Defense consultant: "You will definitely need some sort of new threat in order for" Pentagon budget

[Report1212]

If the sequester goes into effect on January 1st, we will see over time a $500 billion reduction in security spending (which includes the Pentagon and State Department).

Defense lobbyists are increasingly worried about these cuts. In Politico this morning, one defense consultant said that we’d need “you will definitely need some sort of new threat in order for” the downward trend in defense spending to “stop.”

But Americans should not fear a significant reduction in military spending. Remember that Pentagon spending is the largest portion of discretionary spending, and that the United States spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.

Read more: http://boldprogressives.org/bipartisan-military-experts-actually-want-twice-the-level-of-defense-cuts-that-are-in-the-sequester/

[TwilightGardener]

1. Calling PNAC. Calling PNAC. Time for yet another Pearl Harbor.

Arooooo-ga! Arooooo-ga! What will it be this time?

[SalviaBlue]

5. Exactly ^

[liberal N proud]

2. In other words, they will be looking for a new terror threat or even attack to keep their precious $$

The military industrial complex in this country is a very dangerous thing.

[formercia]

3. The 'Boys' will conjure up another Bogey Man to ensure a constant flow at the Government Teat.

"You can take that to the Bank." as Junior once said.

[byeya]

4. This has been going on since the end of WW2. The Tories in the UK and the two parties here

realized that only by keeping the population in continual fright would they - those who control the political economy - be able to get more than their fair share of the wealth. It's been more difficult since the USSR broke apart but they've managed to do it to us and things are more unbalanced than ever and the media is more in the pocket of the wealthy and power hungry then ever.
(Right after the bombs fell on the two cities in Japan, several major dailies in the USA published a map of how such blasts would affect Moscow. The bomb's destruction was superimposed over a map of our ally, the USSR)

Don't forget that one of the largest public demonstrations in Times Square took place to celebrate the fall of Paris to the Nazis.

[Rex]

6. What? The never ending war in Afghanistan ain't enough

blood money for these parasites?

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Oh, Hell no. We need some Iran action.

That should bring in China & maybe Russia, & should keep the game going for another 3 decades at least.

[Rex]

8. True, you know they miss communism and the Red Menace.

All those trillions wasted on nuclear duds. They pine for the Cold War days.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. The DOD told President Obama to tell the people the next threat is

[Wilms]

10. ^

[A HERETIC I AM]

11. "Downward Trend"?!? What bleedin' downward trend?

The Money we spend on war making capability is the monster that can just not be satisfied.

I've said this before, but why, oh WHY won't the right wing just fucking ADMIT that defense spending is just a giant jobs program?

Because that's what it is.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Nice Catch!

Of course, you know the answer will be "the rate of increase has slowed". Which of course, it should have slowed long ago. It should be going down not just going up by the change in the value of money.

Even with the argument we both know we'll hear, there is no reason for the budget to be that high. The tricky part is that we have tied the expenditure to the private sector (defense contractors) into GDP so tightly that cuts there will have a negative macroeconomic impact.

Maybe not a great thing, but more survivable than spending defense money on materiel we don't need.
GAC

[Scuba]

12. Military spending IS the threat.

[bemildred]

13. +1. Militarism has done us great harm already. nt