threat

how many attacks has al-queda done of the u.s. itself in the last 10 years?- none, i wish we wouldnt spend another dime on operation useless dirt

The real threats are strategic threats and small asymetrical warfare such as piracy. Strategic threats includings a very possible pacific arms race (japan has already vowed to increase their attack sub inventory by more than a 1/3rd, south korea is going to double its destroyer fleet and is planning on building an air craft carrier, china is about to field an aircraft carrier and has 2 more on the drawing board, taiwan is looking to build conventionally armed ballistic missles to attack mainland china if china attempts to invade)

[boppers]

45. About the scale of those threats....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[bossy22]

48. you are thinking too simplistically

threats can't be catagorized to those that can only cause direct physical harm to the continental U.S.; they must include economic, political, and moral realm. A pacific arms race won't threaten the U.S. directly (since our military power is so overwhelming) but it can cause a great deal of economic problems. A pacific arms race would cause the region to be very volatile- a region where the majority of our sea-borne trade goes through. So now we have U.S. and international merchant ships travelling through potential hot spots. A large reduction in foward deployed force structure in the pacific would tip the balance in favor of china in that area (area being the asian pacific- from chinese shores up to and including japan but probably no further). This would scare the crap out of japan and almost overnight you would see them throw out their 1% rule (that the won't spend more than 1% of their GDP on their military) and start a massive build up campaign (there already rumors that japan is looking into fielding an Aircraft carrier due to chinese agression- remember back in 2008 they launched their first vessel since the second world war thats primary purpose was to carry aircraft- a helicopter carrier)

There are areas where we can cut- especially in the realms of the army (why we need such a large army when the possibility of fighting a land war to protect ourselves is so low), but what i fear is that such a cut will be dealt accross the board to all services without thinking about strategic consequences. Navies are not instruments of war- they are instruments of peace. Navies are our true world police forces and i stand by the statement that the world benefits from a dominant U.S. navy- one that can deliver not only hard power- but soft power that is equally as strong.

[boppers]

53. A picture:

I'm not "buying" that argument anymore, because I can't afford it.

[bossy22]

86. so what i get out of this is

we spent a sh*t load during WWII and maintained an elevated level through the rest of century

[texshelters]

77. Living in fear has banrupt us morally and

financially and we will pay for it for years to come.

We already have enough conventional security.

And after 8 of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you feel safer?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[bossy22]

87. living in fear has very little to do with this

obviously you havent read my ongoing conversation since your question would have been answered- i do not support the continuation of the wars in the middle east- i consider them collectively "operation useless dirt". I think afganistan in the beggining was a good cause on paper but poorly executed without any real military foresight. If i was in charge i would have just used special forces and covert attacks instead of an all out invasion- i also wouldn't have invaded iraq.

[texshelters]

89. being fearful

had everything to do with the irrational obsession with weapons programs such as subs and carriers that don't improve our security.

Yes, the wars are a waste, most here agree on that.

And we don't need carriers or subs to be secure.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[texshelters]

76. Yes, they are afeared of our

subs and plane carriers. There ain't no IED in the world can stop them there subs or carriers.

I heard on Al Jazeera that them ter'rist would surrender if we built more subs and carriers. But the commies in the military (McCarthy was right) don't want them.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[texshelters]

75. Read my reply and article I posted on this

military leaders say carriers and sub are obsolete.

Boy, who suspected all the cold war thinking here.

Anyone see "Dr. Stranglove" lately?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[texshelters]

74. It's arguments like this that prevent

budget reductions and real debates about our military spending.

Even if we never update our military, our military will be the best in the world for years.

Besides, most of those technologies are out of date. And, the plan allows for replacement of needed equipment.

If you read my post on this, many military leaders see no use for submarines and carriers are no longer needed. That is unless you want to have airfields outside of nations that don't want us there. Do we really want to go bankrupt trying to defend the world.
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/debate-do-we-need-11-carrier-groups-no
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6244435.ece

Your arguments are rehashes of the 1950 cold war thinking and could us retrofitting.

