SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (92509)9/3/2018 6:17:15 PM
From: Sam1 Recommendation

Recommended By
bentway

  Read Replies (1) of 362700
 
Certainly we need something. And corporations providing it, conceptually speaking, are suppliers, not welfare recipients.

Many times when the military tries to cut a military program or a base, saying it isn't needed, Congress rebels. All the bases and programs that are in "my" district are needed!

And when Congress tries to tell the military to do more with less (as they did with the sequester), the military rebels. Somehow, the nation survived.

The military-industrial complex is a very strange phenomenon. Maybe the term "corporate welfare" doesn't describe it properly. But it is something akin to that, even if at the same time it is sui generis. Except it is even more insidious than run of the mill welfare due to the incredible amount of money that keeps it going.

Back in the 18th century when the Constitution was being debated, the Antifederalists were adamantly opposed to having a standing army. One of their main reasons was that it would always be a temptation for the president or the Congress to use it if it existed. It would be too easy, it should be harder to go to war, the public should be supportive enough to send their sons to fight.

They had a good point.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext