General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPaying for America's War Machine Is a Terrible Waste of Tax Money
http://www.alternet.org/world/biggest-waste-your-money-taxes-are-paying-americas-war-machineOn April 14, the eve of tax day and ironically (or appropriately) Global Day of Action Against Military Spending, the Pentagon plans to launch a brand new weapon system, one that uses electric pulses to project a 40-pound missile the distance from New York City to Philadelphia at a speed of 5,600 mph. The U.S. Navy spent more than $4 billion to develop and build its stealth destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, a key element in President Obama's announced pivot to the Pacific. It's expected that the Zumwalt will be patrolling the coast of China soon at further as yet undetermined expense to U.S. taxpayers.
When we're told by our elected officials that we can't afford full funding for education, SNAP (food stamps), Head Start, or unemployment compensation, how is it that we can afford the endless War on Terror plus a pivot to East Asia? Expecting a peace divided as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down is wishful thinking: President Obama still proposes to spend a whopping 55% of federal discretionary funds for Fiscal Year 2015 on the military.
In addition, we can expect still more spending on what normal people call war funding but Pentagon doublespeak calls Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), a budget which is not subject to caps or cuts under sequestration. In 2014, Congress provided $85 billion for OCO, which has become a slush fund for the Pentagon to use on whatever.
President Obamas FY15 budget also includes $28 billion for the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. He explained that this budget line would enable the Pentagon to accelerate the schedules for developing and buying new or upgraded systems.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)doxydad
(1,363 posts)U.S.A. had 34 times more armaments than our nearest ally. Why do we need 34 times MORE weapons? WHY?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Taking care of children and the elderly, not so much.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Get your priorities right!
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)inside and outside of the Democratic party to support real anti-war, anti-military industrial complex candidates when election time comes around. Obama, Clinton, etc. are fully within the pro-war, pro-corporate sphere and they intend to keep giving all of our tax dollars to Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, and all the corporations who's life blood is government welfare - there's too much incentive for these corporations to instigate and carry out decades-long wars.
This country is dying a slow, agonizing death because the left has been complacent and fooled by lofty "hope" and "change" rhetoric when what we've actually gotten is a repeat of Bush with a few less neo-conservatives calling the shots.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)It's time for real progressives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4819375
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I think the accusations this post levels at Presidents Obama and Clinton are unfair attacks on their persons and false.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 14, 2014, 09:57 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OK, so start a discussion with the person who posted this opinion as to why you think it's false. It seems pretty true to me, and most importantly (in the specific context of being hide-worthy) it is not beyond what should be reasonable scope for discussion on DU.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Even though I disagree with the reply I think the criticism was done appropriately.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: people can disagree. i dont find this over the top at all.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Criticism - even scathing - of D leaders is appropriate, especially when primary-season-rules aren't in effect. This post would be better answered with a reply rather than an alert, IMO.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whether or not the alerter agrees with the opinion in the post should not be a valid reason to have it hidden.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I was fooled by lofty "hope" and "change" rhetoric. I was completely taken in.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)our military!
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Love the OP, it's a huge issue that needs way more discussion than it receives.
Both major parties compete for the money they get from the defense industry, so how is ever going to turn around?
I don't know if this is accurate or not, but that it is even debatable is an illustration of the problem.
Obama Beats McCain in Defense Industry Contributions - TIME
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1855478,00.html
For now, the best we can do is to keep raising awareness of it. It's somehow been made uncool to criticize or want vast reduction of our country's military. Time to break that taboo.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)who thinks China is going to let us blockade them or attack their coast with naval battle groups hasn't thought this through. I don't believe for a second that this is anything more than a jobs program (and for some an ego trip) that could be turned around and used to improve OUR country instead of having our noses halfway around the globe.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Otherwise all this military hardware will go unused. Our troops might grow rusty from not engaging in battle.
