It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


when Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:06 PM
when Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex.

one has to wonder how much they have to do with world making policy and war starting.

sounds words almost 50 years ago...

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:42 PM
Eisenhower was right then as he is now. He foresaw what would become of things. He knew the internal shenanigans going on. If only he was still around.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:23 AM

Don't let facts get in the way of your middle-aged, peacenik, hippy flash backs.

The total spending for US defense, including the supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is less than 20% of the federal budget.

On the other hand, just two socialist welfare entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare) account for over 50% of all federal spending each year.

It's not the military-industrial complex you need to fear. Instead, you need to be scared witless of the greedy-geezer-socialist complex. The military contractors can't vote, but the greedy geezers can. In fact, they can essentially vote to steal money from your paycheck each week. That cost currently amounts to over $30,000 per year, per geezer on average, taken from federal taxpayers and paid in cash to those on SSI and Medicare. Or about 12% of the US population.

Ike was wrong.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by riff_raff

Don't let facts get in the way of your middle-aged, peacenik, hippy flash backs.

What a nasty prejudice remark.

The U.S. Government says that military spending amounts to 20% of the budget, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War Resisters League claims 54%. Why the variation?

Different groups have different purposes in how they present the budget figures. WRL’s goal has been to show the percentage of money that goes to the military (current and past) so that people paying — or not paying — their federal taxes would know what portion of their payments are military-oriented. Also, some of the numbers are for different fiscal years.

There are at least five different factors to consider when analyzing the U.S. budget:

discretionary spending vs. total spending
budget authority vs. outlays
function vs. agency/department
federal funds vs. unified budget
time period
Discretionary Spending. The Center for Defense Information (CDI) has used "discretionary" spending — budget items that Congress is allowed to tinker with — which excludes so-called "mandatory" spending items (such as interest on the national debt and retirement pay). WRL does not make such distinctions and lumps them together.

Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national debt.
How much of the debt is considered “military” varies from group. As mentioned above, WRL uses 80% whereas FCNL uses 48%. Consequently, FCNL reports that 43% of the FY2007 budget is military (29% current military and 14% past military). WRL's figures are 54% of the FY2009 budget (36% current — which includes 7% for Iraq & Afghanistan wars — and 18% past).

Outlays vs. Budget Authority. WRL uses "outlays" rather than "budget authority," which is often preferred by the government, news media, and groups such as CDI. Outlays refer to spending done in a particular fiscal year, whereas budget authority refers to new spending authorized over a period of several future years. Consequently, CDI reported $421 billion in FY2005 budget authority for the military and $2,200 billion "over the next five years." While WRL reports outlays of $803 billion, plus an anticipated $162 billion in supplemental spending requests for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, plus $484 billion in past military spending — totaling $1,449 billion — just for FY2009.

Function vs. Agency/Department. Not all military spending is done by the Department of Defense. For example, the Department of Energy is responsible for nuclear weapons. Consequently, calculations of military spending should consider the function of the budget item regardless of the department or agency in charge of it. However, not everyone agrees what constitutes a military function. For example, WRL includes the 70% of Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), and half of NASA in military spending, while other groups do not.

Federal Funds vs. Unified Budget. WRL uses "federal funds" rather than the "unified budget" figures that the government prefers. Federal funds exclude trust fund money (e.g., social security), which is raised separately (e.g., the FICA and Medicare deductions in paychecks) and is specifically ear-marked for particular programs. By combining trust funds with federal funds, the percentage of spending on the military appears smaller, a deceptive practice first used by the government in the late 1960s as the Vietnam War became more and more unpopular.

What period are we talking about? Finally, there is some variation in figures because different fiscal years are used. WRL’s figures (above) are for FY2009 (Oct. 1, 2008 to Sep. 30, 2009) as are the most recent U.S. government figures. FCNL sometimes does their analysis for the most recent completed year or FY2007 (Oct. 1, 2006 to Sep. 30, 2007).

I believe we have been spending close to 51% and what you are seeing in the way of fall of the American economy is due to that uncontrolled spending.

If we took just some of that blood money and put it towards better education and social programs for the people instead of using that money to blow up, dismember and torture people (yes the world now knows us as a country that condons and uses torture) we would have a better society.

What Difference Does It Make to the Dead,
the Orphans, and the Homeless,
Whether the Mad Destruction Is Wrought
under the Name of Totalitarianism
or the Holy Name of Liberty and Democracy?”

- Mahatma Gandhi

The war in Iraq lest you forget was foisted upon the American People under the pretense of Weapons of Mass Destruction later to be found a out and out lie.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."-- Hermann Goering

War never solved anything. It is the legally sanctioning of the mass murdering of fellow human beings and wrong.

Start researching on the large corporations (and friends of GWB) that have profitted handsomely from this war. This in and of itself is a conspiracy.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by ofhumandescent]

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by riff_raff

Don't let facts get in the way of your middle-aged, peacenik, hippy flash backs.

it's not the "military" aspect of things that concerns me. i'm all for defending our country. it's the black operations that we are funding to support testing & research on people, much which includes torture and horrendous acts to life forms. listen to eisenhower again. he said something to the effect that research then becomes interesting... meaning, "let's try this one... let's try that one...."

it's vast. do a history on this.

plus, the defence contractors have much to gain. what is their part in starting and maintaining these wars?

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by miasria

project paperclip


the list goes on...

don't think that this is the extent of it, nor the current capabilities of the military industrial comples, which includes extensive research conducted by the medical, scientific, etc. communities.

how many of these are on the government payroll?

do a bit of history on this stuff. it will disturb you.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:24 AM
oh yeah, while i'm on it...

what the cia gets caught with, they destroy. they too are involved in these hellish programs.

most of the mkultra documentation was destroyed. are they and collegues still involved in similar or more advanced technology? anyone would be foolish to believe that they are not.

check out what was not. now the recent videos. imagine that.

it goes on and on..

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:50 AM
"More Stuff You Should Know
In most cases, the hard truth about black programs is much less impressive than the conspiracies surrounding them. But on rare occasions, the opposite is true: the actual facts of the program are the stuff of legend! "


how do you know this to be true rif raf?

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:54 AM
Wow, good rebuff Miasria. Flag and multiple stars for you. Very impressed with the manner at which you replied to this guy, who obviously needs to take a deep breath and gain a bit of perspective before replying to things. Kudos!

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by riff_raff

I can't imagine how many ways you are wrong with this post. I was going to put together a LONG list explaining how you were simply wrong. Then the post just after yours covered it very well.

You are wrong riff_raff. Don't let your egotistical war mongering point of view get in your way of clouding the facts of the actual spending figures.

Granted, I don't think the socialist approach is going to work. It is going to backfire big time on this nation if these programs move forward but you are just plain wrong with the 20% figure. WAY off target there gunnie. Try again.

Eisenhower was right. He saw it coming. Many presidents have had their hands tied until their exit speeches where they gave warnings against what was in fact happening behind the scenes. A few have tried it while IN office only to end up with an extra hole or two in their persons shortly after.

Remove the rose (blood) colored glasses you are peering through with blurry eyes my friend. The spending is MUCH higher than you are trying to suggest.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 05:42 PM
the entire speech.

new topics

top topics


log in