Cut defense spending to fund education, healthcare and payback deficit?

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA


Just look at this



Now talk about out of control spending.

Defense is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.
 

iShater

macrumors 604
Aug 13, 2002
6,967
370
Chicagoland
I think more important than the defense spending in the budget is the bills that pay the defense department outside this budget.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
It's pretty disgusting that there's that level of expenditure going on defence when you have bridges collapsing and the like. Seriously, you could halve that, still be the biggest badass on the planet, and make the infrastructure of the USA something the rest of the world would envy.
 

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA
well, when other countries stop requiring the US to be their "police" force.....

That is a role the US needs to stop doing
Where exactly do we need to be right now?

Maybe Darfur? I would say that's about it.

Besides, do you really think most of this spending goes to either putting boots on the ground or to troops themselves?

Most of it is on weapons spending, and a lot of those weapons were built to fight the cold war.

We could double the amount our troops get and still cut spending by 80%
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,187
5045 feet above sea level
Where exactly do we need to be right now?

Maybe Darfur? I would say that's about it.

Besides, do you really think most of this spending goes to either putting boots on the ground or to troops themselves?

Most of it is on weapons spending, and a lot of those weapons were built to fight the cold war.

We could double the amount our troops get and still cut spending by 80%
That is alot of bold statements pretending to know where the US spends their money and their needs without anything to back it up

Just saying....

Not saying I know but I doubt you have a clue either

I agree it "could probably" be reduced but without knowing a multitude of factors, you can't say how and where
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,012
Most of it is on weapons spending, and a lot of those weapons were built to fight the cold war.

We could double the amount our troops get and still cut spending by 80%
Actually, a TON of it is weapon development spending. I'm not really sure why you need to have a whole new multi billion dollar missile program simply because the new model can go 15 mph faster or comes with cup holders. :rolleyes:
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,467
3,833
Space--The ONLY Frontier
Actually, a TON of it is weapon development spending. I'm not really sure why you need to have a whole new multi billion dollar missile program simply because the new model can go 15 mph faster or comes with cup holders. :rolleyes:
Here's why. The Senators state has a plant that builds the widget.

Enuf said.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,187
5045 feet above sea level
Do we have any graphs that show any US" income" for providing weapons, development research for other countries?

What about any treaty stipulations? Like our agreement with Japan for instance in providing them Naval forces?

Also, what about any "inventions" that come through in the process of defense R&D? There are alot that have trickled down for general use that originated in these programs yet that isn't reflected anywhere either

Point is....we can't fully criticize the budget without knowing all the factors
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,012
Here's why. The Senators state has a plant that builds the widget.

Enuf said.
I should have put a /sarcasm tag in there. I know very well the ingenious set up of the industrial military complex we have in this country. It's funny that we don't even take a presidents parting advice to heart.
 

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA
Here is how I would divide it up:

Keep 100 billion for defense

Double the Education budget to 120 Billion

100 billion to the deficit

100 Billion to expand Medicare to the entire population

Expend Energy to 25 Billion

Transportation to 50 Billion

10 Billion to the Social Security fund

expand housing assistance to 50 billion

Expand environmental budget to 50 billion

Increase veterans benefits by 10 billion

Increase social services (food stamps, welfare, unemployment support) by 10 billion

Split the remaining 5.3 billion to the rest or add to the amount paid back on the deficit.
 

abijnk

macrumors 68040
Oct 15, 2007
3,286
4
Los Angeles, CA
In the long run this will probably have to happen, but right now (despite how we got there) we have men and women in harm's way. Things are going to be more expensive right now.
 

Jaro65

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2009
3,703
563
Seattle, WA
Here is how I would divide it up:

Keep 100 billion for defense

Double the Education budget to 120 Billion

100 billion to the deficit

100 Billion to expand Medicare to the entire population

Expend Energy to 25 Billion

Transportation to 50 Billion

10 Billion to the Social Security fund

expand housing assistance to 50 billion

Expand environmental budget to 50 billion

Increase veterans benefits by 10 billion

Increase social services (food stamps, welfare, unemployment support) by 10 billion

Split the remaining 5.3 billion to the rest or add to the amount paid back on the deficit.
Ok. I'm in. Anything to readjust the existing lack of balance and to decrease the outrageous spending on our military - which we can't afford. The bottom line is that we are ruining ourselves and our children and grandchildren. There have to be more of us who simply can't believe that we allow ourselves to live off of the Chinese credit card. What we borrow, our children will have to pay back with interest. I hope they don't curse us too much (though they probably should).

