Defense vs Entitlement Spending

1. 60

   lady_love158posted 12 years ago

   Do we really want to cut defense spending? Consider that already much of the military function has been outsourced to private companies that a making huge profits off the wars, one of the left's source of angry objection. Cutting further would make us more reliant on these private mercenary corporations. Remember if the new "super committee" on the debt doesn't come to agreement, defense is cut by 500 billion automatically!
   
   
   
   
   Hee hee ... did you miss me libbies?? Lol

   replyreport
   1. 0

      erikjohnsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You have to realize that Defense spending includes 2 wars that we can not afford.  So when they talk about defense spending they are talking about troop withdrawals.   I agree money needs to be spent to better are military and to stay cutting edge with the best technologies.  But we can not afford a billion dollars a month in 2 wars.  When will Iraq and Afghanistan yield a return?  I would think that the US would at least get better prices on gas for saving Iraq.  When will that happen?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan among others, since 9/11 have cost taxpayers 1.283 trillion, that is less than the deficit for THIS YEAR alone! To be sure 1.28 trillion over 10 years is a lot of money but it PALES in comparison to entitlement spending.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Social Security is not an "entitlement". You pay into it directly and Congress does not touch it.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yes then why did Obama say if we didnt raise the debt ceiling recipents may not get paid? The fact is the.money that goes into social security is taken out and replaced with special treasury notes, essentially IOUS and yes its an entitlement because most that collect take out more then thet put in including many that are on disability, a growing portion of which are older unemployed workers that can't find a job.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  What Congress has been doing for years with social security with regards to treasury notes is illegal. Social security is a trust fund taken out of your paycheck specifically for that purpose. The annual amount one puts into it is capped, so the system is cracking. But it is certainly not an entitlement, because it has been taken out of your paycheck for the express purpose of paying you social security. "Entitlements" come from the benevolence of the government if they decide to give you something out of what they receive from the federal income tax. Social security does not come from federal income tax. You like to use the word "entitlement" with regards to social security because the word is a propaganda weapon made to convince people of something. But most people are on to the game by now. Try taking away social security from the average Joe and see what happens.

                  replyreport
      2. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         2 wars?
         
         What about the other 3+?
         
         Pakistani drone bombings; Syrian air strikes; and the secret wars that only our CIA and NSA know about.

         replyreport
   2. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Here's another, more accurate view of government expenditures than the Heritage Foundation charts you cite.
      
      http://www.chadwickresearch.com/blog/20 … on-of-gdp/

      replyreport
      1. 60

         lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         War spending comes out of the descretionary spending budget. Iraq & Afghanistan as well as other military operations cost 1.283 trillion total since 9/11. I don't know if thats included in that chart and if its not I doubt it will make much difference.
         Anyway, you libs never accept facts. You prefer to twist data to support your point of view.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I was an officer in Iraq and have also worked in government contracting. Margins charged to the government are typically in the range of 20% and up. The defense agencies do not have profit margins and are much cheaper than private mercenary forces or work performed by contractors overseas. Cutting defense spending will do the opposite of putting greater reliance on contractors. A cheaper defense department means the defense agencies will be doing most of their own work for a change.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well if thats true, why do we use them? We use them because we don't have the resources ourselves! Cutting defense means having less resources not more and if we have to defend ourself we'll have to rely more heavily on those resources. Keep in mind too immediate reductions in forces will raise the unemployment rate. Currently that rate is HIGHER among veterans than other groups and the general population.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "Well if thats true, why do we use them?" Crony capitalism.
                  
                  But really, your chart gets full debate points, but it has been tweaked to look as though defense spending has been cut when it hasn't, really. Your chart is tracking spending as a percentage of GDP. Seen that way, defense is going down relative to entitlements, which are going up. But if you look at actual dollars spent, the defense budget has increased every year since Y2K, when it was about $300 Billion. Now, in Y2011, the defense budget is about $550 Billion (or a little over $700 Billion if you count what we're spending to blow up people overseas).
                  
                  So, to be generous to your point, let's call it $550 Billion on defense. Now let's look at the defense budget of the 2nd place defense spender. The People's Republic of China spent about $91 Billion on defense in 2011. Our closest competitor spends less than a fifth of our defense budget. Less than a fifth.
                  
                  The next two biggest defense spenders are France and the UK (our close allies!). They spend about $60Billion each, give or take a few Billion. After them comes Russia, with about $52Billion. Then Japan (another ally) at $51Billion. Then Germany (ally again) at just under $47 Billion.
                  
                  If you add up the top ten military budgets in the world (other than ours), you get a grand total of  $524 Billion.
                  
                  Let's look at those numbers again:
                  US Defense Spending: $550 Billion
                  Next ten nations combined: $524 Billion
                  
                  Now, I didn't major in math, but it looks an awful lot like we're spending more on defense (even without the war spending) than the next ten nations (many of which are our close allies) combined. Is this really necessary? And if we really need to spend that much to be ready for a war against a power that only spends about a fifth as much on its army, what exactly are we doing wrong? I mean, we must be really wasting a lot of money in the DoD, right?