On think I like about the plan is that they account for new technologies and modernization. You fail to do that. Thanks.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[forty6]

33. Colin Powell, sounding more like the Democrat I thought I elected for President in 2008...

Why can't Obama be as smart a Democrat as Colin Powell is a Republican?

Seriously.........if Colin Powll ran against Obama in 2012, I think I'd vote for him!

[tomp]

61. he's a fucking war criminal, you idiot! nt

[freshwest]

34. No, they're right on track. Since de-funding NPR will help the MIC cover up.

:sarcasm:

:grr:

[progressoid]

37. It's tough to cut subsidies to the Military Industrial Complex.

It's an integral part of our economy now (albeit a wasteful and bloated part of our economy).

[texshelters]

78. True, and it won't happen under

Obama/Biden, ever.

There is a way, but no will.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Ruricolous1]

38. I think the US needs a progressive WAR TAX

Everyone in the country pays when our men and women are put into combat operations.
On their check stubs the deduction would be clearly labeled "WAR TAX..... $xxx.xx"

I don't think Social Security recipients will be voting pro war when they loose 5% of their checks.
Maybe the working poor will get off their butts, register and vote!

Millionaires and federal elected officials would think long and hard on the benefits of war if 30 to 90% of their income went to support their wars.

The peace candidates just might have a chance.

Yeah i know it is just a pipe dream. No chance of it getting passed by the bunch we have in office now.

Peace be With YOU!

[freshwest]

51. I know it's probably illegal, but I've seen it done before:

Writing some facts like that on dollar bills to catch people's eye when they're spending money. Since I'm sure they'll never publish the percentages along with the deductions.

The facts are out there on how it affects everything all the way down to the local level, as you can see from this campaign speech given in 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqdTJBEjY8U&feature=player_embedded

Maybe that website with the cost of war could be printed out and left in places. This is a clock that is racing:

http://costofwar.com/en/

People used to get upset about the national debt clock and it was used as a conservative talking point. They turned that into hating those who worked for the government and the needy, and never mentioned the cost of defense and wars.

Honestly, I've seen things like that posted on community bulletin boards, left on counters or with reading material in different places. Because mainstream media will NOT publish this.

It should run in one of those screen crawls at the bottom of their shows. But since they are sponsored and owned by the same corporations getting taxpayer dollars for this, it will never happen.

Any suggestions how to get the word out?

[valerief]

46. You mean stop sending billion dollar pallets to the Middle East?

I dunno. We're so USED TO doing it.

[alittlelark]

50. I SO wish he had kept his integrity back in 2003.

Now it just seems stale and worthless.

[grahamhgreen]

55. Cutting "defense", & taxing the rich can eliminate our debt & deficit in 10 years.

[avaistheone1]

58. k&r for Colin Powell

:kick:

[Crowman1979]

65. But how will our generals fulfill there psedo-christian apocalyptic dreams?

:sarcasm:

[obxhead]

67. It's not defense, it's offense.

We have not held a defense only military in many decades. Our military has been held in an offense capacity and level for far too long now and it has bankrupted our country.

[onehandle]

68. Good point. And that's what took the Soviet Union down. nt

[driver8]

69. There is nothing that this lying traitor has to say that I want to hear...

Fuck him. He sold his soul to the neocons and enabled them to take us to war with Iraq. He should have been looking after the troops but he didn't have the spine to stand up to these criminals.

[sarcasmo]

79. Bingo, someone finally speaking the truth. Stop the wars cut the military insanity.

[SaveAmerica]

82. Exactly what I said as I read the list of 20 stupid things on that list

[ronnie624]

84. We don't need to cut defense.

We need to cut the part that is used for aggressive war and maintaining empire.

[lsewpershad]

93. Would take alot more buddy

for your redemption