Again, the leftist call to cut military spending is as overly simplistic and poorly thought out as the right-wing call to bomb Iran. Yes, we can save money by not dumping it into the five-sided building, but the consequences of those cuts will ripple throughout the economy, at least as the economy currently functions. I refuse to accept the validity of a blind reduction in defense spending without some kind of offset plan to rehabilitate the communities that will go into withdrawal from having their military syringe yanked unceremoniously out of their arms. Unless the Sanders team can present a detailed plan for dealing with those effects, it will be difficult to take them seriously.
In other words, think of the poor military-industrial complex. Pardon me if I don’t go cry in a corner.
What do you mean “Again”? You wondered how Sanders was going to pay for his wishlist, I pointed out that half the things on the list don’t necessarily cost money, and now you say the problem is thatyou want a ccomprehensive plan to transform military dependant industries. Do you think the government helped out the typewriter companies when they switched to computers?
As far as military spending goes …
-
We are already near historic lows for military spending as a fraction of GDP. Since WWII “U.S. national defense spending as a percent of GDP has ranged from a high of 15 percent in 1952 (during the Korean War) to a low of 3.7 percent in 2000 (the period of relative tranquility preceding the terrorist attacks of the following year).” It was 4.7% in 2010 and back down to near historic lows at 3.5% in 2014. (By the World Data Bank methods 2000 was a bit lower though, 2.9%.)
-
Meanwhile we live in very turbulent times and a chaotic world. A Russia with declining economic strength has signaled that it is not afraid to use its ground military strength to foster its perceived interests. ISIS may eventually require greater responses. China is investing mightily in military modernization. Our technological superiority is rapidly diminishing. I am far from a hawk but I do believe that the lack of a strong and modern military that is able to respond is the path most sure to provoke an action that warrants that strong response. Obama and his team seem to concur. While I am a big fan of “soft power” and the capacity for shared best economic interests to prevent military conflict, I am not so sure that the world as it stands with the United States as a significantly weaker military power, relatively ceding such power to China, Russia, and a variety of regional actors, is a better place for anyone, especially for us.
In short the currently planned trajectory of long term military budget cuts is already looking like it may be unattainable; cutting much more may end up costing us more in the longer run.
In that case you probably shouldn’t vote for Sanders.
That is just silly. It is the Department of Defense, not the Department of Adventurism, nor the Department of Aggression, nor the Department for the Promotion of Global Enterprise. Reining in its scope to the protection of the nation itself would greatly streamline the military itself, and by taking a position of non-aggression in the global community, the lion’s share of international threats against the US would almost certainly diminish significantly, hence making less military capability necessary.
That is correct. Just one of the reasons I shouldn’t.
“Fortress America” isolationism, as a matter of foreign or of economic policy, is not, IMHO,in America’s or the world’s best interests. Was not in the 30s and is not now.
And of course I also continue to recognize the truth of Sanders own assessment of his ability to get any of his agenda done as President: without a revolution flipping both Houses of Congress to progressives (and aint gonna happen) “forget about it.”
Oh by the way, can you name the fallacy that eschereal just tried to use?
You really can’t seriously mean that. You can’t.
Was General Motors ever so called to account for their layoffs in Flint, Michigan?! Why should the USG be held to a higher standard?!
Actually, it is the Department of Adventurism, the Department of Aggression, and the Department for the Promotion of American (not Global, assuming the distinction means anything any more) Enterprise. It should not be, but it is.
It is a slightly different kind of reckless, but it is still poorly thought out, or at least not clearly outlined. Straight slashing the defense budget would almost certainly result in economic instability in large parts of the country, which would lead to social instability, which, well, we kind of do not want that.
You are being sarcastic, right?
We can cut defense spending more, and defense spending is not a jobs program. Defense spending was much higher during major wars and when those wars ended we cut defense spending sharply, rather than keeping it high for the sake of jobs.
Well, it’s not supposed to be. It often is.
Fortunately, we’ve generally been able to avoid the temptation to increase military spending just to provide jobs. When we had to close a lot of bases once the Cold War ended, we pulled that off as well despite the impact to local communities. It had to be taken out of Congress’ hands somewhat, but it got done.
The main problem with cutting military spending is our overseas commitments. We have to reduce those as well.
GD thread to further discuss resurgent American Isolationism.