Why We Must Reduce Military Spending

[antsi]

The easiest way to cut spending is:
1) eliminate all earmarks
2) eliminate several big federal departments starting with:

• The Dept. of Education
• Dept. of Energy
• Dept. of Agriculture
• and... no unions for state or federal employees. That's double dipping.

Cut the EPA, DOJ, Treasury, etc. way back.

These are certainly "easy" ways to cut the deficit, but they won't help much.

Add all those things together, and it's still peanuts compared to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

If you want to see where the debt is really coming from and play with different options of how to reduce it, try this website:
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

 

[gunowner930]

Foreign aid is a tiny fraction of what our government does with our money, and most of it goes to Israel. If you're looking for things to cut that will actually result in tangible benefits, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Entitlement is where we need to start. Getting rid of the Education and Energy departments might seem like a good idea, but even if they were entirely eliminated, entitlement is still the nasty thing that needs to be taken care of before it consumes all of our government's income.

Yeah but how do you get rid of it? Both parties will never unite on this issue. The Democrats get a huge chunk of votes from welfare recepients. It seems as though people on welfare reproduce at higher rates as well, so I don't see entitlements ever going away.

 

[downzero]

I suggest you look at where our Foreign Aid goes. We send money all over the world and a lot of it to countries that would just as soon see us turn to dust. Like much of what you say I will ignore your suggestion. I did not say that the cutting of Foreign Aid was the cure, just the start.

I actually would take your proposal a step further, cutting ALL foreign aid. That said, we need to focus on much bigger fiscal problems than foreign aid.

I do agree that our government is not a charity organization, however.

 

[Colt556]

Yeah but how do you get rid of it? Both parties will never unite on this issue. The Democrats get a huge chunk of votes from welfare recepients. It seems as though people on welfare reproduce at higher rates as well, so I don't see entitlements ever going away.

And that group is growing by leaps and bounds. Soon it will collapse b/c the group taking will be larger than the group paying in.

 

[downzero]

The group taking is already larger than the group paying in. Social security is a huge problem as well.

 

[antsi]

We cut the Military after WWI and WWII and were caught unprepared after those cuts. We need a strong, well equipped and well prepared military. Just like anything the government has it's hand in I'm sure that there are areas where spending can be trimmed, but the slashing of funding has proven a mistake in the past.

I agree with you in principle: it was a mistake to cut military spending to the extent we did after WWI.

However, nobody's proposing anything like the level of spending cuts after WWI. After WWI, we for all intents and purposes eliminated our military, especially the Army. We continued this policy even as Japan, Germany, and the USSR were re-arming on a grand scale.

This is in no way comparable to our situation now. US military spending is currently almost as much as the rest of the world combined. We could easily cut our defense spending by 10 or 20% and still have far and away the most powerful military in the world.

I do believe it is important to have a powerful nation. However, you must realize that running a national debt in excess of our GDP is a tremendous security threat in and of itself. Right now, we're outspending China on defense by a factor of six. At the same time, we are massively in debt to the Chinese and they could easily destroy our economy at any time by simply stopping purchasing our T-bills. Debtor nations are just as at risk as disarmed nations - in some ways moreso.

 

[Bill of Rights]

IMO, if we cut spending we need to decomission several bases and ships and withdraw from several foreign bases as well.

There just isn't enough money to keep that many units fully operational. We're already rationing bullets in training, and Marines don't even go on floats anymore. If you cut any more spending we won't be able to afford to train anymore.

Or maybe, instead of cutting operations people and training budgets, we cut out some of the inordinate and redundant layers of bureaucracy, we might have the problem, and all our nation's foreign enemies, beaten overseas. Of course, then our military would be coming home and could possibly begin protecting against our nation's domestic enemies.

IMHO, they should start at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and then proceed to Capitol Hill.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The only thing mandatory about Congress spending money is who pays for it. The spending is all discretionary, but paying for it is another matter all together.

