Corporate welfare needs to stop

[Beaker]

(06-12-2015, 06:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Are you really insulting my intelligence after what you wrote about true discussion and mudslinging?  

Nope. I am challenging you to up your game and not resort to the rhetoric. I am saying I know you are actually more intelligent than just parroting phrases. Some in here are likely not.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2015, 08:44 PM)Beaker Wrote: Nope. I am challenging you to up your game and not resort to the rhetoric. I am saying I know you are actually more intelligent than just parroting phrases. Some in here are likely not.

It's not rhetoric if true and used correctly, which it was.

[Yojimbo]

I had no idea Dwight D. Eisenhower was considered a talking head. I thought he was a President and a Supreme Allied Commander during WW2. What time is his show on?

http://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-13-2015, 03:58 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: I had no idea Dwight D. Eisenhower was considered a talking head. I thought he was a President and a Supreme Allied Commander during WW2. What time is his show on?

http://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

Good luck getting folks to take the time away from partisan bickering to watch this.....

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2015, 03:58 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: I had no idea Dwight D. Eisenhower was considered a talking head. I thought he was a President and a Supreme Allied Commander during WW2. What time is his show on?

http://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

He also said we need a giant armaments industry, but that quote seems to always get overlooked.  As is anything else DDE said ever.   One quote is all he gets.

[GMDino]

(06-16-2015, 10:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: He also said we need a giant armaments industry, but that quote seems to always get overlooked.  As is anything else DDE said ever.   One quote is all he gets.

I can't find that one.

But did he mean we needed to be able to produce quickly?  Or we needed to keep producing?

What I did find was this:


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/16/ike-and-generals-how-eisenhower-stood-up-to-his-own-military.html

Quote:Dwight Eisenhower loved the army, in which he served for almost all of his adult life. 


His favorite form of relaxation, after golf, was to sit down for a drink and swap war stories with some old West Point classmates. When he left the White House in 1961, he puzzled his successor, John F. Kennedy, by asking to be returned to his five-star army rank, which meant that in retirement he would be referred to as “General,” not “Mr. President.”


But to know and love the military was not necessarily to trust it, at least when it came to spending money or deciding when to go to war. As president, Eisenhower kept a skeptical eye on “those boys down at the Pentagon,” as he called them. Eisenhower believed in what he called “The Great Equation,” the balance of security and economic needs. Eisenhower knew, from long experience, not the least as Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, that the military was skillful at getting politicians to pay for unnecessary weapons systems by exaggerating the threat.


In 1948, reading an Army G-2 (intelligence) estimate that the Red Army could overrun Western Europe in two weeks, Ike jotted in the margin, “I don’t believe it. My God, we need two months just to overrun Sicily.” Eisenhower is remembered for warning against the “military industrial complex” in his 1961 Farewell Address. Less well understood is that Eisenhower devoted himself to keeping the military industrial complex, as well as the war hawks, under control during his eight-year presidency.


...


As the liberator of Europe in World War II, Eisenhower was enormously popular. Leaders in both political parties—including President Harry Truman—asked him to run for president in 1948 and 1952. Eisenhower, who claimed to dislike politics while excelling at it, understood that the people did not want an authority figure, a man on a white horse. They wanted a military leader who was strong enough to stand up to the Russians—but also to keep them out of war and not bankrupt the country by over spending on defense.


When one of their own became president in 1953, top military leaders hoped they would get what they wanted out of the White House. Military leaders were warning of a “Year of Maximum Danger” in 1954 and demanding more bombers to face the Soviet threat. 

Meeting with congressional leaders in late April, Ike was blunt: “I’m damn tired of Air Force sales programs,” he said. “In 1946, they argued that if we can have seventy [bomber] groups, we’ll guarantee security for ever and ever...Now the Air Force has come up with the “trick figure of 141 [bomber groups]. They sell it. Then you have to abide by it or you're treasonous.”




One senator argued that the Air Force knew better than the politicians how best to measure its needs. “Bunk,” Eisenhower scoffed. He told the senators that he knew the Pentagon “as well as any man living,” and he knew how the people who worked there routinely overstated their case.



Eisenhower was hardly a foe of innovation in weaponry. He knew in the nuclear age that the United States had to build ICBMs. Indeed, he gutted his own service, the army, to find the funds to build bombers and missiles.



...


Ike presided over the creation of an unbeatable triad of submarine and land- and sea-based nuclear missiles and bombers. He approved of the building of bombs of all sizes, including a nuclear bazooka (the Davy Crockett). But Eisenhower kept tight control over the likes of Curtis LeMay, the aggressive cigar-chomping chief of the Strategic Air Command, and he kept everyone, including his closest aides, guessing about whether he would ever use nuclear weapons.


