About time too.
Whether or not America's politicians can find a way to sidestep the brutal automatic military cuts of sequestration, the era of rising Western spending on weapons and wars is over. link
Discuss.
Important Notes
Alumni
Search
Blogroll
- bastard.logic
- Daniel Larison
- Attempts
- Balkinization
- Balloon Juice
- Benjamin David Steele
- Brad DeLong
- Cato-at-liberty
- Charlie Pierce
- cleek
- Crooked Timber
- Daily Kos
- Debate Link
- Down With Tyranny!
- Edge of the American West
- Eschaton
- Ezra Klein
- Feministe
- Gin and Tacos
- Hit & Run
- Hullabaloo
- Juan Cole
- Juanita Jean
- Kevin Drum
- Lawyers, Guns and Money
- Mark Kleiman
- Matthew Yglesias
- Maxspeak
- Mercury Rising
- Michael Cain's Random Policy
- Mightygodking
- Mike the Mad Biologist
- Orcinus
- Paul Krugman
- Pharyngula
- Philosophy, et cetera
- Radley Balko
- Rogue Columnist
- Sadly, No!
- Shakesville
- Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Talking Points Memo
- TAPPED
- The Sideshow
- The Weekly Sift
- Fafblog (on twitter)
- Unfogged
- Washington Monthly
« your price of gas open friday thread | Main | Jefferson's myth of yeoman America »
October 14, 2012
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Andrew Olmsted
Recent Comments
- wj on ## days since the last travesty!
- russell on ## days since the last travesty!
- GftNC on ## days since the last travesty!
- nous on ## days since the last travesty!
- novakant on ## days since the last travesty!
- russell on ## days since the last travesty!
- nous on ## days since the last travesty!
- Pro Bono on ## days since the last travesty!
- wj on ## days since the last travesty!
- Donald on ## days since the last travesty!
delusional
Posted by: cleek | October 14, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Or at least wildly optimistic. At the very most, the era might be argued to be winding down. But "over"? Maybe they should check out the Romney proposals on the military budget and on foreign policy. Those policies may be financially insaane and economically disasterous respectively. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be implemented in an entirely possible adminimstration.
Posted by: wj | October 14, 2012 at 01:44 PM
...the era of rising Western spending on weapons and wars is over.
I'm sorry. Does this bespeak of some kind of problem?
Posted by: bobbyp | October 14, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Well, this was a quickie kind of post, so all the caveats are true, but it was nice to see something saying it in black and white rather than having it just be a DFH complaining about it. Especially the title
I'd like to think that because it was an immense amount of money chasing solutions, we had a situation where there was an urge to find problems in order to throw money at them.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 14, 2012 at 06:48 PM
that'll be the day. lol.in the meanwhile i'll hold my breath. the day they cut spending for the military, sequestration or not, is the day they have a bake sale for a nuclear submarine.
lol. nice thought, but those that got, the MIC, will never ever give up a dime. that is what cutting Medicare and Social Security is for, to make up the difference should there ever be "more" money needed for defense.
with 435 districts as part of the MIC, the howls of injustice and cries of such abject penury will be more than enough to atone for any such "sequestration" thoughts, much less cuts to the MIC.
Posted by: Bernard | October 14, 2012 at 08:22 PM
On the contrary, I would assume that in the near future there is going to be a substantial spike in military spending in the Western world.
Since 1991 there has been basically no enemy for the West to defend itself against. Despite this fact, the West has continued to expand its military spending. Now there is the possibility of a Chinese enemy, together with the growing hostility of much of the world to Western control of their territory. At the moment a lot of these wars are being fought with mercenaries (as in Somalia) but this isn't going to last forever.
Posted by: The Creator | October 16, 2012 at 05:04 AM