Military Spending Recession Proof

[SoulSearcher]

According to a report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, one group has been completely unaffected by the global economic meltdown, the military. Contrarily, the spending on military has increased worldwide, from $1.3 trillion in 2006 to $1.55 trillion in 2008. The US accounts for nearly half of this spending, and even Obama is making records in his war budgets. Governments around the world are trying to find ways to cut spending, but not many are looking at their war machines as possible avenues for these cuts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020300553_pf.html

 

[Kulindahr]

It's a psychological thing -- we all have a military-industrial complex.

 

[JB3]

According to a report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, one group has been completely unaffected by the global economic meltdown, the military. Contrarily, the spending on military has increased worldwide, from $1.3 trillion in 2006 to $1.55 trillion in 2008. The US accounts for nearly half of this spending, and even Obama is making records in his war budgets. Governments around the world are trying to find ways to cut spending, but not many are looking at their war machines as possible avenues for these cuts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020300553_pf.html

Well duh. ANY economic problems have a high likelihood of creating conflicts and/or possibilities for confrontation. So when the world economy suffers, spending on the military goes up.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Well duh. ANY economic problems have a high likelihood of creating conflicts and/or possibilities for confrontation. So when the world economy suffers, spending on the military goes up.

Wow who could have guessed! The US is spending record money on the war machine because of the fear that the bad world economy will cause wars around the world.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow who could have guessed! The US is spending record money on the war machine because of the fear that the bad world economy will cause wars around the world.

What better way to keep the public's eyes off the erosion of their liberties?

 

[Kulindahr]

You know it's funny how much conservatives worship the founding fathers while ignoring the fact that they favored a bare-bones military that defended a few wilderness forts.

Washington warned of international engagements in his Farewell Address.

Eisenhower warned of a growing military industry complex.

Pot kettle black.

It's funny how liberals claim the mandate of the Founding Fathers while happily building a state where everyone is bound left and right by regulation.

But on this, the libertarian nature of the Founding Fathers outright condemns the conservatives: we have no business with troops on the ground on bases around the world. Projecting force through a Navy with effective Marines is one thing -- think Decatur and the Barbary Pirates, from whence "the shores of Tripoli" line -- but army and other bases are contrary to what was intended for the Republic. in fact the idea was that the federal government should never, ever command enough of a standing army to be in a position to oppress the states, that the combined might of the well-armed citizenry should be greater than that of the federal government.

How far we have fallen!

 

[JB3]

Liberals? They don't. Liberals believe that the US Constitution is a living document.



To be fair, it's more like a neoconservative thing.

Ha. Living constitution my ass. Liberals believe that the government should be involved in every aspect of our lives, and be as large as possible to do that. Tell me how exactly that matches up to the idea of a living constitution.

 

[JB3]

Are you aware of the meaning of a "Living Constitution?"

And if liberals really wanted that I wouldn't be one Just hyperbole on your part.

I'm well aware of what it is, and my comment stands. Read Kuli's if you're still having trouble.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you aware of the meaning of a "Living Constitution?"

And if liberals really wanted that I wouldn't be one Just hyperbole on your part.

The term is generally used to mean "the Constitution means what we want to change it to, as long as we have good lawyers".

 

[Sausy]

The founding fathers were trying to build a nation...not get entangled in the affairs of Europe.Our existence as an independent republic was tenuous.The European powers tried to push America into alliances that would threaten to strangle our newfound liberty in its crib.Of course early on it's reasonable that their foremost concern was our own survival and growth...not taking sides and making enemies in joining cause in their disputes when after a bloody but tentatively successful revolution we were barely able to stand on our own and determine what shape this new republic would take.

 

[Kulindahr]

That isn't what it means, and yes, even conservative gays benefit from the view that the Constitution is a living document.

*cough cough* lawrence *cough* evans *cough*

What do those have to do with changing the meaning of the Constitution?

 

[JB3]

That isn't what it means, and yes, even conservative gays benefit from the view that the Constitution is a living document.

*cough cough* lawrence *cough* evans *cough*

Yeah, actually it is. People use it as an excuse to twist it to their own ends, not out of some benevolent desire to address issues. The constitution can do that just fine on its own without people changing its meaning as time goes on.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's meaning doesn't change.

How it applies to a growing World does.

Unfortunately, that's not what the term "living document" is used to signify. I've heard it used with the excuse that "the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee what the country has become", and from there to justify gutting the Second Amendment, making a has of the Fourth, setting restrictions on pieces of the First, basically doing away with the Ninth and Tenth... all by liberals planning things "for our own good".


Your definition is actually contained within the Constitution -- it's why those neglected amendments at the end of the Bill of Rights are there. The Founding Fathers did in fact understand that there were rights they hadn't listed, which hadn't been of great issue to them but which could become great issues in the future, so they propped the door open to protect those rights as well.

Though I think it would help if we enumerated a few more, just to get some boneheads' attention.

 

[JB3]

It's meaning doesn't change.

How it applies to a growing World does.

That is NOT what it means in the slightest.

 

[JB3]

Read why the anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution.

They said it was a giveaway to the federal government to abuse every power that was not specifically restricted in the Constitution.

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.