The easiest way to cut spending is:
1) eliminate all earmarks
2) eliminate several big federal departments starting with:

• The Dept. of Education
• Dept. of Energy
• Dept. of Agriculture
• and... no unions for state or federal employees. That's double dipping.

Cut the EPA, DOJ, Treasury, etc. way back.

Flat federal tax rates at most. None of this progressive BS and deductions. And then throw in some tort reform. The above should keep Congress busy for a few weeks!

Ohh, one more thing. Congress writes the bills, not the lobbyists on K Street.

The military could probably use some minor tweaks to streamline things, but for the most part this is one area that doesn't get touched (maybe massaged for improvements, but no cuts).

How about we eliminate such agencies as the Infernal Revenue Source and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives Criminal Enforcement Squad?

(Credit my dad for the first of those.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[varasha]

This thread is a good example of why i love INGO....Some people disagree on some things, but we all give a damn, which cannot be said of most people in America. Kudos INGO keep up the good work!

 

[Expat]

Sorry BOR, we have to keep the BATFE. It is hard telling what some of those gunowners might get into without their vigilance. Someone out there might end up with an AK without one of the needed parts to comply with whatever law it is that applies to them. Or can you imagine the catastrophe we would face if someone cut a shotgun barrel off an inch shorter than the law allows.... wow.. I shiver just thinking of it.

 

[gunowner930]

I agree with you in principle: it was a mistake to cut military spending to the extent we did after WWI.

However, nobody's proposing anything like the level of spending cuts after WWI. After WWI, we for all intents and purposes eliminated our military, especially the Army. We continued this policy even as Japan, Germany, and the USSR were re-arming on a grand scale.

This is in no way comparable to our situation now. US military spending is currently almost as much as the rest of the world combined. We could easily cut our defense spending by 10 or 20% and still have far and away the most powerful military in the world.

I do believe it is important to have a powerful nation. However, you must realize that running a national debt in excess of our GDP is a tremendous security threat in and of itself. Right now, we're outspending China on defense by a factor of six. At the same time, we are massively in debt to the Chinese and they could easily destroy our economy at any time by simply stopping purchasing our T-bills. Debtor nations are just as at risk as disarmed nations - in some ways moreso.

we're outspending China 6 to 1 if you believe their reported expenditures. many defense analysts believe China's defense spending is much higher. Of the 10-20% we could cut, what programs do we get rid of?

 

[Leadeye]

Lots of good starting points on this topic, my only question is where do all the people we fire go to find jobs? So much of the "private sector" is dependent on tax money from the people making the free medicare scooters to the giant defense contractor. How much real private sector is still left to absorb reductions? It's true that everybody can't have a pony, but who is going to decide who gets one? The only future I can see is a steady decline in the standard of living. Unpleasent at best.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

In light of the iminent war within the U.S, and against Mexico, cutting the Military budge is National suicide.


I can think of many programs that need to be scraped, and cutting the Military is NOT one of which I would agree with in the current situation.

 

[DocBoCook]

We should not cut the military budget, We should recall all personnel from foreign soil, Have only the Carrier Task Groups in foreign deployment. This will save Soooooooo much money, we'll finally have money to buy the Updated and most advanced equipment we should have.

 

[irishfan]

We should not cut the military budget, We should recall all personnel from foreign soil, Have only the Carrier Task Groups in foreign deployment. This will save Soooooooo much money, we'll finally have money to buy the Updated and most advanced equipment we should have.

That is a great idea!!! I get flamed for suggesting even a partial reduction of foreign bases as I believe that alone would save a lot of money. We need our troops here where they can also spend their money on goods in America since all of their cash comes from tax dollars as well. Also, I fail to see the point of having the most dominant navy in history if you don't use it to its full ability when it is already deployed.

 

[downzero]

Yeah but how do you get rid of it? Both parties will never unite on this issue. The Democrats get a huge chunk of votes from welfare recepients. It seems as though people on welfare reproduce at higher rates as well, so I don't see entitlements ever going away.

