In response to:

Guns and Pensions

Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 9:50 AM
Oh but you are so wrong. They were gutting the military. They KNEW that Germany was going to attack our allies. They KNEW that Japan was on it's way to attack not only our allies but our own country yet they nearly scrapped the two planes that would have been able to defend us. The B-17 was nearly cancelled due to cost and the P-38 was castrated by cost cutting measures. Only complete redesigns after we were already at war brought them back to what they should have been to begin with and many many lives were lost unnecessarily due to the skimping of the military budget.
Jeff2422 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 10:37 AM
Not sure who or whom is/are the commies of the 1930's in Congress. The 1930's was the second wave of Progressives. They were not Marxists or Leninist Vanguard Marxists. Their problem was, and has been, a belief in the wisdom of so-called administative experts. Their view was that the Industrial Revolution had made individual freedom not worth much, even if guaranteed by a Constitution, since the average person lived a life of necessity. Thus, they saw the Constittion and its separation of poweres as a hinderance to getting things done. Of course, the founders understood, that was exactly why there was the separation of powers, they didn't trust government or so-called benevolent experts. Misguided Progressives is a better term.
Marie150 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 10:21 AM
Jeff, I would never give a commie the benefit of the doubt.
Jeff2422 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 10:12 AM
Remember, there was the Depression, and unlike today's politician they didn't have the experience that proved Keynesian economics wrong. You are right, about the B-17 and P-38. I took these out of my post as it would be too long. But, they did, by one vote, keep spending on the F4F Wildcat. Also, you forget that over 40% of the pop was 1st or 2d generation Germanic and was sympathetic to Germany's expansion. While Roosevelt had some idea about Germany and Japan, the average Congressman was responding to the lay of the land which was isolationist and traditionally not for a large standing army.
A nation's choice between spending on military defense and spending on civilian goods has often been posed as "guns versus butter." But understanding the choices of many nations' political leaders might be helped by examining the contrast between their runaway spending on pensions while skimping on military defense.

Huge pensions for retired government workers can be found from small municipalities to national governments on both sides of the Atlantic. There is a reason. For elected officials, pensions are virtually the ideal thing to spend money on, politically speaking. Many kinds of spending of the taxpayers' money win votes from the recipients. But...