4 ms·

Eisenhower warned this would be a thing and here we are, it's a thing. The best we will ever get is the illusion of spending being under control. It's wild, bu

Eisenhower warned this would be a thing and here we are, it's a thing. The best we will ever get is the illusion of spending being under control. It's wild, but whenever a big change occurs there's always smart folks who knew what was going to happen and exactly called it out. Usually as a "ok guys be careful cause X could happen" and X inevitably does.

pstuart 3y ago
Equally wild is when "fiscal conservatives" complain about spending, it's only on social programs they disagree with. Fraud and/or waste should be a subject of concern regardless of the program that experiences it.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  I wouldn't pin this on any particular party or ideology. Both major parties in the USA support dumping infinite unaccountable money into the military. It's one of the few things they agree on.
  - metabagel 3y ago
    There are a fair number of dissenters on this within the Democratic Party.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    America requires that we love the military. Any criticism of the military is played as being against the troops and anti-American. To quote Admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!" We need more focus on policy and outcomes, rather than performative politics on who loves the flag more.
- marricks 3y ago
  The government isn't a household and its finances don't need to be treated as one. I think everyone in government knows this they just don't want constituent's to realize it so they hem and haw about any spending they don't like. Neither side super cares about social programs, dems just aren't the ones to cut them typically. If you notice, whenever dems have launched a plan in the past 30-40 years they always say how it's almost always going to be "deficit neutral" or help because they actually don't want to increase spending (or help people all that much, is my take). Both sides have and will continue to green light defense spending and other "important issues" so deficit goes up anyways.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    > Neither side super cares about social programs Being that social programs are only promoted by dems, and are actively attacked by republicans, I find that statement odd. Yes, the DNC is very much owned by its corporate masters, but there is a distinct difference between the two parties. The trope of "both sides are the same" is worn out. Disclaimer: I'm not a member of either party and believe that political parties and partisan politics are bad for the country.
wolverine876 3y ago
When did Eisenhower warn about failed audits, or something like them?
- intalentive 3y ago
  His farewell address warned of unaccountable military bureaucracy.
- metabagel 3y ago
  He warned about the military industrial complex swallowing up funds which could be better used for schools or to fulfill other public services.
  - dralley 3y ago
    In context, his point was that a permanent military industrial complex would be necessary [0] due to the changing nature of technology and war, but that we must remain vigilant to not allow public policy to be captured by those interests. People generally disregard the first part when they quote him on the "military industrial complex". [0] Because the era where the US could remain safely protected by the two oceans was ending due to the development of missile technology, and because the complexity of military equipment had gone beyond what a civilian company could be expected to produce with a few years of factory retooling as in WWII. If a military was not ready to fight on day 1, if you were starting from a heavily disadvantageous position, you may never have the opportunity to catch up. The weapons technologies on the horizon would allow shipyards and advanced manufacturing facilities to be destroyed by an enemy thousands of miles away. That means you would need to have enough tanks, ships and so forth to put up a fight immediately, rather than waiting a few years, and they would need to be continually modernized. Therefore those industries would need to be kept around permanently, but subservient to the public interest.
nradov 3y ago
Eisenhower might have warned about it but he apparently never asked Congress to appropriate funds for modernizing the Department of Defense accounting systems. Had he done so they wouldn't be such a mess today.
- Arrath 3y ago
  I mean, the COBOL accounting systems being discussed were developed and put in place after his term, no? So they are, in fact, more modern than they would have been during Eisenhower's time.

pstuart 3y ago

Equally wild is when "fiscal conservatives" complain about spending, it's only on social programs they disagree with. Fraud and/or waste should be a subject of concern regardless of the program that experiences it.

ryandrake 3y ago
I wouldn't pin this on any particular party or ideology. Both major parties in the USA support dumping infinite unaccountable money into the military. It's one of the few things they agree on.
- metabagel 3y ago
  There are a fair number of dissenters on this within the Democratic Party.
- pstuart 3y ago
  America requires that we love the military. Any criticism of the military is played as being against the troops and anti-American. To quote Admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!" We need more focus on policy and outcomes, rather than performative politics on who loves the flag more.
marricks 3y ago
The government isn't a household and its finances don't need to be treated as one. I think everyone in government knows this they just don't want constituent's to realize it so they hem and haw about any spending they don't like. Neither side super cares about social programs, dems just aren't the ones to cut them typically. If you notice, whenever dems have launched a plan in the past 30-40 years they always say how it's almost always going to be "deficit neutral" or help because they actually don't want to increase spending (or help people all that much, is my take). Both sides have and will continue to green light defense spending and other "important issues" so deficit goes up anyways.
- pstuart 3y ago
  > Neither side super cares about social programs Being that social programs are only promoted by dems, and are actively attacked by republicans, I find that statement odd. Yes, the DNC is very much owned by its corporate masters, but there is a distinct difference between the two parties. The trope of "both sides are the same" is worn out. Disclaimer: I'm not a member of either party and believe that political parties and partisan politics are bad for the country.

wolverine876 3y ago

When did Eisenhower warn about failed audits, or something like them?

intalentive 3y ago
His farewell address warned of unaccountable military bureaucracy.
metabagel 3y ago
He warned about the military industrial complex swallowing up funds which could be better used for schools or to fulfill other public services.
- dralley 3y ago
  In context, his point was that a permanent military industrial complex would be necessary [0] due to the changing nature of technology and war, but that we must remain vigilant to not allow public policy to be captured by those interests. People generally disregard the first part when they quote him on the "military industrial complex". [0] Because the era where the US could remain safely protected by the two oceans was ending due to the development of missile technology, and because the complexity of military equipment had gone beyond what a civilian company could be expected to produce with a few years of factory retooling as in WWII. If a military was not ready to fight on day 1, if you were starting from a heavily disadvantageous position, you may never have the opportunity to catch up. The weapons technologies on the horizon would allow shipyards and advanced manufacturing facilities to be destroyed by an enemy thousands of miles away. That means you would need to have enough tanks, ships and so forth to put up a fight immediately, rather than waiting a few years, and they would need to be continually modernized. Therefore those industries would need to be kept around permanently, but subservient to the public interest.

nradov 3y ago

Eisenhower might have warned about it but he apparently never asked Congress to appropriate funds for modernizing the Department of Defense accounting systems. Had he done so they wouldn't be such a mess today.

Arrath 3y ago
I mean, the COBOL accounting systems being discussed were developed and put in place after his term, no? So they are, in fact, more modern than they would have been during Eisenhower's time.