Do you think the US should reduce its military spending or make cutbacks elsewhe

1. 75

   breathe2travelposted 11 years ago

   Do you think the US should reduce its military spending or make cutbacks elsewhere?

   replyreport
2. 81

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   Both of the above. Prodigal mismanagement in Washington, including fiscal, must be reined in on both fronts if the US is to survive.
   
   The US national state is living far beyond its means, and Europe is in the early stages of showing where that leads. A failure to balance the domestic budget, which given taxation is already too high can be done only by reducing spending, is to go Greek.
   
   Americans as a whole are sick and tired of serving as the armory of the western world and the global police for its economic interests. Every other nation-state in the US sphere has been riding on their backs since WWII, and it's past time to put a stop to it. They will have to carry their own weight. Americans, probably sooner rather than later, are going to say "Enough!" and stop hauling it for them.

   replyreport
3. 74

   handymanbillposted 11 years ago

   I think that they should cut spending on everything especially on foreign aid to country's that hate us. Maybe cut back on some of the Bases we have in other country's that we don't need. I am sure that there are other places that we could cut.

   replyreport
4. 64

   mackyiposted 11 years ago

   Yes, military spending can be reduced without cutting the actual size and capability of the military. Just getting rid of certain technologies that are now obsolete and introducing much inexpensive and more effective strategies and equipments, removing troops from locations that they are not necessarily needed, are some ways of reducing military spending.

   replyreport
5. 62

   Perspycaciousposted 11 years ago

   When a family, in this case our federal government, spends beyond its means, it has to cut back on non-essentials, and, if that doesn't solve the problem, it wil be forced to cut back even on essentials.  If we don't get spending under control, the day will come when we might need to increase defense spending and can only do it by printing more money.  We can't afford to reach that point, ever!
   Make the painful cuts now, so we don't have to compromise our very security later.
   
   A "stealth boat" which cost over $100 million and sells at auction for $3.2 million is an extreme example, (not to mention giving the buyer the developed technology!) but we have had those from the all-powerful military/industrial complex in this country too many times to count.  (Maybe good soldiers make lousy accountants?)
   
   We need the functioning oversight Congress is required by law to provide.  (Maybe good politicians make lousy policemen?)
   
   We need good citizen businessmen who don't skirt the law by paying employees under the table, and when they do we need enforcement to catch them, so tax revenues and social security revenuse are not lost, and so honest employers do not suffer unfair competition.
   
   We need to know where our federal (family) monies go, and why we are piling on the debts we can ill afford.  This Election 2012 ought to be like a family meeting where Reality sits at the table with us, and calls the shots!

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm afraid the federal government has been monetizing much of the new debt for over three years now. It's too late to avoid that. Congress isn't helpful; it forces unwanted spending, e.g. keeping obsolete bases open.

      replyreport
6. 70

   Pandapocalypseposted 11 years ago

   I think reducing both military spending and domestic programs is a good idea.  That said however, I usually always favor cuts to defense spending first.  I understand the need for a strong military, but I also feel that traditional, large, expensive armies are a thing of the past.  I wouldn't support a complete gutting of our armed forces, but I do believe our current levels are overkil for the kinds of conflicts we are involved with.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The record is that when pols in Washington cut military spending, that's as far as they ever go. They promise domestic cuts but never deliver on them. Both have to be done at the same time.

      replyreport
7. 59

   kcsummersposted 11 years ago

   When the bipartisan super committee sat down last year with the understanding that if they didn't come to an agreement on cutting billions from the budget, their would be consequences - the republicans would have to cut military spending and the democrats would have to cut social spending. They coudldn't come to an agreement, but the republicans reneged on their end of the deal. Not one penny was cut from the military budget, instead they cut medicare, medicaid and MEALS ON WHEELS :-( One missile in Afghanistan could feed a lot of hungry elderly people.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So Panetta's screaming is all posturing, no substance?

      replyreport