Our country is in big trouble. The writing is on the wall, is anyone awake?

Yes. The Europeans taxpayer, though, will pay most of the bill. As to the reason why, you are absolutely right: French, German, Italian and Belgian banks are up to their neck in Greek debt. I Greece defaults, THEY lose the dough.

Methinks Greece as a society is so archaic, corrupt and screwed up, plus heavily unionized, though, that it will blow up anyway,and along with it will go the Euro, the last source of pride for Europeans.

Then on November 2, will loudly tell Barack, Nancy and Harry that we here in America don't want to be the next Europe.

Philippe

The Greeks simply don't pay their taxes, so their government keeps spending while bringing little revenue in. Two weeks ago the bailout was going to be in the range of 20-40 billion euro, then everyone gets together and it's suddenly over 100 billion euro. And the real elephants in the room are Spain and Italy... be glad you're not the Germans and French who will shoulder most of this giveaway.

It's no different here. People will demand their entitlements even though the money is gone and there is nothing left to give them. So we'll borrow and print, borrow and print, and wind up in exactly the same boat.

I simply don't see the point of trying to build wealth anymore, or even of trying to plan more than six months ahead at a time. I was always a planning-type person, so this has taken a bit of mental adjustment, but I'm getting the hang of it. It does have its up side, too.

>> I simply don't see the point of trying to build wealth anymore...

I find that a common sentiment these day Jo. A couple weeks ago I was listening to an economist (I think it was Schiller) who was explaining much of the economic bounce that we are seeing is coming from people who no longer pay their mortgages having a huge amount of discretionary income to spend on cars, tv's and such- I think he mentioned $2trillion. The banks won't recognize the losses until some point in the future, so from an economic point of view this money has been "created".

So, Eric, you (gasp!) don't think the mortgage bubble has fully burst yet? ;-) I don't, either. Too many alt-A's are going to reset this year and next, and we haven't even seen the shitstorm that has yet to hit the commercial real estate sector.

Well, what is going to happen to these people who don't pay their mortgages? A friend of mine was telling me about a couple he knows who have been squatting in their foreclosed home for two years. Nothing ever really happens to them as a consequence.

Oh well. Who is John Galt? I liquidated most of my "retirement" (bwaaah ha ha ha ha ha!) savings and paid off my condo. Now that I don't have any bills, I'm taking a ton of unpaid time off this summer and plan on doing a lot of bike riding and enjoying life. Back in the day, I would have worked hard and saved/invested the extra money, but I no longer see any point in working hard in order to acquire pieces of paper.

And now that I've given this "work only as much as you have to" thing a try, I'm kind of kicking myself for not doing it sooner. Why did I ever think it was a good idea to work hard through all my healthy, young years in order to save money for when I was too old to enjoy it? Oh, right - because I thought my money would GROW, and work FOR me. Heh.

For those who have kids who will inherit this mess, I don't know how you people sleep at night. Supposedly people love their kids and grandkids more than anything, but for DECADES, now, Americans have been more than happy to sit on their ever-fattening asses and hand the bill to future generations. No different than the entitlement attitude of those lazy Greeks - we are just ten years behind them.

Help from the IMF is not free money.Bulgaria used IMF help once, this time around the government did all things possible to avoid it.

Far from the bullshit case of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, IMF help still comes with strings attached. Bulgarian businesses got privatized and looking back, some were profitable despite the bad Communist and post-Communist management. A country pays back quite well, once directly to the IMF and a second time to foreign (American) businesses who start to operate there, sometimes as a result of an agreement with the Fund. Plus, we get treated as dumb natives and get patted on the head.

It's more nuanced than that, but it's not throwing money at lazy Greeks. It will be an interesting carrot-stick combo for that cute country.

Hope they don't charge more for the awesome grilled octopus in order to fight the crisis...

>Guess who's paying for the Greek bailout! Yup. That would be you.

Using your numbers the US is paying for 5.4% of it ((30/110)/5).

Compared to EU countries, you got a bargain!

And yet there are still investors buying Greek government bonds. Yields of 20% ought to be telling them something. But I'm afraid the bailout is telling them something else: "Grab for that yield brass ring! If you slip and fall, we'll catch you, and then you can try again." We have the equivalent in the U.S. with the serial mortgage defaulters -- the ones who have been bailed out more than once and keep on defaulting.

