Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep reading Republicans candidates and voters talk about how we need to increase military spending. I don't understand why. We already spend more than the next 8 countries combined. Why do we need to spend more? Likewise, the same people who complain we spend too much and how the budget should be balanced and cut are championing an increase in military spending. Those 2 things don't mesh to me and seems hypocritical.
Yes we need a strong military but I think it would be equally as strong if the budget was cut. I think the difference is that we would not be the main country involved in every conflict happening in the world. In my opinion, i believe one of the reasons other countries don't participate as much in foreign affairs is that they aren't going to double their military spending just to get involved in some foreign dispute that doesn't benefit them. We eagerly jump in because hey...what's another 5 billion dollars when you are spending 600 billion? China is the 2nd biggest and doesn't even spend 200 billion
So in case you have figured it out yet...yes, I would totally be in favor of cutting 100-200 billion dollars from the military to each fund other projects or simply reduce the size of government spending. Also, we congress is going to vote on going to Iraq, afghanistan, syria, etc then the health care for veterans needs to be included upfront. that's part of the cost of war and I think it is disingenuous to send people into war and not fund their recovery once they come home. If we did it that way, that cost of war will balloon and perhaps make some of them think twice about eagerly jumping into something.
IMHO - The primary reason we indulge in foreign wars is to justify having military spending. This spending is the largest and most acceptable form of domestic corporate welfare in our economy. Without it our industries and industrial unions would be in deep economic trouble.
There are ways of subsidizing a domestic industrial economy that does not involve military spending but they are complex and not a subject to political forces.
The U.S. neo-conservative leadership, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values are not actually in favor of a free market. They want socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. The privatization of profit and the socialization of losses and lost bets. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. Not saying this is right or wrong, just laying out the irrefutable facts.
Last edited by Mighty_Pelican; 01-26-2016 at 10:15 AM..
What do we then do with the money cut from the military?
I already mentioned that....put it towards other projects such as infrastructure, bridges etc. Maybe use it to fully fund veterans health benefits...or just cut it completely and balance the budget
What do we then do with the money cut from the military?
Cut the budget deficit instead of creating incremental federal debt which required the US to borrow and pay interest.
The War in Iraq will cost $6 Trillion when interest and VA benefits are included in the cost. These associated expenses are not reported as " defense" spending.
"WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush says the Obama administration has “gutted” every weapons system in the U.S. military’s inventory. GOP rival Donald Trump says the military is a “disaster.” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio maintains that President Barack Obama is more interested in providing money to Planned Parenthood than for the nation’s armed forces.
Gutted? Disaster?"
We would still have a deficit even if we cut 300 billion. So there would not be a extra 300 b to spend, it would just make the deficit lower. Which would be a great thing, but I don't see it happening anytime soon as every politician in DC seems to have some military spending going on in their home state that they are not willing to cut, needed or not. And that includes dems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