It's inevitable when entitlement spending swallows ALL of our government's discretionary spending.

When that happens, we will not have a cent left for ANYTHING, to include the military or anything else "discretionary."

Our government will be nothing but a social program at that point.

 

[Lex Concord]

I agree with cutting military spending, but I think it pales in comparison to cutting social spending. It's time we realized as a nation that everyone does not get a pony.

Very few have the guts to even suggest cutting any of these socialist programs, let alone bury them as should happen.

This will continue to be the case until it is "too late" (possibly next week?).

The U.S. won't be the first nation to spend itself into insignificance, if not utter oblivion, and we certainly won't be the last.

People learn from history...unfortunately, most tend to see only what they want to while ignoring the unpleasant truths.

 

[antsi]

we're outspending China 6 to 1 if you believe their reported expenditures. many defense analysts believe China's defense spending is much higher.

One of the sources I was looking at was the CIA. I think it's possible they would anticipate that China's self-reporting would be inaccurate and would make allowances for that.

Even if not, and Chinese military spending were - say - 200% more than we think it is, we're still outspending China by 3 to 1.

What margin of superiority over China do you think is necessary?

And how much debt servitude are you willing to take on - putting ourselves economically at the mercy of the Chinese - to maintain your desired level of superiority in arms?

Of the 10-20% we could cut, what programs do we get rid of?

To answer this question in detail would require expertise I do not posess. However, it would not necessarily require elimination of any particular program; you could simply reduce existing programs by that amount.

Also - again out of my expertise - but many defense experts are critical of our current patterns of military spending. Often, these folks say, we purchase expensive systems not because they are most useful to our forces, but because they are manufactured in the districts of powerful Congressmen. The same criticism has been levelled in regard to some bases. That might be a good first step in reducing defense department spending - look rationally what our forces really need, and eliminate all spending that is purely political.

Just as you say the Chinese spend more on the military than they admit, we also have a lot of earmark spending hidden in other areas of the budget. If you really want to eliminate earmarks, you should look at the hidden favors to powerful Congressmen in addition to the obvious ones.

This is one of the major problems with trying to control the deficit. Everyone has their favorite program they don't want to see touched, and everyone has programs they don't like for ideological reasons and would like to see eliminated entirely.
Free market conservatives say "eliminate social security!" and liberals reply "you're trying to balance the budget by starving the elderly!"
Pacificists say "slash defense spending!" and national defense fans reply "you're trying pay off the debt in our soldiers' blood!"
As a political reality, none of the government's major programs are going to be eliminated entirely. Saying you want to balance the budget this way is akin to saying you'll balance the budget with magic unicorns, because it isn't going to happen.
However, I don't believe there's any government program that couldn't survive a 10 or 20% cut and still be able to function reasonably well. Any realistic approach to balancing the budget is going to be more along these lines.

 

[Woodsman]

How about we eliminate such agencies as the Infernal Revenue Source and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives Criminal Enforcement Squad?

(Credit my dad for the first of those.)

Blessings,
Bill

Yeah, I missed one; the IRS. That should be greatly reduced or eliminated if a flat tax was used, IMO. The idea here is to gut or drop the offending bureaucracies that are there to simply keep check on the general population or used as a tool by the fed's. The BATF is one that should probably stay. There are some rules that could be reversed for sure, but this one might be OK.

 

[Lex Concord]

As a political reality, none of the government's major programs are going to be eliminated entirely.

And it is because of this political reality that we are totally screwed.

The fact that it is politically untenable to even consider elimination of the largest Ponzi scheme (Social Security) in the history of the world speaks volumes of how far this nation has strayed from the path laid out at its founding.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." He later added, "(T)he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Two hundred years later, at least two-thirds of a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget is spent on charity or "objects of benevolence."[/FONT]

read the rest...