Another country that has been jockeying for power at the UN and IMF came up with the exact same question you just asked Amy- China. They said "it's a developed contry problem, not ours."

And Cousin Dave is right on the money- today's speculators are buying Greek debt at deep discounts, leveraging the hell out of it, standing to build a mostly risk-free fortune.

A fun website tweeted by Matt Welch.

> Compared to EU countries, you got a bargain!

Bullshit. That's just a bullshit thing to say. Imagine me saying to Eric or PJ: 'Compared to how much of my mortgage I have to pay each month, your five percent is nuthin'.'

And that's where we're at. All the wealth in Europe over the last six decades –to say nothing of the recovery from war itself– has come as the America taxpayers have protected Europe from itself and from Ivan. The European of course believes his comfort to be the product of his own 22-hour work week and his chairmanship of his neighborhood community.

So Americans are bailing your ass out again.

That was just a spectacularly stupid thing for your to say.

Shit fuck.

Right on, Crid - and it IS laziness. If you want to work the equivalent of part-time hours and then enjoy sitting on your ass the last 25 years of your life, try doing it on your own dime and see how well that works out for you. Less than one percent of the population (like, those two guys who invented Google) will be able to pull it off. Some people might be able to enjoy a retirement that lasted five to ten years, but the vast majority would have to earn some form of paycheck right up until the end of their lives.

So if everyone, all of a sudden, gets to enjoy all those years of loafing, oh and by the way the government will also kick in a cool $2 million if your 75-year-old ass needs a liver transplant, where is that money supposed to come from? Someone else? WHO else? No one else has that much money either! But this would be why we have trillions in debt that can never be repaid.

I'll be working until I croak, at least part-time, and that's my decision. But bailing out these pension funds so a bunch of perfectly able-bodied 57-year-olds with giant, misplaced senses of entitlement can go hang out at the beach all day?

The pensions of Greek and French government employees are rich. Some French train system unionists get pensions after just 20 years of service.

Federal employees in the US military get that, and even a better deal--free health care and half-pay for the rest of their life. Taxpayers will end up paying many federal employees for 20 years of service and then another 40 years of pensiosn and health care.

Imagine in the year 2060 you will still be paying taxes to people who took a job for pay and went to Iraqistan. Remember, we have a professional military now. Base housing is pretty sweet, btw.

I want a tax cut, and I want it now. Cut federal pensions especially for the military. It is getting out of hand. We will end up like Greece.

I also expect to die with my boots on, probably still paying taxes to retired federal employees until I hit the dirt.

Hey BOTU - Why this hard-on for cutting the military?

Have you looked at the sweet deal that Congresscritters get? Do one term, get paid 100% plus bennies until you rot.

How about most government workers? Do 20 years, retire with full pension and no penalties for getting another job while collecting on your "defined-benefit" package.

I mean, fuck - get a job at 22 working for the city, get paid $60k a year for 20 years, "retire" at 42, get a job in the private sector paying $40k, and live the life of fucking Riley.

But you just keep denigrating the military. Unless you're prepared to accept my national defense package (doctrine of excessive force), I doubt you want to cut the military for real.

Brian-

I believe no one in the public sector should get a pension before age 67, including military employees, municipal fire and police, or deskworkers.

If one cannot handle the rigors of being a cop, firefighter or solder, then that person shoudl be transferred to a desk job, where they can work until 67. If they are not good at a desk job, then they should be fired.

BOTU, the retirement perk is one of many that entice young folks into the service. If you want to stand on that wall and defend our asses, than by all means you are entitled to the benefits promised. I am singling out real military service which entails being sent anywhere in the world for long time periods and with sometimes little notice. If you hate the US military so much then please go to whatever shithole part of the world would please you

