This should be on the front pages of every newspaper...
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/te … 0000-1-day
Why isn't it?
Because we live in a country that wants low taxes and a huge military with bases around the world, even if it bankrupts us in the long run.
Yet, that is what most of our government duty should be, provide for national defense. The amount of the budget is mostly other programs...which leads us to debt and deficit spending and kicking the can down the road so our children and grandkids will have to pay the bill...
If we were to raise the taxes tomorrow and it would make no dent on this deficits because liberal will spend it like there is no tomorrow... any attempt to reduce the budget would be treated like we are starving children and throwing grandma over the cliff...hyperbole.
It's hard for liberals to spend when Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.
Even so, they aren't taking any actions to cut the debt because they like big expensive military bases in their districts.
Why do you lay the blame on our defense budget promisem? Aren't there other areas of government spending that might easily be as culpable?
Why wouldn't government inefficiency come to mind? Heck, healthcare, (government healthcare programs), fraud and inefficiencies alone could probably offset 30% or 50% of our defense budget. Add in the small potatoes stuff, like program and department duplications - that are only a billion or two here and there, programs fraud - like social welfare programs and subsidies programs, and you could probably find another $200 - $300 billion dollar horse to whip, so why do you blame defense?
I would even say that government inefficiencies might also include ramifications of that defense budget - like cost overruns, fraud, etc.. Do you think that is a fair consideration?
Total defense spending is $600 billion. It is larger than all of the other discretionary budget categories put together.
The U.S. defense budget is 3X larger than the next largest in the world. It also is larger than all other defense budgets in the entire world combined.
I agree that inefficiencies add to the problem. But I haven't seen any meaningful effort to identify those inefficiencies or fix them. Budget cuts just might help make it happen.
How does such misinformation make past the first person to read it? Does no one make any effort whatsoever to verify even the wildest claims?
Total world military spending: 1686B
US military spending: 611.2B
The US is 611B, while all other countries combined is 1075B. 611 is NOT larger than 1075.
In addition, only with VERY sloppy math is 215.7 X 3 (or 647.1B) greater than 611B. The US is NOT spending more than 3 times the next largest (China).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … penditures
I'm shocked that extremists care about accuracy. Must be a new thing.
Sloppy math? OK, the U.S. is spending only 2.84 times as much money as China. The criticism that 3X is inaccurate is ridiculous.
You seem to agree with my fact about the size of the budget. You didn't respond to the size of it compared to other budget categories.
You are quite right on one point, which is rare. The U.S. used to spend more money than all nations combined and is now longer doing so. I had recent years in mind rather than the current year.
Of course, ignore my basic point. The U.S. vastly outspends the entire planet on guns, your favorite pastime.
I am aware of the defense budget figure promisem, and $600 billion is a fair number for discussion.
To Wilderness' points concerning the spin, (and errors), of your statements, I would add that another perspective is that relative to the scale of economies, I think the U.S. comes in 4th in defense spending.
But the point of my question was that even if the defense budget were cut in half, we would still be operating at a deficit and adding to the national debt. We seem to agree that fraud and government inefficiencies are a problem, but apparently differ on their scale, and the importance of their contribution to our national debt.
The defense budget is an easy target, the low hanging fruit - as some might say, but it is also an ideological target. Which is why I think it was the first thought that came to mind for you. Whereas someone of a different perspective might point to social welfare programs first.
Consider your comment about base closures. I do agree that there is a case to be made for closing some bases, but consider the impact on a base-supported community. Of the jobs impact of cancelled programs. Would the expanded spending for social welfare programs that has taken place in recent years compare to the cost of keeping a base or program for the economic benefits they provide for local and regional economies? These are considerations that I think are completely ignored when an ideologue bashing of defense spending is the knee-jerk reaction to the question of our deficit spending or the national debt.
"I would add that another perspective is that relative to the scale of economies, I think the U.S. comes in 4th in defense spending. "
And there is yet a third perspective that might be considered. The US has only the 7th largest military in terms of manpower; rather than spending people in a conflict we choose to spend very high priced equipment, from smart bombs to aircraft carriers, a philosophy I am 100% in agreement with.
Damn Wilderness, I wish I had thought of that. N. Korea comes immediately to mind, followed of course by China. That is a good point, should one consider the "blood and treasure," (our military personnel), of our nation, as a dollars and sense factor in defense costs? I think not. I would rather see a million dollar rocket wasted than a Seal team or squadron of infantry killed.
Could even think about the fact that some of our most expensive bombs, missiles, etc. are costing so much because they are so accurate. Saving civilian lives as well as US military lives, in other words.
I mean, we could create another Dresden out of Mosul or Kandahar, or we could send in a couple of very expensive, slow moving, easy to destroy, drones with very expensive smart bombs to accomplish the same ultimate goal.
I know which I would choose.
How in the world are you an expert in deciding how much money to spend on military technology and how much to spend on military personnel?
In your desire to denigrate a perfectly reasonable response, you missed the entire point. Which is that some military equipment saves US lives and even foreign civilian lives, but that equipment is often very expensive.
The military thus has a choice; either spend on equipment, saving soldier's lives, or spend on more soldiers and their wages while expecting more soldiers to be killed.
I choose the former; from your snarky response can I assume you choose the latter as the cheaper option?
