Why do Conservatives obsess at inflating the military budget at every opportunity?

[silent tone]

Conservatives love expressing how right they are more than they hate wasting piles of money. James Burke (of Connections fame) explains how military might is an expression of our confidence in our worldview.The Day The Universe Changed

 

[OGOC]

So here is what I don't understand. The military would appear to be the perfect analogy of everything Conservatives loathe. A big, bloated machine taking vast sums of the tax payers money and squandering gigantic portions of it. Yet Conservatives want to spend more on it.

For starters, there's a difference between things like conservatives and neoconservatives. Conservatives may refer to themselves as things like "constitutional conservatives" to help the distinction since neoconservatives have done such a great job of trashing "conservative."

Military spending is interesting for the reasons you said but also because the same holds true for liberals/Democrats/whatever. They like to have government (taxpayers) spend lots of money on jobs programs and "stimulus" and things, and what's a bigger jobs and stimulus program than the U.S. military? Democrats/liberals should be loving all that military spending.

So, a lot of people on both sides are hypocrites when it comes to military spending.

 

[OGOC]

Ever notice it's Republicans who skyrocket the deficit starting with Reagan?

Congress is the ultimate controller of the money. That's why even though Bill Clinton gets praised for a (almost) balanced budget and all that, the bigger part of that was the 1994+ Republican Congress pushing him to do it. Bill Clinton does deserve credit for doing his part, but the Republican Congress really pushed him on it.

It's funny since Bill Clinton gets praise for those budgets when it's the Republican Congress who should get more of the praise, yet then it's the Republican Congress who gets the blame for lowering capital gains taxes A LOT, as well as repealing Glass-Steagall, while Clinton and Dems in Congress who voted for those things get off scot-free.

Just a reminder for everyone on that -- Bill Clinton lowered capital gains taxes more than Bush did, and Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.

Also, that lowering of capital gains I just mentioned? That coincides with the big "Clinton surplus" and the economic boom around that time.

Anyway, when talking about spending and budgets, Congress has the main say.

But if it's money they don't need, why do they "have" to preserve it for next time by using up grenades far and beyond what they would ever have use for?

Because that's how rigged things called "Baseline Budgeting" work. And that's how despite the "evil, horrible, world-ending" sequester was supposed to doom us all with its "massive cuts," no actual money was cut. The U.S. military budget will be bigger in 2016 than it is now.

 

[OGOC]

Rand WHO?

I meant someone who actually had a proposal that was feasible. Not some nimrod who can't stop sucking his daddys balls.

Right. The guy who has been standing up to the rest of Congress and their NSA spying and their NDAA indefinite detention without charge and their warmongering and their wasteful spending.

Rand WHO? Rand the future President of the United States is who.

One of the things you mentioned was the private contractors in the Iraq war. You seem to have missed the point of the private contractor. It wasn't to channel money into a private organization, or that its more efficient than the government.

I don't know... there was a whole lot of wasteful spending with Haliburton, and others. They would destroy a six-figure $ vehicle if it got a flat tire because they would just charge the American taxpayers for a new one.

 

[bryanl]

Because so few of them served.

 

[Argo]

I don't think conservatives want to inflate military budget. I'm a conservative, and I want to cut our military in size. Several of my conservative friends feel the same way.

I think you are confusing conservatives with fake wanna be republicans, that pretend to be conservatives to win votes, but in reality are no different from theirs colleagues across the isle.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think conservatives want to inflate military budget. I'm a conservative, and I want to cut our military in size. Several of my conservative friends feel the same way.

I think you are confusing conservatives with fake wanna be republicans, that pretend to be conservatives to win votes, but in reality are no different from theirs colleagues across the isle.

I'm curious who you vote for then? Repubs? Dems? Indi?

 

[Sonikku]

For starters, there's a difference between things like conservatives and neoconservatives. Conservatives may refer to themselves as things like "constitutional conservatives" to help the distinction since neoconservatives have done such a great job of trashing "conservative."