Ron-
I do not hate the military--I hate paying taxes. As a classical economist, I do detest all militaries as economic parasites at best, and predators at worst.
That said, I understand the world is not perfect, and we need a military. Obviously, we need a military at the lowest cost possible to protect our shores.
If we chose to have a professional military then we should have pay plans to resemble those of the private sector.
In Iraq, private contractors brought nearly as many people as did the US government, often into jobs even more dangerous than the military jobs. Truck drivers are the prime example, since they hit land mines and were sitting ducks (to mix metaphors a bit) while driving.
Private sector emloyers were able to find many skilled people, and fill positions, without 40-year post-retirement pension and health plans at taxpayer expense.
BTW, glorifying the military was something our Founding Fathers abhorred, and many wanted a permanent ban on a federal military written into the Constitution (notably, George Mason, who refused to sign the document as it did not have a such a ban). Thomas Jefferson later lamented the lack of such a ban.
I want the least draq on the private sector possible from public sources. If we cannot demobilize, then at least we could streamline our permanent mobilization.
BTW, Milton Friedman opined that mobilizations should be financed through progressive consumption taxes.

>> Compared to EU countries, you got a bargain!

>Bullshit. That's just a bullshit thing to say. Imagine me saying to Eric or PJ: 'Compared to how much of my mortgage I have to pay each month, your five percent is nuthin'.'

Gee, it's true isn't it? You guys really don't do irony do you? If I rephrased it as "compared to EU countries, you got off lightly", would that make you drop the foul language?

>And that's where we're at. All the wealth in Europe over the last six decades –to say nothing of the recovery from war itself– has come as the America taxpayers have protected Europe from itself and from Ivan. The European of course believes his comfort to be the product of his own 22-hour work week and his chairmanship of his neighborhood community.

There's such a feast there it's hard to know where to start. maybe you could tell me which European countries work a 22 hour week?

>So Americans are bailing your ass out again.

>That was just a spectacularly stupid thing for your to say.

It's called humour mate.

>Shit fuck.

"Facetiousness hardly ever translates onto print."
- Frank Zappa, 1978

The military, like government, is a necessary evil.

Any economist worth his salt will point out that the military is indeed an economic sinkhole. It costs money, but it does not produce money. What it does provide however, is a measure of security and foreign influence, which of course does not have a measurable economic value. Though those same economists should be ready to point out the hazards of having little to no military when the wrong crisis hits. Its a necessary expense unfortunately.

BOTU is correct as far as he goes when he speaks of our founding father's hesitancy regarding a professional military. But he is remiss in pointing out that the use of militia did not work so well in open battle. Patriotism could not replace discipline, passion could not replace training, as people had originally hoped. As someone educated in history, he should be aware of that fact.

That said though, there are reasons why military members get retirement benefits starting at 20 years. For one thing there are not that many of us compared to public servants. Its a comparatively light fiscal burden, and the promise of that retirement retains a great many people in the service that would otherwise pursue other options, meaning the necessary numbers get retained.

There is also another reason.

Any idea what military service does to the human body???

I've been a soldier for 11 years as of next month.

In that time I've deployed 3 times.

To prepare for every deployment, every soldier trains at a minimum 5 times per week, running for miles, doing pushups or situps or other training involving heavy objects. Between hand to hand combat, physical fitness, and hard physical labor toting very heavy things back and forth, to say nothing of ruck marches carrying ridiculously heavy loads very great distances, we put a great deal of wear and tear on our bodies.

Of the senior personnel that I personally have known, over 75% of them have had at least 1 major physical infirmity restricting them, which will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

As far as myself, I'm still healthy. But I'm no longer 21. I'm now 32. I have suffered several minor injuries over the years, including having myself proscribed a back brace to better endure the physical demands of my duty. When I retire from service in another 10 years, my best physical years will be done. I doubt I will be injury free, I doubt I will be free of all disabilities, my best effort will probably only minimize them. But my medical needs at that time will almost certainly restrict my options for both employment and recreation for the rest of my life.

Yes I will be 41 at the time and collecting a pension. But I will because of my work, probably have the body of someone 20 years older. And it is hardly a rich pension that I will be collecting. I'll still have to find work. And by the way, I'm not a cook or something that would earn menial wages on the outside. I'm a college educated (only 7 classes to complete my degree in business admin) computer technician with security +, MSCA/E certification. With Information Assurance and server administration experience. At my experience and education level, I would earn roughly triple my current wages, and when I say current, I mean that to include the extra pay I collect during deployment periods and our extraneous benefits.

