Sure we can go on and on about government spending but sometimes it helps to have milestones or markers of achievement to know just how bad things have become. Obama is a spending giant. George W. Bush was no shinning example of conservative ideology either. In fact, one could make the argument that for someone who ran on the Anti-George Bush ticket in 2008, Obama has become more and more like George W. Bush than most realize.
Aside from the comparisons that could be made, one thing is quite clear: Under Barack Obama, three of the highest increases in daily government spending have occurred under his watch.
To blame this on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan one would have to go to his soon-to-be broken promise to end occupation in Iraq by August 2010. He has shown signs that he is going to be continuing these wars for sometime. Okay, then lets move on to the economy.
This idea of lets spend our way into a better economy has done what? Nothing good. To add insult to injury, Obama care has been thrown into the mix to somehow rescue a broken political record. Only, it would seem that even Obama doesn't want people to know just how bad an idea that really can be for our already struggling economy.
In consideration of all these elements being brought to bear currently, do we as the American people have the authority to cut up the presidents credit card? Can we place a spending freeze on new government programs till the other messes are taken care of? Sure I realize that sacrifices will have to be made, and some people will suffer as a result. But as it currently is, the entire nation suffers. As the Book of Mormon teaches, it is better for one man to die than a nation to suffer as a result of that mans actions.
Perhaps the credit addiction that our countries leaders seem to be suffering would be benefited by the advice of Nancy Reagan, "Just say no!"
If Obama were spending our money on actually stimulating the economy through creating good-paying jobs for example, one could at least partially defend his actions. But no, we are getting wasteful government spending at a horrifying rate. So what to do?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, let's stop spending money on things we absolutely do not need like wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 700 overseas military bases and boondoggle programs to fight wars in space or prepare for the 2030 battle against the Chinese. Then let's stop giving away government money in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to private businesses, including the banks. Then let's repeal the Bush and Reagan tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and use the money to get the economy moving and give our citizens the best health care and education system the world has ever seen.
I have a better idea. Let us continue the war efforts. Forget touching that. Off the table. Reduce taxes for all, especially the wealthy who create jobs with their money investments. Make permanent a national flat tax in the single digits for corporations and individuals, until another generation can repeal the 16th Amendment. Lets devolve health, education and welfare programs away from the national government back to the States where they belongWe all know that revenue is not the problem with the national budget, it is spending. Medicare Medicaid and Social Security have a larger budget than the DOD. At least with our War department we get something constitutional. Our national government ought to be in the business of fighting wars, they have a clear mandate to do that in the constitution. It is that safety net stuff they do that has to go. Scientific research also needs to be done by States. Too much power in too few hands, thats what we have in big Washington. That is my view in Little Washington. More power to the State Capitols and less to the national one.
ReplyDeleteWhy is war off the table? It's not as though we needed to go to war, or were threatened by either of those countries. When are the wealthy actually going to create some jobs? They've been getting tax breaks for 30 years and so far the only jobs that they've created are low-wage zero-benefit jobs that hardly replace the high-wage manufacturing jobs they helped us lose.
ReplyDeleteDid you realize that Social Security has never borrowed a dime and is a creditor of the federal government not a part of our debt? When did you ever hear of a state doing something to help its citizens if it cost money?
It seems to be that it's better to have a healthy and financially secure populace than a bunch of dead folks in some country that never posed a threat to us.
I think you may be mistaken in your number of 700 overseas military bases....unless 700 is just a number you picked to make an example of the fact that there is a lot.... But what is a better expense of money - national defense or national welfare? Without defense can you exist as a nation?
ReplyDeleteSome good comments. I agree, revenues don't seem to be the issue with our current government. It seems that there is just too much going out. So tax cuts would make sense, but spending cuts currently make more sense to make the government healthy. To use an analogy, if a person is overweight, restricting the amount of food in the market place isn't going to necessarily make the person skinnier. The person needs to consume less in order to loose weight. So first things first, IMO, cut the spending. Then we can worry about taxes as needed.
ReplyDeleteI think 700 is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but we do have quite a few bases that may or may not be NEEDED. With technology and travel what it is, having a base in every country seems like a bit inefficient. Our military can act pretty fast when needed. So I think that the number of bases in the world could be taken back some.
I do agree anonymous, our nation cannot exist without a national defense. To cut national welfare, that is some serious tough love. A prudent phasing back of national welfare programs as part of a comprehensive spending cut regime would be a good idea.
Wikipedia cites a DoD report as of March 31, 2008, stating that U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries. Given that there are also some top secret facilities or "black sites", this number may be a bit of an undercount.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that our nation cannot exist without national defense. The questions is how one defines national defense. I take a narrow view that the nation is the 50 states and our territories and the people who live in them and that defense is the ability to resist any attack on the nation. We don't need to spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined in order to defend our nation.
