From your link:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

When you look at the orgnasion of the military youll see what huge flaws Pobamas ideas on this particaulr part is.

__________________
up yers....

Thse wise men are ignored all to often by GOP types. Global secuity might be a bit more technical and A political then that link. Thoug it seems from a quick glance that the pie chart isnt that far off.

__________________
up yers....

What are the specific linked examples.



It is always about how one interprests, letter or spirit of law.


I completely understand that sentence as being for an equal amount of importance & relevance in our lives. Not literally my cash outlay.


Again....bring in an IRS auditor to private contractors & I think you'll get more than 10, even 30, more like 50% savings in the military expenditures.

Ya, I agree, without question. The military industrial complex is a complicated web of corporate control bleeding our tax dollars for long term war mongering profit.

I think in the mix what gets lost is that we do still need a military presence in our nation state & world but we can re shift that into actual accountability like we can our government because at the end of the day it is ALL our government. We allow it, we are it, WE the people can define how it's used and allocated.

At least Obama is trying to explore that.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

"Just as well-funded" means just that. Perhaps Obama should clarify instead of you attacking my interpretation.

Could you please scroll back and point out where I compared Bill Clinton to George Bush?

I interpret as, if we spend $500-$700 billion on an army that a just as well funded CNA would require $500-$700 billion. Since you are critical of my interpretation and logic, then perhaps you can spell it out for me.

I know and Bush has shown himself to be anything but a conservative. What he has shown is that he unprecedentedly expanded the federal government (without taking into account of military and wartime spending) along with being fiscally irresponsibility. This information is not new to me.

I have not read his books, but I have been following the political parade to presidency. When I have the time I plan on reading A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship-by Ron Paul since he seems to be the best candidate the intelligently talked about our foreign policy and the economic problems that policing the world is creating for us.

I really can't believe that any politician would endorse irresponsible government spending.

Sounds like you are playing the "lesser of two evils" game. I am just being critical of both.

What is a "laisse-faire" war exactly? Laissez-faire advocates from the Physiocrats to the Chicago and Austrian school advocates for truly free markets which can only occur under the absence of government or perhaps a minimal state.

I fail to see how this war is market-oriented and could be sustained without the role of the government.

The government is not the product of laissez-faire. It distorts market forces. You are clearly confusing lassiez-faire with Crony Capitalism.

Read his books and you will get it, I stand by what I have said.

You are lumping Obama into a spend like crazy leftist guy...that was my point.



Easy, he did not give you any exact numbers...how did you come up with those?

Again...

Read his books and you will get it, I stand by what I have said.

Invading countries for laissez-faire wars is what bleeds us.

Compassion and relief for the troops who have been rotated is only one part of Obama's plan.

Isolationism would be difficult to be immediate, but responsibly drawing down is what Obama is preparing for.

In addition he would not be wasteful with inaccurate missile defense systems.

Laissez-faire deals and contracts for friends would be eliminated.

I am out guys. I am falling asleep.

BTW laissez-faire can definitely apply to wars ILT when the wars are for laissez-faire corporate greed and not defense or national security.

What specific examples are you talking about? I provided a few already. I am unclear what you are asking for.

That is your interpretation. I take it as face value and backed by the fact that Obama has mentioned community service numerous times. I cannot help believe differently, unless he clarifies his statement.

I was being conservative. I don't want to drastically reduce military spending during a war, but I agree with your that during peacetime we probably could safely reduce it by 50% if we were not interested in exporting American democracy to the rest of the world.


I am really not sure where you are going with this tidbit.