The difference after the European war is that we were manufacturing goods in the US. Today's economy is service based, not much durable production going on, the dollar was stronger, cost of living was lower, and credit was less pervasive. We've been at war 10 years, many hundreds of thousands have gotten out during that time, and many of those are still unemployed, or using their GI Bill to get a degree, and finding there is no job after graduation. Unlike the previous wars, there is no actual $ to bring back here. Its all on credit already. And public funds do not create wealth producing jobs.
The 500,000 uniformed (est. total of 750,000 if you add civilian support workforce) put on the street will not have $ to spend. The thousands of small business owners who make their living, and employ others, providing local services to the military families will die off. 1/3 of all food orders, 1/3 of all uniform orders equals 1/3 of all transport/supply jobs, trucking, security ... 1/3 of the military is a lot bigger than 500k unemployed people.
But a national security force that takes no constitutional oath could be raised to ensure the safety of our children as outlined in these documents. Now where have I heard that idea floated around again? (And DSCP is already making khaki long sleeved shirts.)
I in no way shape or form imagine that cutting the military by 1/3 is going to be used to reduce our national budget or debt, even though that will be the argument given. (Just like all the lies told when the debt ceiling was raised). It's going to be redirected into activity that is not under constitutional purview, and is solely under executive control. Both parties want that, it will be so.