In short, I'm GROSSLY underpaid in government service, even after I get my promotion in 3 months. I continue to do the work because it is both a family tradition, and a job that has to be done. Having a job worth doing is more important than having a job that pays well.

SO, all of that being said BOTU...would you rather:

A. Lose the highly trained people with specialized and VITAL skills to private industry.
B. Pay soldiers based upon a competitive scale based on what their equivalent in the private sector makes.
C. Provide a pension at 50% for 20 years.

The long term cost of those 3 items means that the present 20 years and a pension option is the best one.

The cheapest option to the public purse is option 3.

The first option cripples the military.
The second option cripples the budget and makes the whole administration much more complicated.

And the third option, well military service tends to shorten lifespans. Discounting those of my fellows killed in combat, consider the end state of retirement.

Of those who retire from military service, the average lifespan for a retired service member a few years ago, was 7 years for an officer, and 5 years for an NCO.

So your concerns over the public purse being impacted by the cost of paying military retirees, while not totally groundless, is still worrying entirely to much about entirely to little. Its rather like worrying that the eggs are being stolen from the hen house...while your house is burning down.

By the way, as far as base housing being sweet, that depends on where you are.

Barracks SUCK. The barracks I was living in when stationed in Hawaii was built back before World War I. It was in such poor condition that one soldier broke his leg when the floor gave out and he fell through it.

And by the way, most rooms are built only large enough to house 1 person comfortably, and end up holding two people.

So, you end up with a space of roughly...8 paces by 10 paces per person.

Yes some modern day barracks are much nicer. But new barracks are not common.

As far as family housing, again it varies. Newer housing yes, does tend to be nicer. Especially for senior ranking personnel. But where the new housing is not available, you're talking about cinderblock construction, with little to no insulation in some places.

Living off post is infinitely better. Living on post sucks. Its like living at work.

Pretty sweet? No thanks mate, you can keep that shit.

BOTU, ya, the founding fathers did not want a standing army, but they learned a real lesson when washington was burned down because the military was too small to defend the capital and the northern borders. I have two nephews who have done multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, both have been wounded and will carry those wounds until they die. If they are able to put in 20 and move on, we owe them medical care and a stipend, as defending us is the reason they will need medical care. Hell even the Romans had a form of early retirement for their soldiers. Put in your time (I think it was 20 years also) and we will give you full citizenship and a bag o nickels for life.

>"Facetiousness hardly ever translates onto print."
>- Frank Zappa, 1978

So how do comedy script writers manage it?

:)

Oh sheesh, many jobs are hard. I started up a furniture company, and lifted boxes weighing 70 lbs for years on end, and working (before trade shows) until 3 am, and often drove through the night to get home from those same shows so I would not have to spend money at a Motel 6. I liked to use recycled lumber, which was heavy and often had lots of nails, ect etc, Oh boo-hoo, even yet my factory has concrete floors and no heat or a/c. I could boo-hoo for days. Until recently, there were a lot of gang-bangers in the neighborhood, oh boo-hoo-hoo. Five guys dead in five years, although it stopped about six years ago. I am 55 years old, and not sniveling about my poor old body.
Actually, I still jog 5 miles most days, and take one-hour step classes when I can. Even with flat feet that sometimes hurt. Oh boo-hoo-hoo. No base PX and I live in an Airstream trailer. Boo-hoo-hoo and waa-waa.

What I didn't get to do was retire back when I was 45, at taxpayer expense.

We have a professional military, and our pay structure should mimic that of the private sector.

Back in the day of the Romans, a soldier might live but a few years after 20 years on the public payroll. Now, a typical 45-year-old male has three or four decades of life left. That four decades of taxpayer-financed pension and health care.

We have to balance the federal budget. It means tightening our belts. Gonna be tough on some people, but they just have to suck it up and make a living in the private sector after exiting the military.

> So how do comedy script writers manage it?

Well, fer starters, they're writing SCRIPTS. Don't smirk so much.

This is an obsession for you, the soldiers.

Presumably, on the summer after high school, a firm-titted cheerleader went for a new recruit and left you sad and lonely on some dewy Kentucky evening.

