Military spending

Rep. Woolsey challenges Speaker-to-Be Boehner to cut military spending waste. Since we can readily see from the pie charts below that while the U.S. population is about 5% of the world’s, our defense spending amounts to about 48% of total miliary spending worldwide, this is a reasonable challenge in my opinion. The idea that our military spending should be so out of proportion to our population share makes no sense and is a burden on us, the American people. We can adequately defend ourselves without such extravagance and expansionism (over 600 bases are maintained by the U.S. worldwide).  I hope that Mr. Boehner and the new Republican majority in the House will indeed look carefully at EVERY cent our government spends and cut wherever possible. Our military spending should not be exempt from consideration. After all, as shown in the final pie chart, in 2009, defense spending constituted 23% of our total federal budget. We cannot afford to ignore such a large chunk of our spending. Our defense is vital to us, but we must be certain that we are not wasting anything, even in such a crucial part of our federal outlay. So, I agree, to a degree, with Rep. Woolsey:

“There has been much noise made on the other side of the aisle about the size of government and supposedly out-of-control Federal spending. But many of the same folks using those talking points haven’t exactly shown great restraint when it comes to the defense budgets. So I will be curious to see when they take over the majority in January, will they move to cut bloated defense programs, or does their zeal for spending cuts extend only to those domestic programs that are helping struggling families get through a recession? That bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this: You are not serious about closing the deficit unless you are prepared to put military spending on the table.”

Of course, Rep. Woolsey goes to the other extreme: she is quite willing to cut defense spending, but shows no inclination to cut domestic programs which exhibit bloating and waste. She and her like-minded colleagues also must demonstrate genuine seriousness about a responsible, streamlined budget. It’s time for both sides to come to the table and put everything on it.  It’s time to put aside partisan biases and look at all parts of the budget with eagle eyes. Every single item in the budget should have to justified. If it cannot be justified, it should be cut. Plain and simple.



About district6voter

A concerned Northern California citizen who believes Representative Lynn Woolsey ought to be replaced in November, 2010.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Military spending

  1. Sierra Peterson says:

    Did you get your blog header from Gomurray? I randomly found that site while doing research for my US history class and was surprised because it has the exact same header as over here. 0_0

  2. Zoey says:

    Woolsey needs to get voted out along with Weiner and Wasserman Shultz. They are three Democrats that are not good for the party. They are smart alecs, have no respect for others and spout off way too much. When the time comes, vote these three downers out of office. For Woolsey to pick on military spending and to disrespect Boehner right off the bat is just unprofessional behavior. We need to put her or one of her loved one in a foxhole in Afhganistan, and let them pray each night that they will make it till morning. What a great message to our armed forces, lets cut military spending first and keep the catastrope of Obamacare instead. I say hogwash to Woolsey and others that want to cut spending in that area.

    • Zoey, I think it is wise to be careful about wishing to put anyone in a foxhole.
      Also, although Rep. Woolsey’s latest House floor comments on Afghanistan were themselves unwise, I always keep in mind that she has opposed our involvement in that country (and Iraq) from the beginning. She does not intend to disrespect the Americans who are risking their lives in war zones; she simply believes they should not have been there at all. I’m not one for military adventurism either. Although entering Afghanistan after 9/11 to root out Al Qaeada was one thing, a continued presence for years or decades is not something we should engage in, in my opinion.

  3. Sierra Peterson says:

    So are you saying that you gave your moral support to Bush’s initial decision to invade Afghanistan? Because if so, then you would have been an active participant in placing someone in a foxhole, which surpasses merely wishing to place someone in a foxhole if you ask me.

    • I supported bringing to justice those who had orchestrated and implemented the killing of nearly 3000 on American soil. Nothing else. Don’t make assumptions or try to spread responsibility for wars with limited knowledge.

  4. Sierra Peterson says:

    Have you looked over the evidence page at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? The site provides an overwhelming amount of information documenting how the official version of events is scientifically impossible. Over 1400 scientific professionals have signed their petition. Although the evidence is too extensive to cover here, the basics can be understood with a rudimentary grasp of high school physics. One important point is that heat rises, meaning that a fire beginning on the upper floors of a skyscraper would not descend to the lower levels. Not to mention the fact that the third tower fell all on its own seven hours later and no evidence of fire has since been found.