At West Point and as a young army officer, Ike had been a card shark. Indeed, he had to give up poker. He had won the savings of so many of his fellow officers that it was hurting his career.Eisenhower ran a policy of “massive retaliation” threatening nuclear war against any communist aggression. It was all an elaborate bluff. After Eisenhower extricated the United States from the Korean War (partly by hinting he’d use nuclear weapons), Eisenhower never again committed troops to combat.




Eisenhower’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Arthur Radford, had been a World War II aircraft carrier commander who boasted that, in air raids over Japan, “we burned the bastards scientifically.” Several times in 1954-5, Radford, backed by senior administration officials including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, urged Ike to use nuclear weapons against the communists in North Vietnam and Red China, which was menacing America’s National Chinese Allies on the island of Formosa. “It’s high time” to break the Cold War taboo against using nuclear war weapons, argued Radford. 



Ike threatened to use the weapons but never did. He also refused to send ground troops to Vietnam. Eisenhower was determined to avoid any war. He believed that war is a mutating monster, that small wars become big wars, that only naïve politicians placed their faith in “limited wars.”

It continues on for a bit longer.  But it seems DDE knew war was hell...and expensive.  And he was intent on streaming and improving the US military...but not funding an industry.

[GMDino]

One more quote from the link above:

Quote:Eisenhower would periodically sigh to his staff secretary, General Andrew Goodpaster, “God help the nation when it has a president who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.”

The warning was not idle. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were politicians who believed in compromise and half-way measures, which they translated into warfare with words like “flexible response,” “surgical strikes,” and “gradual escalation.” The result was America’s descent into the Vietnam War.

Eisenhower, who had run a total war in Europe, was an all-or-nothing man. He warned JFK and LBJ to go all-in or get out of Vietnam. They did not listen. Eisenhower, who as a patriot believed in civilian control and in supporting the presidency (and who was cranky about long-haired anti-war protesters), gave his public support to both presidents. Privately, he was skeptical.

[*michaelsean*]

It's in the same speech.

Quote: A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

He warns on the heels of acknowledging its necessity.

[GMDino]

(06-16-2015, 11:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's in the same speech.


He warns on the heels of acknowledging its necessity.

Ok.  But you can see the difference between a man who knew and understood the military advancing newer weapons while controlling spending vs the current climate of saying if you cut the defense budget you hate America.  Thus funding the military industrial complex he also spoke of.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-16-2015, 11:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: Ok.  But you can see the difference between a man who knew and understood the military advancing newer weapons while controlling spending vs the current climate of saying if you cut the defense budget you hate America.  Thus funding the military industrial complex he also spoke of.

Well there are always extremes, but people try to make it like he was against an armaments industry when what he was saying, as you would say with anything of that magnitude, is be careful and responsible.  The speech continues with warnings of influence, and I agree, I just think people use one line to misrepresent an entire thought process.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-16-2015, 11:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: Ok.  But you can see the difference between a man who knew and understood the military advancing newer weapons while controlling spending vs the current climate of saying if you cut the defense budget you hate America.  Thus funding the military industrial complex he also spoke of.

Yes, I think this summed it quite well.......


"Meeting with congressional leaders in late April, Ike was blunt: “I’m damn tired of Air Force sales programs,” he said. “In 1946, they argued that if we can have seventy [bomber] groups, we’ll guarantee security for ever and ever...Now the Air Force has come up with the “trick figure of 141 [bomber groups]. They sell it. Then you have to abide by it or you're treasonous.”"

[GMDino]

(06-16-2015, 11:33 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well there are always extremes, but people try to make it like he was against an armaments industry when what he was saying, as you would say with anything of that magnitude, is be careful and responsible.  The speech continues with warnings of influence, and I agree, I just think people use one line to misrepresent an entire thought process.

Perhaps it gets oversimplified, but that is the gist of it:  We need a military..we don't need an industry that is fed by the government to have it at its best.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-16-2015, 11:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: Perhaps it gets oversimplified, but that is the gist of it:  We need a military..we don't need an industry that is fed by the government to have it at its best.

No he says we do need that industry. 

[GMDino]

(06-16-2015, 11:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No he says we do need that industry. 

Yes...but not one that can do whatever it wants.  Thus his mention of Air Force Sales Program.

We need a military and the ability to sustain it...not an industry fed by the government.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-16-2015, 12:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes...but not one that can do whatever it wants.  Thus his mention of Air Force Sales Program.

We need a military and the ability to sustain it...not an industry fed by the government.

I don't know what you mean by industry fed by the government.  He says we need the industry, and obviously it's the government that will be paying for it.  

