Reducing Federal Spending.

[Winston Smith]

We were "casting about"? But even if true.. that's not Straining. And not straining You said was Osama's reason.
Everyone is aware of Osama's main stated reasons.


What does the have to do with Osama attacking on 9/11 "because" he wanted us to strain our military?
This is beyond fallacious.


We all know what Osama said before 9/11 and your assertion wasn't his reason.
In fact, he wanted our troops Out of Saudi Arabia.. and succeeded in that non-strain/retrenchment.

It has to do with the fact that you don't have to be a weather man to see which way the wind blows. It was apparent in the late 90s that the stage was set for escalation in the event of a major terrorist attack. It didn't matter how the 2000 election went. Sure, OBL resented the troops in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, and the whole Israel/Palestinian situation, but that doesn't fully explain why he acted as he did when he did.

 

[Goobieman]

I have a modest proposal for how to drastically reduce the debt and spending without touching any of the social programs that millions of Americans rely on: reduce the defense budget by 25%...

Using FY2009 numbers...
Total defense spending: $655.8B
Total deficit: $1550.6B
25% of $655.8B = $164B
A $164B cun in defense spenidng reduces the deficit by 10.6%.

Wow.

For some perspective:
The INCRESE in entitlement speding from FY2008 to FY2009 was $500B, 300% more than the money your proposal would save, and -- wait for it -- more than the total amount we'd spent so far on the war in Iraq,

You're on a sinking ship. You want to plug the holes made by machine-gun fire and ignore the holes from the torpedoes. Your failure to recognize the problem puts the ship at the bottom.

 

[Winston Smith]

Using FY2009 numbers...
Total defense spending: $655.8B
Total deficit: $1550.6B
25% of $655.8B = $164B
A $164B cun in defense spenidng reduces the deficit by 10.6%.

Wow.

For some perspective:
The INCRESE in entitlement speding from FY2008 to FY2009 was $500B, 300% more than the money your proposal would save, and -- wait for it -- more than the total amount we'd spent so far on the war in Iraq,

You're on a sinking ship. You want to plug the holes made by machine-gun fire and ignore the holes from the torpedoes. Your failure to recognize the problem puts the ship at the bottom.

But when you count all defense-related expenditures and not just the DOD, they were close to a trillion dollars in 2009. Counting interest on the national debt puts it over a trillion, and that's in a year when interest rates were ridiculously low. We shouldn't cut it by 25 percent, either...let's try 75 percent, for starters.

 

[Goobieman]

But when you count all defense-related expenditures and not just the DOD

The figures I cited contain all defense related expendatures.

 

[Winston Smith]

The figures I cited contain all defense related expendatures.

No, they don't. See the link.

 

[Goobieman]

No, they don't. See the link.

You can show me the CBO numbers that support your statement, as that's where my numbers are from.
Otherwise, you're just trying to inpute entitlement spending that doesn't belong.

Face it - entitlement, snot defense spending, are the problem.
No way to address the issue of deficits w/o going after entitlements in a much big way.

 

[Winston Smith]

You can show me the CBO numbers that support your statement, as that's where my numbers are from.
Otherwise, you're just trying to inpute entitlement spending that doesn't belong.

Face it - entitlement, snot defense spending, are the problem.
No way to address the issue of deficits w/o going after entitlements in a much big way.

There are OMB numbers in the link.

 

[The_Patriot]

I have a modest proposal for how to drastically reduce the debt and spending without touching any of the social programs that millions of Americans rely on: reduce the defense budget by 25%.

The US currently spends the same amount on its military as the rest of the world combined. Including funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it totals $1.3 trillion. With the Cold War over, and any threat to the US coming from extremely low-tech wackos in caves in Afghanistan/Pakistan, I think that this would be a great approach to take, but I've heard nothing about it from either side of the aisle.

Thoughts?

Unfortunately, defense is an enumerated power in the Constitution while social programs are not and are unconstitutional.

 

[Deuce]

Unfortunately, defense is an enumerated power in the Constitution while social programs are not and are unconstitutional.

The Air Force is not an enumerated power.

 

[jambalaya]

Believe it or not we have drastically reduced our defense budget over the last 20 years. Many bases were closed and personnel reduced. Many soldiers went to reserve duty during that time. We have been more selective in new weapons and military vehicle programs. The reason our military is stretched so thin in fighting these wars is because of the reductions. However, when you are involved in wars it brings tremendous expense. The only way we are going to reduce the budget it get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think a better idea would be to pass an amendment to reduce the entire federal budget by 25%.

 

[digsbe]

As the world becomes increasingly hostile and full of radical regimes, I think we should be funding our military more. I think we need to make things more efficient and cut the wasteful spending. They need to reform government jobs and hire efficient people. The state of government employment is deplorable right now, and so much money is wasted in social programs.

 

[Goobieman]

The Air Force is not an enumerated power.

If you follow/argeee with the argument made regading the "General Welfare Clause" and how it grants to the government the power to crrate, say, Social Security, then there need not be any enumerated power to create the Air Farce.

OR the Army.
OR the Navy.

 

[Goobieman]

There are OMB numbers in the link.

As I said:
You can show me the CBO numbers that support your statement, as that's where my numbers are from. Otherwise, you're just trying to inpute entitlement spending that doesn't belong.

