Our government is always getting us into costly and unnecessary wars.
Let's focus on ways to keep the peace instead.
I'm all for our federal government maintaining a strong defensive
capability, but I think that it's ludicrous for it to keep military bases
all over our planet. Such military might has been too-often used for
Presidential mischief, whether to build a New World Order or to defend foreign
nations from each other or to profit corrupt corporate special interests, but it
should be used only as a last resort to defend our nation against other
nations' aggression. We should re-embrace the political wisdom of our
nation's virtuous wise founders by reducing our bloated corrupt warfare
state to only what's both necessary and appropriate to defend our nation
against other nations' aggression, which I suppose would include a
peacetime citizen's militia accompanied by defensive naval and air forces,
and standing armies only during wartime.
11.Starting from page one of the comments, there were 11 comments
against the military before there was a single one in favor of a strong
military.That is pathetic.Weep for America, is right....
@ Twin Lights - Louisville, KY "The US spends more than 4 times what China
does and more than 7 times what Russia does (these are the closest two
contenders). The US Defense budget is more than one third of the entire
WORLD’s defense budget."Did you ever stop and consider
that the reason we spend so much on our military is because so many more nations
hate America than Canada or China?They don't call me a "Guy
With A Brain" for nothing....
Like all die-hard liberals, Chuck Hagel is clueless in his failed attempts to
provide sound guidance for the President and our military Chiefs of Staff.You simply cannot lead what you don't understand.Period.The Deseret News opinion was well thought out and well
written. I've been in the military for almost 23 years and, quite frankly,
I'm glad that I'm nearing the end of my service.Oh,
America, how I weep for you.....
Scriptures that illustrate that while defensive war is acceptable, aggressive
war is never okay. When wars of aggression occur, Gods blessing withdraws.3Ne20Now the people said untoGidgiddoni: Pray unto theLord, and let us
go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the
robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But Gidgiddoni saith unto
themTheLord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver
us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our
lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against
them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord
liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.Mormon3
And they did swear by the heavens, and also by the throne ofGod, that they would
go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the face of
the land. And it came to pass that IMormon, did utterly refuse from this time
forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness
As a latter day saint I feel that the following helps to shed light on the issue
so that we can attempt to keep in mind what the lord would have us do, support,
and believe. "...easily distracted from our assignment of
preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast
resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes,
missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and
deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of
God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the
manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the
Savior's teaching [to love your enemies]."—LDS Church
President Spencer W. Kimball, 1976
To "Tyler D" actually, even if you go with debt as a percent of GDP, the
Democrats still have a bad record. Since 1981 when Democrats have controlled
congress the debt as a percent of GDP has increased by 47%. When Republicans
controlled congress it decreased by 7%. That decrease means that the economy
was growing. Granted the debt was sill growing, but at least it is a smaller
portion of the income.You are also believing a lie that there was
going to be a surplus. That was a guess that depended on the economy growing at
pre-2000 levels. The problem is that in 2000 we had the dot com bubble, and
that was something not projected into the CBO guesses. When the bubble burst,
that put us into a recession at the end of Clinton's presidency. The facts
are that the economic predictions made prior to 2000 were junk before Bush took
@ happy2bhere and @RedShirtWell at least now we’re having a
conversation instead of just slinging partisan mud.I try to take
each point briefly:Is National Defense the same as World Police
Force? Something to think about…When large tax cuts occur
before any spending cuts are agreed to, that’s fiscally irresponsible,
period. But I agree with you on the debt – so why didn’t your guys
support the $3 cuts to $1 taxes budget deal (or even a $10 to $1 deal…
remember the R debates)?RedShirt – the dollar size of the
debt/deficit is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ratio to GDP, and the year
over year % increase. By that measure Republicans starting with Reagan do really
bad - Obama does poorly on GDP ratio but much better in % increase (his has
actually decreased since 2010) and his early years can be largely attributed the
economic slowdown. Your point about Clinton (and I credit Gingrich
too) is unfair since Bush inherited a fiscal budget that was in the black and
projected to be by bigger margins every year… until Bush squandered it
To "Tyler D" I said nothing of Republican hypocrisy. My issue is how
can you say that "Republicans since it was they who exploded our debt. I
seem to recall having a balanced budget under the last Democrat
administration", when the facts say something else. I am not saying
anything about the Republicans or Democrats. I am saying that you are not
telling the truth.First, since 1981 Republicans have incrased the
debt by $300 billion/year when they controlled congress, compared to the $700
billion/year that Democrat controlled congresses have pushed through.Next, the "balanced budget" myth. We have not has a balanced budget
since 1957 when the Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. Clinton came
close with a $28 Billion deficit, but that is still not balanced.The
other problem is that you think that it is just the tax rate that is an issue.
You forget that the government also impedes growth through regulations. If you
want a Clinton economy, then lets have Clinton sized government, taxes, and
Tyler DNational Defense comes first. Period. Without that we may not
have a country, and all it will take is a couple more 911 type attacks against a
nuclear power plant or our computer infrastructure to send this country into
ruin. So, along with the military, we need good intelligence work. CIA, FBI
ect. "Every tax is evil". Really? You believe
Republicans/conservatives don't believe in taxes? Wrong. It's not
the taxes, but what they are SPENT on. That is 90% of the argument going on in
DC in the first place. What to fund. Big social programs, at the expense of
national defense is not good for this country, and history shows that "peace
through strength" is more likely to bring security than "peace through
weakness". And, as I've said a hundred times on this site, that
growing 17 trillion dollar debt, may be our biggest enemy. As for tax cuts, the
main reason is to stimulate the economy in the private sector, which is where we
get tax money in the first place. How's that for a conversation starter?
@RedShirt and @happy2bhereOther than to say Obama has not been able
to raise taxes back to Clinton/Gingrich levels or stop the baby boomer
demographic (which adds to SS and Medicare expenses everyday), please notice
that nowhere did I defend his administration on spending or suggest that
(historically) Democrats are blameless. You guys are projecting A LOT into what
I said…Do you both believe that anyone who calls out
Republican hypocrisy must, by definition, be a partisan Democrat? If so, you are
both ignoring a large segment of the (Independent) populace that is often
disgusted with both parties and for the same reason in this case (fiscal
responsibility).Let me know when you’re both ready to have a
rational discussion about what government services we want and how to pay for
them. Since your “ilk” pretty much invented deficit spending under
Reagan and thinks every tax is evil, so far I don’t see any signs that
such a conversation forthcoming.
Tyler DEver heard of President Obama? The numbers don't lie.
Bush took it from about 6 to 10 trillion. Obama in 5 years from 10 to 17
trillion. And one can only guess what the next 3 years will yield. My bet is
21 to 22 trillion when he leaves office. You want the over or the under? In
any case, to call those facts ignorance only shows that you have no real
argument or defense of this failing President. What amazes me is that your
"ilk" will stick with this president to the bitter end. Why? If you
really cared about anything but supporting a failed administration, you would be
like me and admit it when your guy messes up. Bush did it with too much debt
and an unnessary war, and I admit that. Why won't you admit it when it
isn't working? And if you think it IS working then your argument about the
Republican debt is null and void because you must believe that more debt is more
success. Which therefore would make the Bush debt good for your side and not
To "Tyler D" I don't think you understand history. If you look at
what Obama has allowed in his 5 years as President, he has added more to the
debt than any previous president.If you really want to get
technical, look at who controlls congress and how much the debt has increased.
Over the past 30 years or so, the Democrats have outspent the Republicans by a
factor of 2.The ignorance of your ilk amazes me constantly.
@happy2bhere – “So what's the magic number Democrats. 17
trillion, 18 trillion, 25 trillion, 100 trillion? How much debt to spend on
social givaway programs is enough.”I suggest we ask that
question to Republicans since it was they who exploded our debt. I seem to
recall having a balanced budget under the last Democrat administration, and then
we elected Republicans who cut taxes, started wars, created new social programs
(Medicare Part D) and did nothing to control spending.That the
current administration has been powerless to reverse this disastrous combination
of historically low taxes and the baby boomer demographic taking a larger piece
of the government services pie every day, only shows how successful Republicans
have been (first as the party of “yes” and now as the party of
“no”) at destroying all notions of fiscal responsibility.The hypocrisy you guys demonstrate daily never ceases to amaze me…
MaverickTo use your own logic....So what's the magic
number Democrats. 17 trillion, 18 trillion, 25 trillion, 100 trillion? How
much debt to spend on social givaway programs is enough. And talk about
"blank checks". The military has never had a blank check under obama.
But everything else in this country seems to be running on a blank check. A
check written with nothing but debt.
In favor of big government?
Sorry, all you "chest pounders", but I reject that you think that your
blood is more precious than the blood of my relatives who died securing your
freedom. You think that your service was somehow more special than the service
of those who went before you. I do not agree. Those brave soldiers who served
under George Washington were just as those brave soldiers who serve now. They
did not beat their chests. They did not wrap themselves in the flag. They
served as citizens who served when called. If you think that you have any right
to beat your chest, then go ahead and beat away. I will not stop you, but I
will pity you. My brave and valiant forebearers will pity you.There
is nothing so pathetic as those who returned safely telling us that the blood of
fellow soldiers was spent in vain. I support the U.S. Military. I
know where the graves are, all over this world. I admire those who died so that
we can live in liberty. I reject the effort to diminish their service so that
you can pound your chests.
So what's the magic number repubs?How many aircraft carriers
must we have before America is safe? 11? 20? 100?How many jets must
we have?How many more times must we outspend the rest of the world?
2 times? 5? 10?Until repubs can answer these questions and give me
straight answers then I say we cut cut cut. Cut baby cut!One thing
we know for sure is that we can't keep giving the military a blank check.
There's got to be some amount of accountability.
J Thompson, "Article 1, Section 8, is one sentence. The clause that you
cited is dependent on the other clauses in that sentence. " Sorry brother but that makes no sense at all. The purpose of the semicolon is
to strongly separate two clauses. The clauses can be related, descriptive and
or explanatory but seeing to the general welfare is not dependent on the clauses
that follow, and yes it does say a lot about how I view the constitution along
with pretty much all other Americans and most of all previous Supreme Court
Justices. You're kind of hanging out there on limb with a very small group
silo,It's called the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
So riddle me this. Why is it OK to put many who work for the defense of our
nation, both in and out of uniform, on the unemployment line, and yet it is SO
wrong to take anyone off of public assistance? i.e. years and years of food
stamps, unemployment, ect. I'd rather spend the money on the productive
people in America, not the professional moochers. And don't tell me they
don't exist. There is more than anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Thank
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money
alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists,
the hopes of its children."-Dwight EisenhowerI keep this
quotation on my desk at work. I am a contracting officer in DOD, which means
I'm one of the folks authorized to spend the government's money on
contractors, supplies and equipment. 200 words doesn't allow detailed
thoughts on how DOD could streamline its spending. I believe in the mission. I
believe in the fine people I serve with in the warzone and at home. But I look
to Ike's words when making spending decisions, because each and every one
of those decisions comes at a terrible sacrifice.
J Thompson or L White (whichever you are calling yourself) I am a
PROUD 'soldier.' It is part of who I am. I saw more horror in combat
that you can even fathom. Nothing makes one detest war more than seeing your
buddies blown up by an IED in Baghdad. Serving in Baghdad was the most
humbling, harrowing, and eye-opening time of my life. Yes, if that is pounding
my chest, then count me in. I consider myself lucky to be alive, well, and
proudly retired from the military which I love. I love this country just as
much as you do. We just see things differently. My vision of war
and military is tainted, though, with the the actual blood of my buddies, the
blood of my contemporaries, the blood of my brothers in arms. I don't have
to tell third-hand stories from my dad (who also served in combat). I saw it
with my own eyes and I am here to tell their tales, and make sure their deaths
were not in vain. I don't tiptoe in the cemetery, I weep. If
that is deserving of your pity, then I guess I deserve it.
LDS Liberal, You should know by now that there are certain
commenters who will never recognize your service so long as you don't agree
with their political dogma. As such you'll always be a parasite of their
tax dollars. Love of country can only be a rightwing trait. They
don't know what we did out there. It has nothing to do with demanding
respect, pounding chests, or earning medals. That's the only sputtering
they can come up with in response when people who understand the system and its
costs question where our spending priorities are focused.One of them
once suggested that my views on the role of the military aren't important
because I failed to make "the ultimate sacrifice" in Iraq -- as though
only coming home KIA confers legitimacy on one's argument. They'll swell up in pride at the Latin saying "Dulce et decorum est
pro patria mori." Only the armchair militarists believe that. Be strong, brother.
@L WhiteWith all due respect, no one here is "parading with
medals on their chest" but what we are objecting to, and rightfully so, are
those who try to minimize our service while at the same time beat the drums of
war.It is an entirely different thing to beat the drum of war if you
"have skin in the game""Do they really think that those
medals and those dates of service compare to the graves scattered throughout the
world of the true patriots who never came home?"I was lucky. I
have a friend who wasn't as lucky. Though he came home, he isn't the
same man he was before. He was unfortunate enough to be the Soldier who got to
process and see those Soldiers who didn't come home. He still has
nightmares; he still can't enjoy his Fourth of July; he still can't
sleep at night without his guard up. Is his sacrifice any less
"patriotic" Who are you to judge?And this so your
"team" can score a point against the President. I'll have you
know, I voted for him, twice. Both times I was a proud Soldier.
My goodness, but don't we have some pompous 'soldiers' who prance
around with metals pinned on their chests and 'records of service'
pasted on their walls. Whoopy do. Do they really think that those medals and
those dates of service compare to the graves scattered throughout the world of
the true patriots who never came home?We have a military, not made
up with 'chest beaters' but made up of citizens who walked the walk
allowing the wannabes to talk the talk as they tip toe around the cemeteries of
those who gave their all.Our military is to be admired, but those
who pound their chests are only to be pitied. They don't have a clue of
what America stands for and President Obama does not have any idea of what he is
doing. He is leading the "fool's parade".
The problem I have with the military is that it has morphed it self from a tool
for defense into a tool for imposing the will of American businessmen on the
other nations of the world. History would tell us that in every case that
activity produces a growing volume of enemies that will bring us down. And while we are providing aid and cover for American businessmen, we
are also building extremely expensive weapons of war that have no use in our
current or foreseeable conflicts. Our billion dollar submarines don't seem
to have much effect on the pirates in motorboats. Then there's fighter
aircraft at huge expense when it's been many years since the last dogfight.
Some people complain about the poor people on welfare and other
entitlements, at least these programs did something to help people.As for the message to the world, I think our military says: Arm yourselves,
the Americans are coming.
Conservatives and liberals want to have their cake and eat it too. Either we
raise revenues (taxes) or we cut spending, or some combination of the two. Just
too many sacred cows.
Sorry DN, but until such time as we get a hawkish GOP President in the
whitehouse again, the death sciences will take second place to the life
wrong message?? I guess it depends whose side you are on. Our slashing our
military is a GREAT message for China, Russia, and Iran because it frees them to
do what ever they want around the globe. It also opens the possibility of a
China or Russia actually being able to threaten US sovereignty for the first
time since before WWII. I have serious doubts that the US will be a free nation
in 25 years so long as liberals remain in charge. Far fetched?? Check out the
new China military and how fast it is growing complete with modern weapons and
combine that with the Obama-Clinton pledge to remove all US nuclear capability.
