The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Dave Lindorff on Why US Military Spending Should be Cut 50%; Prof. Anthony Hall on the Meaninglessness of (Canadian) Elections
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

First half hour: Donald Trump says the purpose of the US military is to defend our borders—not police the world. If he really believes that, he should slash military spending at least 50%! Guest Dave Lindorff writes in his new article “Military Spending’s Out of Control While Slashing It Could Easily Fund Medicare for All”:

“Something very unusual happened on Thursday, Oct. 17. The New York Times suddenly ran an article on its opinion page explaining how to cut \$300 billion from the \$1-trillion military budget. The article, written by Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the Institute for Policy Studies’ National Priorities Project, explained that by shifting the US diplomatic and military strategy from one of confrontation, endless wars, expansive overseas basing, and unilateralism to one of diplomacy, a pull-back from foreign bases and global deployments, with a concomitant reduction in the nation’s 2.4 million-person military could be accomplished with no threat to US national security.”

Lindorff adds that Koshgarian’s estimated \$300 billion in safe and easy military cuts is actually very conservative; hundreds of billions more in Pentagon fat could easily be trimmed—and the US would be safer than it is now.

Second half hour: Why aren’t any presidential candidates talking about cutting the military budget in half? Maybe because elections are becoming an increasingly meaningless spectacle? Professor Emeritus Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge discusses Justin Trudeau’s lukewarm victory in the recent Canadian elections…and points out that the most important issues are almost completely blacked out from mainstream discussion. To frankly and forthrightly discuss the biggest issues of the day, he suggests, one almost has to leave the West and find a forum like the New Horizon conferences from which US Americans have been banned by their own Treasury Department.

Prof. Hall’s latest article is:

Iran…..The World’s Biggest Exporter of Terrorism?, Reflections on Global Geopolitics on an Iranian Conference in Beirut and on a Canadian Federal Election

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
Hide 3 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If you make the mission of the military to defend America only, of course you can rationally cut the military budget by 50% and still outspend any rival. However, as Smedley Butler accurately said, “War is a Racket” and we would have to find a way to overcome the racketeers who control everything.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  2. @Henry Sulla

    Too bad we don’t have a modern-day Smedley who could declare war on the racketeers. Why waste time on phony “terrorists” when you could send the same special forces teams to rendition the Rothschilds.

  3. I agree that military spending should be cut drastically, by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

    That will enable the fed government to borrow that much less than it currently borrows.
    An excellent development, and “a good start” to ending the expansion of the fed gov’s debt.

    But the federal government will still be borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars per year to fund its remaining operations. So the money saved by cutting the military budget is not available to fund Medicare For All or anything else.

    Whether it’s Medicare For All or a Universal Basic Income, big-ticket progressive wish-list items cannot be funded (without debt) without both the military cuts (which I support) PLUS domestic-spending cuts and/or major new federal taxes (whether a VAT, national sales tax, whatever).

    I think that we could sustainably offer a UBI and more medical coverage and care through the fed gov — sustainably meaning without debt — only if we got serious about cutting military expenditures (which most Republican Congress-scum won’t do), required people to give up some other welfare-state benefits to get a UBI (which most Democrat Congress-scum won’t do), and imposed new federal taxes.

    I’d probably prefer a national sales tax or VAT, balanced by a repeal of the federal income tax for all but the top 1% of income-earners. Add two new fed excise taxes that would NOT affect the great majority of US citizens but could raise several hundred billion dollars per year each in time: tax remittances of cash heading out of the USA, and legalize and tax marijuana products.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS