[romalama]

If this were the case, why did the Islamic extremists attack us in the first place?

Ron Paul put it rather simply.

"They're over here because we're over there!" ~~ Ron Paul at the 2008 Republican presidential debate.

Or as Usama bin Laden said in his now infamous fatwa back in 1996...

The youths hold you responsible for all of the killings and evictions of the Muslims and the violation of the sanctities, carried out by your Zionist brothers in Lebanon; you openly supplied them with arms and finance. More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.

Obviously they were pissed off because we were bombing the crap out of Saddam Hussein's air defense systems, enforcing UN sanctions on Iraq, and arming the "Zionists".

[amehoubFomo]

The tax cut was before 9/11, but keeping tax cuts active when we're at war is stupid. Bush/congress should have rescinded those cuts and raised taxes to fund the war. When we're at war we're far more effective when the entire nation gets behind it as happened during WWI and WWII. During Vietnam we had tax cuts, and we see how well that went.

National security spending is as much a part of the debt as welfare, SS, medicare, DoE, NASA and every other penny spent by our government. Its obviously just one piece of a giant amount of spending our government does. But by increasing spending for national security after 9/11 instead of re-allocating funds was a mistake. We spend roughly ~1 - 1.5 trillion on intelligence and military every year. Re-allocating some of that 1.5 trillion dollars would have been a far better option than just making government even bigger via no cuts anywhere else but homeland security being formed from scratch and the wars not even being fought out of the defense budget.

Someone did the calculation and I don't want to spend the time to look it up, but terrorists spend roughly $0.10 for every $1,000 we spend to 'prevent' them. I don't recall the exact numbers but its an enormous disparity along those lines. One of the GOALS of bin laden is to precipitate our economic collapse, why should we give him exactly what he wants?

Again, can I see your source? I know for a fact we dont spend 1-1.5 trillion a year on national security so Id like to see where you think we do. You may want to look at the historical numbers as well to verify what you think we were spending in 2001.

[njfeedd3w]

It has a number of components, but if we're bankrupt then it might just all go to shit. Bush and his pals played a MUCH greater role in harming America than bin Laden could have ever hoped to play. Your fears would be better placed if you worry about the threats in the government rather than about some old guy who might be dead or might be in a cave in a foreign nation. But Osama is the certified US government bogeyman and too many dumbass cowardly Americans have fallen for the misdirection.

Exactly right. Too many Americans live in fear and deliberate ignorance. And politicians thrive on ignorance and fear.

[stutnerman]

It's part of it, there's definitely overlap, but that's not really what I was getting at. My point is that the changes in our attitudes and institutions that we've made in response to 9/11 have been more damaging than the attacks themselves - the massive expansion in domestic surveillance and the over-the-top Guantanamo crap, for example.



To provoke exactly the kind of response we've "graciously" provided. Terrorism isn't designed to overcome an enemy, but to trigger their undoing from within - via panic and fear.

You'd think it would be obvious. They do call it TERRORism, don't they?

[bF8CCmmr]

Again, can I see your source? I know for a fact we dont spend 1-1.5 trillion a year on national security so Id like to see where you think we do. You may want to look at the historical numbers as well to verify what you think we were spending in 2001.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...ml#post1758628

I put links in that post. In that thread I was just talking about defense, nukes, and homeland security. I didn't factor in FBI and CIA expenses which add to that number. The CIA budget isn't disclosed but was ~25 billion in the late 1990's, the FBI's paltry budget is only ~6 billion. I guarantee the CIA didn't get smaller after 9/11. One source indicated ~44 billion per a CIA official's quote referenced by wikipedia.

Here's another link from a guy with a Ph.D. in economics who looked into it (he neglected to include the CIA as well - but its budget is unknown).
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941

He found we spent 935 billion in 2006 for national security. Add in the estimated 44 billion for the CIA and in 2006 it was really close to 1 Trillion spent that year alone.