Do the math. Your children may not live in a FREE United States and that is a
real possibility. It isn't hard to knock over a nation full of free loader
welfare folks with no will or capability to fight back....just ask France in
@RedShirt"The US also defends Europe, Korea, and Japan. How many
other nations protect more than just themselves like the US does?"There lies the crux of the problem. How many years did you spend in Korea
during your time in the military? How many in Germany? How many in Iraq? I think I know the answer.
Redshirt, perhaps we should cut contractors also.
No soldier worthy of being called a soldier has ever beat his chest and claimed
that we should worship him. My father, my uncles, my friends served their
nation, without beating their chests and without wrapping themselves in their
flag. They buried their dead in foriegn lands. They served citizens of nations
oppressed. NEVER did they pound their chests. NEVER did they tell us that they
were anything more than citizens doing their duty, with a grateful heart, for
blessings bestowed on them by their Creator.Oh well, times change
and there seems to be a new breed of American, those who pound their chest while
they mock the government that feeds and clothes them. My father, my uncle, the
true patriots, would roll their eyes, but times change and chest beaters have
the stage, as the budget that pays their wage is cut.
Ahhh...the smell of liberalism in the morning.I don't think
that the liberals here who complain about the US spending realize why it is so
high.First, you have an all volunteer military, complete with
military benefits for those that have retired. They are paid salaries for their
service. Other nations don't have to pay for military retirement since
that is paid out of other funds. We also include education benefits and
survivor benefits. Just cutting those things would reduce spending by close to
40%.The US also defends Europe, Korea, and Japan. How many other
nations protect more than just themselves like the US does?Now, if
you look at the US in terms of spending on military in terms of world GDP, the
US may spend the most, but it also ears twice as much as the nearest country.
Why should't it cost more since we have to pay the soldiers so much more to
serve in the military.If you liberals want to cut the cost of the
military, lets pull out of Europe, Korea, and Japan. Those nations would end up
spending the same as the US in terms of GDP.
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTDon't pretend, even for a
moment, that I am addressing soldiers. I am not. I'm addressing posters who
hide behind pseudonyms...I have nothing but respect for soldiers and
nothing but contempt for government employees whose daily needs are paid for
while they spend their time telling us how corrupt the "defense
department" is.========== 1. I'm 52 years old,
and to old to bee in the Military anymore.2. I have been a solider
most of my adult life [and you, sir?] -- what other line of work would you like
me to perform? or Should I just be "unemployed" now that I'm
too old to fight?3. My pseudonyms are due to Security Clearances --
somehting you'd know ZERO about.4. Yes -- I'd am still be
willing to fight die for your right to speak freely, even being ingrateful.5. Respect the soldiers, but mock the FORMER soldier.6.
Still waiting -- Branch and dates of service....7. In your opinion,
Government contractor Eric Snowden - Hero or Traitor?8. To be honest
- fine, cut my job. Cut most of the DoD jobs. But you confuse me J,
because isn't that precisely what Sec. Hagel is trying to do?
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTThank you L White.When
employees of the defense department live a life of ease,==========
I call it! I call it!....LWhite, J Thompson, Mike
Richards and RedShirt -- Before any of you go off singing the
prasises of War, I just want to know WHERE you all served?Life
of ease?... $530 a month to wear a taget on your back.Agreed!Disgusting!
Darrel,Don't pretend, even for a moment, that I am addressing
soldiers. I am not. I'm addressing posters who hide behind pseudonyms as
they blast the defense department that employees them.I have nothing
but respect for soldiers and nothing but contempt for government employees whose
daily needs are paid for while they spend their time telling us how corrupt the
"defense department" is.If cuts must be made, start with
those who spend their time lambasting the hand that feeds them.
@J ThompsonWhen employees of the defense department live a life of
ease.=========================Life of ease? Clearly
you're military experience is zero, or lower.Where does
multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan fit in life of ease? Where does 3rd IED
attack this convoy fit in with "life of ease"? Where does cutting
military retirement fit in life of ease? Where does placing my life on the line
as the bread winner in a family of a wife and 3 kids so that Haliburton can make
profit this quarter fit in with life of ease?Disgusting.
@L WhiteGod blessed us with freedom. The LEAST we can do is to help
all people become free.========================Before
sharing your desire to spread more "freedom" please state your military
experience. Mine: Nov 18, 2000 - Nov 17, 2013. United States Army
Supply Sergeant.=========================Before you
commit someone else, or someone else's child to the cause of the
"spread of freedom" put your skin in the game. Are we any
more safe now than before we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq? Did toppling those
regimes bring back even one soul lost on 9/11? Are those people any more free?
Reports on the news would seem to indicate they are going to back to how things
were before we arrived. If they are more free, how did you contribute to that
Thank you L White.When employees of the defense department live a
life of ease, when citizens wait at the mailbox for their handouts, when the
President is known more for his golf score than for his whereabouts, this nation
has become a nation of fools who foolishly follow the example of England when it
was so puffed up that it told the world that "the colonies" could never
be a threat because England ruled the world; it mastered the seas; it
"owned" the military. They were fools then. We are fools now.Only fools cut defense when the world is in turmoil.
It literally sickens me to read posts from people who have been blessed above
all the people who have ever lived to have freedom and liberty but then use that
freedom and liberty to restrict freedom and liberty for others. Do we really
think that we are so special that God will continue to bless us when we turn a
blind eye to their oppression? Do we really think that the bounties of life are
ours to use while others live in terror and subjugation? I'm ashamed of
those who milk the government for their every personal need and then tell the
rest of the world to take care of itself.God blessed us with
freedom. The LEAST we can do is to help all people become free.
In our opinion: Military cuts send the wrong message to the world======= I'm curious as to what find of "message" the
DN ediotrs want to send?That we are a supposed "Christian"
nation, peaceful, caring, more concerned with the Health and WellBeing of
it's citizens, neighbors and friends. or A Global
Bully, who uses brute Miilitary Force to threaten and intimidate anyone who
dares not comply or triffles with Corporate eranings, to the detriment and
mistreatment to it's own citizens, neighbors and formoer-friends and
allies?Things are becoming more Ideological & Pychological
Warfare now.more like the "War in Heeaven", And I also
bet you can't even see how the uber-religous supposed Godless
"Terrorists" [who love family, God, and fight "sin"] are winning
the great Satan at his own game?FYI -- neither did the Nephites.
It seems that Congress needs to back away from the military budget as they
continue to throw good money after bad on equipment that has proven faults.
While the taxpayer lines the pocket of these elected officials, China that
spends 1/3 of the US military budget with a much larger population and has
already surpassed US technology with faster further and more explosive missiles
as well as deployment of such.Was the US able to invest in new
technology instead of being bound to military contracts that drag us down and
backwards as far as ability to defend the country, we would be better off and
able to afford a better military operation
Deseret News Editorial Staff: Did you know...The per household cost
of just the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is $75,000. The current US debt is
$umpteen trillion. The US unfunded liabilities surpass $200 trillion. The dollar
is dying - it's only propped up because other countries are printing faster
than we are. The only way we can sustain current defense spending is through
debt (much of the domestic spending as well).The people who formed
this country warned us of the dangers of standing armies. We're
experiencing the consequences now, and it's only getting worse.As for the US supporting liberty and democracy throughout the world, may I
suggest you read "Overthrow" by Stephen Kinzer. You'll recognize
that the principles of freedom and democracy do not guide US foreign policy and
the use of force.
For a house editorial, I would like to ask for a bit more substance to back up
the assertions in this article. There is the nebulous "we are sending the
wrong message to rogue nations," but really. Do we have any evidence that
cutting our troop levels from 540k to 440k is really going to encourage all the
bad people in the world to run amok? The last paragraph in the
article finally revealed it as a simple conservative talking point. How do we on
one hand push for spending on the military, and cuts to programs that feed and
care for old people? Deseret News, say it like it is: you really want to shift
spending from domestic programs helping the poor to programs that build billion
dollar military projects. Yes?
@Mike RichardsSerious question. Even with the proposed cuts who are we in
danger of being invaded by? Any military, as currently constructed, would be
decimated by the combined forces of the US Military and guerrilla style militia
attacks. Any nation attempting to invade the USA would have a death wish. The
place that the USA needs to improve is network security, and securing physical
locations that are critical to infrastructure, like power plants, dams, water
sources etc. We don't need f-22's, aircraft carriers and other items
for physical warfare, when the real threat is cyber security. You want to live
in a WWII era of warfare, but we live in 2014, and we need a military presence
that reflects that.
I think the message to the rest of the world is we will stop starting stupid,
Is it simply sending "the wrong message" that has DN insisting that
military spending must not be cut - ever? If so, I suggest we put a few dollars
into stamps, and send out two hundred or so copies of the following:Dear Mr./Ms. Head of State:As you may have noticed, our Department of
Defense is planning to cut some expenses in the interest of fiscal restraint,
which has not been used in this particular government function in a long
time.We want you to know that our relationships are unchanged. Thanks,
most of you, for supporting the US in difficult times. We have no intention of
attacking you. PLANS to attack, however, are a different story, which we have no
comment on.We retain the military power to reduce any of your nations to
smoking heaps of rubble. But, even so, we welcome your continued support and
wish to either remain or become friendly. The choice, obviously, is yours.Sincerely,This little missive should guarantee that DN's fear
doesn't become reality, and that ALL nations know exactly where they stand
We have eleven aircraft carrier groups. Our closest military rival has one.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahNo house divided against itself can
stand.============ I'm confused by someone who
claims to be patriotic and never served his country, Who claims to be a
disciple of Christ, and shuns the poor and the needy, and cheers warmongering.
Someone takes the treasures of the earth, and buys up Armies and
Navies -- and “reigns” with blood and horror [note: not
“defends”].General Mormon was a strong military leader,
but never went of the offense, and only counter-attacked after being attacked 3
times.President Spencer W. Kimball:"The False Gods We
Worship"....We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our
assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we
commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel —
ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for
protection and deliverance. --------- My "job"
with the DoD is to do more with less.I detest war, and seek daily to avoid
it.Irony of the day:Non-military people crying for war, Military people deplore, avoid, and call LAST for it.Don;t look
now, but your house is falling.
