Krugman How 30 years of Anti-Government Ideology Have Ruined Us

the recession started in 12-2007, therefore tax revenue dropped.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html

Why We Must Reduce Military Spending

Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul
Posted: July 6, 2010 09:02 AM

As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree.

By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion -- more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.

It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life.

We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our servicemembers have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on September 11, 2001.

Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense. According to a recent article in the New York Times, "Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella."

When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good.

We believe that the time has come for a much quicker withdrawal from Iraq than the President has proposed. We both voted against that war, but even for those who voted for it, there can be no justification for spending over $700 billion dollars of American taxpayers' money on direct military spending in Iraq since the war began, not including the massive, estimated long-term costs of the war. We have essentially taken on a referee role in a civil war, even mediating electoral disputes.

In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.

We are currently working to enlist the support of other members of Congress for our initiative. Along with our colleagues Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Walter Jones, we have addressed a letter to the President's National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which he has convened to develop concrete recommendations for reducing the budget deficit. We will make it clear to leaders of both parties that substantial reductions in military spending must be included in any future deficit reduction package. We pledge to oppose any proposal that fails to do so.

In the short term, rebuilding our economy and creating jobs will remain our nation's top priority. But it is essential that we begin to address the issue of excessive military spending in order to ensure prosperity in the future. We may not agree on what to do with the estimated $1 trillion in savings, but we do agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible if we do not begin to face this issue now.

 

most of this interview is not relevant to the thread, but its an interesting read and gives a little insight into where paul in coming from. again, he points out the need to reduce the military budget and reign in our foreign policy if we want to control spending. obama increased DOD spending - paul would have rather seen than money spent at home helping americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-wells/congressman-ron-paul-talk_b_212520.html

Congressman Ron Paul Talks Foreign Policy: New Face, Same Policy
June 8, 2009 10:18 AM

Kathleen Wells: As a member of the U. S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee, what is your take on this issue of torture?

Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it's against the law - both our law and international law. So, we shouldn't do it. And I'm against it for personal, moral reasons. I think it's horrible. And for practical reasons, I think it's absolutely worthless. And if we are serious about getting information, if we use other techniques, we actually get more information.

Kathleen Wells: So, you do believe that we were committing torture in our interrogations in Guantanamo?

Congressman Ron Paul: I don't think the pictures I've seen were fictitious - the ones that were released a year or two ago. And, obviously, there are some more pictures of torture that they draw more attention to because they refuse to release them, which means that it must be a true indictment of what they were doing.

Kathleen Wells: What are your thoughts on President Obama's decision to release the torture memos?

Congressman Ron Paul: I think he is purely political. I think he has backed down on what he said. He was elected for change and it is the same old stuff and he is as much of a neo-con now as Bush was with this issue and other issues. The war has been expanded. He continues with not closing down Guantanamo. There is probably, for as most [sic] as we can tell, there is still secret rendition going on. We just moved some of this process overseas. We are not going to be aware of it in detail.

Kathleen Wells: You feel President Obama is a neo-con like Bush? You don't see a distinction between the two administrations?

Congressman Ron Paul: The tone is different, but the policies don't change. We are spreading the war. The war is expanding. We are not prosecuting those that committed torture. Guantanamo is not going to be closed down. So, no, I don't see [a distinction between Bush and Obama].

He [Obama] increased the DOD [Department of Defense] budget. We surely could spend some of that money at home where people are really hurting. But we increased the DOD budget, I think, by 10-percent. I can't see any significant change in foreign policy. The pretense in leaving Iraq was a mild pretense and I'm predicting that's not going to happen. There are going to be troops in Iraq throughout this administration, I'm convinced.

Kathleen Wells: Why are you convinced?

Congressman Ron Paul: Because I don't think anyone wants to face the difficulties that might ensue. The problems came from us being there and when we leave, the problems will probably accelerate a bit. And then they will blame leaving for [causing] the problems and, yet, the real problem was going in. So, I think the international pressure that we get from various allies will be so great that we won't leave. And just don't expect the policies to change.

It just goes along with what I have said for years. Foreign policy does not change with Republicans or Democrats. Overall, there is very little policy that changes. There is a lot of debate and a lot of rhetoric, but things continue as they do.

When Clinton was in, the Republicans condemned his Somalia problem. Bush said he wasn't going to be a nation builder and a policeman of the world and he gets in and he is worse. Obama says Bush is terrible and gets in and all of a sudden, guess who is cheering Obama on right now? People like [Senator] Lindsay Graham. The real hawks of the Republican Party are sorta enjoying this right now. They figure they are winning these fights.

Kathleen Wells: Can you give me your thoughts on former Vice President Dick Cheney's recent speech on interrogation techniques and national security?

Congressman Ron Paul: I [didn't] expect anything brand new. He ... just [tried] to defend what he had been doing and his involvement over the years. He'll keep saying that he saved many lives by torturing - which I don't believe for a minute.

I'm more likely to believe Matthew Alexander and his position on torture. Matthew Alexander was an official that was involved. He was in the Air Force, but he was over there and he carried out over 300 interrogations over there and was very, very successful. But [he] refused orders to ever participate in anything violent or anything that hinted of torture. That is the evidence - you can get more information, rather than less [without using torture].

