By Andy Rooney
Andy Looney seems to be taking the Eisenhower quote out of context. Eisenhower was primarily worried about the exercise of power, not the need for building and maintaining the military-industrial complex.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| 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. |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. |
ksdb - it’s hard to take you seriously sometimes. You’ve done exactly what you accuse Rooney of doing, i.e., you either mistakenly or deliberately left out the most important sentence in that paragraph - see bold below. Ike was indeed warning us on the military-industrial complex & Rooney interpreted Ike’s statements correctly.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| 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. 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. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. |
The part you quoted (and put in bold) reinforces what I already mentioned above: that Eisenhower warned about the exercise of power. Now explain what Eisenhower meant when he said the need for development is imperative.
Let’s look at it again. Please read these paragraphs carefully.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| 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. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. |
Eisenhower was acknowledging that we need a strong military and that it was new to our society (because of WWII). BUT he was warning us in the last 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph, and the following paragraph, about the consequences. Eisenhower wasn’t separating the “development” from the abuse, like you seem to be doing.
In the 3rd paragraph, he was saying something that TomS et others saying all along, i.e., that we need educated people who can see through the BS.
Back to the original post, Rooney was saying that our military has grown too large, and Ike warned us right in this speech that this could happen, and it has happened.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 04 2005,16:02) |
| Let’s look at it again. Please read these paragraphs carefully. Eisenhower was acknowledging that we need a strong military and that it was new to our society (because of WWII). BUT he was warning us in the last 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph, and the following paragraph, about the consequences. Eisenhower wasn’t separating the “development” from the abuse, like you seem to be doing. |
What consequences does Eisenhower list?? Where does he mention health care or emergency services as a consequence like Rooney claims??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 04 2005,16:02) |
| In the 3rd paragraph, he was saying something that TomS et others saying all along, i.e., that we need educated people who can see through the BS. |
Speaking of BS, do you suppose Eisenhower had you guys in mind when he warned of this in the same speech??
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. |
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 04 2005,16:02) |
| Back to the original post, Rooney was saying that our military has grown too large, and Ike warned us right in this speech that this could happen, and it has happened. |
Where does Eisenhower say that the military is becoming too large. He mentions in the speech that there were 3 and half million working in the defense establishment at the time. Current figures are about 1.6 million. Is that too large??
I’m sorry but it’s not worth discussing this or anything with you at all.
Did Andy Looney tell us the miltary spending at its lowest during Ike’s presidency was about 9 percent of the GDP while this year’s defense spending is less than 4 percent?? Is that too much military spending??
In the early 1960s (Kennedy and Johnson administrations), roughly 40 percent of the defense budget went for procurement, research and development. Today it’s about 30 percent of the defense budget. Is that too much spending today on the military-industrial-congressional complex??
For all reading this, don’t be fooled by the % of GDP discussion - it’s the same strategy that Republicans use to say that the deficit is OK. But even more importantly, talking about GDP is really irrelevant to this discussion, so don’t be fooled by the attempts to change the subject - that’s a typical right-wing tactic.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 04 2005,17:55) |
| For all reading this, don’t be fooled by the % of GDP discussion - it’s the same strategy that Republicans use to say that the deficit is OK. But even more importantly, talking about GDP is really irrelevant to this discussion, so don’t be fooled by the attempts to change the subject - that’s a typical right-wing tactic. |
GDP determines the tax base and available budget. It’s how the government knows how much money will be available.
Even without looking at GDP, let’s just look at defense spending as a percentage of just the budget itself in terms of outlays. During Eisenhower’s administration, defense spending constituted 52 percent of government outlays. Today it’s less than 20 percent. What’s the other 80 percent of government money being spent on, you ask?? Well for starters, there was no medicare when Eisenhower was president and very little was spent on social security. These categories fall under what the government budget refers to as human resources. Money spent on human resources accounted for only about 27 percent of Eisenhower’s budget. Today (because of the addition of medicare and other benefits), 65 percent of government outlays go to human resources.
In actual dollars, nearly four times more is spent today on human resources than on defense. In contrast, every year from 1950 until 1971, a greater amount was spent on defense than on human resources.
Back to GDP terms: Eisenhower’s defense spending was 10 percent of GDP and human resources was 4.8 percent. Today defense is 3.9 percent of GDP and human resources is 13 percent.
Yes, the war in Iraq has elevated defense spending, but it’s still well within budgetary limits compared to previous administrations. If anything has risen beyond control it’s spending on medicare and social security. Why isn’t Andy Looney telling us about that??