Totally, absolutely wrong. No.
Mike, The Police and the Military are not the same thing, to compare them shows
an ignorance of what our military should be used for, we are not charged with
funding the "World Police."
I agree that defense spending needs to be cut.The army said it did not
need more tanks and congress ordered 436 million worth.The U.S. military
has 164000 troops stationed worldwide is that needed? Does Germany need 61,000
american troops? The NATO nations are capable of defense until the US could
arrive.But all we hear about are the closings of domestic bases.
Absurd.Cutting the army by 90,000 is not going to hamper our ability in
defensive operations, offensice ones yes.I think the most vital defensive
tools are Aircraft Carriers and Submarines they are capable of projecting power
across the world if needed (I rarely think this is the case), and provide for a
defense until an army could be summoned, trained and deployed.This cut is
a good sign that perhaps some more restraint will be shown before entering or
starting conflicts.To all those who served thank you
LDS Liberal,I'm not surprised that you are confused. I would be
confused too, if I mocked the people who fed me, who clothed me, who made it
possible for me and my family to own vehicles and a house. Your job depends on
defense spending, yet, you are the one advocating a smaller defense. You are
the one complaining about the size and the purpose of the military.Perhaps you would be less confused if you decided, once and for all, whether
you support the Constitution, as written, or whether you will continue to
personally benefit from defense spending even as you complain about that
spending. If you decide to continually bite the hand that feeds you, you will
remain confused. No house divided against itself can stand.
How big of a military is big enough? 2 million troops? 3 million? 4 million?
How many aircraft carrier battle groups do we need 12, 13, 20? How many F-22s do we need? The military "experts"
here on the Deseret News seem to have all the answers and that there should be
no cuts, but do not care to address the elephant in the room that is the
"Military-Industrial Complex." President Eisenhower warned in 1961
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of
the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." We have fallen asleep at the wheel in "Supporting the Troops!"
"Defense at all costs" "Defeat the red menace!" We have lost our
soul as a nation. You really want to support the troops - stop sending them
into needless wars. You really want to make this country strong - then start
defending the US and stop offending the rest of the world by nation-building.
The most precious commodity is life and the God-fearing crowd here is far to
willing to extinguish that commodity for jobs, money, and glory. Yes, I walked
the walk for 20 years.
pragmatistferlife,Article 1, Section 8, is one sentence. The clause
that you cited is dependent on the other clauses in that sentence. That clause
does not stand by itself. The closing clause cites the foregoing clauses in
that section. Twisting and turning the Constitution to suit your purposes does
not diminish the Constitution but it reveals your attitude about the
Constitution.We, as citizens, are duty-bound to pay for defense.
The government is duty bound to pay each of us for promised services when it
forced us to pay into social programs that were foisted on us with a guarantee
of payment at a certain age or for certain conditions. People who purposefully
twisted the Constitution for their purposes now are seeing that their designs
will force America into bankruptcy. Instead of correcting the problem, the
exacerbate it by cutting defense while increasing unauthorized spending on
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahArticle 1, Section 8 requires
that tax revenues be spent on defense.======= I'm
confused Mike.You chide me for serving our country in Uniform, You chide me for working for the DoD as a civilian.Then, you
run on and on that the only duty autorized by Congress per our Constitution is
precisely what I have chosen to do my whole life -- and earning 50% what my
counterparts do in the civilian market.Cutting pay and benefits is
not the answer.Cutting redundant and couter-productive programs is the
answer.We call it "Lean" in the outside world.We
don't need 1,000,000 troops, We don't need $1 Billion ships, We don't need $1 Trillion fighters.We already out fight and
out gun anyone else a factor of 10 to 1.What we DO need is more and
better Computer Security, Corporations who put America ahead of China, Corporations who do not "share" our secret propritery intellectual
property and information for profits.And Congressmen who hold
Corporations accountable to America over profit.
Whoop Whoop! More money for food stamps and social engineering! By the way
folks, if you add up ALL the taxes (minus the 47% who get a free ride) we ARE
one of the most heavily taxed nations on the planet! Obamacare is a tax too,
let's not forget!
Is there anyone remaining in this country who still thinks the Right cares one
wit about fiscal responsibility? Let’s have a factual recap of what their
priorities actually are:1.Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts – this
is the magic cure all our ailments.2.A government so small it can be
drowned in a bathtub.3.“Freedom” – a catch all and
often meaningless word meant to express a desire to do whatever you want to with
the least amount of responsibility possible.4.A really big
military… we’re talking HUGE! 5.Fiscal Responsibility
– “uh yeah, we want that too… even though we can’t
explain the logical contradictions inherent in number’s 1, 2 & 4
above.” I’m looking forward to a future when we stop
governing by bumper sticker and start having rational conversations about our
national priorities again. Hope to see this in my lifetime…
"If Mr. Obama is to keep his oath of office, he is duty bound to see that
Congress cuts social spending and all other unauthorized spending before
jeopardizing the defense budget. "Mr Richards, Which president
has done that? Did either Bush do it? Did Reagan do it?And did you
call them out on it?Are you seriously suggesting that if we cut the
military we are jeopardizing our defense?How about we just spend it
Happy Valley Heretic, Liberty is the greatest gift that God gives
his children; the choice to act for themselves without government intervention.