No, my humble point is that I'm not in a position to decide how much money to spend on military personnel versus technology. Neither is anyone else posting on here.
Oh. Well, neither am I. Neither what we need for defense (and neither are you) nor what the division should be between personnel and tech.
I just recognize that, because of our technology as compared to other countries, we have a choice to make on that division. Other countries do not, at least nothing of real value - choosing 50 million swordsmen rather than jet fighters isn't particularly useful.
It doesn't take a genius to recognize that we can't keep outspending our tax revenues with a defense budget as large as ours. That much I do know along with other true conservatives.
And I don't think anyone is comparing a choice between swordsmen and jet fighters.
And it doesn't take a genius to see that we cannot keep on giving away money we don't have, in welfare programs that are self-perpetuating.
It doesn't even take a genius understand that the man-in-the-street (meaning you and I) have virtually no way of knowing if military expenditures are necessary or not. Not even to know if we can slow waste while spending less to do it than we save. So when I see statements like "I know we're spending far more than we need to" it pretty much means "Ignore that speaker, for (s)he speaks from a position of almost complete ignorance, not from knowledge or fact".
One of the biggest problems is the assumption that if we don't have a strong defense, no one will take advantage of us. That if we do away with TSA there will be no negative consequences from terrorists. That if we just talk nice to NK and ISIS they will be glad to leave us alone. Both are foolish in the extreme, both are living in a dream land where reality is assumed to be whatever we want it to be. It's a nice wish list, but if it's wrong, and if cutting defense spending results in invasion or being conquered...but of course we KNOW that won't happen. Islamic extremists don't want us gone, after all! Just a foolish concern by conservatives that live in the real world rather than a make believe one, isn't it?
GA, I made four factual statements, of which one was formerly accurate and now out of date.
I consider the defense budget a major necessary target simply because of the vast size of it compared to all other budget categories.
That said, all budget categories are subject to cuts. Even so, I don't see how we can cut the government discretionary budgets without raising taxes and still end up with a surplus.
It will get much worse when the next recession comes.
Do we at least agree that the size of the defense budget makes it subject to cuts if we want to reduce deficit spending?
Hi promisem, well... we can at least agree that there is probably as much waste and fraud in the defense budget that should be addressed - as there is in other major programs. But I don't think it is as simple as just cutting the defense budget because it is the largest target.
Could we agree that your four statements although factual, (let's pass on the "totals more than all the rest" one, as noted those numbers have changed), were constructed to paint an incomplete picture - as in ignoring the point of scale, and Wilderness' point of prioritizing lives over dollars, which would paint quite a different picture than the one your statements did?
Don't confuse what I am saying as a blank-check defense of the defense budget. My thoughts are that there are a lot of variables that affect that decision, and reasonable conclusions must consider those variables.
For instance, and I am shooting from the hip here, your mentioned base closings, (let's talk U.S. bases). The cold calculation using the perspective of your picture is "X" amount of money saved by closing the base. And let's say that "X" is a big number to save. A worthwhile number to chase.
Now consider this variable;
I would say that in a majority of cases, a military base is the economic life-blood of the community it is in. Like the "company towns" that folded when the "company" left, (think Detroit maybe?), should the economic collapse of a community, (town, city, or even region), be a consideration in the costs savings calculated from closing the base? The hard decision may be yes, the closure is the best economic choice, but, I wonder if that variable is even a consideration in the mind of most folks like yourself, (at least as it appears by your advocating closing bases), promoting this type of defense budget cuts.
Again, my only point is that attacking the large number of the defense budget should include more reasons than just that it is the biggest target, and as such should be the first to be cut. Beyond that point, my "public knowledge" perception is that, yes, there probably are a lot of programs and military installations, (which includes more than just bases), that could and should be cut. We have all heard of the "pork barrel" appropriations and strong-arm political tactics used for programs and weapons/systems that the military doesn't even want
My first thought was recalling 8th grade Government class long ago where I said the national debt should be reduced and all three of the team teachers said I was stupid. It was crazy to me, because they also forbade us to use our names - made us use numbers and said we no longer had names -- What politics is all that? Are we also bullied into accepting the increasing debt today?
So, I don't know - do some people take pride in a large national debt? Or does the public think it's not important? Or do they not consider it manageable because they cannot grasp the large number? Do they consider it not real money because it is not backed by gold? I don't know, but I don't like it.
by Jack Lee55 minutes ago
In the 10 months of the Trump administration, we are seeing hard data that our economy is coming back. The stock market is a leading indicator of things to come. It has crossed over the 23000 mark.That is an 18%...
by qwark6 years ago
A billion:A billion seconds ago it was 1959!A billion minutes ago jesus alledgedly lived!A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the stone age!A billion days ago no one walked upon the earth on 2 feet!Now,...
by Deforest4 years ago
And we don't have any money to save our country!
by Flightkeeper7 years ago
The nation's debt leapt $166 billion in a single day last week, the third-largest increase in U.S. history; the one-day increase for June 30 totaled $165,931,038,264.30 - bigger than the entire annual deficit for fiscal...
by Peter D.3 years ago
I am just curious what most people will answer with, but I think I know what the answer is going to be....
by Harvey Stelman7 years ago
Our Politicians think they can. Tell me if you or the government can; and how?
Copyright © 2017 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.