And, you may now address...
Face it - entitlement, snot defense spending, are the problem.
No way to address the issue of deficits w/o going after entitlements in a much bigger way.

 

[Winston Smith]

As I said:
You can show me the CBO numbers that support your statement, as that's where my numbers are from. Otherwise, you're just trying to inpute entitlement spending that doesn't belong.

And, you may now address...
Face it - entitlement, snot defense spending, are the problem.
No way to address the issue of deficits w/o going after entitlements in a much bigger way.

You're missing the point. We're both using the same numbers, but I'm counting things that are related to defense even though they don't appear in the DOD budget itself. Things like Justice Department anti-terror programs, Department of Energy nuclear programs, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Veterans Affairs, etc. You can call them entitlements if you want. You'd be wrong, since they're mostly discretionary, but it really doesn't matter what you want to call them. They point is that they're related to defense and there's a lot of them there to be cut.

 

[Goobieman]

You're missing the point. We're both using the same numbers, but I'm counting things that are related to defense even though they don't appear in the DOD budget itself.

Yes - you're trying to inpute spending that doesn't belong.
The difference is "defense spending" and "spending related to defense in some way shape or form".
Apples and oranges.

 

[Winston Smith]

Yes - you're trying to inpute spending that doesn't belong.
The difference is "defense spending" and "spending related to defense in some way shape or form".
Apples and oranges.

Great. If it's not defense spending, I assume you're okay with cutting it. Call it what you want, as long as we get rid of it.

 

[Goobieman]

Great. If it's not defense spending, I assume you're okay with cutting it. Call it what you want, as long as we get rid of it.

Aside from your baseless assumption..

You're missing the point - entitlement, not defense spending, is the problem.
No way to effectively address the issue of deficits w/o going after entitlements in a big way.

 

[Winston Smith]

Aside from your baseless assumption..

You're missing the point - entitlement, not defense spending, is the problem.
No way to effectively address the issue of deficits w/o going after entitlements in a big way.

They're both problems.

 

[Goobieman]

They're both problems.

Goven that spending on one is several times higher than spendinr on the other, you're arguing that we should put our finger over a crack while leaving the floodgates open.

 

[Winston Smith]

Goven that spending on one is several times higher than spendinr on the other, you're arguing that we should put our finger over a crack while leaving the floodgates open.

Not really. Defense, even strictly defined, is 23 percent of the budget...hardly a crack.

 

[Goobieman]

Not really. Defense, even strictly defined, is 23 percent of the budget...hardly a crack.

Using FY2009 numbers...
Total spending: $3518.2B
Total defense spending:.....$655.8B.....18.6%
Total eltitlement spending:..$2288.7B...65.0%
Total deficit: $1550.6B
For every $ that defense spending runs up the deficit, entitlememts run up $3.48

For some perspective:
The INCRESE in entitlement speding from FY2008 to FY2009 was $500B, more than the total amount we'd spent so far on the war in Iraq.

When you want to seriously discuss cutting spenidng, get back to me - until then, keep puttin gyour finger to that crack.

 

[Winston Smith]

Using FY2009 numbers...
Total spending: $3518.2B
Total defense spending:.....$655.8B.....18.6%
Total eltitlement spending:..$2288.7B...65.0%
Total deficit: $1550.6B
For every $ that defense spending runs up the deficit, entitlememts run up $3.48

For some perspective:
The INCRESE in entitlement speding from FY2008 to FY2009 was $500B, more than the total amount we'd spent so far on the war in Iraq.

When you want to seriously discuss cutting spenidng, get back to me - until then, keep puttin gyour finger to that crack.

If you want to seriously discuss cutting entitlements, start a thread. This one's about defense. It's a significant, albeit not the single most significant, expense.

 

[Goobieman]

If you want to seriously discuss cutting entitlements, start a thread. This one's about defense. It's a significant, albeit not the single most significant, expense.

Thread: Reducing Federal Spending

Last I looked, entitlement spending was part of federal spending.

It is -impossible- to legitimately and honestly address the reduction of federal spedning without -first- looking at entitelemt spending, as, if not for the host of other reasons specified, entitlement spending ALONE exceeds total federal revenues by almost 10%.

 

[washunut]

Thread: Reducing Federal Spending

Last I looked, entitlement spending was part of federal spending.

It is -impossible- to legitimately and honestly address the reduction of federal spedning without -first- looking at entitelemt spending, as, if not for the host of other reasons specified, entitlement spending ALONE exceeds total federal revenues by almost 10%.

If I could jump in. We need to attack spending in all of it's forms. Why debate which should go first and wind up doing nothing.

BTW, it seems silly for the government to talk about cutting costs for entitlements when they recently put in place what will probably turn out to be the costliest entitlement ever, health care.

Regarding defense, the question could be should we still be trying to pay for an empire that still funds NATO and troops in Japan.

 

[Ockham]

If I could jump in. We need to attack spending in all of it's forms. Why debate which should go first and wind up doing nothing.

Priorities. Flat cuts across the board are geared to States and usually not the Fed.

Regarding defense, the question could be should we still be trying to pay for an empire that still funds NATO and troops in Japan.

Some we still need - Japan and S. Korea for example. Other we could close - say 50% in Europe for example.