The Tribune seems to have no curiosity about Gov. Brewer’s recent trip to Afghanistan. When she returned, she said her opinion on the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan has changed. She said, "Whatever their judgment is, is something I would have no reservations with."
It is also interesting that Republican Mitt Romney, who called for major spending increases in the war department, lost to President Obama who argues for less military spending. There appears to be a growing consensus that deficit reduction over the long term must include significant reductions in military spending along with tax increases, especially on higher income levels.
Suzanne Jones
Mesa
Bluepoet posted at 5:38 pm on Sat, Dec 15, 2012.
Military spending needs to not only decrease, but become more relevant to the actual needs of the country. Occupy and democratize should be replaced by surgical strikes and disaster relief. I think, in the long run, that would do more for National Security than any War-for-arms-oil-profiteers strategy. And, more for our economy, as well, not to mention global respect/stability. By the way, this does not include closing bases in strategic locations around the world. Let's be lean and mean, not isolated...
The tax on the wealthy is just a campaign slogan, although tax increases should be instituted, in a year or two, overall, in the form of less deductions and tariffs on foreign trasactions. Tax the use of the infrastructure, not those building it. There should also be a repeal on NAFTA, and some heavy investments on exports, and alternative energy. This is our best chance to grow the overall economy...not slashing social programs and privatization of the government.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:21 am on Sat, Dec 15, 2012.
chuckles3 ... the question isn't how much is military spending as a proportion of GDP but how much is it of the Federal Budget.
It seems we spend almost 20% of the Federal Budget on military spending.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
And, the amount needs to be compared to other countries to see if we are spending sensibly in relation to them.
NO ... we spend more than the rest of the world combined.
THAT'S INSANE.
VofReason posted at 12:33 pm on Fri, Dec 14, 2012.
Again, the premise assumes that the defense spending is the heart of the waste that occurs in Government. No one will argue that there should be more scrutiny in what is spent on defense, but to portray the defense spending as the root of deficit problems is nonsense. Again, President Obama has no intention of redusing spending with defense cuts or not. Saying that companies and wealthly individuals need to pay their fair share and problems would end would mean carrying forward federal bloat and just asking for more money to pay for it. Would you do this in your own house? Like a child who spends their allowance day one each week and cries that he doesn't get enough money. Is the answer to give them more?
DemocraticDad posted at 6:13 pm on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
In 1965, 35% of American workers belonged to unions, 40% of all major American Companies had pension programs, the the average CEO in the United States earned 26 times what their average worker earned, companies weren't rewarded for outsourcing jobs, the highest federal tax rate was 70%, major corporations paid their fair share of taxes, and government poured tons of money into infrastructure and education.
Bring these things back and watch America and the middle-class thrive once again as budget problems disappear!
chuckles3 posted at 4:21 pm on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
Yes by all means lets reduce national defense(5% of GDP) instead of entitlements(14% of GDP and growing uncontrollably).
What you mouth breathers fail to realize is that even we reduced the defense budget to ZERO in 2013, the annual deficit would still be about $1 TRILLION DOLLARS.
In 1965 entitlement spending was 2.5% of GDP, defense was 7.4% of GDP.
Bring both of them to 5% and our budgets problems go away.
Accuracy posted at 1:23 pm on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
Suzanne Jones concluded: “There appears to be a growing consensus that deficit reduction over the long term must include significant reductions in military spending along with tax increases, especially on higher income levels.”
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defense and military spending makes up over almost 20% of the federal budget expenditures. In Washington negotiations to avoid the series of tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect Jan. 1.
Reductions in military spending, is NOT any part of any budget deal or proposal by the Republicans. Defense cut means; $500 billion will be cut across the board from the Pentagon, cutting 100,000 U.S. ground forces, it would also limit military pay raises and terminate dozens of weapons programs.
As far as tax increases; President Barack Obama has isolated the 2 percent of wealthier Americans he insists must pay more taxes – and plunging off the “Cliff” or not . . . everyone's taxes go up.
Cerulean posted at 12:55 pm on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
VofReason (aka Easter Bunny) said, “I think it is a little silly acting as if Military spending is the reason we are in the deficit.”
“Under President George W. Bush, the base [military] budget steadily rose from $287 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $513 billion in fiscal year 2009, and this increase continued in President Obama’s first term, reaching $530 billion in fiscal year 2012. The combination of the two—the base budget and “emergency” war spending—led at the height of the “surge” in Afghanistan in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to yearly military spending totaling about $700 billion,”. Democracyjournal.org
Military spending went skyward while Bush gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy. The deficit grew and grew to its current state of gigantism.
VofReason posted at 12:00 pm on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
While I may agree that other countries should either shoulder more of their own load or be paying for protection, I think it is a little silly acting as if Military spending is the reason we are in the deficit. Strange how President Obama is so intent on cutting Military spending, but has very little interest in negotiating spending cuts elsewhere and actually intends to spend more money in totality next year. You get that right? And 1.4 Trillion over 10 years in "Revenue" increases? This is in context of the fact we spend a trillion dollar more then taken in yearly- right? Yes yes, we got our man. Sounds like sound economic policy is just around the bend.
JNelson posted at 9:16 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
Wille, Bluepoet.....I've experienced the same things. I called EVT twice to ask about their spam standards, sent e-mails several times, and have received zero replies. I guess they don't care about the issue.
Bluepoet posted at 8:49 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
I keep getting that, too AZ Willie...I think it probably has something to do with the arcane feature of having to "log in" to post, separately from already being logged into the site. There's probably a time limit involved, and when one of us goes over that time limit, with an open posting, it's flagged as spam?
Anyway, I've never gotten replies to anything, from this site--I'm starting to think it's not even looked at, by sentient beings....
Arizona Willie posted at 8:08 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
Does anyone know the rules for posting here? I keep getting a pop up telling me my post appears to be spam!
I emailed the EVT asking about it but never got a reply.
Is there a word limit or character limit?
I've seen some really long long posts so I don't understand why I get this pop up.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:06 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
It is insane for the U.S. to spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined!!
No nation poses a military threat to us.Our Congressmen keep voting for more money than the Defense Dept even wants.
How about we convert those factories to making high speed mag-lev trains and tracks to criss cross our country in a reasonable time?
There is no reason they HAVE to make bombs and airplanes and tanks.It is also sheer insanity that we maintain thousands of military bases around the globe " protecting " countries that are not threatened.
England, France, Germany and Italy should be required to either pay the full cost of maintaining and staffing the bases in their countries or else we should remove our troops and bring them home and shut those bases down.
There is good reason to keep South Korean bases but that is about the only ones.
Put them to work building the cross country mag-lev trains.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:17 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
Truth, the proposal was reduced yesterday to $1.4 trillion in revenues. Boehner's position is based upon his trying to keep his seat as Majority Leader. Apparently he likes the extra office space and staff! Let's cut that space and staff out of the budget!
truth posted at 2:57 pm on Wed, Dec 12, 2012.
Obama's proposal calls for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next decade, principally by letting Bush tax cuts expire for the 2% of Americans earning over $250,000, with $400 billion in entitlements reform. House Speaker John Boehner called the proposal "unserious," and laid out a $2.2 trillion counter proposal to cut entitlements spending by $900 billion, cut discretionary spending by $300 billion, and raise $800 billion in new revenue with unspecified new limits on tax deduction. Obama said the GOP's offer was "still out of balance," because it did not raise enought new revenue. "we're not going to be able to get a deal with out it," he said.