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You changed the subject  in order to avoid my argument. Let's stick to my point. Cutting defense spending will cut back on reliance on contractors, not on military personnel. The military is more effective and less expensive than private contractors. Cutting defense spending will make soldiers able to fight the battles at hand instead of spending so much on research and development and training on ridiculous new digital technologies that have proven worthless in counter-insurgency operations. This is assuming we even need to be "looking for mosters to fight" overseas, as John Quincy Adams would say.

                  replyreport
   3. 0

      Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Look at your paycheck stub sometime. There are two places to which your money goes that the IRS takes. The line on your stub that says "Social Security" is taken out and put in a social security trust fund. Social security is not federal income. The part of your stub that says "Federal income tax" is what is used for discretionary spending, defense, energy, VA, infastructure, and foreign aid. Social security payments can only be used for social security and is not part of the federal income.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   Maybe if America accepted the fact that it isn't our responsibility to police the world we could cut defense spending, as we should have done years ago.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Look at the chart. Defense spending has been cut for some time.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         More is always better. If we stopped sticking our nose in everyone else's business we could easily cut it more.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, we still spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. 46.5% of the world total. That's absurd.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Thats right! It's our defense spending thats allowed those EU socialist democracies to thrive up untill now when even without having to pay for their own defense they have run out of money!
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Exactly.
                  
                  Oh and lets not forget that we all live in la la liberal land, where there is no war and hate, no enemies or people simply out to kill us.
                  
                  Don't you all know... the world is a wonderful, lovely place, and it is only us Right-wing Americans who cause wars and poverty. Look at all the peaceful lil Muslumps in the world... who would be just fine, if America would stop slaughtering them all for no reason, and if Israel would roll over and die, then the world would be so much better.
                  
                  What a joke!
                  
                  Defense spending is more than neccessary, unless you are one of those who wish to see America defensless and unable to protect ourselves or our allies, of which we have only a few these days.
                  
                  Leftists and Progressives cannot wiat till the day America is no more, or at least cut down to a 3rd world country and needing protection and support from all our enemies in this world. The Left and Progressives cannot wait till the day America is forced to its knees in submission to thier Commie/Socialist Muslump allies and heroes.
                  
                  Maybe I should just become a Leftist? Then I could talk all the trash I want about America being evil murderers, and our allies being genocidal Jews who hate all others. Not to mention blame all the BS from Leftist/Progressive policy failures on the Conservative Right, who have not held power in this country for decades.
                  
                  Yup maybe I will become a leftist Socialist Commie lover.
                  
                  Sounds good to me.
                  
                  What is funny is that there are many a country out there that would not even be, if not for our, the unioted States' Military. kuwait being just one example. But hey cut it all out and let the world fend for themselves. And that includes all the US money spent on military actions by the UN and NATO among others. Our m,ilitary does not just defend America people. Think about it.
                  
                  And I love the liberal tactic of real dollars when it works and percentages when thay need to have it say something else. Our military is not only neccessary for the USA, but for the defense of many other countries and peoples around the world. But I am a non-interventionalist. So. Next time you all want to go into a Libya remember there is no more money for it... I bet that changes your minds.

                  replyreport
            2. 74

               Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Kerry, that's not exactly true, either. We spend more than the next ten (possibly eleven) nations combined, but not more than the entire world.
               
               And in spite of LaLo's false statements, many of those European "socialist democracies" (namely France, the UK, Germany, and Italy) are in the world's  top ten defense spenders. France spends more on defense than Russia. So does the UK.
               
               LaLo, you really should fact-check stuff before you pass it on as fact. Telling us stuff that isn't true makes you look sloppy at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.
               
               But hey, it's your reputation, not mine.

               replyreport
      2. 74

         Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No it hasn't. Your chart tracks spending as a percentage of GDP, not spending in dollars. Count the dollars, and defense spending has been steadily increasing since 2000.
         
         "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Whats your point? Defense spending shouldn't grow along with  the rest of the government relative to the economy? The comparison is valid, entitlements are growing much faster than defense and consuming a higher percentage of our economy.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               And that is the Leftist Progressive plan, Lady. Over-load the rolls till they collapse our system, as put forth by Cloward and Piven in thier works. And they, the American Left and Progressives, are well on their way to accomplishing that objective.
               
               http://cloward-piven.com/
               
               http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/ … _of_e.html
               
               but hey just cause they tell us straight out what they plan to do, and are doing, doesn't mean we should believe them.
               
               How stupid would that be... to actually believe something someone tells you... yeah right.

               replyreport
            2. 74

               Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No, you said that defense spending was being cut as time went by when you said:
               
               "Look at the chart. Defense spending has been cut for some time."
               
               That's a blatant falsehood. That's my point.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, it's been shrinking relative to the economy. Feel better? As opposed to entitlements which have been G R O W I N G relative to the economy.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     "Okay, it's been shrinking relative to the economy. Feel better?"
                     
                     Well, you should be the one who feels better. Aren't we commanded not to bear false witness?
                     
                     But anyway, you're comparing one kind of spending with another kind of spending, and it's not very useful to do so.
                     
