I’m sure glad we’ve got all those green jobs for those who will lose their defense jobs.

While Obama dramatically borrows money the government doesn’t have to give away to his cronies (e.g. ACORN, etc) the only place he’s cutting spending is in our ultimate safety net–the military. Thousands of young men and women will lose their jobs and opportunities in the armed services. And at the same time, we will be at a higher risk of terrorism and far less safe from tryants and extremists who want to see our country’s demise.

Defense spending should be about defending the nation and the safety and security of our armed forces personel; not about job creation or campaign contributions.

There is tremendous waste in the Pentagon budget just as all other areas of the bloated federal bureaucracy. But, as the social engineers usurp more powers from the states and people to enforce their health, education, welfare, and immigration agenda, defense from external enemies will soon be moot.

In little more than a generation the United States of America has been replaced by the Great Society of America. Government, like fire, can be wonderful when contained and a disaster when out of control. As the math and human nature catch up with the unconstitutional federal activities and excesses the USA will collapse from within. Study the history. Do the math.

We have military “manpower” in more than 100 countries throughout the world. Why? And which additional countries are you planning to send the new “manpower” to? There is no evidence to support these massive expenditures in money or lives do anything to improve our lives. While Mr. Bush was president, the PD slammed, and rightfully so, increased military expenditures (including the proposed 4% increase). Now they see some benefit to the increase in spending and haven’t even questioned where the new manpower will go. One place it will not be is in your hometown building something of value that he or she can then sell to someone else that will improve the lives of everyone around.

Military spending is the definition of waste, though sometimes that spending is necessary to prevent greater waste. But sending hundreds of thousands of our men and women overseas to hundreds of different countries is simply absurd — and sending more of them is even more absurd.

I would rather defend against falling bridges in Minnesota than building over-priced Haliburton compounds in Bahgdad.

Editorial Board,
Your picture of the Future Combat System vehicle… ya, no so much. You have a M109A6 PIM pictured. M109A6 PIM has ZERO to do with FCS. What you have pictured is the Army’s current SP Fire Support 155mm system. Way to go.

Garrison,

Do you believe government has the right to conscript your earnings to pay for the overpriced Haliburton compounds in Baghdad? I’m just wondering because you say you would rather defend falling bridges in the US than the Haliburton compounds. It sounds like you would still be willing to defend taxation for that purpose.

Just trying to clarify.

Mr. Deal,
I tell my children after we pay our bills we’ll decide how much ice-cream we need.

Is that a yes? It seems so.

Do you allow your children to vote on how to best spend the Garrison collective’s money? And are you leaving them with $40K of debt each after you’re gone?

I suppose you put no limits on government power if they can take from you whatever they think is a ”bill” and then even more for the ”ice cream” if they feel that is necessary.

Building weapons systems is not, and should not, be a jobs program. One wonders, what would the nation’s employment picture look like if we weren’t spending however many hundreds of billions of dollars a year on weapons? What if Martin Marietta, Lockheed, Boeing, etc. all had to make it in the civilian sector as their primary source of corporate income?