I was born in 1961, the same year that a war General said these words: This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government....In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. --President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation A lot of this is posturing by self-proclaimed tough guy politicians like Brown. To be fair, to both Brown and Kerry, providing support for local jobs on the defense industry side has always been a no-brainer for any polititian. There's no down side. That's always been the crux of the problem. It would be wise of us to heed the words of a guy that was speaking from a good deal of experience.

We are letting a small group of politicians and their backers run and ruin our economy. There is little doubt we overspend for our defense. With the two latest wars the futility and wastefulness in citizens and treasure is more than apparent. Those 2 conflicts have reached the trillion dollar mark and still rising. Those who cling to a cold war strategy will eventually impoverish enough of our population by shifting our manpower into war industries that shortchange our ability to significantly increase our national wealth. Moreover if weapons are made and soldiers armed it makes for too many itchy fingers to start a conflict. And for all those dollars how much safer does it make us? It behooves all of this to think rather react. To see how our spending stacks up against other countries, follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures. It is stunning. Taking money out of the defense budget should actually be music to a Conservative's ears. It becomes a focal point to lower Federal spending without disturbing our ability to defend ourselves. Forget even we have a legislative branch that may wake up and fund needs that may make the nation prosperous. The resistance shows that they are not serious about making a more efficient government.

It is not a no brainer. It is cowardice. Industries that threaten the economy by citing fantastical job losses is bullying. GE did not get their engine contract and no one was fired. Maybe it dawned on them that these workers were highly skilled and did not want to lose them to the competition. It is time to call these companies' bluff. They trample on their veracity by making non realities seem like the absolute truth. For all their talk about personal responsibility they take none. It is not only selfish but dangerous.

Thank you! The US spends more on the military, (and let's call it the military - instead of the politically charged term "defense"), than all of the other countries combined, which is such a mind-blowing stat that I think people are numb to it.

50% to 140% more jobs in other sectors? Replace a $100,000/yr engineering position with 2 wiping down tables at Ben & Jerry's?

The US spends for defense more than the next ten countries (with largest GDP) combined -- this should have obvious meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is common sense that spending in other areas could result in more jobs: the technology to produce energy more efficiently SHOULD lead to more jobs than the technology to blow something up. As another commenter points out, more jobs at McDonalds may not be such a good thing as more engineering jobs. But MORE JOBS in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing either. For example, it would be hard to make the case that NOT building professional levees in New Orleans would be a good thing if it resulted in homeowners hiring more construction workers to fix their flooded houses (or surround them with sand bags). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most significant output from this kind of spending is NOT the number of follow on jobs created (although more jobs is often a good thing, especially if they are "good jobs"). It is also NOT an increase in economic output (or GDP). Think of increased economic output of steel by burning lots of coal. You pollute the environment but GDP is increased. China is dealing with this now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the important thing the STANDARD OF LIVING -- "the degree of wealth and material comfort available to a person or community"? How about this: we all live in 5,000 square foot homes and work 30 hours a week, but polution kills us in our 50s and we are grossly ignorant about anything but defense technology? Does that sound good? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although these other things contribute to it the most important thing is QUALITY OF LIFE -- that involves both a high Standard of Living and the richest (highest quality) mode of living at that level. Standard of Living, GDP, and jobs (low unemployment) all contribute to the Quality of Life but let's not think the tail wags the dog (ie, let's understand the interrelationships).