Has President Bush headed the warning of Eisenhower's fear of the "Military Industrial Complex/"

The question is this: After Eisenhower’s speech and thinking about the current situation with the War on Terrorism, do you think that we have a “balanced” approach described in this paragraph of Eisenhower’s speech:

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

"But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration."

I President Bush heeding the warning, “Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. [Do]We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow?”

I have a 500 word exam on this from a professor from Berkley, any help will be greatly appreciated.

What ever!

Here is my answer to my post:

It’s not rational to use misinformation, as a foundation of fact to support a rhetorical question, unless the answer you want is to show absurdity by being absurd. From the “relatively straight forward facts”, I will answer the question in light of a Liberal perspective. Since President Eisenhower offered his “dark” warning about "the military-industrial complex," that has only grown bigger and stronger, creating a three-fold increase in domestic spending (even though there has been a ten-fold increase in Domestic spending. Certainly, the end of the Cold War did nothing to stop it. Today, Americans budget for more defense and domestic spending than the next top 15 socialist states combined; we not only have a new $75 billion war and new Department of Homeland Security, but our approach to domestic woes is increasing $300 billion in Medicare works that our future cannot pay! I would not want to be a citizen of an empire that rules by force. This administration would appear to be bankrupting our country, rewarding the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. President Bush would be trying to usurp the powers of Congress and the courts, ordering mining, timber cutting and oil drilling in some of our public lands, which belong to us. I would be pushing that the Bush administration must be impeached because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz waged a war of aggression against Iraq, which had not attacked us and was not an imminent threat to the United States. That this turned Islam against us and caused the deaths of over a 100,000 of Iraqis, our fighting men, and women. The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted the Nazi leaders of waging a war of aggression, which it called "the supreme international crime.” I would be asking “What do the war in Iraq and the economic recovery in the United States have in common?” And answer “More than one might expect, to judge from the last couple of rounds of US growth figures. The war has been a large part of the justification for the Bush administration to run ever-widening budget deficits, though the percentage of the deficet has decreased in the past ten years. Oh, I would go on, those deficits, predicated largely on military spending, have in turn pumped money into the economy and provided the stimulus that low interest rates and tax cuts, on their own, could never achieve. The result, instead of growing the government in general - pumping resources into public works, health care and education, I would say, the policy focuses on those areas that represent obvious conservative and business-friendly constituencies. Which is to say, the military and, even more specifically, the military contractors that tend to be big contributors to Republican Party funds, like the evil Halliburton. I don’t believe this, of course, because I know the government spends more than 3 times on domestic programs, and there has never been a decrease in that. The military, on thew other hand, ha suffered a more than 50% decrease as a percentage of US gov revenues over the past 15 years. On domestic spending President Bush has not only heeded the words of Eisenhower, but has joined Democrats in creating a new “Domestic Spending Complex” monster that eats the “Military Industrial Complex” for a snack before lunch! If what Eisenhower said about the military spending more than all the U.S. corporations holds true, than where is the US government getting its revenues? The US has a 12+ trillion dollar economy. Ninety percent of US revenue comes from corporate America, that’s 10.8+ Trillion dollars. The government. is spending less than 750 billion on the Military. So lets be really absurd and say I believe all the rhetoric spewing from the Left.

celmak,
I wasn't trying to be nasty. What you are doing here is wrong. If you are serious about this, you are going to have to think for yourself. I noticed you have been a Freeper for a while, you should understand the etiquette.

You posted this twice, you should have posted as a Vanity, but most of all, you need to think for yourself.

If you are looking for people to vet your ideas, that is fine, post them and let us deconstruct them, but you don't post the question to look for answers.

I apologize for the lecture, but you need to approach this differently.