Robert-
U will get a half-pay pension at 41? R U kidding? That's fat, boy that is waaaay fat. Dolly Parton has big tits, and you have a big pension, dude.

BOTU, ya, the founding fathers did not want a standing army, but they learned a real lesson when washington was burned down because the military was too small to defend the capital and the northern borders. - Ron

Ron and Robert, I've lectured BOTU at least three times (under his various aliases) on the founding fathers changing their minds on a standing military. He's tone deaf to anything he doesn't want to hear.

BOTU, is either 15 or if he is really 55 he is in early alzheimers. I don't know how you can begrudge the people who volunteer to put their necks on the line for us some level of support in their later life. Jeebus that is just cold. Now congress on the other hand should be 2 terms max and see you later, no retirement at all, no medical, they can contribute to a 401k like the rest of us slobs. Soldiers on the other hand deserve every thing we can give them

Actually, Conon, the Founding Fathers began to see a need for a limited standing military earlier, due to the appalling perfomance of militias.

"The conclusion of the Revolution left Americans in a position similar to that of post-1689 English Whigs; the former opponents were now in control. Many now found a limited standing army necessary and, therefore, acceptable. The militias had generally acquitted themselves poorly during the major organized battles of the war, and were the subject of constant and bitter criticism.[122] At Guilford Courthouse, for instance, Virginia and North Carolina militia broke and ran before sustaining a single casualty. Their American commander noted; "[t]hey had the most advantageous position I ever saw, and left without making scarcely the shadow of opposition."[123] George Washington complained of the militia that they "come in you cannot tell how, go you cannot tell when, and act you cannot tell where, consume your provisions, exhaust your stores, and leave you at last at a critical moment."[124] As Alexander Hamilton later observed, the exclusive dependence on [Page 421] the militia, "had liked to have cost us our independence . . . .The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."[125]"

Imagine that! The state militias broke ranks in front of the British before sustaining a single injury, and gave up even advanatged positions! This is how they defended our homeland? Boy, they do not put that in the history books. So much for modern-day militias protecting us from danger.

I stand by my position, however, that out military needs to be limited, and cost-effective. No pensions until age 67 for any federal employee--we are bankrupting ourselves. That includes military.

> No pensions until age 67 for any federal
> employee--we are bankrupting ourselves.
> That includes military

Fucker makes a case.

I'd argue harder that people in the line of fire earn a lifetime's worth of candy at a young age... But as we saw the hurricane of medals awarded after the boyscout invasion of Grenada, our armed services are a self-serving technocracy like any other.

Would that Botu was as concerned about all the other community organizers on our payroll.

So, BOTU, you use the fact that the first militias were unorganized, undisciplined and poorly trained to say that we need to disband a trained military and go back to a system that didnt work??

Are you dumber than usual today?

True BOTU, many jobs are hard.

A typical 45 year old male might have 3 or 4 decades of life left. True. But retired soldiers as a rule, do not.

Nobody is boohooing about how tough it is, the point is that it extracts a cost. I know a man about to retire after 25 years of service, he was a cav scout, had to change his job the year before I met him because he could no longer walk properly. He's not in a wheelchair, but he'll never heal.

Its great that you were an entreprenuer. But you were working for yourself. Your services existed solely to benefit you. A military exists to benefit the nation as a whole.

Moreover, you could choose to stop at any time and take an easier job. You are under no obligation to continue.

Soldiers by contrast, once they sign on the dotted line have a choice. Do it...or go to jail, until their discharge, and when we get promoted, we are automatically extended, after a certain point, we cannot leave even if we want to. An E-6 that reenlists, doesn't reenlist for 2-6 years. He reenlists "INDEF" short for "INDEFINITE" in short, he is under obligation to continue his work until the military says he doesn't have to any more. There is an element of compulsion in our work, that does not exist anywhere else in the private sector. We give up many choices, many freedoms of our own, for years, and for careerists like myself, literally for decades.

We can't quit, civilians can. In our best case departure we simply let our contracts expire and get discharged. Some people do that, they stay in for 2-8 active duty years, and then leave service and become civilians. They collect no pension, though they do have certain benefits as veterans, those are limited in scope.

By contrast the soldier who does a full 20 years of service, is at none of those 20 year points making anything comparable to his civilian counterpart. On the outside my work would command on average roughly 130k per year for a 9-5 job.

