|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Is increasing the military budget to have the best military, boost the economy, or both?
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute nation spending in billions and share of GDP is: U.S. - 596/3.3%, 215/1.9%, Saudi Arabia - 87/13.7%, Russia 66/5.4%, UK 55/2.0%, India 51/2.3%, France 51/2.1% & Japan 41/1.0%
I can't answer definitely. But, to provide proper security to your country and people, you need to increase the spending on military and keep the best military force and equipment. It will safeguard your people and nation's assets thereby indirectly providing economic development.
Increasing military spending can generate more jobs for companies that have government contracts to provide planes, ships, missile technology and so forth. Such spending helped Ronald Reagan turn the economy around.
On the other hand spending to rebuild the nation's infrastructure, bridges, roads, highways, and airports would also generate a lot of jobs too.
According some reports more than 63,000 bridges crossed 250 Million times a day need significant repairs.
They are ticking time bombs!
Ironically, president Dwight D Eisenhower built the National Highway System as a military purpose to get troops and equipment across the country rapidly.
Today, the irony is that we haven't even kept up with the maintenance of these roads, as the population has almost quadrupled since then and a corresponding increase in vehicles.
The electric grid should also be called a military target to be protected, but it is dying on the line.
We have been in one war or another since WWII. And the same politicians that argue against increasing the military budget are the ones that keep getting us into more wars. Wars by the way that they have lost, all of them.
The military can win battles, but not wars. The reason is that the politicians seem to always grab defeat out of the jaws of military victories. Or like in Vietnam never get to military victories.
Had the politicians won the Korean War, we would have Jungivitis today.
The military budget has a limited increase in our economy. It goes to the GDP and it makes it look better than it is, but what about the private sector. Say bye bye to JC Penney while we launch another fighter plane, or sub, or ?
Brad as long as you are the only one defining wins and losses, you are right on the wars -- a long view and you are very wrong. Did we stop the Domino effect in north and south Pacific? Is the Caliphate larger or smaller?
How snarky of you. The first 2sentences is a cheap shot. I did a hub with all the details on why we even lost WWII. BTW your final 2 sentences are not descriptive of winning a battle much less a war.
My pleasure to be snarky on this issue.
Once again no real content in your comments. You continue to do personal attacks instead of contributing. If I were doing the same, I would say that you & Nancy Pelosi have a lot in common. I do prefer to discuss the info rather than the per
Alright Brad. And you know that I read your hub on this as I commented there and disagreed. Where is there a personal attack? I attacked your definition of win is war. I still do. I do not do personal attacks and you know it.
"Brad as long as you are the only one defining wins and losses, you are right on the wars -- a long view and you are very wrong." how is this not personal. And you really didn't comment on the content of my comment.
Brad that is totally a point on your contention not on you as a person.
Looking hard for attacks maybe? Look elsewhere. Increasing military spending in the percentages suggested is not even matching inflation.
by Steven Dison5 years ago
Should there be more cuts to budget in the short term, even with the threat of austerity looming?
by American View5 years ago
Nancy Pelosi was on Fax News last Sunday continuing to claim their is no spending problem. She also claims that sequestration was wrong. First, if it was so wrong as she admittedly claimed, why did she so vocally...
by John Coviello2 years ago
How Much Will The New 2-Year Budget Deal Increase Economic Growth In The U.S.?If anyone here is an economist. The U.S. is increasing its discretionary budget for the first time in many years, by about 100 billion...
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security...
by John4 years ago
How do you think cutting the federal spending will help the economy?
by Stump Parrish7 years ago
Seems to me that we are about to increase our military presence in two more areas of the world. That we don't have the money to run our country won't stop those who make money supplying our military from increasing...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.