www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Junk Science and the Catholic faith

The minute I saw Ronald Reagan's face on the page my brain shut down.

It was buncombe then and it's buncombe now. I know. I crunch the numbers--it's why they pay me. Do you know the size of the defense budget as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was under good old Ike? It averaged 12% over his two terms, during a time when we were not fighting any major wars. Under the Reagan defense buildup of the 1980s, defense spending accounted for only 7% of GDP. And, while defense spending slumped to only 3.6% of GDP under Clinton, it rose to only 5.5% of GDP in 2008, at the height of the war in Iraq (combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for just 1% of GDP per annum from 2003-2011).

Defense under Eisenhower accounted for close to half of total U.S. Federal expenditures. Today, defense accounts for about 18% of Federal expenditures. On the other hand, Social Securty, Medicare, Welfare and interest on the debt now account for more than 50% of all Federal expenditures, and 100% of all Federal revenues.

It's also important to remember that, under Eisenhower, we had a conscript military, manned mainly by draftees making minimum wage. Today, we have a professional, volunteer military force and must provide them with competitive wages and benefits (which I consider barely adequate, considering what our soldiers, sailers, airmen and marines do). Military Personnel (MILPERS) costs, which include pensions (all other government workers pensions are paid out of a general fund, not out of agency budgets), amount to roughly 26.5% of the defense budget. Operations and Maintenance (O&M)--the money to pay for fuel, food, training, spare parts and equipment overhaul--accounts for about 30%. The remaining 43% is mostly split between Procurement (PROC)--money spent to buy new equipment--and Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E)--money spent to develop the next generation of equipment. At present, PROC accounts for about 25% of the defense budget, while RDT&E accounts for about 18%.

Since I assume you want the troops to be paid, for veterans to receive their pensions, and for military families to receive health care, you can't cut much from MILPERS. And I also assume that you want our troops to be well trained, their equipment to be well maintained, and for them to have adequate stockpiles of fuel, ammunition and spare parts, so there isn't much you can cut from O&M. So, that leaves Procurement and RDT&E. But, together, these amount only to about $258 billion. Sure, there are some programs that can and ought to be eliminated, others that can be stretched out over time, but, overall, we have not invested much in new equipment since the 1980s--all our tanks, armored vehicles, aircraft, ships were designed in the 1970s and 80s, and procured in the 1980s and 90s. Like cars, these things don't last forever. So, again, what are you going to cut? Are you saying that a country with the size and wealth of the United States cannot afford to pay out 4% of its Gross Domestic Product on its own defense--which, I might remind you, is an enumerated power, something that the Federal Government is authorized to do, and which only it can do.

As for the industrial side of the military industrial complex, how many defense companies can be found in the top 100 companies in the U.S.? Answer: none. In fact, the combined defense revenues of the Big Six defense companies (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Inc., Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics) is less than $200 billion, or less than half the annual revenues of WalMart ($422 billion). Walmart was also a lot more profitable than any defense company, with a profit margin of 24%, as compared to average profits of about 10% for the defense industry.

The entire defense industry in the United States--at all levels, prime contractor and subcontractor, manufacturing and services combined, has revenues of only some $475 billion, in an economy of some $14 trillion. So, defense companies account for only 3.6% of the total GDP of the United States--that's hardly a dominant position, or one from which the defense industry can extort or bribe additional funding from the government. If defense is so powerful, why isn't it making more money?

People who speak of our "outrageous" defense expenditures usually have no idea how much we spend on defense, as compared to what we spend, say, on feminine hygiene products or snack food or video games. They also have very little conception of the benefits, both direct and indirect, that the U.S. military provide not only for our country, but for the world.

Try to remember when there is a tsunami in Indonesia or a hurricane in Haiti, or an earthquake in Turkey, and relief supplies are piling up in warehouses around the world because all the airports, seaports and roads are blocked or destroyed, that it was the U.S. military which actually delivered the goods, repaired the infrastructure, treated the injured, fed the starving. That never shows up in our "humanitarian assistance" budget, but it's just as--if not--more valuable than a bag of rice purchased by the Swedish government that cannot be delivered where it is needed.

We, and the world, also benefit from the stability that the U.S. military brings to the world. If you think the world is a bad place because the U.S. military is so active, try to imagine a world where it isn't.

But, in the meanwhile, maybe it would be better to get informed before spouting bromides about complex topics of which one knows little.

If you think any country exists today that is not for the rich you live in La La Land.

I know it is totally off-topic, but in light of what StuartK just said about the American military and what it does, I thought that, if none of you had heard this radio editorial [youtube.com] (as uploaded to YouTube, of course!), you would find it well worth it.

The context of the commentator's words is explained at the beginning of the 4 1/2 minute clip, but the words themselves remain relevant.

My opinion is that the Federal government should be cut to about 25% of its present size and should be limited to defense and coinage. The Church should take care of the rest. For that matter let the rich pay for all wars. I find Neil's ideas stuck in a Socialist dream and I find the state control most of our lives to be repulsive. That should take care of it.

Irish

The premise of the website is faulty. If you start with the premise that global warming is man made and you do not bother to prove it then everything follows. This premise has not been proven. In fact it has been dis proven. It is a political starting point. The vilification and demonization of our scientist and corporations follow.

God bless you, Slavophile.

Glad you liked it. That editorial deserves to be heard.

I can pretty much see now that if Dorothy Day happened onto this website and made statements, she would also be accused of being a "Socialist" or anything else other than a faithful Catholic who took the words of Jesus seriously.

Honestly, guys, just how much armament do we need before we say "enough?" I think we have the capacity to blow the world up about 10 times over with all our weapons and yet we are still insecure?

Is there something wrong with limiting our military to a defense model instead of constantly using it to invade nations? Is there something wrong with responding to an actual beligerance rather than bombing someone because we "think" they might do something nasty to us?

I agree with your assessment of the federal government, Carson. Military and money. That's all they should do, and those things should be tightly regulated.

I think this is all an exercise in futility to talk about these things. I see our country as a train running downhill without brakes and loaded with dynamite. No one is interested in stopping it. Right and left wings both have their agenda and they could care less about the destruction of this country as long as they get what they want.

My hope is that after the crash, the Catholics of this country, what's left of it, will unite and form a Catholic monarchy loyal to the Holy Father and the magisterium and run the country as a Theocratic Monarachy. Couldn't be any worse than the 200+ years of "democracy" we've had.

Irish we agree with the results needed. I don't know why you wish to label opponents. The point of this thread is about Junk Science and whether or not the Church has said anything specifically about it. I'm still surprised that we have no direct guidance on this from the Church. Still, I'd love to see a Catholic Monarchy.

I'd rather the Church not chime in and stick to the Gospel. The last time it said Galileo was practicing junk science, and that didn't go well.

Even as stewards of God's creation, we can do better.

As for Catholic Monarchies, I feel that experiment has been attempted as well, no?

I don't think you understand the issues there. The controversy had nothing to do with science. Copernicus, a faithful Catholic, had already said most of what Galileo did.

Again, you don't understand history. You should do more reading.

The controversy was heliocentrism. The Church rejected assertion of it and tolerated conjecture of it.