Government waste? Look no further than the Defense Department.

[Scam of God]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4540160&c=EUR&s=TOP

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No surprise here: the Defense Department is the de facto means of subsidizing high-tech business and propping up the economy in the U.S., so it follows logically that it would produce as little relative to actually stated output goals as possible relative to comparative nations. Of course one will not find the Pentagon being protested by Tea Partiers enraged by "government waste".

That is literally the only reason we have a centralized Department of Defense - to subsidize, to provide corporate welfare for, certain domestic manufacturers. And yet our budgetary watchdogs are strangely silent on their spending habits.

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

Right.

[Scam of God]

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

Right.

Wrong. You will hear nary a peep from your more militaristic friends on this subject, and you'll issue nary a peep to them about it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

Right.

Wrong. You will hear nary a peep from your more militaristic friends on this subject, and you'll issue nary a peep to them about it.

If you say so, Kreskin.   

[paul718]

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

Right.

Wrong. You will hear nary a peep from your more militaristic friends on this subject, and you'll issue nary a peep to them about it.

I wonder if we'll hear a peep from our Democratic President who, ya know, controls the Defense Department.

[opebo]

I was watching FOX news last night - yes I'm staying in a hotel - and they were decrying the 'health care spending', as well as 'social security spending' as being a budget breaker!  Hilarious, considering that the new health care bill is only something like 1.2 or 1.6 trillion over ten years - the Defense budget wastes over 600 billion every single year.

[Scam of God]

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

Right.

Wrong. You will hear nary a peep from your more militaristic friends on this subject, and you'll issue nary a peep to them about it.

I wonder if we'll hear a peep from our Democratic President who, ya know, controls the Defense Department.

Ought we expect to? Obama has never pretended to be a deficit hawk. The Republicans treat every day like Halloween with respect to the issue.

[Tender Branson]

I was watching FOX news last night - yes I'm staying in a hotel - and they were decrying the 'health care spending', as well as 'social security spending' as being a budget breaker!  Hilarious, considering that the new health care bill is only something like 1.2 or 1.6 trillion over ten years - the Defense budget wastes over 600 800 billion every single year.

[paul718]

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

Right.

Wrong. You will hear nary a peep from your more militaristic friends on this subject, and you'll issue nary a peep to them about it.

I wonder if we'll hear a peep from our Democratic President who, ya know, controls the Defense Department.

Ought we expect to? Obama has never pretended to be a deficit hawk.

Yes he has.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/obama-on-reining-in-budget-deficits-wont-accept-opposition-for-oppositions-sake.html

[opebo]

I was watching FOX news last night - yes I'm staying in a hotel - and they were decrying the 'health care spending', as well as 'social security spending' as being a budget breaker!  Hilarious, considering that the new health care bill is only something like 1.2 or 1.6 trillion over ten years - the Defense budget wastes over 600 800 billion every single year.

Thanks for the correction.  Yes, in two years the amount that will be spent to save poors in a decade is thrown down the rat-hole of defense mafia corruption.

[Scam of God]

I mean, conservatives, you are enraged by waste in military spending.

Right.

Right?

Right.

Wrong. You will hear nary a peep from your more militaristic friends on this subject, and you'll issue nary a peep to them about it.

I wonder if we'll hear a peep from our Democratic President who, ya know, controls the Defense Department.

Ought we expect to? Obama has never pretended to be a deficit hawk.

Yes he has.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/obama-on-reining-in-budget-deficits-wont-accept-opposition-for-oppositions-sake.html

That's hardly the sort of ploying, cloying thing that one hears incessantly from the Republicans.

Why should I expect your neoconservative brethren to hold true to their word on this particular issue? They've never before shown even the slightest interest in shrinking the State in this area; to the contrary, they have openly stated that their aim is to expand and empower the government by means of the armed services:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You may be shortsighted enough to throw all to the wind in the name of political expedience and Party loyalty. I am not.

[paul718]

Why should I expect your neoconservative brethren to hold true to their word on this particular issue? They've never before shown even the slightest interest in shrinking the State in this area; to the contrary, they have openly stated that their aim is to expand and empower the government by means of the armed services:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You may be shortsighted enough to throw all to the wind in the name of political expedience and Party loyalty. I am not.

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.  Bush-style adventurism, however, is unacceptable.  But that's not the problem here.  We're talking about inefficiency within the Defense Department.  That sounds like a relatively non-partisan issue.

[Scam of God]

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.

