Really? And we’re going to give Marines language & culture training to be able to do that effectively when? For every hotspot in the world? No, we’d end up with the same crap, soldiers blowing away commuters because of miscommunication as in Iraq.
Of which you have something like 80 times the median to spend.
9th decile: 90% of all the money in the USA
8th decile: 90% of what’s left
7th decile: 90% of what’s left after that…
Still don’t get it?
Quoth silenus:
OK, let’s start with health care reform (at least a public option) same-sex marriage, and putting a price tag on CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions (either by cap and trade or a carbon tax). Anyone actually disagree with those? They’re not necessarily everyone’s first priorities, but I don’t think there’s anyone who’d call themselves liberal who actually disagrees with any of those.
godix, the question wasn’t how much we spend on the Department of War, but how much we spend on the military. There’s plenty of military spending that doesn’t go through the Department of Defense. Off the top of my head, the National Guards are funded at the state level, and a lot of weapons R&D is done by the Department of Energy.
I’m talking about free college.
Well. While I don’t care who marries who, same sex marriage will do NOTHING to improve my quality of life. It strikes me as a B-list issue. I would say economic issues are number one for me and most people, and you don’t address any of them, except for health insurance tangentially addressing it by lowering health costs. Most of the posts I’ve seen on health insurance don’t address costs, EVEN THOUGH it’s the easy and obvious leader on this topic, in this economy. So, your list is a non-starter AFAIC.
Gotcha.
I don’t know If I’d support the idea of free college. But I’d agree with a broad scholarship program and a universal zero-interest college loan program.
California had free colleges for many years. it was a huge success with people from all over the country moving there. Silicon Valley and other highly technical businesses were the result. Reagan became governor and ended that.
College is a very lucrative business now. Costs are skyrocketing . Easy money.
It needs to be chopped wherever it is. We are still spending billions to develop weapons to fight the last style of war. We need to root out damn near every one of them and kill them dead. Get our people out of Iraq totally, and combat troops out of Afghanistan. Reduce the force size to pre-Iraq levels. At the same time, increase the training in asymetrical warfare and counter-insurgency ops. Then appoint the equivilent of The Untouchables to go after every military contractor with a vengeance. Make them pay back every cost over-run and padded bill ever submitted to the taxpayers. Then shoot them as an object lesson to others.
In opposition to Dio, I would reject free college. Instead, I would massively fund VocEd programs.
I disagree. Your point–that our tax dollars are relieving them of the burden of defending themselves–supports what I’m saying. Western Europe, as you point out, has been getting a free ride for half a century, and in many ways they’re kicking our asses at the whole standard of living thing. Either the massive military spending is necessary–in which case let them pick up the slack for a bit–or it’s not–in which case, let’s knock it off. In neither case should my tax dollars continue to support the lovely lifestyle of Scandinavia.
Wow–so suggesting that the Cold War is over and that we don’t need to maintain a massive army any more means that Hitler will win? Step away from the Godwin, man.
And yes, there’s a reason why Pax Americana translates to American Peace. It’s because that’s what the words mean. It’s a phrase modeled after Pax Romana, the peace achieved by an ancient empire that brutally suppressed its enemies and spread peace by stifling independence in the world.
I’m suggesting we move toward a Pax Mundi. Let other folks chip in for awhile.
The problem is that if there’s a void in world politics somebody will step into it. After World War I, we demoblized and Germany and Japan stepped up. After World War II, we demobilized and the Soviets stepped up. After the Cold War, we demobilized and terrorists stepped up. The world doesn’t become a peaceful place just because we choose not to fight.
We demobilized after the Cold War? I know there was some talk about reduction in bases, but nothing to the degree that I would call “demobilization.” And to suggest that terrorism is rose in the latter part of the 20th century because of an insufficient US military seems to me to be a severe misreading of history.
It wasn’t as big as the demobilizations following the world wars but, after all, those were from a full wartime mobilization. Our demoblization in the early nineties was from a much lower level to start with. But it was not insignificant - the American armed forces were reduced by over 600,000 members over a six year period. And American military spending, which had reached a peak of $427.9 billion in 1987 was down to a low of $296.7 billion in 1998.
We get one building blown up and get embroiled in two land wars in Asia while not even trying to capture the leader of the terrorist group that started the war. Can we just say it was BUSH who stepped in? Cause it WAS!
Hell, Harvard’s endowment is what, 50 or 60 billion dollars now? They could just not charge to go there and still have oodles of cash left over.
America was well paid for it’s defense of Europe during the cold war. Not in financial terms, but in foreign policy terms America got very favorable treatment from western Europe during the cold war. These days, not so much. Then again, the amount we spend for defending Europe these days isn’t so much either. Still, we got our moneys worth. If nothing else, we got favorable trading terms that American businesses pushed for all they were worth.
Way to miss the point entirely. If we cut the military back as much as some in this thread suggest, of course Hitler won’t win. However, the next Hitler wannabe that pops up will. And hitler wannabes pop up with depressing frequency.
But if a reasonable comparison to superpowers and WWII is too much for you, replace Hitler with Stalin. Or Kim Jong Il. Or Slobodan Miloshevich. Or Omar al-Bashir. Like I said, hitler wannabes pop up with depressing frequency.
Even stipulating that this is true–and I don’t really see any evidence that we got our money’s worth out of it–I’m not talking about going back in time and slashing our military during the Cold War. I’m talking about doing it now. And for now, we don’t need to be going it alone in the world anymore, nor do we need to be contributing disproportionately to free-world military ventures.
Wanna-bes are real common. The real McCoy is hearteningly rare. And I maintain that there’s nobody out there right now who’s able and willing to launch a war of conquest across multiple regions.
But even if there were, we’d just do the same thing we did when the real Hitler stood up: we’d mobilize then. As I pointed out earlier, in response to Germany and Japan we increased our military 20-fold over a couple of years. By mobilizing when we really need a military, we do two things: first, we save a buttload of money; and second, we don’t tempt ourselves into fighting unnecessary wars.
Don’t get what? That some people have more money than others? Or do you propose everybody should have an equal amount of speech? Maybe we should count words and letters.:rolleyes:
So we’re faced with the dilemma - should we live in a society were everyone has the exact same amount of money (and words) or should we live in a society where some people have millions of times as much wealth as the average person? If only there was some middle ground between these two positions…
OK, you don’t get it.
The human mind works on what Rob’t Shea & Rob’t Anton Wilson called the “Hunting of the Snark” principle: “What I say three times is true.” More money spent on broadcast media means more influence on the populace, which means more influence on those who elect the governments, which means the rule of the country moves in the direction of the biases of those who buy media for that purpose. Fox News is propaganda for the worldview of the Christianist (that is, believing the supremacy of cultural “Christians”–not Christic) anti-socialist cultural conservatives who run it, & it’s working.
I do get it. Please explain your solution and how it will not have any undesired counter-effects, and how it could survive a SCOTUS challenge.
fnord