We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by gq
by gq 1372 days ago  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Fred Wilson: US Deficit Reduction
Why nobody is willing to touch the military spending? No politician even talks about it publicly. Cutting the military spending will benefit US both politicly and financially. I doubt there will be any social security money left for us after the baby boomers eat it up. :(

by ecib 1371 days ago  ·  link
I think it has everything to do with politics. The conservatives paint themselves as the party that is pro-military and strong on the defense of the country. They constantly paint the Left as weak on national security. They have basically painted themselves in a corner, as this is one of their main lines of political attack against the Left, spanning multiple administrations.

And the left won't do it, because they know that they are perceived as weaker on defense, so they try to overcompensate and move way towards the Right when they are in positions of influence and decision making.

The first party that significantly goes after military spending will be pounced on by the other party and dragged over the coals in front of the American public, even if those lighting the fire know damn well that cutting military spending makes all kinds of sense.

Then, besides all of that, there are the usual dynamics of just having a very powerful special interest lobby with tons of money and government contracts completely entrenched in the system.

by gq 1370 days ago  ·  link
I understand that democrats try to act pro-military during the campaign. What is frustrating is that Obama's administration still avoids this issue even after their political position is secure post election.

They neither have achieved anything beneficial to the US from Afghanistan war, nor did it make Afghanis more secure. It just seemed to be a repetition to the Iraqi war.

Nobody can win in the war on terror, because it is not a traditional war, and the enemies scatter among the civilians. The American government should exit the war on terror, but of course they need a clever political strategy to convince the public.

Anyhow, the government just needs to stir the fear of people's personal financial situation over the fear of the national security. They need to get their message across. Obama is not too good at it.

by ecib 1370 days ago  ·  link
>What is frustrating is that Obama's administration still avoids this issue even after their political position is secure post election.

His position is secure, but all of the House and Senate Democrats are not. Even if he took on the military spending, his own party will vote according to their own political interest. The Democrats will not author or vote to support controversial legislation, and even if it did, the Senate would not vote to enact it. President Obama actually has very little say in the matter. Also, even if he supported reigning it in, Conservatives would jump on his statements and paint all Democrats as weak on defense (even if they privately agree with the Dems). It's really kind of sad.

by gq 1370 days ago  ·  link
Every two years there is an election, so does that mean this issue will never be resolved? The government needs to focus on convincing the public first, then they can take care of the rest. This article made me worried about my retirement, and my financial situation. I hold this above the "national security", is this wrong? I bet there are more people out there like me.
by ecib 1369 days ago  ·  link
>The government needs to focus on convincing the public first, then they can take care of the rest.

Yeah, but as soon as you try and convince the public of something, you're taking a stand. The Dems know that if they do that they are opening themselves up to political attack from the Republicans. I'm sure they'd love to do what they feel is right on this and a number of issues, they just don't want to do that if it means they might have to get a new job in a couple years. Their integrity only runs so deep. Same goes for the Repubs.

>This article made me worried about my retirement, and my financial situation.

Oh no! I wouldn't get too worked up about it. If the situation gets too bad they'll do something, they'll just wait until the people wise up and get so angry about the issue that they start voting them out. Right now though, there are too many people susceptible to having the 'national defense' card played on them.

Collectively, as a people, we get what we put into our Democracy. As it stands, Americans say they care about corruption, and out of control spending, but in reality they really don't. They don't take the time to educate themselves about the issues, we'd rather watch American Idol or something. We're lazy and uninformed, and because of that we allow corrupt people to govern us. I'll say this though, even if Americans took voting more seriously, we'd still have a tough time fighting through all of the lies, spin, propaganda, and money that the special interest groups and lobbyists are throwing at our representatives and at us through the media. It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans vote against their own interest...