The mess in Syria

Why do we need to spend as much on military per GDP as countries who make less?

Wouldn't it make more since if we made more money and spent less on the military? Why do we have to spend so much? Especially considering that China and Russia have more troops.
 
weso1 said:
Compare us to countries like Russia, UK and it's more like a factor of 1.5 difference and still only about a 3 times difference compared to China in military expenditures, rather than a factor of 7 or 8 or whatever it is. So yeah I'd say that's a bit less absurd. At least puts a bit more perspective on it.

We're not in a financial crisis due to our military spending. It's not that much higher than comparable countries when viewed as a percentage of GDP. And this is the #1 thing the US federal government should be spending money on. The country can clearly afford it, while affording to pursue its other endeavors if it so chooses. I mean the only reason we are in such a bind financially right now is because of recent economic collapse.

I agree that we can cut defense back some, but the US being the overwhelming military force is good for the world as a whole. It brings a sense of security to those more democratic countries and allows the world economy (The 2nd most important issue right behind defense) to prosper. And you never know what the future may hold. Also, a lot of money is spent on making this country the most advanced technological military. That costs a ton of money to stay on top of that, but it also saves a lot of lives. I agree that there is a lot of fat to be cut, but I think we need to be careful when we throw these graphs out there and say... zomg we can halve our military spending and still be Team America.
Click to expand...

So 2 and 3 times what other developed countries are spending is not a lot? It's not out of proportion—particularly when most of the countries spending at that level are allies?

So, for example, spending $600+ billion over the next decade on our nuclear arsenal isn't contributing to our economic woes?

And you never know what the future may hold

True. Which is why it's dumb to keep spending billions on weapons designed to win the Cold War.
 
"And you never know what the future may hold"

isn't this the reason why we should be doubling, tripling etc the NASA budget?

instead of cutting it to fund a worthless plane like the F22 etc etc
 
Once the dust clears on this Syria thing -- going forward what is really needed is an updating and redefinition of the War Powers Act.
Which I am sure Obama will lean on in the next 48 hours

And an honest open discussion on how we go forward as the leading world economic power and armmer of the world.
Which to me is do we see ourselves as a humanitarian people or policeman of the world.

We began this process after the Viet Nam debacle but found it too - how you say - introspective ( ? ) - so we invaded Grenada.
Personally I don't think this country at this time is capable of such a conversation. Certainly hope I'm wrong
 
jpx7 said:
It's hard to express how strongly I disagree with this claim.
Click to expand...

I don't. Not to say we should get involved with Syria (I don't think we should), and not to say that we shouldn't be looking to cut defense spending (we should), but I do think it is the #1 function of a government...to protect its citizens from abroad and within. If not, what should be our #1 expenditure?
 
acesfull86 said:
I don't. Not to say we should get involved with Syria (I don't think we should), and not to say that we shouldn't be looking to cut defense spending (we should), but I do think it is the #1 function of a government...to protect its citizens from abroad and within. If not, what should be our #1 expenditure?
Click to expand...

I think a general social contract should be. Social Security is it's own monster I'm not talking about here. But investing in Americans is more where I'm going. If we invested an added 100 billion in alternate energy research since Obama took office don't you think we'd be preetty close to a viable alternative by now and could give the ME a big FU because their instability wouldn't effect our energy costs?

US should spend on defense, but no need to spend much more than the Russians or Chinese, much less much more than the Russians and Chinese together. I think as well with my limited research on the topic (fully admit it's limited) we could shave off billions with wise spending. Keep the armed forces at largely the same size, and still be strong. There's just too much wasted money going into the military.
 
Julio3000 said:
So 2 and 3 times what other developed countries are spending is not a lot? It's not out of proportion—particularly when most of the countries spending at that level are allies?
Click to expand...

You're changing my argument just so you can keep disagreeing with me on the issue. I never said that it wasn't a lot, but that it wasn't as absurd, which in no way implies that it's not a lot. I've proven that is the case with the numbers I've presented itt.

Our military spending is too high, but at only about 4.2% of GDP it's not a significant burden on our economic woes as it appears to be in the more shallow pie charts presented itt. The housing market and financial collapse was the reason for our economic woes. It's not like our military spending prevented us from bailing out banks and Obama's stimulus.