I know that. Nor do you see a problem with compromising with those who offer this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason the Defense Department is inefficient is because it is overly large and hopelessly centralized, which we can thank years of lame-brained neoconservative ideology under idiots like Reagan and Bush fils for. We need to cut it back almost to its barest bones if ever it is to recover.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The reason the Defense Department is inefficient is because it is overly large and hopelessly centralized, which we can thank years of lame-brained neoconservative ideology under idiots like Reagan and Bush fils for. We need to cut it back almost to its barest bones if ever it is to recover.

It was small under Clinton, and is downsizing under Obama?

[Scam of God]

The reason the Defense Department is inefficient is because it is overly large and hopelessly centralized, which we can thank years of lame-brained neoconservative ideology under idiots like Reagan and Bush fils for. We need to cut it back almost to its barest bones if ever it is to recover.

It was small under Clinton, and is downsizing under Obama?

Clinton made the first efforts to move towards a "smaller and efficient" military as a modernization effort, especially under Secretary Perry, and was castigated by "conservatives" for his efforts.

[opebo]

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.  Bush-style adventurism, however, is unacceptable.  But that's not the problem here.  We're talking about inefficiency within the Defense Department.  That sounds like a relatively non-partisan issue.

Well I'm against both the large and powerful military and the 'inefficiency'.

[paul718]

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.  Bush-style adventurism, however, is unacceptable.  But that's not the problem here.  We're talking about inefficiency within the Defense Department.  That sounds like a relatively non-partisan issue.

Well I'm against both the large and powerful military and the 'inefficiency'.

We know, man, we know.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.  Bush-style adventurism, however, is unacceptable.  But that's not the problem here.  We're talking about inefficiency within the Defense Department.  That sounds like a relatively non-partisan issue.

Well I'm against both the large and powerful military and the 'inefficiency'.

We know, man, we know.

Opebo's idea of defense spending......

[Scam of God]

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.  Bush-style adventurism, however, is unacceptable.  But that's not the problem here.  We're talking about inefficiency within the Defense Department.  That sounds like a relatively non-partisan issue.

Well I'm against both the large and powerful military and the 'inefficiency'.

We know, man, we know.

You say it like that's a particularly bad position to take.

[opebo]

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.  Bush-style adventurism, however, is unacceptable.  But that's not the problem here.  We're talking about inefficiency within the Defense Department.  That sounds like a relatively non-partisan issue.

Well I'm against both the large and powerful military and the 'inefficiency'.

We know, man, we know.

Opebo's idea of defense spending......

I couldn't view that image, Grampy.  But certainly the defense budget could be 10% of what it is now and we'd only be safer because of it.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I couldn't view that image, Grampy.  But certainly the defense budget could be 10% of what it is now and we'd only be safer because of it.

It's a water gun......and I'm not so sure we can eek by on 10% of what it is now and be safer, but we'll never know either.  As noted Obama's not whipping out the red pen and cutting much.

[opebo]

I couldn't view that image, Grampy.  But certainly the defense budget could be 10% of what it is now and we'd only be safer because of it.

It's a water gun......and I'm not so sure we can eek by on 10% of what it is now and be safer, but we'll never know either.  As noted Obama's not whipping out the red pen and cutting much.

No, no president may cut this budget.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I couldn't view that image, Grampy.  But certainly the defense budget could be 10% of what it is now and we'd only be safer because of it.

It's a water gun......and I'm not so sure we can eek by on 10% of what it is now and be safer, but we'll never know either.  As noted Obama's not whipping out the red pen and cutting much.

No, no president may cut this budget.

It does seem sacreligious to suggest it.

[paul718]

Well, I don't see a problem with funding a large and powerful military.  Bush-style adventurism, however, is unacceptable.  But that's not the problem here.  We're talking about inefficiency within the Defense Department.  That sounds like a relatively non-partisan issue.

Well I'm against both the large and powerful military and the 'inefficiency'.

We know, man, we know.

You say it like that's a particularly bad position to take.

No, just that everyone already knew his position.

[opebo]

I couldn't view that image, Grampy.  But certainly the defense budget could be 10% of what it is now and we'd only be safer because of it.

It's a water gun......and I'm not so sure we can eek by on 10% of what it is now and be safer, but we'll never know either.  As noted Obama's not whipping out the red pen and cutting much.

No, no president may cut this budget.

It does seem sacreligious to suggest it.

No, I meant he can't do it.  He'd be eliminated.