Military spending is interesting for the reasons you said but also because the same holds true for liberals/Democrats/whatever. They like to have government (taxpayers) spend lots of money on jobs programs and "stimulus" and things, and what's a bigger jobs and stimulus program than the U.S. military? Democrats/liberals should be loving all that military spending.

So, a lot of people on both sides are hypocrites when it comes to military spending.

Democrats however always maintained that the government had a role to play in job creation though. They haven't been the ones preaching (for better or worse) fiscal responsibility party this or government job creation is bad that. It is the mentality I question. As for why Democrats don't celebrate the spending on more military contractors as much as Repubs, I suspect that while at least a portion of that tax payer wealth trickles down to the rank and file, the lion's share of it likely ends up in the pockets of the contractor companies elite.

One wonders if we're going to bankroll stimulus spending on things just for the sake of job creation than we might better spend it on things the nation could actually use. The construction and maintenance of our crumbling bridges, pot hole infested roads and over all crumbling infrastructure might be a better source of job creation than filling a Contractor/weapons manufacturers pockets at every opportunity. Certainly if the government wants to subsidize some industries for the sake of job creation there are things the American people need more than the army rifles by the thousands or tanks by the hundreds the military has outright admitted they don't even want.

 

[OGOC]

Democrats however always maintained that the government had a role to play in job creation though. They haven't been the ones preaching (for better or worse) fiscal responsibility party this or government job creation is bad that.

Very true! Democrats are definitely not overly keen on preaching fiscal responsibility! lol.

One wonders if we're going to bankroll stimulus spending on things just for the sake of job creation than we might better spend it on things the nation could actually use.

It'd be a change of pace. Thing is, even when there's "extra" money to do that, it gets used for things like bridges to nowhere and wasteful solar panel companies, and really stupid things like Cash for Clunkers.

It's hard to justify current levels of taxation and spending and debt when pot holes aren't fixed and bridges are falling down, yet there's always somehow money to be found (stolen from your kids) for unneeded tanks and unneeded solar panels and paying people money so their perfectly working cars can be destroyed.

How people can say we need to raise taxes and need to spend more is beyond me when there is so much waste in so many parts of government. And yes, the military is a big one. You'd think when you finally end a 10-year war you could spend at least $1 less on the military than you did while at war.

 

[bononos]

You are being deliberately dishonest by posting that. You know damn well that defense spending as a % of GDP is near the lowest it's ever been post WWII. I've called you out on this several times already.

Feel free to post counterarguing evidence if you wish. Him putting up a graph is not inherently dishonest. --ck

My response:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...81680_946cs_30f_20th_Century_Defense_Spending

Well that graph you put up is dishonest since it (belongs to that partisan hack Chantrill) underestimates US military spending and having the WW2 spike also tends to flatten everything that comes after it.

Base military spending doesn't include VA, pensions, contingency operations and other expenses squirreled away under some other department like the FBI/DOE/NASA and the true cost may be double what is commonly reported.

http://mercatus.org/publication/comprehensive-look-defense-spending-fy-2012
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/01/national_security_budget_government_shutdown/

When the federal government lacks sufficient funds to pay all of its obligations, it borrows. Each year, it must pay the interest on this debt which, for FY 2012, is projected at $474.1 billion. The National Priorities Project calculates that 39% of that, or $185 billion, comes from borrowing related to past Pentagon spending.
Add it all together and the grand total for the known national security budget of the United States is:
$1,219.2 billion. (That’s more than $1.2 trillion.)

Craig's graph is correct in what he is trying to point out.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I think conservatives are quite intelligent and rational to want a strong military. I believe conservatives are in control in many countries and conservatives here know exactly what kind of people our enemies are, conservatives just like them. I think we owe some debt of appreciation for their insuring that American conservatives are more powerful and better armed than conservatives elsewhere because they know better than anybody else the monsters that haunt them. The need to control others creates a fear of being controlled. They think it's us or them.

