4 ms·

Because national defense is one of the few actual responsibilities of the US Federal government.

by mason240 11y ago

pnut 11y ago
That is an opinion, not a fact.
- tvanantwerp 11y ago
  No, it's the the first paragraph of the US Constitution that the federal government ought to "provide for the common defense".
  - webXL 11y ago
    Perhaps parent was taking issue with "few actual responsibilities", which our current government treats as an opinion.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    I don't think anyone is disputing that the government should provide for the common defense; saying it is "one of the few responsibilities of the federal government" implies a certain conservative view and the unstated assumption that the huge security apparatus created to fight terrorism is an effective way of providing for the common defense is also a matter of opinion.
    - pnut 11y ago
      In addition to this, I meant that OP's assertion implied there is a commonly agreed upon list of core responsibilities assigned to the federal government. Practically all of the major political battles ongoing today in America are to clarify the proper scope and function of government. Healthcare, taxation, voting rights, abortion, religious liberty, on and on and on. It has been going on since the Revolutionary War, and will never reach consensus. Here's another opinion - The constitution is a starting point, not a recipe book.
      - mason240 11y ago
        The Constitution is pretty explicit in stating that it limits the scope of government, which is the opposite of being a starting point.
        oldmanjay 11y ago
        Politicians are pretty clear in their POV that the Constitution is a bother to be worked around, so there's realistically no point in going down the path you've chosen.
        jessaustin 11y ago
        Why wasn't there an equivalent of the 18th Amendment in order to allow the drug prohibition?
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Because drugs were already illegal? You could perhaps argue that they shouldn't have been illegal, constitutionally. But, IIRC, they were, and so new change was required to start the war on drugs. It was just "we're going to get serious about stopping this stuff".
        jessaustin 11y ago
        This doesn't really make sense. If that arrangement had made legal sense for opiates, marijuana, etc. it would have made legal sense for alcohol. In fact it was perfectly legal to distribute, purchase, and use those in numerous places through at least 1914, when the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed. Even that Act attempted to finesse the issue by limiting imports rather than just outlawing the substances directly. The Volstead Act didn't go in for such half-measures, because it had the backing of the Constitution. Neither Harrison nor any of its successors could say that. Frankly, I was mostly attempting to engage with mason240's rather strict legal philosophy in a way that would cause most strict constructionists some discomfort.
      - gwright 11y ago
drivingmenuts 11y ago
National defense also happens to be the most lucrative. No one has ever lost an election by demanding that we throw more money to defense contractors.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  No politician will ever come out and say they want to double or triple the defense budget, they usually do it after they get in office. What usually happens is the candidate talks about reducing the military budget, only to increase it once in office. Obama would be a great example. He was opposed to the multiple wars the US was fighting, then once he got into office, he increased spending on various defense projects: In Obama’s first year as president, his defense secretary, Robert Gates, ratcheted up spending on the F-35 as a compromise for halting production on the F-22, a larger, more expensive stealth aircraft. But the F-35 has turned out to be nearly as costly and considerably more troubled. His budget for 2016 looks to increase the military budget: Intriguingly, while the Pentagon’s “overview” briefing notes that it’s requesting a 4 percent increase in the total defense budget and a 21 percent reduction in the OCO accounts, it doesn’t express the base-budget increase in percentage terms, so let me do the math for you: It translates to an increase of 7.7 percent. This is enormous. source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/02/president_obama_s_enormous_defense_budget_it_favors_big_weapons_systems.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...

Because national defense is one of the few actual responsibilities of the US Federal government.

pnut 11y ago

That is an opinion, not a fact.

tvanantwerp 11y ago
No, it's the the first paragraph of the US Constitution that the federal government ought to "provide for the common defense".
- webXL 11y ago
  Perhaps parent was taking issue with "few actual responsibilities", which our current government treats as an opinion.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  I don't think anyone is disputing that the government should provide for the common defense; saying it is "one of the few responsibilities of the federal government" implies a certain conservative view and the unstated assumption that the huge security apparatus created to fight terrorism is an effective way of providing for the common defense is also a matter of opinion.
  - pnut 11y ago
    In addition to this, I meant that OP's assertion implied there is a commonly agreed upon list of core responsibilities assigned to the federal government. Practically all of the major political battles ongoing today in America are to clarify the proper scope and function of government. Healthcare, taxation, voting rights, abortion, religious liberty, on and on and on. It has been going on since the Revolutionary War, and will never reach consensus. Here's another opinion - The constitution is a starting point, not a recipe book.
    - mason240 11y ago
      The Constitution is pretty explicit in stating that it limits the scope of government, which is the opposite of being a starting point.
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        Politicians are pretty clear in their POV that the Constitution is a bother to be worked around, so there's realistically no point in going down the path you've chosen.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Why wasn't there an equivalent of the 18th Amendment in order to allow the drug prohibition?
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Because drugs were already illegal? You could perhaps argue that they shouldn't have been illegal, constitutionally. But, IIRC, they were, and so new change was required to start the war on drugs. It was just "we're going to get serious about stopping this stuff".
        jessaustin 11y ago
        This doesn't really make sense. If that arrangement had made legal sense for opiates, marijuana, etc. it would have made legal sense for alcohol. In fact it was perfectly legal to distribute, purchase, and use those in numerous places through at least 1914, when the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act passed. Even that Act attempted to finesse the issue by limiting imports rather than just outlawing the substances directly. The Volstead Act didn't go in for such half-measures, because it had the backing of the Constitution. Neither Harrison nor any of its successors could say that. Frankly, I was mostly attempting to engage with mason240's rather strict legal philosophy in a way that would cause most strict constructionists some discomfort.
    - gwright 11y ago

drivingmenuts 11y ago

National defense also happens to be the most lucrative. No one has ever lost an election by demanding that we throw more money to defense contractors.

at-fates-hands 11y ago
No politician will ever come out and say they want to double or triple the defense budget, they usually do it after they get in office. What usually happens is the candidate talks about reducing the military budget, only to increase it once in office. Obama would be a great example. He was opposed to the multiple wars the US was fighting, then once he got into office, he increased spending on various defense projects: In Obama’s first year as president, his defense secretary, Robert Gates, ratcheted up spending on the F-35 as a compromise for halting production on the F-22, a larger, more expensive stealth aircraft. But the F-35 has turned out to be nearly as costly and considerably more troubled. His budget for 2016 looks to increase the military budget: Intriguingly, while the Pentagon’s “overview” briefing notes that it’s requesting a 4 percent increase in the total defense budget and a 21 percent reduction in the OCO accounts, it doesn’t express the base-budget increase in percentage terms, so let me do the math for you: It translates to an increase of 7.7 percent. This is enormous. source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/02/president_obama_s_enormous_defense_budget_it_favors_big_weapons_systems.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/...