USA Budget spending

[_ID_]

Ok, I asked....


Just remember, you asked.

Our millitary budget is freaking huge. Humungous. Overblown. Its the biggest in the world, both in terms of actual dollars and by percent of GDP.

In 2004, it was 437.111 Billion. Now im not saying we should cut it in half - just realize that 1 percent, 1 little percent of this is about 4 billion. Thats huge. You could take 1 hundredth of a percent and still have 40 million to throw around.
Build a couple less fighter jets, maybe think before you invade a country for no reason. Theres little justification for that big of a number, and you could do a lot if you put some of that money to good use.

I kind of agree with you, and yet at the same time, I don't. I will explain.

While I do agree with you about invading countries we have no business in dealing with. I will explain why I feel military budget spending is an important gear in the cog of the American economy

The military budget of the USA, as stupid as this seems does affect American economy, in a positive manner. Why do you suppose the local politicians fight so vehemently to keep a base the government purposes closing? I agree we could put the monies to better use, however. There are other areas of spending I feel would be better redirected than cutting the budget of the military.

For instance, lets say we reduce the amount of money we contribute to foreign aid. How about the monies we use to supplement the economies of emerging democracies in countries we have zero connection with. We could also reduce the amount of money we spend in medical costs if we were to restructure the health care system. I know every doctor I have been to explains their costs they charge due to the enormous amounts of medical insurance they must pay.

We as a country could restructure many thing in the united states. Education I believe would benefit the most if we were to redirect that money in that direction. There is a thread on that as well.

So cutting the budget of the military, while it seems so simple, could also hurt the local economies of the cities that support the military.

V/R
ID

[cheeseburger]

So cutting the budget of the military, while it seems so simple, could also hurt the local economies of the cities that support the military.


America has millitary bases in a really nuts amount of countries. Why? So we can launch a surprise attack on Sweden and Togo?

Look at the number of aircraft carriers we have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Modern_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_St ates. There are 12 aircraft carrier battle groups. Again, why?

I don't really think America needs any aircraft carriers. But, ok, there 'might' come a time when we need, say, 2. Maybe 3. Definetly not over 10... and we have 12. Mind you, it costs a fortune to keep these things running.

I also believe the local economies should not be so dependant on millitary structures. Short term it makes sense to keep them running, long term we would be better off with... an economy based on something else. Something that requires more intellect.

One of the more common arguments you hear is that America needs all this money for the "War on Terror", etc.

A better question is, where do countries like Iran get all the extra money needed to make nuclear bombs, rockets...? With the kind of leadership they have, why arent they in the same economic soup countries in Africa are?

Its simple really. They sell oil, buy weapons, do dumb things with them. America buys their oil, most likely (indirectly) sells them weapons, then spends even more money to defend against them. Cute, isnt it?

[Warbaby1943]

I also believe the local economies should not be so dependant on millitary structures. Short term it makes sense to keep them running, long term we would be better off with... an economy based on something else. Something that requires more intellect.

The armed services is not what you may see depicted in movies where a soldier is constantly getting yelled at by a sergeant with an eighth grade education. Sign up for a 4 year tour in, oh let's just say, the air force and see what your opinion of their intellect is when you get out.


I don't really think America needs any aircraft carriers. But, ok, there 'might' come a time when we need, say, 2. Maybe 3. Definetly not over 10... and we have 12. Mind you, it costs a fortune to keep these things running.

What are we to do if ever needed in a far away place, refuel in the air? Then where would that fuel craft come from? I personally think we need more not less aircraft carriers. I sincerely pray the day never comes when you'd actually be happy we had this type of armed services. It may cost you tax dollars but at least, so far, you can sleep at night.

You're still young enough to join some branch of the armed services and see exactly what the intellect level is. I'm guessing you'd be amazed. At the same time if you could advance in rank far enough, maybe you could be instrumental in making some of these changes you seem to think we so desperately need. I'm also betting you'd change your mind on that too.

We should all thank God every day for all the non-intelligent soldiers and all military personal who are defending our country so we can have the freedom to go about our everyday lives and make posts such as this.

[_ID_]

I also believe the local economies should not be so dependant on millitary structures. Short term it makes sense to keep them running, long term we would be better off with... an economy based on something else. Something that requires more intellect.

Lets take an analytical look at a base that was very recently selected for this very purpose. Cannon AFB New Mexico. This installation was selected for closure. The military did asses what the impact was.

The following is a quote from globalsecurity.org


The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this recommendation would be $90.1M. The net of all costs and savings to the Department during the implementation period would be a savings of $815.6M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation would be $200.5M with an immediate payback expected. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years would be a savings of $2,706.8M. Assuming no economic recovery, this recommendation could result in a maximum potential reduction of 4,780 jobs (2,824 direct jobs and 1,956 indirect jobs) over the 2006-2011 period in the Clovis, NM, Metropolitan Statistical Area (20.5 percent of economic area employment. Impacts of costs include $2.8M in costs for environmental compliance and waste management. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/cannon.htm)

So what would you suggest the local leaders of Clovis do to supplement this loss of revenue?

