- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Cutting it in half sounds great...to be sure. And the 20-30 million military, civilian, contractor, support, and other personnel...well...its not like unemployment would be a problem. To say nothing of the devastation to local economies across the country.
'cutting' isnt a simple proposition. It can be done...but not without some real thought.
Where would you suggest Putin be stopped, or should he be allowed to do as he wishes?
Many would say ensuring peace against would be tyrants by never firing a shot is well worth the cost. History has also shown it is more risky and even expensive to stand up to meet challenges than it is to maintain preparedness. WHt is undeniable is that while we know the cost of maintaining peace, we can only speculate as to the world picture had the US not done so since WW2.There will always be people employed supporting any subsidized industry. But if you take away the subsidy then they will find better jobs due to the growth in the economy from less tax and the fact that what they are then doing is actually wealth creating. It would take a little time but that's got to happen some time.
When you are spending more on war than the rest of the world combined you have a problem. When you have the best tec and a vast quality advantage over your foes as well you have a fixation. When there is no real threat to the political situation and your vast armed forces are chasing shadows they them selves probably created you have lost all sanity and there is a con going on.
What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.
What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.
Cut 90%.
Pay off Debt
Create USA jobs,
Uh, create jobs by laying off over 3 million people?
Pay off the debt, where even with 100% of the DoD budget it would take over 30 years to pay off what we have now?
Think much, you do not.
No it would pay off the debt in say 10 years............... including ALL defence spending.
Facts much, you do not.
I would increase military spending, but only in areas where it is needed: soldier pay and benefits, and technological advancements. I am a Democrat, but I believe, as I have stated in other threads, that we must maintain the most powerful military in the world so that we do not have to use it. Simply put, if we are strong enough, no one will challenge us.
Now, that being said, I also feel that we should not use that might in order to just gain access to oil reserves and the like, but rather to defend our values of freedom and human rights around the world.
Defense Budget: $683 billion
US Debt: $17.5 trillion
After 10 years, that would still have paid off only $6.8 trillion of the debt. Of course, you have also not found a solution for the over 3 million people out of work, which would cost even more.
As I said, think much, you do not. Facts, less you have of.
On the other hand, we need a president that doesn't come across as an unreliable ally.
Obama aims to reinvigorate Asia strategy - The Washington Post
First thing I'd do is make sure $7,600 is not being spent on coffee makers, or $604 for toilet seats, or other outrageous prices for easy to obtain commodities.
Third would be eliminating redundancy amongst the services while integrating them to maximize cooperation and cost effectiveness. For instance, I don't believe that the U.S. military needs two versions of the infantry - one Army, one Marine Corps. - when one of them can get the job done by itself and historically with less money and the "new toys fresh out of the box."
We could make significant cuts to our military spending and still easily remain the most powerful and advanced military force on the planet. I agree with peace through strength, but like anything it is subject to diminishing returns, the point of which we are well past.
This doesn't happen. The military will book an expense like a $500 hammer, pay a wholesale price that Home Depot does and use the balance of the appropriation to pay for off the record operations. It's been like this for a long, long time. Black ops don't get funded via Congress traditionally. They get funded by overbooking expenses on paper but paying the normal rates and banking the balance for no/low oversight operations.
What would you do with our defense spending? Would you downsize it? Increase it? Leave it the same? Please explain each of your choices.
Would help if we didn't have a Congress who was constantly tying the shoelaces of his shoes together.
Lots of people don't understand how an obstructionist Congress can tie the hands of a President in foreign policy.
Defence is much higher than that. it is just hidden in other budgets. Like the seperate war budgets, and the VA budget.
And maybe some taxes on the rich are needed just like in WW2. Say 94% taxes like in 1944, except on all income, earned and unearned................
I wouldn't want to cut any defense spending that would reduce any of our war fighting capabilities, however if things must be cut, there are a few things that could save money and have the least amount of pain for military members. For example the idea of closing stateside commissaries on bases that have large grocery stores nearby them could save 1 Billion dollars a year according to some reports. And another unpopular example, cut back a little on the Post 9/11 GI Bill, it is incredibly generous right now and pays for almost everything so perhaps just cutting the housing allowance part of it could save millions. By the way, I benefit from both the Post 9/11 GI Bill and the commissaries, but I just see the reality of the federal budget and if they have to cut, then I would rather they not cut any war fighting capabilities.
In other words, you are going to cut the budget by sticking it to the Veterans?
Excuse me, are you freaking nuts?
Especially the GI Bill cut... myself for almost a year and a huge number of others rely upon that stipend to even be able to go to school at all. As for me, if I was not married I could not have gone, because the "housing stipend" literally only paid for my monthly rent (Rent was $950, stipend was $1,100).
But hey, I guess we could just strip that all away, and go back to the old GI Bill, the one we had when I first joined.
VEAP.
Especially the GI Bill cut... myself for almost a year and a huge number of others rely upon that stipend to even be able to go to school at all. As for me, if I was not married I could not have gone, because the "housing stipend" literally only paid for my monthly rent (Rent was $950, stipend was $1,100).
Oh don't give me that crap... "Oh, it is much higher then that, it is just hidden". This is for serious discussions on the military, not conspiracy theory crap. But the VA budget is not the military budget. Hell, people who had been in the military also collect Social Security, so why not throw that into this "super-secret military budget" as well?
And hey, that other ideal is good too. And if they don't like it, we can treat the rich like the enemies... you know, put them in camps like we did the Japanese, Italians and Germans! After all, everybody knows that they are the real enemy, right?
Decrease it by at least half. Even with half of the resources we would still have the wherewithal to put together a massice military force in time of need.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?