                     I mean, it's like saying "My family spends $1000/month on our mortgage payment, but only $200/month on groceries. Clearly we're spending too much on our mortgage!"
                     
                     A better comparison would be between spending and need. Like, do we need to spend five times as much on defense as our closest competitor, and more than the next ten nations combined?
                     
                     Probably not. Especially when you consider the following:
                     Is China a credible military threat to the US?
                     
                     If so, how is it that they can mount a credible threat to us on one fifth of our budget? What are we doing wrong?
                     
                     If not, then why is it that we need to spend five times their budget to prepare a defense against them? What are we doing wrong?

                     replyreport
3. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

   replyreport
4. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   They're both wrong.
   
   Decrease them both.
   
   PS - it's not DEFENSE if we're bombing the F out of foreign countries

   replyreport
5. 59

   secularist10posted 12 years ago

   "Cutting further would make us more reliant on these private mercenary corporations."
   
   Why? This is a non-sequitur. The decision to outsource military functions to private companies has nothing to do with the total amount of money spent on defense. 100 years ago, the US spent a tiny fraction of what it currently spends on defense, yet all defense functions were public.
   
   Regarding the comparison between defense and entitlements.
   
   Firstly, defense spending went down (as it should have) because the need for defense plummeted. Specifically I am talking about the Soviet Union and Cold War. With those threats ended, there was much less need for defense spending in general beginning the in early 1990s.
   
   Secondly, American military spending still dwarfs the next ten countries, combined. This further indicates that since the world is generally safer than it was, say, 60 years ago, US defense can be cut significantly without endangering American lives in the slightest.
   
   Thirdly, it is incorrect to assume that simply because some item is labelled "defense" it therefore contributes to American security. There are 3 major categories of "defense" off the top of my head this applies to:
   (a) wasteful spending--it's not just reserved for Medicare fraudsters; self-righteous generals in the Pentagon with inflated egos can do it too
   (b) imperial spending--stationing American troops in countries completely able to defend themselves, simply for the vague purpose of "protecting American interests", and
   (c) misguided spending--such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or spending on heavy-duty operations in the name of "counterterrorism" instead of the far more effective clandestine, light, intelligence-based operations.
   
   Bottom line: US can safely cut massive amounts of military spending, along with entitlement spending, and it will make absolutely no difference in America's safety.

   replyreport
6. 58

   Sourpussposted 12 years ago

   Heritage Foundation:
   
   The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation's Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:
   
   "Liberation is at hand.... A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s - from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer - the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning.... But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture - indeed, the entire human outlook - will change.... Once this shift takes place - by 1996, I predict - we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including.... radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom."
   
   ******
   
   Does it strike any of you as ominous that Dick Armey funded the original swindle Tea Party with his Freedom Works Foundation?
   Heritage Foundation donors include Richard Mellon-Scaife...of Dick "go f yourself" Cheney fame, and the Koch Brothers.
   
   Big money. Big right-wing agenda.
   Big time power now that they control the Supreme Court.
   
   Big time planned take-over of America.  IMO

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Right. He was merely speaking of a trend in place around the world, the thirst for freedom and a strong desire for decentralization of power and to control their own fate. This isn't about any right wing agenda, its about restoring America to the shining city on the hill, the one place in all the world people look to as the example of the power of individual freedom.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "This isn't about any right wing agenda, its about restoring America to [a mythical golden age, that never existed except on TV and in the imaginations of the Radical Right]" There, fixed it for you.

         replyreport
   2. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Dick Armey is one of the "Forces of Evil" in this country along with the Koch brothers and Richard "Dickie" Scaife Mellon. Not to mention Andrew Breitbart.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         None of them compare to george Soros and the Leftist American haters. A man who sells his own to the NAZIs for the ovens and confiscate their wealth to improve his own lot in life, is the American Left wing hero and financial supporter... but that is okay.

         replyreport
7. 87

   Will Apseposted 12 years ago

   Who would trust data from the Heritage Foundation?
   
   If you put veterans care into the military budget- where it belongs- you will see a very different picture.
   
   'Providing services to veterans is already the U.S. government’s fifth largest expense, after items like defense and social security. With an increasing number of wounded vets, there’s a growing concern that there is no long-term plan in place to pay for their care.
   
   Even as the wars wind down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the financial cost of taking care of veterans continues to mount — and could eventually reach $1 trillion or more. Is America prepared to pay the cost for decades to come...'
   
   http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/ec … vets/9652/
   
   or try:
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … ns_Affairs
   
   P.S. I have no photo shopped pics to go with this post so it might not be true.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You don't need to add veterans' benefits to the defense budget to knock holes in that silly chart. You just have to convert the lines to show actual dollars spent  instead of percentage of GDP. Measured in real dollars, military spending has been steadily increasing since 2000, and not decreasing as LaLo would have us believe.
      
      The chart is real data, but it's duplicitous to pretend it shows that the defense budget has been decreasing.

      replyreport
8. 59

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   China became a serious threat to America when Bill Clinton gave them inter-continental bullistic missle technology. And since Obama and the Dems threw out our shield tech and want now to cut our defenses... then it should be that much easier for China to kill us all.

   replyreport