America Not in Decline

[a completely inoffensive name]

~90% growth in spending over a decade is pretty significant.

But not when everything has kept up or surpassed that. My point is that military spending relative to the overall resource allocation in the given time frame has dropped. You have a 6 inch diameter pie and half of it is military. You have an 18 inch diameter pie and 25% of it is military. Yes the second piece of pie is bigger, but it's ratio in respect to the whole pie is a lot smaller, which is what counts when we are talking about the influence of the military lobby not about the size of the military.

Also, don't conflate the federal defense budget with the MIC.

The military budget is at the core of it. Eisenhower shorted the Military-Industrial Complex from the original name he gave it, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Congress is at the heart of it.

A very strange thing to say.

I don't see what is so strange at all.

The MIC itself, as an interest group, is not in a category separate from agribusiness or Big Oil or the AARP, in terms of influence. The military-loving demographics are much stronger in that. I took issue with your claim that the MIC has shrunk, and that military spending has no potential for "runaway" growth.

It has shrunk relative to the overall allocation of Federal spending. Absolute size means nothing when you have already pointed out, that that is due to 50 years of capitalism doing what it does best and not from lobbying.

[Montmorency]

To clarify: I fnd it strange that you consider the expansion of the military budget surrounding the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan a natural result of the growth of the economy. Even stranger, that you believe no one objects to these expenditures.

I never took you for a neo-con, ACIN.

The military budget is at the core of it. Eisenhower shorted the Military-Industrial Complex from the original name he gave it, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Congress is at the heart of it.

Let's say, a distinction between the federal contracts with Boeing and the salaries of Army personnel, for example.

I think you may have simply clumsily wrded a response to a misinterpretation of my post. As I said, I am not presently interested in the influence of the MIC. Take another look at the last few posts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

To clarify: I fnd it strange that you consider the expansion of the military budget surrounding the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan a natural result of the growth of the economy. Even stranger, that you believe no one objects to these expenditures.

You were the one that brought up the fact about the economy growing to negate my point about % of GDP. I was simply basing my points off of what you said. Obviously, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq have inflated the military budget. But now as we see Iraq behind us (more or less) and Afghanistan planned out (end of 2014 we are leaving?) I would think that the 10-15 year period post-9/11 is going to be more of an outlier in an otherwise consistent trend of military spending as a % of our GDP continue to decline even as the Federal budget may (or may not) get bigger over the coming years.

Obviously people don't like this outlier, many haven't since the first months after Iraq when we started to have our "oops" realization. But I was mainly referring to the idea that a department of government has grown in size because we have a larger pie to divide up then we did in the past. I don't think that people have a problem with that kind of scenario playing out, because it's really the percentages that matter because the percentages in a budget more or less tell you what the priorities of a country are.

I never took you for a neo-con, ACIN.

Say it ain't so Monty.

Let's say, a distinction between the federal contracts with Boeing and the salaries of Army personnel, for example.

I think you may have simply clumsily wrded a response to a misinterpretation of my post. As I said, I am not presently interested in the influence of the MIC. Take another look at the last few posts.

I see. We have been talking past each other. Or perhaps, I am talking without reading first. My original point was about the influence of the MIC and how it is overstated using the original chart I posted as proof. You are making a point about the size of it, and you are right in saying it is larger when accounting for inflation and all that today than it was in the past. What I am not picking up from your past posts, is the significance or point behind that statement. If you are not using that fact as a point about the influence of the MIC, where are you going with this information?

[Major Robert Dump]

Very interesting thread. Most of you are wrong.

I can scout property for you guys when I make the Grand Exodus, maybe even keep a room above the garage for Orgahs.