Is $588 billion for defense enough?

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Ike was a prophet.

Since, according to the mainstream media, the Republican Party is the party of national security, how much money has been spent to protect our ports? To protect our water facilities? To protect our nulear sites? To protect our dams and bridges? To inspect the cargo on our ships and planes?

Paul, I am sure not enough has been spent to protect all that you ask. Therefore, I would be in favor of SPENDING more on defense to include all of that. But, make no mistake, the amount proposed to spend on our military is worth it. After all, defending the nation is the first and primary responsibility of the federal govt.
And, Mr. likeike, I liked too. While I can't say for sure because no one can speak for Ike, I'd be willing to bet, though, that Ike would be in favor of spending the necessary amount of money to keep us safe and to fight the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us all.

Prez Doofuss and his Neocon pals are doing to us what we did to the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union bankrupt themselves over a fear that didn't exist.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-George Santayana

Just where is all this money supposed to be coming from anyway?

"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. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . This is not a way of life at all in any sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Preseident Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

Security does not come from guns alone.

TOO MUCH MONEY FOR EMPIRE! Cut that military budget to what we actually need for defense of the country (a SMALL percentage of the proposed total!) and redirect the rest to meeting the needs of our people and our infrastructure!

Try looking up defense spending in Wikipedia. Some interesting quotes. My paraphrasing.

"For 2005, the total amount allocated by the US for defense spending was more than the next 168 countries COMBINED."

"In 2003, the US spent 47 percent of the entire WORLD'S expenditure for military spending."

What I'd really love to see is how much it has cost us per enemy to kill, or capture them compared to WW II or Vietnam.

The MOST ridiculous part of all of this is that the majority of this money is not going to soldiers, but to military "systems" (The exact thing that Eisenhower warned the US about.)

And through it all, Osama bin Laden is out there laughing at the US bankrupting itself.

If it truly is an amount spent to keep the country safe, if it's spent to ensure security throughout the world, I think we need to find a way to come up with the money and spend it. Where I object is money wasted stupidly by an administration who, through amazing incompetence, not only failed to capitalize on its initial success in invasion, but then, incredibly, went on to generate more terrorists than were there before, which means they made US LESS SAFE than we were before invading.

How about $70 billion more to educate our children? I can't stand it when candidates like John McCain decry all the out-of-control spending Congress has approved, when you know he's not talking about the hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at the unnecessary war in Iraq. It just makes me want to scream!!
Defense spending cannot be a blank check any longer.

That seems about the right amount to me. Everyone should be made aware of the distain the Clintons' have for our military. And if by chance a democrat gets elected to the presidency they surely will cut deeply into the military and leave us weak once more.

Yes, it's absolutely enough. When the socialists take over on January 20, 2009, they're going to destroy the military anyway.

Paul Jaeger,

So how much money is ENOUGH for defense?

How ironic.The Repugnants wanna spend 600 billion on defense,yet they let a small group of terrorist board our planes and attack us on 9/11.

Bigger Bombs? Star Wars?

How about some common sense.

Bush has already destroyed the military.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiXNXno_C1g3DvYqktIfCDCQmHbQD8UH69SG0

The war in Iraq has made the US military incapable of it's primary mission: Defending the United States of America.

The failed strategy that Bush created, and the major Republican candidates support has brought our Military to the breaking point.Talk about disdain for the military, The Military cannot endure another Republican administration.

And if by chance a democrat gets elected to the presidency they surely will cut deeply into the military and leave us weak once more.

Posted by: Paul Jaeger | February 4, 2008 4:59 PM

It's always the chickenhawk Republicans, like Paul Jaegermeister above, who like to talk tough and then hide behind their keyboards like the cowards they really are:

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

His war buddy corporate pals must be clinking their champagne glasses. Why doesn't anyone question WHY we need to spend so much for such a powerful military? Why are we so threatened? Wish I could have been around in the 40's when America was so briefly seen as a good guy.

Cheryl:

The money will come out of your children & grand-children's paychecks that's where it will come from.

Defense at about 4% of GDP - sounds right.

It's the entitlements that are killing us.

