udx Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) To be clear, I am not saying to cut ALL military spending. There is a big difference between cutting spending a lot and cutting spending entirely. Too often people take cutting spending as effectively cutting spending on it entirely, and argue about the consequences of that which totally misses the point. Yes it is not unnecessary. But have you consider how obscene the amount spent on military is (spent more than top countries combined)? The govt is so quick to cut education spending while leaving military spending untouched, when the biggest threat to a nation's well being is an under-educated populace. I find it really ironic that there is a double standard in spending. When a school is failing its students, you cut its spending because it is not performing, but when the military fail, you increase its spending substantially. Nobody ask if the strategy is actually effective, but just dumps more money to fix the problem. Military spending is unsustainable, at about 900 billion that is about $3000 per person (assuming population of 300 million, though many don't pay taxes). People are just not seeing the effects of military spending yet because it is covered by Federal reserve printing more money (devaluating the currency, aka generational theft ), but sooner or later it would have to cut in a dramatic fashion, or continue letting the military budget eat into what is more important (education), if it isn't addressed. The question is whether we cut spending now, while we still have a choice or wait till the time when we have to cut it because we have no other choice. Your assertions are false and your figures are incorrect. The biggest threat to this country does not come from, and has never come from military spending. The biggest threat to this country's economy comes from a triple threat: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, which is in reality broke, and Unfunded Entitlements such as welfare. In 2010, military spending was 19% of the budget. Social Security was 20% of the budget. Medicare and Medicaid were 23% of the budget. Other Mandatory spending which includes things such as Welfare was 13%. Combine these three and you have 56% of the Federal budget. Kind of makes the 19% of military spending look like small potatoes. By this year, Madatory spending will probably equal or exceed spending for the military. Military spending is not the boogeyman that people often attempt to make it. The problem is teaching people to be dependent on the government and that they can receive money for doing absolutely nothing. Between 2030 and 2040, according to the GAO, mandatory spending will exceed government revenues. This country's economic problems result from Unfunded Entitlements, not military spending. You sir, are wrong and your figures are incorrect. I said "biggest discretionary spending", over 50% of discretionary spending is on "defense". Why are bothering to argue against a figure I'm not even arguing about? Please read post carefully before replying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget What you are talking about is "entitlement" programs, which is a whole another category. I do not disagree that the entitlement programs needs reform as well, but they would be harder to fix because they have immediate and direct consequence to the people while military spending have immediate effect on the defense contractors. The issue is spending money unnecessarily bombing foreign nations when it could be use to build up the country at home. I disagree that the problem is solely entitlement programs, but both unfunded entitlement and military spending, it is both. I am arguing that cutting military is the easiest solution to fix the deficit in the short term. What I do not understand is why the government cuts education funding first, while nobody dare to cut or consider cutting military funding. Don't you see misplaced priority here? We are more willing to spend money to bomb and kill instead of investing in the future through education? I don't know where you learn math, but 19% compare to 56% is still not negligible. If you really think 19% of federal budget is so small, maybe you can give me 19% of your income since it is small potatoes compare to the 81% that remain of your income, this comparison is nonsensical. Edited February 17, 2012 by udx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2012 I think that it's interesting that all of this economic mess is about to destabilize over Greece. It's coming unwound where it all started. There has to be something prophetic about this and the demise of the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2012 You sir, are wrong and your figures are incorrect. I said "biggest discretionary spending", over 50% of discretionary spending is on "defense". Why are bothering to argue against a figure I'm not even arguing about? Please read post carefully before replying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget What you are talking about is "entitlement" programs, which is a whole another category. I do not disagree that the entitlement programs needs reform as well, but they would be harder to fix because they have immediate and direct consequence to the people while military spending have immediate effect on the defense contractors. The issue is spending money unnecessarily bombing foreign nations when it could be use to build up the country at home. I disagree that the problem is solely entitlement programs, but both unfunded entitlement and military spending, it is both. I am arguing that cutting military is the easiest solution to fix the deficit in the short term. I don't know where you learn math, but 19% compare to 56% is still not negligible. If you really think 19% of federal budget is so small, maybe you can give me 19% of your income since it is small potatoes to you? Listen, Sport: You are the one carping about the military. You pointed to no other problems with our economy and/or budget beyond the military, like it is the only possible thing that could be causing us fiscal problems. I pointed out the fallacy of your logic, and you don't like it much. You don't have to like it, but you can't