America believes in freedom. America promotes freedom. America defends
freedom. 500,000 of my father's generation died to preserve our freedom
and to free those countries overrun by Germany and Japan. You
believe that the purpose of defense is to kill people. I do not. We have
police officers in every city. They are not there to kill, but to protect. Government has not been charged with providing social relief. You have
a copy of the Constitution. General Welfare is not Private or Personal Welfare.
Religious organization are charged with helping the poor, the unfortunate, the
needy. I fully support the Church of which I am a member. I do not expect that
Church to tell government how to operate and I will not allow government to ever
tell that Church what its doctrine must be.The main purpose of life
is to allow each of us to do exactly what we most want to do. That requires
liberty. Destroying the military will not promote liberty.
This is a stunning editorial, which must have been written by neo-cons and
defense contractors. Do you suggest that we should send troops into other
countries like Korea anytime we think it a good idea? The pork in the military
is renowned, and you really don't want that to end. YOu decry
"high" taxes and deficits, and here we are with a serious proposal to
right-size the military, and you are worried about having enough troops for the
next invasion (which I assume will happen when the next Republican is elected to
the White House). The message we need to send to the rest of the world is that
diplomacy and peaceful means should be utilized more, that the U.S. won't
act alone and be the world's bullies, and that we are smart and can use our
resources more tactically rather than relying on brute force with little or no
return (re: Iraq and Afghanistan. Our loss of lives, money and prestige made
very little difference in the long run.). Sorry, but it's time for us to
After all the howling about government spending, you want to leave the most
bloated of the bloated off the table? Now that's what sending the wrong
message to the world looks like. Let alone telling them we want to be ready to
fight the second world war in a world where a few terrorists here and there
represent the day to day enemy.
Schnee 1:48 a.m.Well, that kind of makes sense. Utah is filled with
people who think that knocking on doors for the LDS Church for two years is just
as good as serving in the military.
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare
of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;..Mr. Richards, clearly the majority of
the country and those in history, do not agree with your interpretation of this
clause. The use of a semi-colon between the phrase containing general welfare
and the remaining phrases would in and of it self indicate the writers intended
the phrase to stand alone as related but not reliant on. I'll
leave the budget argument to others, but once again the DN has fallen along
silly partisan lines. I say silly because they don't make any sense in
todays world. And what's with the published rule of no capital
letter shouting but certain opinions do it all the time?
One small step toward fiscal sanity. But Rob Bishop will come unglued because
it might affect some of his most ardent fincancial supporters -- the
military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against.
I have to admit I'm confused by your stance Mike. You post some of the most
religiously laced comments with an almost theocratic dictatorship, yet you
believe the Sun should shine brightly on weapons of mass destruction who's
only use is to kill many other men women and children. Yet you decry social
programs that would help the least among us get by when religion fails in their
mission to take care of the sick and afflicted.
a bit of realityShawnee Mission, KSIf we want to have the
world's largest military force, we need to have the world's highest
taxes.7:39 a.m. Feb. 26, 2014============ Amen! Amen and Amen!That about sums it up perfectly!
If we want to have the world's largest military force, we need to have the
world's highest taxes.
The President took an oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."Article 1, Section 8 requires that tax revenues
be spent on defense. There is NO authorization for Congress to spend money on
social programs in Section 8. There is NO enumeration in the Constitution for
social spending. If Mr. Obama is to keep his oath of office, he is
duty bound to see that Congress cuts social spending and all other unauthorized
spending before jeopardizing the defense budget. With North Korea rattling its
sabre and Iran rattling its sabre, Mr. Obama should spend some quality time with
those in the military who have the experience to advise him on what is needed.
He won't find that caliber of people on the golf course or at his favorite
vacation spots, but he will find them at work, where he ought to be. We did not
hire him to be our golfer in chief, but to be our commander in chief.
It is a shame that the D-News is unable to step away from partisan politics and
stand up for fiscal responsibility. Yes, spending on "entitlement
programs" needs to be curbed, but we can do both - tame domestic spending
and cut a military-industrial complex that is just as wasteful as any domestic
program. While the D-News opinion is apt to point out in general terms
"out-of-control-spending on entitlements," it conveniently ignores the
well-documented military spending boondoggles in Afghanistan. The premise by
the D-News that cutting military spending somehow upends any chance of reigning
in entitlement spending is a disingenuous argument one expects from a political
ideologue or a representative attempting to save a military base. I would hope
that the D-News would rise above such political carp. Finally, on
the D-News's subsidiary point that cutting military spending weakens world
security, I urge the editorial board to give less credence to the "fear"
ideology of Dick Cheney and to re-visit the wisdom of another Republican -
Dwight B. Eisenhower - who in his farewell address in 1961 sagely warned of the
rise of the military-industrial complex in the US.