[fredtoast]

(06-16-2015, 12:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know what you mean by industry fed by the government. 

Go back and look at the OP.  The United States just gave Vietnam $18 million of U S taxpayer money to purchase military weapons from a private U S company.

But maybe this quote will make the game much clearer to you


In terms of total money received, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of military assistance from the United States between 2002 and 2011 Israel received $30 billion of US foreign aid, of which nearly 75% was used to purchase U.S. defense equipment from American companies.

 In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten-year period (starting at $2.550 billion for 2008, growing by $150 million each year).  [/font]The package started in October 2008, when regular aid to Israel's economy ended.[/color]  Officials have insisted the aid is not tied, or meant to balance, simultaneous American plans to sell $20 billion worth of sophisticated arms to its Arab allies in the region, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia


Basically our government takes our tax money and gives it to other countries to buy weapons from private U S companies, and we maximize profits by selling weapons TO BOTH SIDES AT THE SAME TIME

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-17-2015, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Go back and look at the OP.  The United States just gave Vietnam $18 million of U S taxpayer money to purchase military weapons from a private U S company.

But maybe this quote will make the game much clearer to you


In terms of total money received, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of military assistance from the United States between 2002 and 2011 Israel received $30 billion of US foreign aid, of which nearly 75% was used to purchase U.S. defense equipment from American companies.

 In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten-year period (starting at $2.550 billion for 2008, growing by $150 million each year).  [/font]The package started in October 2008, when regular aid to Israel's economy ended.[/color]  Officials have insisted the aid is not tied, or meant to balance, simultaneous American plans to sell $20 billion worth of sophisticated arms to its Arab allies in the region, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia


Basically our government takes our tax money and gives it to other countries to buy weapons from private U S companies, and we maximize profits by selling weapons TO BOTH SIDES AT THE SAME TIME

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah!!!!!  Get that man a cigar!!!!!!!

[*michaelsean*]

(06-17-2015, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Go back and look at the OP.  The United States just gave Vietnam $18 million of U S taxpayer money to purchase military weapons from a private U S company.

But maybe this quote will make the game much clearer to you


In terms of total money received, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of military assistance from the United States between 2002 and 2011 Israel received $30 billion of US foreign aid, of which nearly 75% was used to purchase U.S. defense equipment from American companies.

 In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten-year period (starting at $2.550 billion for 2008, growing by $150 million each year).  [/font]The package started in October 2008, when regular aid to Israel's economy ended.[/color]  Officials have insisted the aid is not tied, or meant to balance, simultaneous American plans to sell $20 billion worth of sophisticated arms to its Arab allies in the region, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia


Basically our government takes our tax money and gives it to other countries to buy weapons from private U S companies, and we maximize profits by selling weapons TO BOTH SIDES AT THE SAME TIME

This is a particular instance where we can disagree with what they are doing, but in the context of Eisenhower, who says we do need an armaments industry, who else is going to do the paying?    Dino said "an industry fed by the government".  

[Bilbo Saggins]

(06-12-2015, 02:48 PM)Beaker Wrote: I don't know you too well, but I know fred pretty good. Fred and I agree on some things, don't agree on many others, but generally have a healthy respect for one another. I know fred is a fairly intelligent poster. And I know fred looks deeper at many issues than most. In fact, he is one of the few who I do think loos at the info and draws his own conclusions. What I am asking him (and others) to do is SOUND as intelligent as you are in your posts. When you use rhetorical terms such as "weathy elite", "big corporations", "military industrial complex" and others, it make you sound like the idiots who just parrot back what they hear the talking heads say on the news magazine programs. Now I know fred will get what I am saying/asking. It remains to be seen if you do.

The problem that I had with your criticism of certain terms was that they were terms commonly used to describe a particular world view. Implying that everyone who uses said terms "didn't think for themselves" seemed like you were slamming that particular train of thought rather than critiquing the use of hackneyed political phrases. It'd be different had you criticized all hackneyed terms that people throw around in order to enhance clarity of discussion but that wasn't how it came off at all. My apologies if I had somehow misinterpreted the angle that you were coming from.

[GMDino]

(06-17-2015, 03:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: This is a particular instance where we can disagree with what they are doing, but in the context of Eisenhower, who says we do need an armaments industry, who else is going to do the paying?    Dino said "an industry fed by the government".  

Yes.  Tax money goes to build weapons.

Allow me to clarify.

We now have an industry that is raping the government of our tax money and larger and larger levels for their own profit.  We have exactly what DDE warned about.  Money going to build things even the military leaders don't want...but that the INDUSTRY people lobby for in order to fill their own coffers.

We have an INDUSTRY being fed by the government....not the government funding a the military.