Again, the argument isn't that we don't need to cut, but that we don't need to cut as much as some of you think we should.

And I know some of you will disagree with me on this, but I'm not in a hurry to close down many of our overseas bases and take away the huge technological advantage we have. It saves American lives and perhaps even saves collateral damage as the US can more accurately hit their intended targets.
 
weso1 said:
You're changing my argument just so you can keep disagreeing with me on the issue. I never said that it wasn't a lot, but that it wasn't as absurd, which in no way implies that it's not a lot. I've proven that is the case with the numbers I've presented itt.

Our military spending is too high, but at only about 4.2% of GDP it's not a significant burden on our economic woes as it appears to be in the more shallow pie charts presented itt. The housing market and financial collapse was the reason for our economic woes. It's not like our military spending prevented us from bailing out banks and Obama's stimulus.
Click to expand...

Well first can I just say it's a known 4.2%. And that doesn't include things like VA or retirement spending, just active spending. Veteran costs are high and with the continuous wars we keep having will keep getting higher. And that also doesn't include the interest that needs to be paid with the added debt. In Reality the estimated Military/defense budget is closer to 1 trillion. Which would make it close to about 6.6% not 4.2 We have to cut more spending. It's quite simple the military needs a steep paycut so we can pay off our debts and use that money at home.

Why do we have 1000 Admirals and Generals when we had only about 100 before 9/11? Our military size hasn't massively increased. All those generals have added costs that could be saved.
 
That's fine if you want to cut out the fat Zito, but how many bases do you want to close and how much of the technology do you want to take away? That's where your significant cuts are going to come from.
 
I think a 25% cut in bases is a good start. I think a better start is selling off military money pits like the private golf courses and ski lodges. We have so much waste which is more or less sold as making life better for the soldier but in reality it's swaddling the nuts of the Generals and Admirals.

As far as technology we don't have to take away Tech, not funding moneypit projects is not a bad start. If we issue a contract to Boeing to build a plane for 100 million and then down the line they tell us it will cost 200 million tell them to go eff themselves and come up with serious projections next time. For example a massive moneypit was the the F-22 a plane no one really wanted that cost the US Government about 60 billion dollars. Stuff like that has to stop.
 
zitothebrave said:
I think a general social contract should be. Social Security is it's own monster I'm not talking about here. But investing in Americans is more where I'm going. If we invested an added 100 billion in alternate energy research since Obama took office don't you think we'd be preetty close to a viable alternative by now and could give the ME a big FU because their instability wouldn't effect our energy costs?
Click to expand...

The US already spends over 50% of its budget on social contracts and safety nets. More than double what is spent on defense.
 
weso1 said:
The US already spends over 50% of its budget on social contracts and safety nets. More than double what is spent on defense.
Click to expand...

That includes social security which isn't the same. Payroll tax items that are largely self sufficient aren't the same as military spending.
 
Let's keep in mind that the defense numbers have been anomalously high over the last 10 years because of the two wars. When we're not at war the spending is typically between 400 to 500 billion which is where it should be, imo. So of course just ending the two wars will get the defense budget closer to where it should be.
 
Now we are at nut cutting time. Obama in Moscow him and Putin don't get along. But there is this.
Which seems to e the most logical outcome for everyone. Us,Syria and globally.
Everyone acted a peaceful solution was reached --
from twitter a few minutes ago:
BREAKING: Russian Foreign Minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control - @AP

Crisis averted ----- maybe.
 
weso1 said:
You're changing my argument just so you can keep disagreeing with me on the issue. I never said that it wasn't a lot, but that it wasn't as absurd, which in no way implies that it's not a lot. I've proven that is the case with the numbers I've presented itt.

Our military spending is too high, but at only about 4.2% of GDP it's not a significant burden on our economic woes as it appears to be in the more shallow pie charts presented itt. The housing market and financial collapse was the reason for our economic woes. It's not like our military spending prevented us from bailing out banks and Obama's stimulus.

Again, the argument isn't that we don't need to cut, but that we don't need to cut as much as some of you think we should.

And I know some of you will disagree with me on this, but I'm not in a hurry to close down many of our overseas bases and take away the huge technological advantage we have. It saves American lives and perhaps even saves collateral damage as the US can more accurately hit their intended targets.
Click to expand...

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top