Why isn't the Massive Military Budget a Campaign issue?

its my understanding that most terrorists dont have radar nor do they have s.a.m. missle batteries.

if you want to beat terrorists. shouldnt that money be spent on intelligence? hiring and training field operatives...

 

You underestimate the power of demagogues in this country. Maybe in 4 years the political climate will be more amenable to retooling our national defense. Right now, there are other priorities that have the nation's attention.

The funny thing is, I actually had some hope that Rumsfeld was going to address our defense priorities until the Iraq invasion threw everything off track.

 

For all the people mad that we did not have up-armored HUMMVW's it seems it would be easy to understand the practice of building the army today to fight the war of tommorow.

 

how is stealth going to help us win against terrorists?

i can see how we need to stay ahead technologically bc we never know what may happen between the US and China/Russia/Iran/NK...

but stealth isnt a program that will work against nonconventional enemies.

you cant use technology like stealth against guerilla tactics. we saw how technology failed against the guerilla tactics of the VC.

the US has to build up its network of intelligence. we're going to need more people on the ground working with the local civilian population. we're going to need more diplomats. we need to help build roads, hospitals, school, etc...

a $1B stealth fighter will do less against a group of terrorists than several well placed field operatives, new hospitals, schools, roads, powerplant...

 

Has there been a great power over the history that was not slowly brought down by over spending on military?

 

I started writing a list of things that I would cut from the federal government and realized that it would be far quicker to write a list of what aspects should remain. (that, and the federal government is such a sprawling goliath I don't even know all the different areas by a longshot)

Some defense (~25% current allocated funding)
Infrastructure (highways, etc)
Education (although I HATE this one, everybody should have access to education)
health care (the US system should be nationalized. I don't care if it's less efficient or a tad more expensive - everyone deserves healthcare)

That's it.

 

I still remember the shrill cries from right wing pundits that Clinton destroyed the American military to the point where we're struggling to win right now. Not enough troops? That's Clinton's fault for reducing their budget.

Likewise, raising the necessary taxes will be seen as being cold and heartless to the struggling voters.

It's a political oroboros.

 

I know a lot of you don't want to believe this but raising taxes does not necessarily mean an increase in tax revenue.

 

Not when taxes are very high or markets are very elastic, no. In general, though, tax increases do lead to greater revenue.

 

Somebody probably already said it.


Election suicide: see Michael Dukakis, 1988 Democratic Candidate