DFW
(54,397 posts)The best speeches were those by Ann Zumwalt and Sen. Angus King on Maine. Ann remembered her father, who was hated by the Navy top brass for wanting to reform the Navy and make life more bearable for its sailors. Bud Zumwalt said he had friends and he had enemies, and was proud of both. Nixon hated his guts, which speaks highly of him. Ann is a good friend of ours, and her daughters are friends with ours.
Sen. King said his biggest hope was for the sailors of the USS Zumwalt to never have to use their huge destructive capacity in anger, but for it to be a deterrent. The ship was also designed to run with just half the crew size of current destroyers.
The $4 billion cost of the ship was huge, and the originally planned 30 ships of this design had been reduced to 10 and then down to just three. The small communities in that part of Maine are grateful for the 5000 plus jobs it brought to an otherwise economically depressed part of the country and the tax revenue brought with it. The money wasn't a total waste. Thom Hartmann's ripple theory works here, too. You can only sell so many lobsters, after all.
Angus King is one of the more approachable Senators I have known. Anyone from Maine can probably arrange a chat with him if you call in advance. Really a price of a guy. Unfortunately Elmo Zumwalt died in January of the year my family met his, so I never knew him. However, if his daughters and granddaughters are any indication, he must have been an amazing man, too.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
For the record, I don't think the purpose of this ship has anything at all to do with China, but more as a symbol of support for southeast Asian nations.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's just a terrible use of tax dollars. You're better off taking wads of cash and throwing it in the wind. At least that way the money doesn't collect with those who need it the least.
DFW
(54,397 posts)This at least serves a purpose, and a lot of the money stays in Maine.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)also cheered our unprovoked attack on Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. They didn't give a flying fuck back then how many people died (and a few have told me so, pretty much in those words) so long as they could continue driving their pickup trucks to work and guzzling beer while snowmobiling on weekends. I know some of them personally; I'm not just speaking off the top of my head here. They're part of the 38% that gave us Gov. Teabagger.
Their engineering and building skills would be put to better use designing and building wind and sea turbines and geothermal systems, and rebuilding rail lines and other infrastructure to help reduce our oil guzzling.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. This was a total waste of money. Better to have re-trained those people to produce something we desperately need and of lasting value.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)DFW
(54,397 posts)The jerk could barely read his speech, and it wasn't a study in eloquence to begin with. I was standing next to him for a while, but couldn't think of anything I wanted to say to him. Nor, apparently, could anyone else. Everyone wanted to talk to Sen. King and the Zumwalt family.
I respect your disagreement, but find it partly misplaced. The Zumwalt was a federal project, and did not draw out tax money from the state budget of Maine, whose state government decides about wind and thermal energy production. The US Navy's budget wouldn't have been available for that anyway. I'm sure most enterprises in Maine employ some pick-up driving teabaggers--as a Texan I'm no stranger to them. But if we can retire some old ships that are obsolete and replace them with half that number, needing fewer personnel, that is energy-saving, too, and also a source of employment. There are plenty of people who feel as strongly as you or I do about our folly in Iraq and Afghanistan who still respect the need for a military, albeit one built on efficiency, and put to sensible use.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and I'm not sure where you're pulling that claim from. I'm fully aware that the military budget is federal.
That's the same federal budget that gave us a watered down stimulus for shovel-ready projects, when what was really desperately needed was a massive stimulus to re-build our infrastructure.
And it's the same federal budget that provides for a massive, grotesquely bloated military and that leaves domestic projects starved for funds.
"I'm sure most enterprises in Maine employ some pick-up driving teabaggers." Some = 38%. Hence LePage's nickname, Gov. 38%. And iirc, BIW is the largest employer in Maine.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We have to be careful here and not look to simply destroy our technology industrial base, but rather look to reorient it. If we spent that money instead on green energy infrastructure, or space exploration, or advanced transportation concepts, we'd maintain technological prominence, but with things that have a direct impact not only jobs for people, but on our national quality of life, and a legacy that will last generations.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)History repeated.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)On what day of the year are Americans finished paying off our military spending budget?