So now what?
 

yojitani

macrumors 68000
Apr 28, 2005
1,855
10
An octopus's garden
Military spending is one of those strange political..erm.. wet fish. If you decrease spending a lot of the population and talking heads, the very ones who say in all other circumstances that the government couldn't run a nose and claim that throwing money at a problem won't help, claim the government is putting the country at risk. If you increase spending moderately, those people are happy and those in the 'center leftish' area won't complain much. BUT if you increase spending too much, then the others start raising their voices (as in the GWB era). Basically, the politically expedient course is to do nothing at all.

Also, to earlier points regarding where the US needs to be. There are plenty of places where the US didn't need to be (Iraq, Colombia) but went anyway. After creating a bunch of messes in such places, they now need to be there IMHO.
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
Where exactly do we need to be right now?

Maybe Darfur? I would say that's about it.

Besides, do you really think most of this spending goes to either putting boots on the ground or to troops themselves?

Most of it is on weapons spending, and a lot of those weapons were built to fight the cold war.

We could double the amount our troops get and still cut spending by 80%
Its not just about where you need to be but to start with that, Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be simply abandoned now that the commitment, whether for good or ill, has been made. Above the current military engagements, however, is the need for deterrent. The US is currently the only major democratic military force able to project a global deterrent. If more Western nations were able to fill in some of the role, maybe under a NATO leadership, the US could begin to relax this requirement. At the moment, there are too many nutjobs around to be able to put the stick down.
 

R.Perez

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
386
2,181
Philadelphia, PA
Its not just about where you need to be but to start with that, Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be simply abandoned now that the commitment, whether for good or ill, has been made. Above the current military engagements, however, is the need for deterrent. The US is currently the only major democratic military force able to project a global deterrent. If more Western nations were able to fill in some of the role, maybe under a NATO leadership, the US could begin to relax this requirement. At the moment, there are too many nutjobs around to be able to put the stick down.
I appreciate your input here, but I just have to fundamentally disagree.

I don't beleive that the U.S. is engaged militarily for a single genuinely positive reason.

IMHO it is about securing global dominance, and is imperialism at its worst.

There is not a single engagement I would be against pulling out of, save Haiti earthquake relief and I am pretty sure we have already started leaving Haiti.

Since 1900, the U.S. has had one just involvement in a war and that would be WWII.

That being said, we got involved to protect our own interests, not for a noble cause.
 

KingYaba

macrumors 68040
Aug 7, 2005
3,415
12
Up the irons
I hope you have a large monitor. To answer the original question, reducing the military budget is a must. Even if it's by 10%.

What we need is a total reduction across the board but military spending needs an audit so we can figure out what and where. And obviously military spending will need the biggest reduction.



^ Just look at the Global War on Terror. 189 billion. :eek:
 

splitpea

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2009
996
226
Among the starlings
I think it's a great idea. Trouble is that in the political climate of the past 10 years, any politician who proposes a cut in military / defense spending gets immediately and viciously attacked by his/her opponents for being "soft on terror" or "unpatriotic" or "not supporting our troops" etc etc.

So it's not going to happen until we get it through our politicians' thick heads that cutting that spending is what We the People actually want. [Edit] Or until We the People become less gullible to such fearmongering claims.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
Defense is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.
Perhaps. And your graphs certainly show defense being the primary emphasis. However, since the United States Constitution specifically calls out a federal obligation for defense, and no emphasis whatsoever for healthcare or education, perhaps those should be folded into defense eh? How about a refresher; here's the Preamble to cited document; note section in bold:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is tempting for pacifists and progressives to ignore the dangerous threats in the world, place daisies in gun barrels, and sing Kumbaya! Moreover the men and women in the American Armed Services that stand in dangerous places and kill our enemies need our eternal support; not ungrateful civilians on the home front cutting their budget. However, should you wish to realize some cost savings in the federal budget there are numerous other avenues of pursuit; I personally would recommend entitlements for starters, then our burdensome federal workforce of civil servants that could really use pruning.
 
Perhaps. And your graphs certainly show defense being the primary emphasis. However, since the United States Constitution specifically calls out a federal obligation for defense, and no emphasis whatsoever for healthcare or education, perhaps those should be folded into defense eh? How about a refresher; here's the Preamble to cited document; note section in bold:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is tempting for pacifists and progressives to ignore the dangerous threats in the world, place daisies in gun barrels, and sing Kumbaya! Moreover the men and women in the American Armed Services that stand in dangerous places and kill our enemies need our eternal support; not ungrateful civilians on the home front cutting their budget. However, should you wish to realize some cost savings in the federal budget there are numerous other avenues of pursuit; I personally would recommend entitlements for starters, then our burdensome federal workforce of civil servants that could really use pruning.
Tell me.. Did you ever serve in an Armed Service? Which? When? How?