Whew! All that from a Michael Harrington reference. Impressive. ;-)

>>Amazing. Michael Harrington used to suggest -- with some accuracy, too -- that it was easy to determine the shortfall of social spending within a given "developed" country by adding up the military spending. They result was usually uncannily the same.
>
>Who gets to decide/determine what constitutes the "extent" of social spending shortfalls? What is ludicrous is basing these figures on gov't social spending without taking into account private charities that are WAY more efficient than gov't will ever be. Throw private sector charitable donations into the equation, and I dare say no other country is more charitable than the U.S., even when it comes to helping countries that despise us.
>
>Do you actually think slashing the U.S. military budget would result in a correlating increase in social spending? I certainly hope not. Our budget must be slashed in all areas (including military), some more than others, and some downright eliminated (subsidies of any kind and the Dept of Education comes to mind). You do not have the right to a gov't subsidy if you choose a job/career that will not support your lifestyle.
>
>No where in our rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness" does it say "entitlement." Conversely, I have every right to expect gov't not to be an impediment to such rights -- e.g., taxes (especially capital gains, marriage & death taxes), spiralling budget deficits, national debt, corruption, self-serving politicians, lawyers, activist judges, illegal immigration etc.