argue with numbers. Discretionary spending only accounts for 37% of the budget. You ignore that and act like the other 63% of the budget exists in a vacuum removed from the economy. It doesn't. Whether you are talking about discretionary spending or unfunded entitlements is meaningless when the money spent on mandatory items far outstrips spending on the military. So, no, your claim is just as false as when you first made it. You are talking about the budget, and entitlements do not fall outside the budget, do they? Try again. " like it is the only possible thing that could be causing us fiscal problems." Maybe you could do a better job in reading comprehension? I made my point clearly that cutting military spending is one of the best way that we could fix the deficit in the short term. You have not made any point to the contrary nor justify why this level of military spending is justified. So far you have only succeed in muddling the point in saying how how other programs should also be cut, which I do not disagree. Must I argue about every problem in the world in order to talk about why military spending should be cut? Why do you assume I think there are no other problems with the economy if I don't mention it, that is an absurd assumption. I talk about the discretionary spending since my first post, go read again. Like I have said before, I said I think the military cut is the best immediate option because it hurts the defense contractors the most instead of bunch of voters that want to rely on the entitlement program. If you want to argue what I said you have to explain why other programs are easier to cut and how much could be reasonably cut or justify why the current military spending is justified and sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He giveth more grace Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 123 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,049 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 267 Days Won: 9 Joined: 10/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2012 I haven't been naive about our government, I have know for a long time what we are headed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Just wondering about your posts, udx. You seem to really have it in for the military. Why is that? Military spending is not the only area of the fed budget . . . there are problems everywhere in the budget not just the military spending part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I think that it's interesting that all of this economic mess is about to destabilize over Greece. It's coming unwound where it all started. There has to be something prophetic about this and the demise of the West. Near the end of Daniel, there is a mention of Greece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Just wondering about your posts, udx. You seem to really have it in for the military. Why is that? Military spending is not the only area of the fed budget . . . there are problems everywhere in the budget not just the military spending part. I have made my point more than a few times. Why spend money on destroying people and nations, when money could be spent on more fruitful endeavors? Have you not watch the video in this thread? I know it isn't the only area of the fed budget, but I believe it is the most unnecessary (in terms of current spending levels). Does people read more than just first line of my post? Edited February 17, 2012 by udx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh62 Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Just gotta like the judge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrxOtWvfv1E&feature=player_embedded Wow! Look at all that paper! Hello, America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He giveth more grace Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 123 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,049 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 267 Days Won: 9 Joined: 10/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2012 I don't know as much as you guys, but I know what has kept full fledged attacks and invasions at bay, it is the military with all the spending alloted to it. It has been said many time and it bears repeating, Peace is a Strong Military, or something like that. and sometimes peace comes through war. Anybody here interested in every target that the enemies already planed be hit by a Nuclear Dirty Bomb, the Enemies aren't cutting military spending. Also, this Nuclear Disarmament is lop-sided, the US disarms and Russia led Arabs will launch missiles. America is surrounded by the enemy without and the enemy within and I know many of the enemy within, but I feel it is not appropriate to mention them here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncran Posted February 17, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,246 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 90 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/16/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 17, 2012 cut the military and its the troops not the gear that get hit. case in point panetta has said we will reduce the retirmement rates a payout and also increase tricare payments. tricare is also used to give medical treatment to the disable vets. so cut away then. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/panetta-weighs-military-cuts-once-thought-out-of-bounds.html?pagewanted=all In what he described as the most sensitive of the potential cuts facing an all-volunteer force, Mr. Panetta said the Pentagon was considering raising fees for the military’s health insurance program, Tricare. Today, military retirees and families, who are guaranteed Tricare for life, pay only $460 a year in fees — far below what they would pay if they worked for a private employer — although a modest increase for new enrollees began last month. the only way one get tricare for life is to be disabled to the point you cant work. that isnt right for us. yes we do need to get out europe,but its laughable here is the iraq surge disproved rummys idea of light and agile. so we will once again learn the hard way. glad i can retire soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts