Are Americans Comfortable With The Military-Industrial Complex?

[Exarch]

back in 1961;


are you comfortable with an unelected elite group in society having more or a say in government than your average mainstreet person? cuz i'm not seeing much Change or motions to check corporate power over Politics, i'm seeing a lot of outrage and protest over xyz arms industry corp making billions out of taxpayer monies but i'm not seeing much actual Change.

so let me ask you, are you, (or in case you dont believe a military industrial complex exists) or would you be comfortable with a military industrial complex in the USA?

why? why not? what then?

[Viking Prince]

First -- there have always been and always will be some unelected members of society that will have more say on governement policy than the masses. This is not really special with defense manufacturing interests.

Second -- the alternative to a mix of corporate defense contractors and the government military would be for the government to do the work internally. At least with the current citizens participating via the corporations not all of the people involved are unelected government bureaucrats.

Third -- it is not really a question of whether it should or should not exist (or as you put the question on whether we should or should not be comforatble with the idea of MIC). A democratic process is always at risk of unwarranted influence by concentrated interests. Look at the concentrated interests and the current Healthcare reforms. This is why the populace needs to be alert and knowledgable for democracy to work at its best. On this matter of an alert and knowledgable populace -- we will always need to strive for improvement.

[Phier]

Lets see

Richest nation (for the time being). - check
Strongest military. - check

Ok now the cons.

......

Ok I'm failing to see the cons.

[Problem Sleuth]

While military expenditures are bigger than the 50's, it's much smaller as a percentage of GDP. While we should be wary of it, the impact of the military-industrial complex is smaller than in Eisenhower's day.

[Dr. Croccer]

Lets see

Richest nation (for the time being). - check
Strongest military. - check

Ok now the cons.

......

Ok I'm failing to see the cons.

-Impoverished population
-massive inequality
-Authoritarian corporations have more influence over the govenment than the general populance
-fragile and stagnant economy
-low social mobility

Hey, it's a fair deal for having the ability to :wub: over the fact that you have the largest single military (well, apart from China and the possible future EU one), right?

[Phier]

-Impoverished population

Where?

-massive inequality

Where?

-Authoritarian corporations have more influence over the govenment than the general populance

The general population isn't all that smart, and still get the final say every couple of years.

-fragile and stagnant economy

Where? Even in the 'crap' economy we are still better than most any other place.

-low social mobility

Now you are just messing with me.

Hey, it's a fair deal for having the ability to :wub: over the fact that you have the largest single military (well, apart from China and the possible future EU one), right?

Oh you WERE talking about the US? This is in some alternate reality right?

[Dr. Croccer]

Where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_belt

Where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

The general population isn't all that smart, and still get the final say every couple of years.

Yeah, they get to choose between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.

Where? Even in the 'crap' economy we are still better than most any other place.

Medicaid and Medicare's costs are going to balloon to the point that they will most likely compose 50% of US expenditure by 2050. Add the difficult status of SS. The US won't be able to sustain itself

Now you are just messing with me.

[xcorps]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_belt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States
Yeah, they get to choose between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.
Medicaid and Medicare's costs are going to balloon to the point that they will most likely compose 50% of US expenditure by 2050. Add the difficult status of SS. The US won't be able to sustain itself

No doubt the writer of those two wiki's has a slippery grasp on the reality of America.

So explain to us how leftist entitlement programs are related somehow to the military industrial complex?
Perhaps because those leftist entitlements do more harm than the MIC?


OP:
Do a bit of research Here and then tell me who has more influence...corporations or unions/lawyers.

[Desperado †]

Where?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eport_2009.png

How many times must I post this.

[Phier]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eport_2009.png

How many times must I post this.

Never do again as its pretty silly, I would think the problems with it should be obvious even to a communist.

[Tiberius Tosi]

-Impoverished population
-massive inequality
-Authoritarian corporations have more influence over the govenment than the general populance
-fragile and stagnant economy
-low social mobility

Hey, it's a fair deal for having the ability to :wub: over the fact that you have the largest single military (well, apart from China and the possible future EU one), right?

Strange because when military spending is the highest in relation to the GDP, the US seems to grow the most. I am not saying there is a correlation, just that there is no correlation whatsoever in the opposite direction as you propose, in that it does not slow down the economy etc etc.