I know if I was a local leader I would be trying what I could legally get away with to convince the armed forces to remain at that location.

Ultimately the military decided to assign a rescue unit to the base.

V/R
ID

[Rabbit1]

On the Homeland Security front...
Mixed news this week from the HomeSec front, as the Senate unanimously passed its FY 2007 Homeland Security spending bill Thursday. On the positive side, the Senate passed an amendment (84-16) by Louisiana Republican David Vitter prohibiting government confiscation of citizens' firearms during a disaster—a response to the unlawful disarmament of New Orleans' law-abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

When it came to fulfilling its pledge to protect the nation's southern border, however, the Senate showed its usual self. In May, the Senate voted by an overwhelming 83-16 margin to build a border fence along high-traffic areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. In the same vote, they also endorsed construction of 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the border. However, when it came time to fund construction of the fence and barriers this week, both of Sen. Jeff Session's amendments to that affect were unceremoniously rejected. In votes of 71-29—not far from the margin by which the Senate first approved their construction—the upper chamber, a la John Kerry, refused to fund the $1.8 billion needed for their construction.

So, when Jihadis cross the southern border and detonate a fissile device in a U.S. urban center, we know where the inevitable special commission investigation should begin.

[_ID_]

However, when it came time to fund


amendments to that affect were unceremoniously rejected.

This kind of thing happens more often than alot of people realize. To avoid seeming like a shitbag, the politicos will vote in favor for something, and then when it comes time for funding, no one pays attention, and they reject the funding. Keeps the money spent down so they can keep promises made to lobbiests that didn't want it, and keeps prommises to lobbiests that did want it. Means more money in their pocket.

V/R
ID

[cheeseburger]

The armed services is not what you may see depicted in movies where a soldier is constantly getting yelled at by a sergeant with an eighth grade education. Sign up for a 4 year tour in, oh let's just say, the air force and see what your opinion of their intellect is when you get out.
Judging by your attitude and your handle, I'm guessing youre from the millitary. Lets just end this amicably and agree to disagree.



What are we to do if ever needed in a far away place, refuel in the air? Then where would that fuel craft come from?
We are, so far, the only country insecure enough about our refueling to seem to need 12 floating runways and all the accessories. If France can do without them, so can America.


It may cost you tax dollars but at least, so far, you can sleep at night.
Let me ask you one, simple question that I think best demonstrates our opposite opinions: Do you honestly believe America is under the threat of an attack, i.e. do you believe we are at war right now? And do you think that the millitary is the institution that will prevent such an attack?

I may be no expert on counter-terrorism, but what I do know is that it was largely the internal intelligence agencies that were to blame for 9/11, not the armed forces. I don't believe that invading Iraq is making me safer. Spend money securing the border with Mexico. If that means increasing millitary spending, by all means do it. However, dont increase millitary spending just so we can invade Indonesia and then have the President land on an aircraft carrier in a millitary uniform.



We should all thank God every day for all the non-intelligent soldiers and all military personal who are defending our country so we can have the freedom to go about our everyday lives and make posts such as this.

This quote exemplifies why both no politicians or people that I know of ever talk of decreasing the millitary budget (more so than local economies, IDCrewDawg, IMO). Its also one of the reasons I was reluctant to start such a topic.

As soon as you raise a voice about maybe decreasing the millitary budget, they throw the book at you. You're an evil anarchist that despises America; you don't respect the armed forces, etc. None of the above are true.

If you really wanted the best for our troops, you would not support their senseless deployment in some random country. No clear answers on why they went there, no clear reasons why they stay there; just some dogma about freedom.

Before you ask, heres what I think they should do about Iran, Iraq, and all the rest of those weird Islamic countries with no respect for human life. Just routinely destroy all their oil-pumping rigs, or whatever they use to get oil out of the ground. If that means launching ICBMs from Florida every week, go ahead.

Lets say we did this for 5 years straight; the exact number is unimportant, all that matters is that those countries are unable to sell their oil for the simple reason that they cant dig it out. Where would they buy their weapons? What terrorists would there be?

Look at Africa. I'm sure a bunch of them hate America, but no one cares. You can't throw a rock across the atlantic ocean. If Iran was as 'rich' as Congo, what would they fund their nuclear research with? Where would they buy anti-tank missiles or whatever?

This scenario will never happen, largely because America cares more about the oil they buy from these countries than the lives of the soldiers in its own army. Thats why 'we' dont need such a big millitary, 'we' don't have the brains to use it. All we know how to do is build millitary bases and aircraft carriers, which all use exorbitant amounts of oil, by the way.