Before you get on my case about corrections, read this, not the above (eye wus tiping tooo fastly):

It’s not rational to use misinformation as a foundation of fact to support a rhetorical question, unless the answer you want is to show absurdity by being absurd. From the “relatively straight forward facts”, I will answer the question in light of a Liberal perspective. Since President Eisenhower offered his “dark” warning about "the military-industrial complex," that has only grown bigger and stronger, creating a three-fold increase in domestic spending (even though there has been a ten-fold increase in Domestic spending). Certainly, the end of the Cold War did nothing to stop it. Today, Americans budget for more defense and domestic spending than the next top 15 socialist states combined; we not only have a new $75 billion war and new Department of Homeland Security, but our approach to domestic woes is increasing $300 billion in Medicare works that our future cannot pay! I would not want to be a citizen of an empire that rules by force. I would say, if Liberal, that this administration would appear to be bankrupting our country, rewarding the “Military Industrial Complex.” President Bush is trying to usurp the powers of Congress and the courts, ordering mining, timber cutting and oil drilling in some of our public lands, which belong to us. I would be pushing that the Bush administration must be impeached because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz waged a war of aggression against Iraq, which had not attacked us and was not an imminent threat to the United States. That this turned Islam against us and caused the deaths of over a 100,000 of Iraqis, our fighting men, and women. The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted the Nazi leaders of waging a war of aggression, which it called "the supreme international crime.” I would be asking, “What do the war in Iraq and the economic recovery in the United States have in common?” And answer, “More than one might expect, to judge from the last couple of rounds of US growth figures. The war has been a large part of the justification for the Bush administration to run ever-widening budget deficits, though the percentage of the deficit has decreased in the past ten years. Oh, I would go on, those deficits, predicated largely on military spending, have in turn pumped money into the economy and provided the stimulus that low interest rates and tax cuts, on their own, could never achieve. The result, instead of growing the government in general - pumping resources into public works, health care and education, I would say, the policy focuses on those areas that represent obvious conservative and business-friendly constituencies. Which is to say, the military and, even more specifically, the military contractors that tend to be big contributors to Republican Party funds, like the evil Halliburton. I don’t believe this, of course, because I know the government spends more than 3 times on domestic programs, and there has never been a decrease in that. In reality, the military has suffered a more than 50% decrease as a percentage of US government revenues over the past 15 years. On domestic spending President Bush has not only heeded the words of Eisenhower, but has joined Democrats in creating a new “Domestic Spending Complex” monster that eats the “Military Industrial Complex” for a snack before lunch! If what Eisenhower said about the military spending more than all the U.S. corporations holds true, than where is the US government getting its revenues? The US has a 12+ trillion dollar economy. Ninety percent of US revenue comes from corporate America, that’s 10.8+ Trillion dollars. The government. is spending less than 750 billion on the Military. So lets be really absurd and say I believe all the rhetoric spewing from the Left, we are doomed!

I'm not going to get on your case about spelling corrections, but I would suggest a few things you might try, then repost it. (Don't take it personally-I really am trying to help, so I will be frank)

1.) That is one really dense block of text. It seems like one long run-on sentence. I think you are presenting a lot of information in there, but it is nearly impossible to absorb. I would break it up into paragraphs that reflect the various aspects of points you are trying to present.

2.) I am really having difficulty figuring out exactly what your point is. The medical analogy is a fibrillating heart. You really need to parse out the points you want to make and present them in a logical fashion, one idea leading into the next. Being able to present your case and communicate it effectively is absolutely as important as having a point of view. I can't figure out if you agree or disagree with liberals, Eisenhower or conservatives.

3.) You are presenting a boatload of factoids without sources and it is difficult to tell if you are presenting them as facts or fiction disguised as facts.

4.) You need consistency in the way you present your point. You should select a perspective to present your view from, and be consistent, using it as an anchor to extend your viewpoints and statements from, always going back to it. Think of it as telling a story to someone, you have to continually come back to the present to use as a jumping off point.

See if you can shape it up and repost it.

Mirroring other suggestions on this thread, I'll say this.

If I submitted an essay with a paragraph this long my professor would have returned it unmarked.

Some helpful suggestions

1) No paragraph this long could contain a single thought or theme. The basic rule of composition is when the subject changes make a new paragraph.

2) For clarity make sure the first sentence of a paragraph refers to the subject/theme of the preceeding paragraph.

3) The last sentence of the paragraph should introduce the subject/theme of the next paragraph.

4) The introduction should introduce the theme of the essay.

5) The last or concluding paragraph should summerize the arguments in the body of the essay and refer back to the original theme.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.