Got To Pay For Socialism

[billwald]

>Our constitution gives room for defense spending.

Would of you people who believe that the Constitution should be frozen in time and understood exactly the same as it was understood 210 years ago please explain to me why the Constitution authorized a standing NAVY (in the days that all private cargo ships were armed) but ONLY permitted a 2 year funding of an army (in the days when every citizen was armed). Why not a standing army?

 

[Gold Dragon]

How many homeless people who smell from lack of a bath and far to much alcohol have you hugged, cried with, prayed with and fed lately. I do it almost every day.

How many homeless people do you hug and hold and then have to walk away smelling like them. I do it almost every day.

And by the way most of these are the Navajo that the Fed has been trying to take care of for years.

I think it is great that you continue to work with homeless and Navajo people. May God continue working through you there.

Regarding the failure of federal programs to meet those needs, I agree with you that sometimes federal programs don't work. The solution is not always to end those programs but sometimes it is. At the same time, there are also many federal programs that do work and need funding to work better.

I've seen some aboriginal Australian and Canadian programs that have worked and others that haven't. I've seen some that are federally funded and some that are not. The work is difficult, complex and full of potential pitfalls. The ones that don't work seem to be because they do not have the support of the aboriginal community in terms of ownership. An external entity (federal or not) coming in to tell them what their problems are and how to fix them doesn't get a lot of cooperation from the community and is doomed to fail. Ultimately, successful programs usually involve some sources of federal funding because it is difficult to obtain resources to maintain the program otherwise. But initiation of successful efforts needs ownership from the community it is trying to reach.

 

[NiteShift]

How many homeless people who smell from lack of a bath and far to much alcohol have you hugged, cried with, prayed with and fed lately. I do it almost every day.

How many homeless people do you hug and hold and then have to walk away smelling like them. I do it almost every day.

I admire you for it Rev. It is more than most of us have ever done.

 

[NiteShift]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?"

As a percentage of GDP, our defense spending has been going down for decades.

 

[preachinjesus]

Probably need a better chart to understand that chart:

Just as a note: your chart (the above one, not mine) is not a good one. It shows "estimated" defense spending in 2009 dollars as percent of GDP (which isn't a good measure here) through 2014 but does not apply it backwards.

 

[NiteShift]

Probably need a better chart to understand that chart:

It appears your chart is in $$, not as a percentage of total GDP. Yep, everything has gone up if you look at in terms of dollars spent. The same would be true for home prices, groceries, new cars etc.

 

[Gold Dragon]

As a percentage of GDP, our defense spending has been going down for decades.

The following site has a good chart that lets you plot US spending in different categories (defense, health, education) as a percentage of GDP.

www.usgovernmentspending.com

It shows that defense spending was decreasing for decades until the past decade where it started increasing.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think it is great that you continue to work with homeless and Navajo people. May God continue working through you there.

Regarding the failure of federal programs to meet those needs, I agree with you that sometimes federal programs don't work. The solution is not always to end those programs but sometimes it is. At the same time, there are also many federal programs that do work and need funding to work better.

I've seen some aboriginal Australian and Canadian programs that have worked and others that haven't. I've seen some that are federally funded and some that are not. The work is difficult, complex and full of potential pitfalls. The ones that don't work seem to be because they do not have the support of the aboriginal community in terms of ownership. An external entity (federal or not) coming in to tell them what their problems are and how to fix them doesn't get a lot of cooperation from the community and is doomed to fail. Ultimately, successful programs usually involve some sources of federal funding because it is difficult to obtain resources to maintain the program otherwise. But initiation of successful efforts needs ownership from the community it is trying to reach.

Two things:

1. There is not enough money to be collected to provide for all those who are not productive.

2. I have no knowledge of the founding of Australia but this country's constitution does not provide for or allow for fed programs to do such. State constitutions may or may not but it all should be handled as local as possible. That is the founding of this country and what our Constitution says.

 

[Dragoon68]

Would of you people who believe that the Constitution should be frozen in time and understood exactly the same as it was understood 210 years ago please explain to me why the Constitution authorized a standing NAVY (in the days that all private cargo ships were armed) but ONLY permitted a 2 year funding of an army (in the days when every citizen was armed). Why not a standing army?

The Constitution is a contract between the People, the States, and the Republic. It cannot be changed except by the method prescribed in it. What good would a contract be that could be changed without the consent of all the parties involved? It has been changed since it was first written but always by the due process prescribed. That part does not need to be changed! Some more modern thinking tends towards change by one or all the three branches of the federal government through law, orders, or judgments. That's dangerous thinking indeed!

Congress still has to fund the military every two years and that's to meet the Constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 8.

 

[NiteShift]

The following site has a good chart that lets you plot US spending in different categories (defense, health, education) as a percentage of GDP.

www.usgovernmentspending.com

It shows that defense spending was decreasing for decades until the past decade where it started increasing.

Defense spending as a % of GDP has ticked up slightly recently, but it is still lower than it was in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.

During the first Gulf War the US Army had 18 divisions, it is down to 10 I think at this time. The Air Force had 37 tactical air wings, and is down to 20. The trend is obvious.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The trend is obvious.

I agree that the trend is obvious. Increases in defense spending vs GDP in times of war and economic prosperity and decreases in defense spending vs GDP in times of peace and economic recession. This has been the trend, regardless of democratic or republican governance in the US and it continues with the current administration. It is also the right way to use a limited resource, to allocate differently in times of different need.

 

[Dragoon68]

I think it's important to have a well equipped, well trained, well staffed, and - most importantly - ready to fight military force at all times. It's the best deterrent we can put in front of our enemies. We ought to make sure we can always afford it because we cannot afford to be caught without it. We have lots more work to do than we think. We should use our force sparingly but when we do we ought to mean business and do the job without reservation or hesitation or self-flagellation.

 

[Gold Dragon]

please explain to me why the Constitution authorized a standing NAVY (in the days that all private cargo ships were armed) but ONLY permitted a 2 year funding of an army (in the days when every citizen was armed). Why not a standing army?

Congress still has to fund the military every two years and that's to meet the Constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 8.

Here is the actual quote that billwald and Dragoon68 aren't quite hitting the meaning of.

"Article 1. Section 8.
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;..."

It is not saying that the US cannot raise a standing army. It is also not requiring that Congress must fund the military every two years. What it is saying is that funding of that army cannot be given more than two years in advance. An underlying cultural assumption of the founders was that supporting a standing army is expensive and may be less necessary in peace time so funding for that army would require a decision by Congress at a minimum every two years.

Controversial issues may be when military projects longer than two years are planned but since the federal government budgets and assigns money annually for defense (army) which needs to be passed by Congress, this clause is not really an issue anymore.

Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies, is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support

The Founder's Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12
James Madison, Federalist, no. 41, 269--76

§ 1183. It may be admitted, that standing armies may prove dangerous to the state. But it is equally true, that the want of them may also prove dangerous to the state. What then is to be done? The true course is to check the undue exercise of the power, not to withhold it. This the constitution has attempted to do by providing, that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Thus, unless the necessary supplies are voted by the representatives of the people every two years, the whole establishment must fall. Congress may indeed, by an act for this purpose, disband a standing army at any time; or vote the supplies only for one year, or for a shorter period. But the constitution is imperative, that no appropriation shall prospectively reach beyond the biennial period. So that there would seem to be every human security against the possible abuse of the power.

The Founder's Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1174--87

Joseph Story was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court nominated by James Madison in 1811

 

[targus]

I agree that the trend is obvious. Increases in defense spending vs GDP in times of war and economic prosperity and decreases in defense spending vs GDP in times of peace and economic recession.

With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and drone attacks on Pakistan...

You describe this as a time of peace?

 

[billwald]

Not to pay for socialism but to buy votes. For example, Congress is demanding that the Air Force buy new cargo planes that they don't want and can't use.

 

[Dragoon68]

...

"Article 1. Section 8.
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;..."

It is not saying that the US cannot raise a standing army. It is also not requiring that Congress must fund the military every two years. What it is saying is that funding of that army cannot be given more than two years in advance. ...

What? Congress has to fund the military at least every two years or there is no funding for it. That's rather clear to me!

 

[Gold Dragon]

What? Congress has to fund the military at least every two years or there is no funding for it. That's rather clear to me!

Yes you are correct. Your original statement was slightly less clear but now I understand what you meant.

 

[Revmitchell]

What? Congress has to fund the military at least every two years or there is no funding for it. That's rather clear to me!

Aren't you glad an Australian has declared you correct about our constitution

 

[Gold Dragon]

Aren't you glad an Australian has declared you correct about our constitution

Just an FYI that I am a Canadian living in Australia who spent some years of my education in the United States where I learned quite a bit about the U.S. Constitution and own a replica copy of it from those years. I'm surprised it has made it through all the many moves I've had in my life.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just an FYI that I am a Canadian living in Australia who spent some years of my education in the United States where I learned quite a bit about the U.S. Constitution and own a replica copy of it from those years. I'm surprised it has made it through all the many moves I've had in my life.

And?.............