Well - In MY opinion, As a veteran, I have to ask...Why did we start Wars of agression?Why did we attack and invade, and
occupy a country that did nothing to us?Why did we spend 12 years, 5,000
lives, 75,000 causalties, and still yet another $3 Trillion un-funded?I have NO problem fighting to defend our Country and our Constitution, butI have a real problem when I'm fighting for the best interests
of CORPORATIONS.Final note...Did we really need to spend
$3 Trillion to get the attackers of 9/11?Because everything
I've seen and heard is they we got them Predetor drones, Hellfire missiles,
and the Head was done in by a valiant team of Navy Seals in PAKISTAN.For a newspaper who whines constantly about our National debt, I gotta
ask -- Who's side are you on?
So can someone explain to me why we do need such a big military? Mentions are
made of Iran and N Korea being threats, really? Does Iran or N Korea have a
death wish? A land invasion of this country would be a death sentence for either
of those two countries. Not to mention the fact that we still have enough nukes
to destroy the planets for the next millenium. The type of stuff these countries
have the ability to pull off is a lot closer to 9-11 than a full scale military
invasion, and giving the military money doesn't prevent terrorist attacks.
So what good is it putting all that money into the military?
Even with our cuts we are still spending 3 times as much as China and 6 times as
much as Russia on defense.We can't keep spending at such insane
and unsustainable levels.If anything, the message to the rest of the
world would be a positive one. We are finally Getting our defense spending under
control. We are being fiscally responsible. And do not intend on waging reckless
war after war. It's time the rest of the world step up and slap some skin
in this game if they want policemen around. The United States cannot be
We shouldn't cut our defense budget? Are you serious?How about
the F-35 fighter, which breaks if it gets wet and can't be flown at night.
Over the expected lifetime of this turkey the F-35 will cost taxpayers a cool
$1Trillion (yes, with a "T").How about the F-22 fighter, an
aircraft for which the Air Force says it has no use and does not want, but that
congress insists that the Air Force buy, at a cost of more than $200 million
_each_.Six out of ten dollars spent on military budget _worldwide_
are spent by the US military. The US military budget is by itself larger than
the next sixteen largest military budgets _combined_. That includes China,
Russia, all of Europe and Asia.Anyone claiming to be concerned about
federal taxes, federal deficits, and total US debt but who refuses to look at
the staggering costs and waste that saturates the US military is being a
I have a hard time believing that the military could not take a large paycut
without impacting our defense one bit.Even recently, the Army stated
that they did not need more Abrams Tanks, but congress insisted.Why
would congress do that? Well lets see. The tanks are produced in Ohio which
happens to be a very important political state.The plant is run by
General Dynamics who happened to spend over $11 million dollars in 2012 lobbying
congress. (In 2012 the defense industry gave congress $19 million in campaign
donations and lobbied them to the tune of almost $140 million dollars. Why
would they do that?)One would hope that with enough military cuts,
even our pathetic congressmen would begrudgingly put country over politics if
our national defense was actually at stake.One would hope
The US spends almost as much money on the military as the rest of the world
combined.You could halve the budget and still be way way ahead of
the next biggest spender China.
The US spends more than 4 times what China does and more than 7 times what
Russia does (these are the closest two contenders).The US Defense
budget is more than one third of the entire WORLD’s defense budget.Certainly we can pull back somewhat here. Yes, we need to (and can) do
this intelligently and with clear-eyed analysis. But we can do it.Surely there should be some “peace dividend” as we pull out of
Afghanistan and Iraq.Finally, none of this means entitlements must
be left untouched. We need hard analysis there too. Doing one does not relieve
us of the responsibility of doing the other.
Utah is dead last in volunteering for the armed forces, maybe that's why
this state seems so willing to engage so much when it's other people's
lives on the line.
"The United States faces huge fiscal challenges concerning out-of-control
spending on entitlements such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and the
effects of the Affordable Care Act. " Just how is spending on the social
safety net "out-of-control?" Only in the sense that revenues do not
match expenditures. Social Security and Medicare recipients are receiving the
benefits promised them, so the expenditures are to be expected - they are not
out-of-control. The problem is on the revenue side. FICA taxes
need to be levied on all personal income, not just the first $116,000. This
would greatly ease the revenue problem. Moreover, considering the entire fiscal
situation, taxes on the wealthy and corporations should be increased to
1950's levels. Most of our fiscal problems are do to tax cuts for the
richest Americans and corporations. They have been the beneficiaries of most tax
cuts the last 40 years.Speaking of out-of-control spending, how
about the Iraq war? That was a gigantic waste of blood and wealth. I
don't know of anything which argues for trimming the military more.
In inflation adjusted terms, we are spending more on defense right now than we
ever did under Ronald Reagan. The difference, being that, under Reagan, we faced
an enemy that had the capability to destroy us. We face no one with anything
remotely like that kind of capability now. Iran and North Korea are no threat to
us at all. If they attack us we can wipe their countries off the face of the
earth. What kind of threat is that?It is also completely misleading
to say that we are cutting our forces to their pre-WWII level. At that point our
military was no better than that of several other countries. Now we are so far
superior that is it no exaggeration to say that we are the most secure Great
Power in history.