Got To Pay For Socialism

>Our constitution gives room for defense spending.

Would of you people who believe that the Constitution should be frozen in time and understood exactly the same as it was understood 210 years ago please explain to me why the Constitution authorized a standing NAVY (in the days that all private cargo ships were armed) but ONLY permitted a 2 year funding of an army (in the days when every citizen was armed). Why not a standing army?

 

I think it is great that you continue to work with homeless and Navajo people. May God continue working through you there.

Regarding the failure of federal programs to meet those needs, I agree with you that sometimes federal programs don't work. The solution is not always to end those programs but sometimes it is. At the same time, there are also many federal programs that do work and need funding to work better.

I've seen some aboriginal Australian and Canadian programs that have worked and others that haven't. I've seen some that are federally funded and some that are not. The work is difficult, complex and full of potential pitfalls. The ones that don't work seem to be because they do not have the support of the aboriginal community in terms of ownership. An external entity (federal or not) coming in to tell them what their problems are and how to fix them doesn't get a lot of cooperation from the community and is doomed to fail. Ultimately, successful programs usually involve some sources of federal funding because it is difficult to obtain resources to maintain the program otherwise. But initiation of successful efforts needs ownership from the community it is trying to reach.

 

I admire you for it Rev. It is more than most of us have ever done.

 

As a percentage of GDP, our defense spending has been going down for decades.

 

Probably need a better chart to understand that chart:



Just as a note: your chart (the above one, not mine) is not a good one. It shows "estimated" defense spending in 2009 dollars as percent of GDP (which isn't a good measure here) through 2014 but does not apply it backwards.

 

It appears your chart is in $$, not as a percentage of total GDP. Yep, everything has gone up if you look at in terms of dollars spent. The same would be true for home prices, groceries, new cars etc.

 

The following site has a good chart that lets you plot US spending in different categories (defense, health, education) as a percentage of GDP.

www.usgovernmentspending.com

It shows that defense spending was decreasing for decades until the past decade where it started increasing.

 

Two things:

1. There is not enough money to be collected to provide for all those who are not productive.

2. I have no knowledge of the founding of Australia but this country's constitution does not provide for or allow for fed programs to do such. State constitutions may or may not but it all should be handled as local as possible. That is the founding of this country and what our Constitution says.

 

Defense spending as a % of GDP has ticked up slightly recently, but it is still lower than it was in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.

During the first Gulf War the US Army had 18 divisions, it is down to 10 I think at this time. The Air Force had 37 tactical air wings, and is down to 20. The trend is obvious.

 

I agree that the trend is obvious. Increases in defense spending vs GDP in times of war and economic prosperity and decreases in defense spending vs GDP in times of peace and economic recession. This has been the trend, regardless of democratic or republican governance in the US and it continues with the current administration. It is also the right way to use a limited resource, to allocate differently in times of different need.

 

Here is the actual quote that billwald and Dragoon68 aren't quite hitting the meaning of.

"Article 1. Section 8.
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;..."

It is not saying that the US cannot raise a standing army. It is also not requiring that Congress must fund the military every two years. What it is saying is that funding of that army cannot be given more than two years in advance. An underlying cultural assumption of the founders was that supporting a standing army is expensive and may be less necessary in peace time so funding for that army would require a decision by Congress at a minimum every two years.

Controversial issues may be when military projects longer than two years are planned but since the federal government budgets and assigns money annually for defense (army) which needs to be passed by Congress, this clause is not really an issue anymore.

Joseph Story was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court nominated by James Madison in 1811

 

With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and drone attacks on Pakistan...

You describe this as a time of peace?

 

Not to pay for socialism but to buy votes. For example, Congress is demanding that the Air Force buy new cargo planes that they don't want and can't use.

 

Yes you are correct. Your original statement was slightly less clear but now I understand what you meant.

 

Aren't you glad an Australian has declared you correct about our constitution

 

Just an FYI that I am a Canadian living in Australia who spent some years of my education in the United States where I learned quite a bit about the U.S. Constitution and own a replica copy of it from those years. I'm surprised it has made it through all the many moves I've had in my life.

 

And?.............