This is a very good point. Let me re-write it, as I think greenman missed what you said:

Originally Posted by DixyCrat
I think liberals are quite ignorant and irrational to want a weak military. I believe liberals are NOT in control in many countries and liberals here just don't know exactly what kind of people our enemies are, they think they are liberals just like them. I think liberals owe conservatives some debt of appreciation for their insuring that American's overall are more powerful and better armed than those elsewhere, because liberals just don't know the monsters that stalk this earth. The need to allow for social liberalism creates a feeling that everyone is liberal. They can't conceive of the fact that internationally it's us or them.

 

[Greenman]

This is a very good point. Let me re-write it, as I think greenman missed what you said:

Originally Posted by DixyCrat
I think liberals are quite ignorant and irrational to want a weak military. I believe liberals are NOT in control in many countries and liberals here just don't know exactly what kind of people our enemies are, they think they are liberals just like them. I think liberals owe conservatives some debt of appreciation for their insuring that American's overall are more powerful and better armed than those elsewhere, because liberals just don't know the monsters that stalk this earth. The need to allow for social liberalism creates a feeling that everyone is liberal. They can't conceive of the fact that internationally it's us or them.

I didn't miss anything. It was small minded and ignorant when moonie wrote it, I don't see that you've added anything of value to the idea. The entire concept is nothing more than propaganda.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I didn't miss anything. It was small minded and ignorant when moonie wrote it, I don't see that you've added anything of value to the idea.

I'm willing to accept this argument, provided you explain what you mean.

ie

The entire concept is nothing more than propaganda.

Do you mean it's an attempt at a rhetorical proof that doesn't rely on logic, but instead exposing the character/ethics of, or evoking irrational emotions regarding, a particular ideology?

If so, what ideology was being propagandized, what was exposed/evoked, and why was doing so outside of the realm of logic?

 

[Onceler]

I'm not conservative but I understand and agree with their reasoning.
The conservative thinking is thus: We have a lot of enemies in this world and we need a strong military to combat those enemies when called upon. A lot of the budget is towards weapons development.
I would like to see that the main development go to nukes in which the arms reduction treaties only are enforced by us, e.g. we reduce our arsenal while countries like the Soviet Union claim to reduce theirs but don't.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Well that graph you put up is dishonest since it (belongs to that partisan hack Chantrill) underestimates US military spending and having the WW2 spike also tends to flatten everything that comes after it.

Base military spending doesn't include VA, pensions, contingency operations and other expenses squirreled away under some other department like the FBI/DOE/NASA and the true cost may be double what is commonly reported.

http://mercatus.org/publication/comprehensive-look-defense-spending-fy-2012
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/01/national_security_budget_government_shutdown/




Craig's graph is correct in what he is trying to point out.

No. First, my source is using numbers that are almost identical to your source ($925.2b vs. $928.7b) so you'll need to clarify why you think he's a hack.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

Second, while WW2 is a huge spike, defense spending as % of GDP is still lower than it was in 1960, 70, 80, and 90.

Third, for the purposes of this discussion it makes no sense to include interest on defense spending. We are trying to look at changes in defense spending over time, while the defense share of government interest payments is based on cumulative past spending. It short circuits the entire analysis. (edit: There are other conceptual reasons why it is inappropriate to include it as well, but let's keep this simple)

Including saved interest is only appropriate when you are doing a forward looking analysis on the savings from potential budget cuts.

 

[Sonikku]

This is a very good point. Let me re-write it, as I think greenman missed what you said:

Originally Posted by DixyCrat
I think liberals are quite ignorant and irrational to want a weak military. I believe liberals are NOT in control in many countries and liberals here just don't know exactly what kind of people our enemies are, they think they are liberals just like them. I think liberals owe conservatives some debt of appreciation for their insuring that American's overall are more powerful and better armed than those elsewhere, because liberals just don't know the monsters that stalk this earth. The need to allow for social liberalism creates a feeling that everyone is liberal. They can't conceive of the fact that internationally it's us or them.

