How to save a trillion dollars

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by KingYaba, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #1
    This is one of the better-written articles I have read in quite some time. Maybe it's because I agree with so much that is said. :p I thought I'd share this with the MR community because the writer goes into specifics of where the military can save some serious money.

    Here's the meat of the article:
    He goes on by saying our world reach still won't change. We can park a carrier anywhere in the world, we can send missiles and drones anywhere we want, we just need to scale everything back. He also says the military can be one big gravy train for a person's district and he gives the example of where a boat is docked. And lastly our overseas bases and military presence needs to be scaled back if not eliminated altogether. The one downside, as noted by the article, would be a possible arms buildup between Japan, Korea, and China in the absence of US forces.
     
  2. Metatron macrumors 6502

    Metatron

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    #2
    Sounds good until you consider China...

    Their tech is almost as good, and in 10 years it will be better. We obviously will never win the long term economic battle with China. They just have the number on there side. However, we need to let any nation with that kind of power know we can defend ourselves well beyond the scope of their offense.

    You don't want to end up like Britain. The "very" small attack on Libya has practically used up all their tomahawk missiles. We all know very well they have other offensive weapons, but seriously...all your primary ship to ground attack missiles are almost gone?

    There are plenty of cuts to make, but R&D funding needs to be doubled.
     
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    That's the white elephant that everyone refuses to recognize.

    It's destroying cities, counties, states and even the federal government. Look across the pond and countries like Germany and the Netherlands which have even worse demographics are taking concrete measures to ensure that health care doesn't become a tsunami.

    It's time for single payer.


    Metatron, I'm not too concerned about China. Their demographics are pretty bad too. It's been 30 years since the one child policy started so there's an enormous bulge of elderly Chinese just waiting to explode. Couple that with a generation's preference for boy babies and social unrest is the only answer.

    China has about ten years to address its demographic issues. If it doesn't, they won't be a threat to anyone but themselves.
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    More fear. We could cut our defense spending in half and we'd still dwarf the spending of dozens of nations combined.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. NT1440, Apr 19, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011

    NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #5
    You could cut defense spending in half and still completely dominate the "defense" game. I think you may not have a grasp on just how much the USA spends on defense and how it relates to the rest of the world, and yes China included.

    Also, hell yes R&D funding has to be increased, just not on weaponry. We need to get out of the Cold War "lets make new weapons" era and focus our MASSIVE R&D infrastructure into the problems we, along with the world, are rapidly running into. Lets spend that money on energy creation, infrastructure overhauls (reinvision the system for the next century, not patch it to continue the last century), etc.

    That said, making R&D spending a tax right off is an ingenious way in which this country has managed to use taxpayer money (we pay for all of this R&D as most is done directly through the government (DARPA for example) and colleges/universities (which we pay for)) to develop technologies publicly, then hand the exclusive rights off to the private sector for them to make massive profits with little of their own money used for R&D. This then gets outsourced to places like China. For examples, look at just about every major technological revolution in the last 50 years.
     
  6. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #6
  7. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #7
    I think that post just summarized the entire republican platform, every tea party rally, every GoP presidential candidate's stance, and every tax dodging corporation's wet dream in less than 50 words.
     
  8. diamond.g macrumors 603

    diamond.g

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Location:
    Virginia
    #8
    Wait, you are using a link about a Florida job center to illustrate your point about federal waste?

    I mean I understand why no one wants to cut defense spending. Heck my job depends on defense spending... I just don't understand the fear of having social programs. Everyone says that they are a waste and that private corps can do better, if so why aren't they?
     
  9. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #9
    Yes, that $73,000 program is excellent...at distracting and scaring the feeble-minded from the REAL issues of the US spending. Tea Party leaders would make great Carneys.
     
  10. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #10
    hm 73.000 dollars .. that equals about 3.35 seconds of the US defense budget ;)

    seriously the US defense budget is spiraling out of control with having many redundant developments, agencies etc. and also a leadership still stuck in the cold war spending mode
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    What do we need to consider?

    I highly doubt China will invade the United States.

    What China will do is protect its interests.

    And why shouldn't they?
     
  12. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #12
    If you don't understand how Planned Parenthood helps people I can only suggest you buy a vowel.
     
  13. KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #13
    I'm pretty sure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid helps people. It may not help you, though. Cutting Planned Parenthood would only save 400 million or so in taxpayer money. It's so painfully obvious that the military budget needs cutting so why are you against fiscal sanity? And I honestly don't know what the full impact of Obamacare will have because some people like the CBO say it will reduce the deficit and others say it will add to it. The individual mandate may be struck down but that's for another thread.

    The fun thing is, 1 trillion isn't enough. We need reforms for every program and we need new sources of revenue.
     
  14. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #14

    Agreed.

    The first politician to stand up and say "We are going to cut funding of every single Federal program by 30%, planned parenthood AND the defense budget!" gets my vote.

    I have also recently come around to the idea of temporary tax increases for EVERYBODY.
     
  15. KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #15
    I think I said in another thread, that these cuts need to happen but they need to happen gradually. A sudden 30% would be pretty bad.
     
  16. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #16
    Yes, the idiots who want to cut PP because of access to a procedure that has been legal for almost 40 years forget otther services are cut also. Denying women cost-effective, cheap cancer screening, STD prevention, and contraceptive counselling will result in the underserved seeking the more expensive/less effective Medicaid options, result in more unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, resulting in potentially more abortions and, if carried to term, more cost to society, and perhaps more STD's/more invasive cnacers costing many times over the cost of PP. PP is a bargain.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    Plus, not all cuts are equal. For instance, the $150 million spent on poison control centers saves $1 billion in direct health-care costs for emergency rooms and hospitals, according to a recent study.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Why would they?
     
  19. miamijim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    #19
    China would not invade the US there is no need...

    Look on a map where China is and look at what is above it.....

    Thats right a big empty nothing that belongs to Russia, and in this big empty nothing there is Oil, Gold, Diamonds... and no US 6th Fleet to worry about.

    This is why they would not attack the US... everything they need is on their Northern doorstep......
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Its unconquerable territory though, the Russians and Mongolians would trivially be able to win a guerilla war.
     
  21. bassfingers macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #21
     
  22. bassfingers macrumors 6502

    bassfingers

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #22
    I apologize for the multi-posts. I agree with you 90%. However, I think focusing on boosting the economy would be a safer alternative to boosting taxes. I believe it benefits everyone to increase the "tax base" rather than increase the total % taken
     
  23. Kestrel452 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #23
    Are you aware that the Federal Budget allocation for the Department of Defense is absolutely dwarfed by social spending? Only one fifth of our money goes towards defense. Over half of it goes straight towards transfer payments (free money). We won't start saving enough money to avert insolvency until we realize its not the government's job to take care of us from cradle to grave.
     
  24. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24
    Only 20%? :rolleyes:

    Spare me the cradle to grave strawman.
     
  25. Kestrel452 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #25
    Mind elaborating instead of just replying with a witty remark? Or is that all you can do?
     

Share This Page