My MINIMAL workday even in nondeployment times, is 12 hours. I get up at 0500, shower, change, and head off to work to make it in on time to do physical training. Before the sun has risen, I've run 4 miles and lifted more than most people will all week put together. I have enough time then to grab a brief shower and breakfast, and then I head to actually start work. That will continue until on average, 1700 or 5 p.m., but may run significantly longer. Manys the day where I've shown up at work, and then not left until 10 at night because of a last minute field exercise requirement which puts me living in a tent for a few weeks, weekends, what are those?

I haven't had more than a few hours off in almost a year.

Now, you suggest that the military should have a pay scale that mimics the civilian world.

Alright, lets see how well that would play out.

Lets say I'm suddenly given a $70,000 per year raise per my skills and the demand for my work. Oh wait no...I work 7 days per week, throw in that overtime there, you've given me a $100,000 raise, and believe me I'm totally cool with that.

Now, how much do you think anyone making 160k will listen to someone making 50k? And before you ask what I mean. Well if you're paying people based upon what their job is actually WORTH on the outside, then you're going to look at a lot of senior ranking personnel making jack shit, because their job on the outside is worth considerably less than others like mine.

You'd really be screwing up the entire concept of a chain of command. I'm as disciplined a soldier as they come, but I too am human, and prone to the same failings and faults of character, though I have the benefit of being aware of them and do my best to combat them. Ultimately you're undermining the chain of authority. You're replacing rank and position with salary. The guy in charge is always supposed to make more than the people who work for him, that is just the way people are.

And worse than that, you're really screwing the taxpayer now.

True I'll retire from military service at between 41 & 42 (If they refuse to let me retire, they can force me to stay for an extra year & a half).

But my expected lifespan is that I will be dead by 50.

So that pension which you rail against, goes on for my colleagues for less than a decade on average.

You'd be better off railing against civilian federal employees, who get the same benefits, with none of the risks, and collecte for multiple decades.

And by the by I should add...unless I retire as very high rank, I'll still have to work after I "retire". I won't have to work as hard as some that is true, but that is because I live very frugally, and put as much as I can into income generating assets. By no means will I be retiring "high on the hog" from half my military pay.

Manny...its only a big pension if you live that long once you start getting it. Most of us are dead before 50, and crippled in one way or another before that.

----------------------------------

Part of the problem with asserting that military retirement should not come until 67 is that it assumes that you can be 67 and still be in.

I hate to point this out, but that simply isn't so.

My father did only a short stint of service long before I was born, got out, went to work for a civilian company, and worked his way up until he retired at 65. When he got out of that game, he started two businesses alongside my uncle, and continued to work again until 72.

Nobody has any business being in the military past the age of 50 unless they're either a CW5 or a General. The job is simply to physically demanding. I don't even want to think about keeping people around into their 60s. The military is a young man's game. Once you get older, from 40s on up, its time to retire from it and do something else.

I'm all for tightening our fiscal belts.

But we have to be practical.

One of the strongest pulls to keep people in as career soldiers is the 20 years and retirement.

Take that away, and you WILL LOSE the best of them. That means you lose the trainers, the drill sergeants, the senior ranking people or those with the potential to BE a senior ranking person. You'd undercut the entire foundation of the military service to save a few bucks?

I'm fiscally conservative, but there is a BIG difference between being fiscally conservative and being self destructive about it.

"To lose vital information and knowledge which may save countless lives and ensure victory, because one begrudges the expenditure of coin to secure it, is the height of inhumanity and the ruination of a kingdom."
That was from one of my translations of "The Art of War".

It was written about intelligence gathering, but it can be equally applied here, in a circumstance where a notion which undercuts the continuance of military preparedness is put forth as fiscally sound, completely ignoring the fact that it is not strategically sound.

All that said though, here is a question:

WHY the fuck are our senators and representatives paid by the federal government?

They don't work for the federal government...or shouldn't be, as it were.

They work for the states or are supposed to. They are supposed to be doing a job for their state in a federal capacity.

The ones deciding how much they are paid, what their benefits are, etc etc etc, should be the people who elect them to the post in the first place.