But how much money is necessary for a "strong" army? Was the Army we had before 9/11 utterly feeble, defenseless and completely unable to perform it's job? Or is spending more than the next ten countries combined the baseline for a strong military? Or, is the amount needed even more than that? What I find most puzzling is that education is often one of the first things Conservatives cut when plugging gaps in a budget, often claiming you don't make schools better at their job by "just throwing money at the problem". Yet, that seems to be precisely what they think it takes to make our military more efficient at the job. Is there no threshold where shifting more money away from other programs and services to our military instead is no longer the better investment?

 

[sm625]

ABut if that is true, why then is there an obsession with funneling more funds the military's way at every opportunity?
...

Why?

The answer is quite simple. There are actually very few real conservatives. Most are either liberal, or neoconservative. The neoconservatives are not conservative at all. They are simply the product of think tank research that indicates this particular brand of dog crap can be sold to the public in a big stinky paper bag labeled "CONSERVATIVE". It is absolutely as simple as a common every day con job, but it is backed by a corporate media that projects an image of real true conservatism that appeals to american core values. But it is only a carefully crafted image, the product of $$billions in research in think tanks. It is all about selling bags of dog crap to the general public. And unfortunately most of the general public buys it. That is why you have to turn the frickin tv OFF. You have to turn that dog crap clear channel garbage OFF. It is all owned and operated by nefarious individuals and groups (CFR, trilaterals, bilderbergers, etc) whose true ideology is so dark and despotic that it simply could not survive the light of day if it were actually exposed to debate.

These criminals operate outside the realms of law and reason. They use nefarious means to advance their agenda: media manipulation, tampering with evidence, even manufacturing of evidence, even outright lies, and by that I mean claiming outright lies to be truths. Notice how in one simple statement "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" you can see all their hallmarks. By their deeds you shall know them. These are exactly the same types of people that Kennedy and Eisenhower referenced in their most famous speeches. These groups have been lurking in the shadows always trying to sieze power. But up until recently people havent been so stupid as to actually let these demons take control. And that is pretty much what they are when it comes down to it. They worship lucifer, literally.

 

[Craig234]

Congress is the ultimate controller of the money. That's why even though Bill Clinton gets praised for a (almost) balanced budget and all that, the bigger part of that was the 1994+ Republican Congress pushing him to do it. Bill Clinton does deserve credit for doing his part, but the Republican Congress really pushed him on it.

That's incorrect. Clinton inherited unprecednted peacetime deficits from 12 years of Republican presidents. During his 8 years, he reduced the decifit a similar amount each year, gradually reducing it to zero. Here's the thing - his first two years he had a Democratic House and Senate, and he reduced the deficit about the same amount both of those years as he did the rest of the years. That shows pure Democratic government was reducing the deficit just as much - from the high levels of Republicans.

The real blast to your claim is that the Same Republican congress was in power after Clinton under Bush - and the deficits immediately skyrocketed again.

If it were about Congress, that wouldn't have happened.

Textbooks tell you about how Congress does the budget, and there's some truth to that, but as a practical matter, the President submits the draft budget each year, and his policies are clearly there. It could hardly be clearer about the role of the President when you look at the deficit with pre-Clinton, Clinton, and Bush - the Congress not having much effect.

But of course the Republicans would love to grab credit for the deficit reduction. Nevermind those pesky facts of Democrats doing just as much, and running it up starting 2001.

It's funny since Bill Clinton gets praise for those budgets when it's the Republican Congress who should get more of the praise, yet then it's the Republican Congress who gets the blame for lowering capital gains taxes A LOT, as well as repealing Glass-Steagall, while Clinton and Dems in Congress who voted for those things get off scot-free.

Just a reminder for everyone on that -- Bill Clinton lowered capital gains taxes more than Bush did, and Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.

Also, that lowering of capital gains I just mentioned? That coincides with the big "Clinton surplus" and the economic boom around that time.

What you got right:

There are three political factions involved: Republicans, non-progressive Democrats - call them centrists - and progressive Democrats.

Most Republicans and 'centrist' Democrats - including Clinton - supported bad policies like the repeal of Glass-Steagal. Clinton deserves and gets blame.

Most of the people on the 'correct' side of the issue were the progressive Democrats. They don't get the credit they deserve.

But you're wrong to credit capital gains tax reduction with deficit reduction - a more relevant policy was Clinton's tax increase on the top 2%.

Note that *every* Republican voted against Clinton's policy, and it passed by one vote.

That was an excellent test of who's correct on economic policies. Republicans lost.

Because that's how rigged things called "Baseline Budgeting" work. And that's how despite the "evil, horrible, world-ending" sequester was supposed to doom us all with its "massive cuts," no actual money was cut. The U.S. military budget will be bigger in 2016 than it is now.

Many things were cut, as we've discussed at length. Ask the cancer patients who are now denied treatment for a start.

 

[Craig234]

Very true! Democrats are definitely not overly keen on preaching fiscal responsibility! lol.

That's not correct. Try 'Democrats are not the ones to hype fiscal responsibility for political gain while betraying it'.

That would be Republicans. Take a look at what Democrats do: inherited a massive deficit from Reagan/Bush, Clinton reduced it to zero. Inherited a massive deficit from Bush 43, Obama has over halved it despite needing to recover from the great recession, when stimulus is so needed. I don't agree with that policy and neither does Obama entirely, but still.

Little quiz: which budget most quickly balances the budget?

1. Obama
2. Republicans/Paul Ryan
3. Progressive Caucus

It'd be a change of pace. Thing is, even when there's "extra" money to do that, it gets used for things like bridges to nowhere and wasteful solar panel companies, and really stupid things like Cash for Clunkers.

Alternative energy and cash for clunkers are great programs. Bridge to nowhere was a Republican member of Congress.

It's hard to justify current levels of taxation and spending and debt when pot holes aren't fixed and bridges are falling down, yet there's always somehow money to be found (stolen from your kids) for unneeded tanks and unneeded solar panels and paying people money so their perfectly working cars can be destroyed.

That's pretty much an emotional rant ignoring the facts. You're ranting about small bits of the financial picture and ignoring the big spending issues.

How people can say we need to raise taxes and need to spend more is beyond me when there is so much waste in so many parts of government. And yes, the military is a big one. You'd think when you finally end a 10-year war you could spend at least $1 less on the military than you did while at war.

Try the end of the cold war for that matter. Not much savings then either. It's welfare.

Actually, I'm probably ok with tax neutrality, if they can be shifted and spent differently.

 

[bononos]

No. First, my source is using numbers that are almost identical to your source ($925.2b vs. $928.7b) so you'll need to clarify why you think he's a hack.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

Second, while WW2 is a huge spike, defense spending as % of GDP is still lower than it was in 1960, 70, 80, and 90.

Third, for the purposes of this discussion it makes no sense to include interest on defense spending. We are trying to look at changes in defense spending over time, while the defense share of government interest payments is based on cumulative past spending. It short circuits the entire analysis. (edit: There are other conceptual reasons why it is inappropriate to include it as well, but let's keep this simple)

Including saved interest is only appropriate when you are doing a forward looking analysis on the savings from potential budget cuts.

I quickly looked up the figures and found that the graph didn't quite match the table of figures.

I said he was a partisan hack because of his viewpoints that even Republicans regard as comical like his strong support of Palin. And he's managed to stay employed within the web of right wing political and corporate funded think tanks to keep those pundits employed to give some semblance of objectivity.

It doesn't change the fact that the US still spends more as a proportion of GDP compared to other countries. And it makes sense that it is a backdoor subsidy to large corporations and high tech industries since WW2. The militarization of the US has hit high gear since the Bush era and security related jobs are growing which filter down as more incidents of swat teams raiding poker games among other things.

 

[sci guy]

It doesn't change the fact that the US still spends more as a proportion of GDP compared to other countries.

Not correct, Saudi Arabia spends more as a proportion of GDP and Russia ties the US.