What we are "defending" overseas is generally termed our "national interests", which basically means the profit interests of our largest corporations and banks. You could view the bulk of our military spending as a huge and wasteful welfare program for the oil companies, big banks and "defense" contractors. That's one welfare program that could use a comprehensive spending cut regime.
Charles, first of all you're using Wikipedia but we'll get past that one - 820 installations in 135 countries. Of that 820 how many are within the U.S.? I would gestimate 75% (615) of all military installations. So that would leave 205 installations split up between 134 countries. I'm not trying to be antagonistic in challenging this line of reasoning, in fact I agree that some of the military installations could probably be consolidated, however our overseas ones in my opinion are likely to be the most valuable. They provide opportunity for interaction between servicemembers and local population to combat the garbage pumped out overseas via MTV portraying the U.S. as a bunch of mindless idiots with shows like My super Sweet 16 and Jersey Shores....
ReplyDeleteFurthermore to argue that we don't need to spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined in order to defend out nation..... well that may be a true statement to an extent, but is there a more hated enemy in the world than the United States - the leading proponent of the "war" on terrorism. An attack on the U.S. by terrorists is it any different from a kinetic attack from a state sponsered military? I personally don't want to exist as Isreal does where everytime I step on a bus I look around at the passengers and accept the fact that one of them could potentially blow me up.... That said I don't want the guarantee of state security either in terms of UAV's flying over my house and spying on me while I drive to work. Besides the greatest security is through the general population being proactive...case in point, what brought down the plane allegedly headed for the White House? Some would argue it was a missile... I argue it was proactive passengers who stood up. So bottom line... National defense is a necessary expense, more necessary than national welfare, however cuts need to be made across the board. -GWH- (I can't sign in my internet connection here is too slow)
No GWH, that's not correct. The data is from an Department of Defense report and the 820 are ALL in foreign countries. As for your argument, if I wanted to bolster the image of the United States overseas, I wouldn't setup a military base to do it. Sending them doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. would be much better for our image than armed troops. Do you think that the federal government should be spending billions to improve our nation's image?
ReplyDeleteYes, the US is not liked by lots of terrorist organization, but that is mostly a result of our foreign policy. If we weren't intervening in the affairs of other nations and taking sides in internal struggles in other countries, the terrorists in those countries would have no reason to hate us. All the trillions we have spent on "defense" seem to have been useless against a handful of determined suicide attackers. We don't need to spend a trillion dollars a year (a good estimate of our current spending) to defend ourselves against the few hundred terrorists who are capable of launching an attack against Americans on US soil. We don't need UAV's spying on us, or have our phone and internet conversations tapped either. We need international cooperation and good old-fashioned detective work to track these people down, eliminate their funding sources, and bring them to justice.
Charles D if you think that terrorist hatred of the US is due to our foreign policy than you are dreadfully naive.
ReplyDeleteI have seen these military lists before where leftists make it sound like we are putting bases everywhere in the world. Basically they count a "base" as anywhere US troops get stationed in any number. SO that if we keep a regiment of 10 of 15 troops in a nation that is counted as a base. What that doesnt tell you is why they are there. Embassy guarding is one use, training foreign troops is another, baby-sitting assets given to them by us or UN programs, intel-sharing programs with other nations, etc...
By this measure then even contries with relatively small militaries like Sweden or Uruguay can be thought to have "hundreds of bases" spanning the globe, as they will at any time have regiments of a few troops in diverse places for similar reasons.
Every US base I have ever been to has a few foreign troops, sometimes a few hunded, undergoing training, etc... Am I going to say that Argentina and Latvia have dozens of miltary bases spread across the US, Canada, Australia and Europe in the same way? According to the metrics these leftist studies use, sure. But it is obviously silly.
We are the strongest military of em all to be sure. But the way that the studies like to make it sounds like we have massive presence in HUNDREDS of bases worldwide is a massive exaggeration of the facts. It is lame to make it sound like we have Ft. Hood size bases all over the world.
You can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. They are what they are.
Look carefully at the DOD report of how many troops are stationed at a base/post and why they are there. Most of these locales are owned by foreign miltaries. It is not as if these are OUR bases. We are a tenant unit there. Leftist reports do not paint this picture accurately.
ReplyDeleteWar making power is one of the very core reasons for a national government.
Arguments for government-run social programs and retirement plans can be had at the State level and down, but I will not so much as entertain the notion nationally, unless you first want to amend the Constitution to provide for it.
ReplyDelete"Though the people support the (federal)government, the government should not support the people." President Grover Cleveland(D) 1887.