Exclude WWII for unusual circumstances (even though the economy was much better then than the previous decade lol), the 1950's to 1970 saw great growth, and you may notice spending is higher there in relation to GDP than any other time excluding WWII. Now, in the 1970's there was a recession, and the economy as a whole slowed, military spending decreased during this time not because of that but because of withdrawal from Vietnam and a slowdown in production for various other reasons. The 1980's were again quite prosperous(excluding early part, but even that recession was more of a regional thing and not so national, which you may notice anyways has lower military spending than the rest of the 80's). Remember this is in relation to GDP, so as a percentage the military spending even during a recession should not be that much lower GDP wise, as the GDP as well would be lower as is the military spending in actual dollar amounts. Does this prove that military spending causes growth? Somewhat (a big case in the 1950's where it actually did), but mostly that it did not, as you claim, slow growth, impoverish the population, or stagnate the economy. In fact, if anything, the general trend is that it did the opposite.


Also numbers don't matter with an army, I would like to see China try to field its entire army, it could not do so logistically. Superior weapons, logistics, intelligence, etc are far more important than numbers, so no we do not drool over the size of our military and think it makes or dicks bigger.

[Chukada1]

Lets see

Richest nation (for the time being). - check
Strongest military. - check

Ok now the cons.

......

Ok I'm failing to see the cons.

Korean War, Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs, Iraq War...

?????????????????????????????

How is the strongest military a pro? Who the hell cares? What does the military industrial complex have to do with America having the largest economy?

[Nevins]

Korean War, Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs, Iraq War...

?????????????????????????????

How is the strongest military a pro? Who the hell cares? What does the military industrial complex have to do with America having the largest economy?

Because the MI complex has been responsible for funding countless technological breakthroughs that have profoundly affected the civilian world, not to mention aiding the US's universities.

[Last Roman]

Lets see

Richest nation (for the time being). - check
Strongest military. - check

Ok now the cons.

......

Ok I'm failing to see the cons.

war becomes a means for profit, rather than tool for survival or just cause.

Modern war most definitely can be prosecuted without a military industrial complex.

However, a world wide hegemonic superpower cannot maintain control over all its material/resource interests around the world without a military industrial complex.

bingo.

[Boyar Son]

So i either trust the industrial military complex or a bunch of plane crashing brick throwing rednecks who unfortunately have the right to vote?

hmm

[Bleda]

So i either trust the industrial military complex or a bunch of plane crashing brick throwing rednecks who unfortunately have the right to vote?

hmm

let the trolling begin

[Caelius]

Uh, how many times must it be said the words percentages of GDP and only don't belong together.

How about an increasingly huge chunk out of the federal-budget being spend on this "part of the economy", mounting up to todays 30+%.

Uh....yes they do. Dramatically so.

People who mention the larger percentage of money spent on defense vis a vis the Federal Budget don't know what they're talking about, and are just trying to make a bigger imaginary spectacle.


The total US Economy for FY 2009 was 14.26 Trillion Dollars.

The US Federal Budget derived from that economy for FY 2009 was 3.5 Trillion Dollars.

Which is larger again? Or more important?

The GDP metric is far more accurate in terms of measuring the amount of money delegated to defense than the immensely more complex Federal Budgetary process.

One of the reasons it takes up such a large part is because defense spending is the largest sum of the Federal Government's discretionary spending process, and is able to get past Congress faster than many other programs because of the Pentagon and Congressional Armed Services Committees being more draconian in hammering out what things to spend money on for the next year.

[Farnan]

A little context is required.

During his presidency he had a conflict foreign policy wise with some of his military leaders. The military leaders believed the US should respond conventionally to Soviet/Communist actions against US interests, while Eisenhower believed that the US should threaten nuclear action.

[Thorn777]

Its also structural corporate welfare and only undermining your democratic process by its inherently corrupting structure.

[Exarch]

Its also structural corporate welfare and only undermining your democratic process by its inherently corrupting structure.

DING!DING!DING!

thank you thorn for outlining the crux of this thread;

the military-industrial complex is by its very definition, inherently undemocratic and cronyish;

(is someone going to accuse me of being a communist because i just used long words like in that other thread lol?)