[thakitt]

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...ml#post1758628

I put links in that post. In that thread I was just talking about defense, nukes, and homeland security. I didn't factor in FBI and CIA expenses which add to that number. The CIA budget isn't disclosed but was ~25 billion in the late 1990's, the FBI's paltry budget is only ~6 billion. I guarantee the CIA didn't get smaller after 9/11. One source indicated ~44 billion per a CIA official's quote referenced by wikipedia.

(COMMENT)

The $43.8 Billion figure only cover the NIP (National Intelligence Program). It does not cover any of the other National Security Programs, and does not include the general budget of the other 16 Members of the Intelligence Community. Remember, Congress authorizes appropriations of $786,812,000 FY 2010, Intelligence Management Account all by itself. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_rpt/srpt111-55.pdf Nor does it cover the many of the Counterintelligence Programs.

The 17 IC member agencies are:

• Air Force Intelligence
• Army Intelligence
• Central Intelligence Agency
• Coast Guard Intelligence
• Defense Intelligence Agency
• Department of Energy
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of State
• Department of the Treasury
• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Marine Corps Intelligence
• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
• National Reconnaissance Office
• National Security Agency
• Navy Intelligence
• Office of the Director of National Intelligence

And the intelligence piece is only part of the National Security effort. For instance, an OPM Background Investigation is part of the overall National Security effort, but not part of the IC. Nor does it take into account little things like Foreign Relation Missions in support of National Security.

Table 513. Homeland Security Funding by Agency: 2009 ($68 Million) http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0513.pdf
[For year ending September 30. A total of 31 agencies comprise Federal homeland security funding for 2009. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the designated department to coordinate and centralize the leadership of many homeland security activities under a single department. In addition to DHS, the Departments of Defense (DoD), Energy (DoE), Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DoJ), and the State Department account for most of the total government-wide homeland security funding]
The DNI Budget for 2009 (UNCLAS Version) is found at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2009/10/dni103009.pdf ($49.8 Billion)
The DOD Budget for 2009 (UNCLAS Version) is found at http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/...ab/defense.pdf ($693 Billion)
The FY 2011 State and USAID budget totals $52.8 billion. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/136560.pdf
The FY 2010 NRO budget is classified but you can review the redacted version at http://www.fas.org/irp/nro/fy2010cbjb.pdf I expect it is as least as much as DOS.

(DEFINITION)

This does not include the entire IC (Intelligence Community closed budgets and Intelligence Contingency funding). The National Intelligence Strategy (UNCLAS Version) is found at: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nis2009.pdf

EO 13526 Official Defines National Security as:

PART 6 -- GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 6.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: Para(cc) "National security" means the national defense or foreign relations of the United States. I hope I was able to shed some light on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Singukil]

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...ml#post1758628

I put links in that post. In that thread I was just talking about defense, nukes, and homeland security. I didn't factor in FBI and CIA expenses which add to that number. The CIA budget isn't disclosed but was ~25 billion in the late 1990's, the FBI's paltry budget is only ~6 billion. I guarantee the CIA didn't get smaller after 9/11. One source indicated ~44 billion per a CIA official's quote referenced by wikipedia.

Here's another link from a guy with a Ph.D. in economics who looked into it (he neglected to include the CIA as well - but its budget is unknown).
The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

He found we spent 935 billion in 2006 for national security. Add in the estimated 44 billion for the CIA and in 2006 it was really close to 1 Trillion spent that year alone.

Ok, I see now. You include interest on the debt, debt payment from prior wars, military pensions, veterens affairs, nasa, etc etc etc.

But did you include a fraction of the Presidents pay? Congresses pay? A fraction of his vacation time where he may discuss national security? Foreign payments? Welfare so people dont bomb govt buildings? Really if you think about it, we spend 4 trillion or so on national security. I mean the stimulus package, that was national security. The turtle tunnel makes sure eco nuts dont go out and kill people. I think you undersold this.

[forebirdo]

Ok, I see now. You include interest on the debt, debt payment from prior wars, military pensions, veterens affairs, nasa, etc etc etc.

