Global Day of Action on Military Spending 2024 is on Sunday, April 14, 2024: Why won't Republicans ever agree to reduce military spending?

Sunday, April 14, 2024 is Global Day of Action on Military Spending 2024. Military Spending‎ Here's how Obama would spend $549 billion on the military.

Global Day of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS) takes place every year in mid-April. The day was originally proposed by the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) with the aim of promoting a common awareness of the amounts of money spent on military.

it is mothers milk to them.....

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall

lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony,

the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to

share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with

him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and

prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement

on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the

future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis

when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since

ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and,

finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most

vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere

partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go

forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my

part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four

major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite

these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most

productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we

yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our

unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our

power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

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. To strive for

less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to

arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict

upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now

engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings.

We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless

in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to

be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so

much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which

enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens

of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall

we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent

peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic,

great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular

and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current

difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of

unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in

basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly

promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to

travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the

need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the

private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage --

balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance

between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the

nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the

national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack

of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government

have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in

the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly

arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms

must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be

tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my

predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or

Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments

industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make

swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of

national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments

industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and

women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on

military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

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.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our

industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent

decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more

formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for,

by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by

task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same

fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and

scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.

Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes

virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard

there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

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 scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and

other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system --

ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer

into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the

impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience,

the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of

our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual

heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to

become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this

world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful

fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and

respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the

conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our

moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past

frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.

Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with

intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I

confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a

definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the

lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly

destroy this civilization which has been so slo

How can spending possibly LOWER the deficit!?

I think you should write a thesis of "How and when you know politicians are lying in the US and Hong Kong?" The hints is they lied from the beginning to the end.

The total US debt (printed or supplied monies in the past two decades) is exceeded 69 trillion US dollars as a record in history about two years ago. However, the US politicians know how to, cover it up by passing the bucks and evasively, write off it, and make excuses to say it is good for the public at large. The total printed monies were used to sustain the wars, military expansion, conflict of interests are beneficial to Republican and Democrat supporters in terms of military weapon businessmen, war zone contractors, bail out those too big to fail corps, those financial institution, and those stimulus program. It is said that those military contractors charged US $ 200 for a screw and US $ 700 for a toilet seat, all these are taxed dollars.

?

It is said that the cost of the Iraq war is more than $ 1 billion US dollars per day.

Are you aware that US is already bankrupt?

What Barack Obama should do?

1) Stop all the wars

2) Cut military spending at least 50% off

3) Make the global stock market go crash directly and indirectly, but wisely. Simply speaking Dow Jones inex sould be lowered than 4,000 instead of the current bubbled 11,500, the sooner the better

4) Bust the economic bubbles of of stock markets and housing as soon as possible

5) What Barack Obama should do is to learn it from the best and the greatest Zhu Rongji who did eliminate 14 million civil servants and 1 million members of the liberation army. Did did bust the economic bubbled completely and thoroughly.

What the f u c k ing Hong Kong lame duck fascist chief executive, good for nothing Donald Tsang Yum-kuen do?

1) Cut his overpaid salary of HK $ $430,000 to HK $ 230,000 per month

2) Cut the overall overpaid civil servants, particularly those good for nothing officials, top and middle ranks civil servants, public funded professionals working for the government owned institutions, their salsries should be chopped at least ranging from 6% to 60%, depending on how much each individual is overpaid by comparing with the international standards

2) Downsize the good for nothing Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) by 50% lessen staffs and salaries

3) The bubbleed Hong kong Heng Sang index must be declined to 8,000 within two years, the sooner the better

4) Bust the housing bubble is a must political action in HK

I wish I could say somethong more favorably and more honestly about the god damned US and Hong Kong.

NATO? Why Do 300ml Yanks spend 4.5% of their GDP defending 500ml Europeans against 150ml Russians?

We'd spend the 4.5% on our military anyway. And during the Cold War, NATO was a good way to keep the US interested in Europe, offering a substantial missile shield to protect Western Europe from being completely overtaken by the Soviet Union.

In the post-Cold War era, there's not as much of a reason to have NATO around (even despite recent events), but nonetheless we hold on to it because institutions tend to have staying power. Plus, relations between the US and Europe are still pretty good, so there's no reason to abolish NATO, and the organization facilitates military coordination between nations.

EDIT -

While I agree that 4.5% of GDP on the military is excessive and could be used to better purpose, I don't know that spending all of it on homeland defense (as, I think, you were suggesting) would make us "infinitely safer." As a matter of fact, the US's dominant military stance depends on its ability to project force anywhere in the world. The US military guarantees not only our territorial integrity but our global economic interests as well. NATO was an integral part of creating and reinforcing this military structuring - depending on defensive armies in Europe and a force-projecting military from the US in case of a Soviet invasion of western Europe.

Again, I won't deny that I think our defense spending in the US is excessive, but it would be wrong for me to say that our security would be improved if it were differently allocated. Our territorial integrity would remain about the same - Mexico and Canada aren't invading any time soon - but we would lose the ability of the US military to influence events abroad, for better or for worse.

I'd say that NATO really has only two main problems, but they are big ones. First, NATO has no idea what to do with itself. It maintained its Cold War stance after the fall of the Soviets and I think that has contributed to Russia's continued apprehension towards the west. NATO continued to act as though Russia were a major military threat throughout the 90's, expanding with the aim of countering potential Russian aggression. Understandably, at some point Russia became the very threat NATO was trying to counter. NATO, if it were going to stick around, should have had (and should still have) a major overhaul and rethink of its goals and functioning. Its present model of action (based on consensus) and goal (vaguely collective security - more specifically counterterrorism, prodemocracy, and somewhat anti-Russia) are a round peg for our present day square-holes.

The second problem is the entrenchment of its defense institutions. The kind of defenses NATO originally created are the kind it will perpetuate without an overhaul. Thus you see the US spending huge sums of money on its military and the European nations spending comparatively less.

I still see the value in NATO, but the organization needs to be revamped in goal and structure. Moreover, the US needs to reassess the importance of maintaining its global force projection. Perhaps a revamped NATO with a clearer goal and means of action might take some of the perceived burden off the US. Besides that, we might see that global projection isn't all that desireable anyway and unilaterally reduce our military expenditure, forcing NATO nations to increase spending or see global security decline.