    On another level, my belief is that, karmically speaking, supporting war has long-lasting spiritual consequences. My cousin just came back from serving in Iraq and said she is now a pacifist because of the experience. Basic training conditions soldiers to accept physical and psychological abuse which they will then pass on to others. The rate of sexual assault against female soldiers is astronomical and my cousin was not exempt from that. The only solution to radical Islam is to send aid to impoverished Middle Eastern countries, aid that is not diverted to military, law enforcement or Western corporations.

  5. Sierra Peterson says:

    correction to my previous comment: there were small fires in the third tower, building 7. However, the rapid collapse of the building, occurring at speeds approaching free fall, is not characteristic of the way a building is destroyed by fire which happens slowly and with visible deformations to the building structure. 9/11 skeptics will not touch this fact because there is simply no explanation for it that doesn’t rule out the story told by both the mainstream media and the Pentagon.

  6. Sierra Peterson says:

    By the way, in case my talk of spiritual consequences came off too heavy-handed, I wasn’t implying that all soldiers and their supporters will be roasting in hell, or anything like that. I do think that the present world, as troubled as it may be, provides unique opportunities for growth after recognizing one’s own ethical mistakes. And the greater one’s complicity and awareness of social and other injustices, the more necessary that change becomes. Just my 2 cents…

  7. Sierra Peterson says:

    clarification on yesterday’s post, regarding distribution of heat in the towers: since it is a given that heat rises, supportive steel beams beneath the point of impact could not have been weakened. So gravity alone would have been responsible for the collapse, which is impossible because the force of inertia would have slowed the rate at which the buildings fell considering the significant resistance of steel and concrete. The near free fall rate of building 7 in particular may explain why it is never shown on TV. Also, as documented on the above site, previous steel-reinforced high-rise fires have gone on for 18 hours, gutting 8 floors, and still this did not lead to collapse.

    There is also the fact that, because the gaping hole in the side of the North Tower meant the damage was unevenly distributed, the collapse should have happened asymmetrically instead of the perfectly symmetrical collapse that is characteristic of a controlled demolition. This is basically just common sense. And although these facts have been dismissed as nonsense, they are taken quite seriously by former state governors, senators and top military officials who question the story that the towers were destroyed by fire. I am not a physics expert so can’t get into the more technical aspects of what occurred. But there is by no means anything close to a consensus about this issue in the scientific community so why does it continue to be the single largest motivating factor for US foreign policy?

  8. Sierra Peterson says:

    Oh, and since multiple firefighters reported seeing smoke and explosions coming from the lower floors before the collapse occurred, what could possibly be the explanation for this? It really makes no sense that so many eye witnesses could all be mistaken.

  9. Sierra Peterson says:

    Here is a Popular Mechanics article clearly stating that the fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel. Yet this video contains interviews with many eye witnesses, including firemen, who saw pools of molten steel literally on fire beneath the rubble. In another video, an architect from AE911truth displays photographs of nano-thermite taken from ground zero. Nano-thermite is a compound found in explosives that reaches temperatures far in excess of jet fuel or a normal office fire. The site also has videos with military personnel who saw shockwaves traveling up the side of building 7 while the ground was shaking, immediately before collapse. Until yesterday I had never taken a serious look at this material and now that I have it’s absolutely shocking, not because it happened, but because of the overwhelming amount of evidence behind it. This is probably the single greatest occurrence of perception management in human history.

    • Sierra, I appreciate that you are looking into the questions many have brought up about what happened on 9/11. There are, as I’m sure you know, a number of very extensive websites where you can find more information and theories, and it certainly is vital that whatever the truth is be known. I agree that there remain questions needing resolution.

      I don’t think it is necessary for you to detail everything here in this website’s comment section though. Your posts so far should be plenty to introduce anyone who might not be aware of these things and who might want to seek further information. So, thank you, but let’s call an end to this subject here now. It’s ranging a little far afield from my original topic.

  10. Sierra Peterson says:

    The point I was trying to make was that the entire premise of the invasion is false, considering the complicity of US and European media in covering up evidence as well as other factors. But sorry to get so carried away about it. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s