Saudi Arabia 8.9%
Russia 4%
United States 4%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

[ssm0002]

There are very few real conservatives left in politics today. Both parties locked arms and have done everything in their power to squash the Tea Party which was the voice of conservatives. The fact is that both parties are controlled by the feudalist banksters and they have pogroms on both the left and the right so we all don't rise up and crush the monied interest that really call the shots. Keep on watching honey boo boo, MSNBC, Fox News, and Entertainment Tonight and drink your overpriced Starbuck burnt coffee and believe that BHO is black because he is half-black even though his mother is white and Zimmerman is white because he is half-white even though his mother is hispanic. Keep on listening to Rush the drug addict trice married and believe he is conservative and listen to Hanity who is bought and paid for by the banksters to keep conservatives from revolting. Keep on believing the global warming shit spewed by the jet fuel burning 10,000 sqft house living Hollywood left and it's hanger-ons in the depublican party. Delude yourself in this rediculous paradigm of left and right because that is exactly what the feudalist want and plan...watch my right hand so you don't notice what my left hand is doing. Welcome to the matrix sheeple. Why is Pres Obama shipping weapons into Syria to Al Queda affiliates? Why is Graham and McCain calling for more US support of the very same people our govt said was behind 9-11! Maybe all three of these politicals take marching orders from the same damnable globalist masters? Baaaa

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There are very few real conservatives left in politics today. Both parties locked arms and have done everything in their power to squash the Tea Party which was the voice of conservatives. The fact is that both parties are controlled by the feudalist banksters and they have pogroms on both the left and the right so we all don't rise up and crush the monied interest that really call the shots. Keep on watching honey boo boo, MSNBC, Fox News, and Entertainment Tonight and drink your overpriced Starbuck burnt coffee and believe that BHO is black because he is half-black even though his mother is white and Zimmerman is white because he is half-white even though his mother is hispanic. Keep on listening to Rush the drug addict trice married and believe he is conservative and listen to Hanity who is bought and paid for by the banksters to keep conservatives from revolting. Keep on believing the global warming shit spewed by the jet fuel burning 10,000 sqft house living Hollywood left and it's hanger-ons in the depublican party. Delude yourself in this rediculous paradigm of left and right because that is exactly what the feudalist want and plan...watch my right hand so you don't notice what my left hand is doing. Welcome to the matrix sheeple. Why is Pres Obama shipping weapons into Syria to Al Queda affiliates? Why is Graham and McCain calling for more US support of the very same people our govt said was behind 9-11! Maybe all three of these politicals take marching orders from the same damnable globalist masters? Baaaa

MINE!

 

[Zebo]

1. Conservatives like to punish people and US military does that like nothing else. Same reason they love prisons instead of jobs programs. Cutting welfare of most kinds so you're sufficiently over the barrel for poor life choices you work for nothing.

2. It's written in Constitution is actually one things we are allowed to pay for and maintain. No question about it. No commerce clause and wild interpretation of general welfare clause needed.

3. ~75% of it's members vote Republican and we're talking all branches and thousands of DoD contractors with ~ 15million voters. Of course you feed your own. Both parties do.

4. It's rigid structure, rules , hierarchy and authoritarianism appeals to them psychologically since that's world view they have.

5. At the top - It's big business - I think it's insane DoD contractors can donate to candidates. It's basically direct payola. Goes down like this: Vote us contract we give you campaign money and a vice presidency in our company when you leave office. WTF over!?! But that's what happens. With Generals as well as congress.

 

[ivwshane]

5. At the top - It's big business - I think it's insane DoD contractors can donate to candidates. It's basically direct payola. Goes down like this: Vote us contract we give you campaign money and a vice presidency in our company when you leave office. WTF over!?! But that's what happens. With Generals as well as congress.

That happens even outside the department of defense. Name any consumer/citizen protection department and you see the same revolving door.
"Why yes I will regulate my former company who I plan on going back to", "You look like a good company to work for, how would you like to be regulated today? (wink, nod, wink)".

It's absolutely disgusting!