Only in gov't acctng is a 5% increase in spending a "cut"

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95956.php

Attn John E...did you service your country in the military? I served honorably during the Cuban Missile crisis and during the Vietnam war! And was honorable discharged.

Attn John E...did you service your country in the military? I served honorably during the Cuban Missile crisis and during the Vietnam war! And was honorable discharged.

Posted by: Paul Jaeger | February 4, 2008 8:31 PM

Please explain how that makes you right and anyone who disagrees with you wrong.

Terry's vison of the ideal America.

http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/879

http://junior.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=97369&articleTypeId=0

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ssa.gov/history/pics/acoffee.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ssa.gov/history/acoffee.html&h=479&w=591&sz=115&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=hh_0CwtKCa9x8M:&tbnh=109&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreat%2Bdepression%2Bsoup%2Bkitchen%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2007-44,GGLJ:en

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/93/260px-Evictbonusarmy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.answers.com/topic/bonus-army&h=169&w=260&sz=14&hl=en&start=41&um=1&tbnid=NPaeFuRwWrYVJM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreat%2Bdepression%2Bbonus%2Barmy%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2007-44,GGLJ:en%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.picturehistory.com/images/products/0/3/5/prod_3583.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/3583&h=300&w=234&sz=10&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=pr7IyFawZepcLM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreat%2Bdepression%2Belderly%2B%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2007-44,GGLJ:en%26sa%3DN

Ahh, the good ol' days when the poor and the aged were on their own, free to starve and suffer without those terrible entitlement programs. If only we could have an america like that again.

Attn John E...did you service your country in the military? I served honorably during the Cuban Missile crisis and during the Vietnam war! And was honorable discharged.

Posted by: Paul Jaeger | February 4, 2008 8:31 PM

Jaegermeister,

Apparently you didn't learn anything from that experience or you wouldn't be cheerleading for more un-called for, pre-emptive wars.

Terry's GOPer vision of "peace":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg

The wonderful LIBune Swamp pick-and-choose censors are at it again, especially when it comes to protecting their favorite little minion, the deranged and demented John E.
But any Lefty Loon this side of the sun can do whatever it wishes to diss a vet like Paul Jaeger??

Anyway, we'll try this again:
Paul, the aforementioned deranged John E. once claimed "his son" was serving in Iraq and that he himself received papers from the Pentagon saying he was being redrafted into the military and would be in Iraq by last February. This occurred last fall. Of course, "John E." is still here, living in mumsy and dudsy's basement.
Anyway, this past fall, a friend of mine in the Texas National Guard was given his notice he would be heading to Iraq this coming summer. First, he will be going to camp in May and then three months later he will be heading to Iraq. Deranged, demented John E. allegedly received "his orders" in October of 2006 and was to be in Iraq in Feb. 2007. A National Guardsman gets nearly a year notice, deranged John E gets three months.
Funny how that works, huh??

But any Lefty Loon this side of the sun can do whatever it wishes to diss a vet like Paul Jaeger??
Posted by: John D | February 5, 2008 10:03 AM

Your side had no problem dissing John Kerry. Guess being a vet doesn't make you sacred. And Lord knows there are no homeless vets (BTW, saw another one yesterday in Milwaukee...Iraq vet under a freeway pass).

*****
Posted by: Op109 | February 4, 2008 9:29 PM

Mr. Jaeger wasn't trying to prove himself right and everyone else wrong. John E. - that pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-liberal comrade of yours, called Mr. Jaeger as a "chickenhawk" Republican who talks tough but hides behind his keyboard like a coward. And this, of course, is typical of John E., who has this uncanny knack for judging people without knowing squat about them. Then again, I see a lot of this out of dead ass pseudo-liberals like John E. It’s the DailyKos, you know; it’s rotting (or rotted) his brain.

The bottom line is that Mr. Jaeger was defending himself against this attack by pointing out that he honorably served our country in Vietnam and otherwise. He didn’t just talk the talk, as John E. implied. I think it was fair or Mr. Jaeger to do this, and fair to confront John E. on whether he served in uniform too. Sorry I had to spell it out for you.

DD, it was John Kerry who dissed the Vets upon his return in the early 1970s. It was Vietnam Vets who dissed John Kerry in 2004. Understand?