I think the evidence is now coming out of people saying that the torture wasn't intended to get information. They got a lot of information from these individuals - these few, these three that are well known now. They got a lot of information from them before they were tortured. They were trying to get them to say that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in order to justify this illegal war.

Kathleen Wells: Elaborate on why you believe there is no difference between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration?

Congressmen Ron Paul: In style, they are different. The tone is different and I think there is a benefit to that. But his policies don't change. Ultimately, policies win out. The strong statements against Iran are still there. And, right now, going through our committee (the Congressional International Relations Committee/the Foreign Affairs Committee), stronger sanctions will be put on Iran - just looking for another fight. And we have taken the position we will not allow them to proceed on any nuclear testing, even if it is within the law and even if it is done peacefully. We are not going to permit that. So no, that position hasn't changed.

Like I said before, the war is not winding down in Iraq. The violence is increasing. And war is expanding into Afghanistan, sending more troops there. And now we are taking on Pakistan. And, actually, the whole Pakistan thing is just a reflection of a very, very flawed foreign policy of ours. Because we chase the Taliban around and some go into Pakistan and we urge the public government there to do this and that, we are just working very hard to have another war in Pakistan.

Kathleen Wells: What would you be doing differently if you were President? I know you were a Presidential primary candidate.

Congressman Ron Paul: I would bring the troops home. I'd just bring them all home. I'd bring them home from Korea. I'd bring them home from Germany. Save hundreds of billions of dollars and that would be a real boost. In order to stimulate the economy, I would immediately suspend the income tax for everybody.

The money we get into the hands of the people - that would cost less money than these hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts that go into the pockets of the privileged who then get to take their retirement benefits and all their bonuses. I would do it a lot differently.

Foreign policy, though, would be the big thing. Just move away from that. Take off the sanctions and start trading with Cuba. Not just talk about it, but go ahead and do it.

Kathleen Wells: And Iran?

Congressman Ron Paul: I would treat them like we treated the Soviets. We talked to them. The Soviets had 30,000 nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to bomb anybody. They deserve a little bit of protection for themselves. They have nuclear weapons to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west and all they do is get beat up. There are a bunch of bad people over there, but there are a bunch of bad people all over the world.

Khrushchev wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world and he claimed he was going to bury us, too. Even guys like Ronald Reagan talked to him and we worked things out. Their economic system collapsed.

What we ought to do is pay more attention to the goals of Osama Bin Laden. He said, "We will bring you to your knees through your bankruptcy because we are going to drag you over here and we will drain you and we will eventually bring on an economic crisis in your country." Right now he is winning. Right now the Iraqis are closely aligned with the Iranians. The Shiites are winning. The Sunnis are on the run. We've weaponized the whole area. More guns sent over there by the American taxpayer. The Sunnis are all armed. It's just a very, very ridiculous foreign policy.

 

this is awesome, I realize it was a month ago, but hopefully it at least starts some dialogue. its not only politicians who seem to be afraid to address this issue, its the media also.

 

accelerated rate of job lost caused the fall in tax revenue

 

I agree with Mr. Paul.

 

There are TWO major dips in revenues in the chart. One is related to this economic downtown - that has nothing to do with rates because rates haven't changed. The other is directly related to rate changes in the early 2000's. As a result of that drop - where revenues in 2005 were less than 2000, despite many years of economic expansion - resulted in major budget deficits during healthy times. That exacerbates the problem during the inevitable bad times; it's just that much worse when you have a massive recession as opposed to a minor one.

 

Agree 100%. Hopefully this let's cut the military idea gains a lot of traction.

 

what are you talking about? "GOP economics"? he has been extremely critical of "GOP economics", especially during the bush years - he would call himself a conservative, but he has routinely criticized the GOP for their economic policies - i dont think you have any clue about the guy.

and my favorite things about him are his stands on privacy issues (civil liberties) and foreign military adventures.

are you saying that you are against his stances on civil liberties and foreign policy/militarism? if so, i dont know how you could support him in anyway as these are such core issues for him and things he harps on constantly.

ok, classic is right - you are talking out of your ass.

 

Look, at face value you might say based on his voting record he might line up with Neo Cons and other bribed politicians but he simply doesn't. At this point I'm challenging you to read his book, End the Fed. He is for the equality of all through eliminating the size and power of the federal government and transferring that power to the local governments-as it should be. He's is absolutely critical of the 'GOP' stance on deficit spending, illegal wiretapping, he wants to audit the federal reserve, torturing, fear mongering us in to wars over seas, the unseen tax of depreciating our tax dollars by printing more money, and the corporate & banker stranglehold on Washington and it's politicians. Will you agree with all his ideas such as gold backed currency? Probably not but I challenge you to read the book to understand why he votes the way he does. The guy is absolutely a breath of fresh air from any other politician today.

 

no you dont.

again, you are totally talking out of your ass.
"ideological conservative moneymen support ron paul" - are you kidding me?