The Founding Fathers' distrust of standing armies was a philosophical holdover from the days of Oliver Cromwell (1650s). The Virginia Colony was especially resentful of Cromwell's rule (many of the Founding Fathers who advocated wariness of standing armies were from Virginia).

At Guilford Courthouse, for instance, Virginia and North Carolina militia broke and ran before sustaining a single casualty. Their American commander noted; "[t]hey had the most advantageous position I ever saw, and left without making scarcely the shadow of opposition."[

The militia as the first rank with a planned breaking and running was part of General Nathaniel Greene's plan at Guilford Courthouse. He copied the plan that Daniel Morgan used at the earlier Battle of Cowpens.

Both battles were combined into one for the movie The Patriot.

Actually, Conon, the Founding Fathers began to see a need for a limited standing military earlier, due to the appalling perfomance of militias.

Some did. Others did not. Despite the Revolutionary War experience, Madison still believed in militias over armies serving for pay until 1814 when the militia defending Washington, DC (one of the only times a serving president has commanded troops in the field) broke and ran before British regulars. Watching his own troops abandon the field after scarcely a fight left Madison rethinking his military philosophy...and running for his life. Almost getting killed or captured will clarify your thinking pretty quickly.

I stand by my position, however, that out military needs to be limited, and cost-effective.

You have a tendency to forget, BOTU, that in the days of the founding Fathers, military equipment and civilian equipment were identical. Today, they are vastly different. That means you're going to need a trained, professional military with power projection and logistics capabilities...or some really good running shoes.

And threats to the country come with many different capabilities. It's a military's job to be able to counter all of them...sometimes at once. That means there's going to be some waste.

However, American military spending as a percent of GDP is just over 4%, ranking the US 27th in the world. On the other hand, American social spending as a percent of GDP is just over 23%, ranking the US 11th in the world.

"I stand by my position, however, that out military needs to be limited, and cost-effective."

That is a very flexible position. You must be a Yoga Master.

Limited to what? The ability to defend our borders directly?

The ability to actively project significant power for the necessity of favorable political and economic terms to foreign soil?

The ability to utterly annihilate any other country's military and economic foundation at need?

And cost effective? If you mean the maximum bang for your buck, the greatest accuracy available, and of course not least of all, the best defensive and medical treatment equipment and training available to preserve the lives of soldiers, civilians, and yes, even captured enemy combatants, then I agree with you.

If you mean cheapest...well to borrow the words of the Canadian Ambassador in South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut: Hey fuck you too buddy. (Kidding, I'm pretty damn sure you don't mean that *L* I just haven't had an excuse to quote south park recently)
-------------

Anyway, you need to clarify your terms a bit here.

As it is our military is very well equiped, well trained, and capable of sustaining and winning conflicts in multiple fronts quickly and sustaining that victory over time. It is not a cheap sort of thing to do, but it never is.

If you really want to save some money...start cutting funding from programs for the elderly.

The way I see it, they've had 40-60 years to get ready for old age, depending on where you want to start marking that line, if they're not ready now, then paying millions to keep someone alive for an extra few months or so does not seem like a good way to spend taxpayer dollars.

I'd rather cut back on offensive wars, and give the soldiers we DO have full pensions and benefits, and better health care.

I don't begrudge them good pay. I DO feel that the military is bloated and could find other things to cut, however. I do feel the war in Iraq is a waste of money, of course, now that we are bogged down it in there is no easy way out.

So I guess what I'm saying is... yes, the military spends too much. No, it's not on soldier's pensions.

BTW, it was AMERICAN banks that showed Greece how to trick their records and look more stable than they were and thus gain entry into the EU, which clearly ought to have been denied.

Robert, don't waste your time on BOTU. He's our resident troll. He doesn't have a problem with the overall size of the federal government; just the DoD and, for some reason, the USDA. The rest is all perfectly fine with him, based on the observation that he never comments on any other federal agency. Just those two. Nor does he seem to have anything to say about the overall size of the federal budget. He just wants to cut the military down to near nothing.

And as far as the obligations of a solider: Don't forget that anyone who has served is basically considered to be on reserve for the rest of their lives. Reservists can be, and often have been in the last 10 years, recalled to active duty at any time.