This is what gets me. How did you get “discounting the value of the US military” from Trent’s statement? Did he say that we should have no military? Did he say that the Military is useless? No. He merely said if we shift some of the Military spending over to other areas we can fund more equally important issues.

Since you bring up the fact that you are a veteran, I can equally bring up the fact that I know many many veterans who have served longer than you have and have been through multiple wars and even they are questioning some of the military spending that is currently going on. This includes my dad who served in Vietnam. Just because you served 4 years in the military doesn’t mean your service is worth anymore or less then those that came before you.

You are the type that gets aggressively defensive and nasty when anyone as much as have a negative though about the military.

I value having a strong military but when you see reports of troops not having enough clothes and being left out in the cold, that’s what I get upset over and question some of the military spending. Or how our troops are putting their lives on the line so that private companies can suck as much money out of the war as they can just makes you angry.

If you think that criticizing military spending equates to devaluing the dedication and lives of our troops then you are awfully miss interpreting things.

Also calling people left-wing just because they have an opinion on military spending is awfully narrow minded. So should I call you a far-right extremist?

I can go on because all of your statements have serious holes in them and don’t hold much weight.

First, I disagree that what I said was insulting or closed minded. Some of my words may have come from pure disbelief that a personal finance blog would take a day off to parade as a left-wing kook site. If you disagree with the war fine, why dance around the issue with a supposed alternate reality and discount the value of the US military.

I want to also add that I am a veteran. I served for 4 1/2 years on active duty and remained in the guard for another 4. My background is similar to Trent’s and the anecdotal advice is the reason I do read the blog.

I completely disagree with the concept that our tax dollars are better served not by providing safe passage for shipping, preserving stability for energy production, and safeguarding ownership rights but by providing subsistent living for the plebes.

@rhbee You can actually factor in the fact that a vote for Nader might be a catalyst for change by creating an expected outcome based on probability times benefit. Then you can weigh that versus the discounted enjoyment of preventing a Bush victory to decide which has a higher expected value.

The problem with your particular post is that you are presenting a false choice;

“Which of these areas is important to you and should have more money invested?”

“support those candidates that match your views, even if they’re not popular.”

Just because you like flowers and art more then the military does not make choosing a politician on that basis rational. Similarly, we do not have socialized medicine in this country because the majority of us still prefer to make our own health care decisions rather then let a socialized “single payer” system make those decisions for us, moreover, my health is not a federal issue (except under the commerce clause which apparently makes everything a federal issue :-) ) – not merely because it is expensive.

Just because you like something does not mean that it must (or even should) be a federal program.

Some expenses, like defense, are firmly established by the Constitution as requirements. (I for one appreciate that there has not been a significant conflict on US soil since the war of 1812 (the civil war probably is in another category, and the Mexican American war probably does not count)).

Others expenses are not (healthcare, nutrition, housing, job training, etc). If we were ever to get to the point where we had “extra” money at the Federal level then it should be given back to us in the form of lower taxes, not blown on “extra stuff”.

You’d be surprised how much “extra stuff” I could buy if 1/3 of my wages did not go to funding excessive government programs, and I’d be much happier making my own decisions about how to spend it.

What would you call a family who, every time they had a spare dollar spent it on a new toy? Yet this is what we have at pretty much every level of government.

The war is reasonably expensive. I’ll give you that. The question, I guess, is, “Is this war (Iraq) a good investment?”.

For me, it will be if the result is a stable government in Iraq, and the US can stand down our presence in the Middle-East (to a large degree) within 10 years. Just pulling out now could lead to the destabilization of the entire region, just a couple months back KSA said they would intervene if we left Iraq, which would be bad.

Unbeknownst to many people is that we had large numbers of military in that region (also at our expense) from 1991 right up until this last war. These troops maintained various watches and enforced “No Fly” Zones. It will be nice to stop having to do this.

I do think your political views come through in your book reviews and such, but that is life. None of us is completely free of bias. The key is not to hide from it, it is to acknowledge it and evaluate things with that knowledge.

Brad

If you are interested in running for public office, you will need to build a tough hide. ;D

Meanwhile, thanks for this discussion and all of the links that it brought out. We need more of this participatory democracy stuff.

Partisan politics begins and ends with engendering contempt for one’s opponents. The political landscape today is a minefield with snipers everywhere looking for new targets to take down. You just got caught in the crossfire.

You’ve taken positions previously that I disagreed with, but I’ve never doubted your integrity for a second. Don’t let the ignoramuses get you down.

I don’t think you ever could in this country. Read about some of the early political squabbles and you will find they were quite nasty. Politics is a nasty business.

The problem I have with the idea of >i>nonpartisan is that it is usually aimed at meaning a specific political view, when you boil it down to its basics. That’s why it had a hard time working.

Of course, I have ironically learned to live with other people being stupid more as I have grown older. The arguments stay awfully similar, the forum just changes. Though I would have to say I have become more of the curmudgeon too. :)

Brad

We’ll never know, will we? I think you’re incredibly psychic to be able to make such a claim.

No psychic abilities are needed. Politicians spend other people’s money, no matter what party they are from. Even a principled man like Ron Paul would face such intense pressure. His principle is one of the reasons he has no chance of being elected.

The “blip” in 1998 was nothing compared to the “crash” in 2000/1 and the tough times we are facing now. The prosperity was largely built on Fed inflation of the money supply, not some super wise politician.

For someone who is skeptical about others when it comes to spending money, you sure take a lot of stock in politicians. :)

Perhaps I am completely wrong. It looks like we will get a chance to see with Clinton II next year. Perhaps that will be your spend down nirvana, though I somehow doubt it.

You are right that this is a charged thing, especially because people don’t think logically, but instead operate heavily on emotion in this highly charged atmosphere. Though, once again, such verbiage is not limited to any specific party or political view. We live in a rude culture in a lot of ways. :/

I could jabber a lot more, and perhaps I will make a blog entry this weekend, but this should make the point. :)

Brad