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If anything has risen beyond control it’s spending on medicare and social security. Why isn’t Andy Looney telling us about that?? |
Because it’s not politically correct of course.
TG
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 04 2005,17:11) |
| I’m sorry but it’s not worth discussing this or anything with you at all. |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| ksdb - it’s hard to take you seriously sometimes. |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| For all reading this, don’t be fooled by the % of GDP discussion - it’s the same strategy that Republicans use to say that the deficit is OK. But even more importantly, talking about GDP is really irrelevant to this discussion, so don’t be fooled by the attempts to change the subject - that’s a typical right-wing tactic. |
soultoker–
You are so danm predictable - when someone brings facts and logic against your emotionally charged arguments, you ignore the points and instead try to discredit the tactics of you opponent, or even resort to ad hominem attacks. Which, by the way, is a typical left-wing liberal tactic.
Don’t you ever get tired of arguing politics in a music forum?
ksdb – rock on, dude.
Toker, you’ve been owned.
John - just read Ike’s speech. It’s pretty simple to understand. He was warning us about the military-industrial complex. I’m not spinning the speech. ksdb failed to even explain what Ike was trying to say, and he demonstrated that by leaving out the most important sentence in the paragraph he quoted. If that’s an attack & if you can’t see that John, then I’m sorry.
ksdb - you are completely missing Rooney’s point. By missing that point, you fail to see how Ike’s speech backs up what he’s saying. Rooney was saying that we’ve made cuts in the budget and instead of doing that we should cut the defense spending because it is really high. Do you deny that we’ve made cuts? And the defense budget is really high - about 30% of our budget.
Rooney is also correct in saying that we’ll never use many of those weapons.
The discussion of GDP is not relevant to this discussion. The issue is how much we spend & how much we take in. The % of GDP argument is often used to say that deficit is not a problem, but that argument is flawed. Using that logic, then we should just deficit spend more & not make the cuts that Rooney cited in his original piece.
Let’s see if I use a simple analogy. The amount I spend on music equipment is also a small % of my family’s GDP, but it’s still too much. I’ll be the first to admit that. My wife goes along with it, but we really should be putting that money into my kid’s education & our savings, i.e., social benefits, not music hardware (bombs, tanks, etc.)
It’s fine if you don’t agree with Rooney about military spending but don’t to re-write what Ike was trying to say.
Tell you what… let’s shutdown ALL military spending. See where we end up. The economy would collapse almost overnight. It would be almost as bad as just turning the oil spigot off. Don’t believe me? Do the math.
TG
TG - I actually agree with you on this, but we wouldn’t want to shut down all military spending.
I was actually against the pace that Clinton/Bush took on the base closings. It really hurt my home state of Maine. The current closings list is also going to hurt Maine.
I agree that the closings had to be done but it should have been done at a slower pace.
| Quote (gtr4him @ Oct. 05 2005,11:48) |
| Tell you what... let's shutdown ALL military spending. See where we end up. The economy would collapse almost overnight. It would be almost as bad as just turning the oil spigot off. Don't believe me? Do the math. TG |
Notice that the same reasoning applies to social security and medicaid. One cannot tamper with the levels anywhere without economic consequences.
Can I ask you guys what the issue is here? I can't quite seem to put my finger on it after reading through the thread. Is the question about Ike's warning about influence? Money might be evidence of influence, but there are other non economic things to consider, e.g., the extent to which policy is being driven by the views of those in war industries. That war industries are influential seems pretty obvious to me. that this is a threat to liberty also seems obvious. Guns are tools that need to be kept under control, lest the tools control us. Isn't that what Ike was saying?
You know, rereading Rooney’s comments, the Ike quote is sort of off-point. Ike was warning against too much influence, Rooney is simply arguing that we are spending too much on guns, implying that most of us either don’t like what is being spent or are ignorant of the facts and if we knew we would be upset - and also implying, I guess, that military industries are the cause of the problem, since that might be one of the results of having gained such power. But Rooney did not make the connection between the supposed overspending and military industry influence. To do so we’d need to looka t much more than just numbers, we’d have to look at process and people in govenment, to see who is talking to whom, that sort of thing.
FWIW, I think Rooney is right, that we do spend too much on guns and not enough on construtive things like schools and prescriptions and roads and libraries, but I would think this whether the amount we spend is the result of undue influence or really reflects the will of the people.
here’s my smiley face: 