Unless you think the Department of Defense is a bunch of leftists, then those 820 bases are for real, not just a bunch of guys staying overnight in a motel.
ReplyDeletePahoran, where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government should be making war? It mentions defense, but under what perverted definition of defense do we need bases in Latvia or Uzbekistan? As for those government-run retirement plans, those are funded by those who benefit from them and do not contribute to the federal deficit. Unless you have a concrete plan to actually provide for the elderly, handicapped, widows and orphans - not a slogan about states rights - then you are advocating that the government leave these people bereft and renege on its contractual obligations to pay its debts.
Of course "bases" are for real. You are missing the point. We have troops stationed in Canada in the NORAD mission for example. Does that mean the US has a "base" there? No, we have troops stationed at a Candian base. Same with Royal Armed Forces bases in the UK. They are still UK bases. They let us be a tenant there. So it is how you want to define it. We have troops stationed in Australia and NZ, but again, they are their bases we are guests at.
ReplyDeleteI suppose before you fire back you should define your terms. By bases do you mean anywhere US DOD personnel are located, or do you mean places where we own and operate the base? Those are very different things.
Charles, having a base in a country is a far stretch from an act of war. You say that the government isn't supposed to MAKE war, which I agree with. But that is a stretch to thinking that a base in a foreign country is congruent with an act of war. The two ideas don't seem to support each other.
ReplyDeleteTo get to your comment about the elderly, handicapped, widows, and orphans, goes back to what I consider a serious lacking in intellectual honesty. Government is not the only source for the providing of the needs of these groups whom you have mentioned. There is no validity to the one way or the highway approach with social issues. With orphans there is the foster parent programs of each state. I have never heard anyone on this blog say anything against that program. My wife's family has been a huge part of the california foster parent program, and while imperfect, it is doing a great deal of good for a lot of children who's parents are crap.
As far as widows, we live in a society that being a widow is not as much of an issue as it once was. Women can be employed make a living and provide for themselves and their families. Happens all the time. The handicapped do require some support, but why does that need to come in the form of federal dollars? They have parents, they have families, and those are the first lines of responsibility. As far as the elderly, they can financially plan for retirement, or they can go work at wal-mart. There are options. Government is an excuse for people to not live in prudent ways and I am tired of people distorting the way things should be with the amplification of exceptions to the norm. Not all the elderly are useless government cheese consumers. Not all handicapped are incapable of working. My brother in law is down syndrome and has held the same job for 15 years. That is a huge leap in the type of work ethic that is seen in the ghetto's and by those demanding government food stamps and unemployment checks. You think the handicapped need the government?
The reality is that the government seriously over spends. Both in the military, and in social entitlement programs. Programs that don't help anyone live better lives. Welfare keeps people from dying, it doesn't help them live. Individuals need to make the choice for themselves to get up out of the dumps and make something happen for themselves. My taxes don't need to help them do that. They have that power within themselves.
So James, exactly how many foreign military bases would you tolerate on American soil? If the Chinese or the Russians established a base in northern Utah for example, how would you feel about that?
ReplyDeleteI agree that government is not the only source for providing for the needy of this country, but what I'm saying is that unless and until "conservatives" come up with a clear and workable and funded plan to replace the rather limited efforts of the federal government in this area, they need to support the efforts that are in place. You can't replace someone's source of income with a political ideology
Does your brother-in-law receive SSI? Did he receive special educational and health treatment as a child? Who is funding his job? It's not that the handicapped NEED the government, it's that the society NEEDS to provide for those who cannot care for themselves if it wants to call itself civilized.
When you look at the data, it is pretty obvious that all that effort by people to "get up out of the dumps" no longer works. We don't live in that society where anyone who works hard can get ahead. That America died when we decided to believe the myth that the so-called free market is the answer to all our problems. Back in the day when there were high taxes on the wealthy and stronger government safety nets, it was possible to move from the lower economic class into the middle through hard work, but thanks to faith-based economics, that is no longer the case.
Wow, you've just stepped from irrational to absurd. Charles - calm down! You're misconstruing what has been presented - your comparison there is the absurd part. It should be more like, how would you feel if Russian or Chinese soldiers were invited to participate in training events and have a presence with U.S. forces at an American base? As far as our bases overseas like in Italy, Okinawa, Germany, England..... uh, there was this thing called World War II. Many brave Americans sacrificed their lives, and having those bases oveseas projects US power elsewhere in the world and in my opinion - perfectly acceptable. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteGWH, WWII ended over 60 years ago. Any lingering troop presence anywhere cannot be blamed on that war. You are correct that the objective of those bases is best described as projecting US power elsewhere in the world. But is that Constitutional? Is it good for us as a nation? Is projecting power a good use of taxpayer money? Who exactly benefits from having our power projected out there? Who loses?
ReplyDeleteAny lingering troop presence anwhere cannot be blamed on that war............... uh, ok. I really don't get you, some of the stuff you say borderlines making sense but then you spin it off in these ultra liberal nonsensical directions and it just leaves me speechless. I really don't know what to say to that, we are coming from two completely different paradigms. I'm sorry you feel guilty for being born in the greatest country to exist in the history of mankind. I don't however feel guilty. I feel blessed for being born in a country whose forefathers sacrificed so I could enjoy the life that I have, and that being said I also recognize a responsibility comes with that blessing. Which is, sharing the opportunity for freedom and the opportunity to prosper. Look at a satellite photo of the world at night, the United States is a beacon of freedom to the world. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteI don't feel guilty for being born in America - why spin off in that ultra fascist nonsensical direction? Like you my country of birth was a fortunate accident over which I had no control. Now that we are here, we have a duty as citizens not to simply be proud and feel blessed, but to work to make our nation as good as it can be. How exactly does stationing troops in over 130 foreign countries make our nation better? How does it further the vision of the Founders?
ReplyDeleteBy the way the reason the US is brighter than other nations at night is that we use more electricity, not because we are beaconing freedom.
Our ability to use electricity is a measure of our freedom. You will please note that those who have issues with personal freedom try to pass laws that limit peoples ability to freely use electricity.
ReplyDeleteOf course our presence in Europe is a result of World Wars and our presence in Asia is a result of wars there. Geopolitical goals can take decades or generations to achieve. Much of it is aimed at stopping territorial ambitions of communists, socialists and other tyrants.
The national government should be vested with the power to MAKE war. Who else in the nation should it be delegated to, than the entity with the authority to conduct business for the nation internationally? States and local jurisdictions should not have that power, it must be a unified one, or there is chaos.
As we know from various sports, the best defense is usually a superior offense. That is why we have had expeditionary war making entities from the beginning. The Marines were organized in 1775. They and the Navy specialized in expeditionary war making power projection.
Consumerism is not freedom. Making a pig of yourself is not freedom. Destroying your neighbor's land so you can have more creature comforts is not freedom. Anarchy perhaps, but not freedom.
ReplyDeleteGeopolitical goals, you say? What exactly should a nation have as a geopolitical goal? What should a free people who believe in self-determination and who treasure their political freedom have as a "geopolitical goal"? Maybe they should respect the right of others to freely choose governments they might not like, for example.
I would also suggest you reread the founding fathers on the subject of the perils of standing armies. You might learn something.
I will reread the founding fathers on standing armies when you reread their intention behind a Senate to be the official arm of States, as well as the importance of a national government leaving issues of social welfare up to States. You might learn something.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to reduce the federal active army size then you will need to favor drastically increasing the size and scope of the National Guard.
You are right that consumerism itself is not freedom, but the right to choose to be as consumerist as one wishes is. Selfishness is not happines, but the right to choose to be selfish if one wishes is a major factor in human happiness. The issue is not what people decide for themselves, but the right to choose in the first place.
A geopolitcal goal of those who cherish freedom is to stomp out murderous authoritarian rule by those who stomp out choice for ohters on a mass scale. There is no respecting regimes that do not hold elections and who force their people into cruel submission such as we saw among Soviet and Sino Communism in the last cetury.
Or Saddam Hussein. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteThe problem, Pahoran, is that we don't respect regimes that DO hold elections when those elections don't turn out the way we want. We overthrew the elected leader in Iraq in the 1950's and the elected leaders in Guatemala, Nicarauga, Chile, Congo, and many other countries because the free peoples of those nations saw fit to elect someone who didn't agree with US policy. We refused to allow the election in Vietnam, preferring to setup our own puppet regime that ultimately failed. We have tried to overthrow the elected leader in Venezuela and constantly refer to him as a "strongman" or "dictator" when in fact his margin of victory in free elections far exceeds that of our Presidents. Don't forget the US supported Saddam Hussein for far longer than it vilified him. If we really wanted to stomp out his murderous authoritarian rule, we might have at least stopped sending military aid and WMD material to Iraq during the Reagan Administration.
ReplyDeleteIf we, as George Washington wisely suggested, avoided foreign entanglements, we would have no need for a huge military or drastic increases in the size of the National Guard.
Yeah, and if wishes were fishes..... You are like every other liberal living in a fairytale dream world which exists apart from reality. GWH
ReplyDeleteGWH, is that like the fairytale dream world that imagines that all we have to do is return to the government of the 1790's and all will be well with the world?
ReplyDelete