Are you suggesting that those aren't real costs associated with national security?

But did you include a fraction of the Presidents pay? Congresses pay? A fraction of his vacation time where he may discuss national security? Foreign payments? Welfare so people dont bomb govt buildings? Really if you think about it, we spend 4 trillion or so on national security. I mean the stimulus package, that was national security. The turtle tunnel makes sure eco nuts dont go out and kill people. I think you undersold this. Some of those would be valid to add as expenses (the time congress spends on those matters certainly). You could also probably argue some foreign payments are national security related ... for example all of the bribes we paid to NK during the past few decades to prevent them from going full bore to get nukes.

The stimulus package and welfare aren't directly related to national security.

So all you've done in your attempt at sarcastically over-inflating the expenses is agree with my point. We spend ~1 trillion at a minimum on national security, the actual number is probably higher.

[bZEUWO4F]

Are you suggesting that those aren't real costs associated with national security?



Some of those would be valid to add as expenses (the time congress spends on those matters certainly). You could also probably argue some foreign payments are national security related ... for example all of the bribes we paid to NK during the past few decades to prevent them from going full bore to get nukes.

The stimulus package and welfare aren't directly related to national security.

So all you've done in your attempt at sarcastically over-inflating the expenses is agree with my point. We spend ~1 trillion at a minimum on national security, the actual number is probably higher.

I agree. In fact, Id go so far as to say we spend our entire product on national security. I mean if the economy is imporatant to national security then its all spent on national security. That makes it about 14 trillion, wow! But wait, we should include what other countries spend too, because it relates to our national security. So lets make it 50 trillion or more!

[reawnvam]

National Security means preventing invasion of the United States.
The rest is just the arrogance of power.

If America has a service to perform in the world_and I believe it has_it is in large part the service of its own example. In our excessive involvement in the affairs of other countries, we are not only living off our assets and denying our own people the proper enjoyment of their resources; we are also denying the world the example of a free society enjoying its freedom to the fullest. This is regrettable indeed for a nation that aspires to teach democracy to other nations, because, as Burke said! "E xample is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." . . . Senator J. William Fulbright on the Arrogance of Power, 1966

[tmobmobfil]

jviehe, et al,

No, but speaking seriously.

I agree. In fact, Id go so far as to say we spend our entire product on national security. I mean if the economy is imporatant to national security then its all spent on national security. That makes it about 14 trillion, wow! But wait, we should include what other countries spend too, because it relates to our national security. So lets make it 50 trillion or more!

(COMMENT)

Much is what is spent on National Security depends on intent. For instance, our interstate highways was originally funded as part of the 1956 Defense Appropriation as the "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act." If you take a 1956 map, you will notice that the Forts, Air Bases, Federal Depots, and key government installations are connected by the interstates.

The protection of Wall Street and major economies are considered a National Security interest because they effect interstate commerce supporting the nation. (Ref: Declaration of Independence "independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.") The founders thought the strength of America would rest in the protection of commerce.

On distant stations the U. S . Navy recommenced its pre- 1861 roles and missions--commerce protection and support for diplomacy, likewise aimed at expanding U.S. markets. U.S. naval forces returned to the Mediterranean, the Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf. Reference: Continental Period (history.navy.mil) Even the US Space Command Vision (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/doco...ac/visbook.pdf) See front cover in bold letters --- "dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment."

Those of us who spent a career serving our nation in the pursuit of "national security" in the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines, serve to protect US commerce; among other things.

In a way, you might better ask what is not in the "national security interest." There are many things that the US Government does that is not in the best interest of the United States' national security.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Abraham]

I agree. In fact, Id go so far as to say we spend our entire product on national security. I mean if the economy is imporatant to national security then its all spent on national security. That makes it about 14 trillion, wow! But wait, we should include what other countries spend too, because it relates to our national security. So lets make it 50 trillion or more!

You're getting carried away, but not as far as you think.

Consider RoccoR's post just above.