PDA

View Full Version : Economics WAKE UP AMERICA! - The Real U.S. Budget Problem: Defense & War Spending Equal 94% Of


KILLER_CLOWN
07-28-2011, 12:02 AM
WAKE UP AMERICA! - The Real U.S. Budget Problem: Defense & War Spending Equal 94% Of All Federal Income Tax Revenues

http://dailybail.com/storage/chart-us-budget.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1311781985460

What's missing from the debt-ceiling discussion, albeit nothing new to DB readers, is spending on wars and the pentagon. It's not even being mentioned as a possibility in any of the competing debt plans, despite the following undeniably depressing and disgusting facts:

From Reddit:

I thought this kind of puts things in perspective. In 2010, the US government collected $898 billion in federal income tax revenues. The same year, we spent $847 billion on useless wars and national defense. That means that 94% of all federal income tax revenue is equivalent to what we spend on the Pentagon. Who out there thinks it was money well spent?

Also, just to piss you off a little bit more - defense spending is equivalent to 443% of what we collect in total corporate taxes.

One more link you need to see:

* Taking Apart The 2011 Federal Budget - Washington Post Graphic

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLK1XQC" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" ></embed>

http://dailybail.com/home/wake-up-america-the-real-us-budget-problem-defense-war-spend.html

RINGLEADER
07-28-2011, 12:47 AM
Spending on wars is already set to contract significantly over the next decade.

Spending on entitlements is projected to grow exponentially over the next decade and then really blow up in the following decades.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-28-2011, 01:14 AM
Spending on wars is already set to contract significantly over the next decade.

Spending on entitlements is projected to grow exponentially over the next decade and then really blow up in the following decades.

Doubtful as invading Iran will take more money while we remain in our current wars.

Easy 6
07-28-2011, 01:26 AM
Its not defense spending, its American markets quaking with fear when ****ing Greece has a bad day or when companies that used to be US mainstays take their business east.

America is just another word to far too many people right now, the ultra rich have no country or loyalty, they have the almighty dollar.

2bikemike
07-28-2011, 07:59 AM
Defense of this country is IMHO the most important job of Govt.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Bullet Trains, Amtrak, Bailing out Businesses. That is not the Governments responsibility.

The reason we're in the shape we're in is Govt. spends way too damn much money doing things they have no business doing.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 08:21 AM
Defense of this country is IMHO the most important job of Govt.

That doesn't mean we have to be in stupid wars that have nothing to do with defense of America and are based on demagoguery. We are spread far to much right now....and this will be the end of our superpower empire as it has ended all previous ones.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 08:21 AM
Spending on wars is already set to contract significantly over the next decade.

Spending on entitlements is projected to grow exponentially over the next decade and then really blow up in the following decades.

There's more people getting checks right now than are producing.

FishingRod
07-28-2011, 09:55 AM
I think most of the right leaning folks, as much as they respect the Armed forces and believe they are necessary to insure our safety, would be willing to not only cut the size of the increases but actually cut 25% of the defense budget if it were included with similar cuts across the board. Any conservatives disagree?

alnorth
07-28-2011, 10:45 AM
Defense of this country is IMHO the most important job of Govt.

Well, I'd argue that we bought the gold-plated Ferrari version of defense instead of something more reasonable.

Kind of like how on the local level in states that are drowning in pension debt, cops and firefighters seem to be out of the discussion because they are heroes who deserve everything they get. Well, no, if the cop and firefighter pensions are too lavish, and allow them to retire in their 50's with 90% of pay like in some of the more insane states (e.g. CA), they need to feel the axe, too.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 10:47 AM
I think most of the right leaning folks, as much as they respect the Armed forces and believe they are necessary to insure our safety, would be willing to not only cut the size of the increases but actually cut 25% of the defense budget if it were included with similar cuts across the board. Any conservatives disagree?

Yes. Unless most of that 25% can be accounted for by winding down our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly, that's far too much of a chunk to take out of our defense budget.

The sources of our fiscal problems are, in no particular order:

* demographically unrealistic entitlement programs
* unworkable healthcare system (high cost inflation impacting entitlement costs)
* anemic economic growth (economy burdened by tax code and regulatory inefficiencies)
* lack of political restraints on government growth (progressive income tax, lack of anything like a balanced budget amendment)

Defense spending doesn't even make the list. Nor do foreign aid or elected official pensions or the space program. These are all things that people would like to believe can be cut without any direct suffering on their part. Some of them might be worthy of being cut, but none of them are the problem.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 10:50 AM
I think most of the right leaning folks, as much as they respect the Armed forces and believe they are necessary to insure our safety, would be willing to not only cut the size of the increases but actually cut 25% of the defense budget if it were included with similar cuts across the board. Any conservatives disagree?

I don't. I am all for that. Empires are expensive to maintain as is nation building.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 10:54 AM
Well, I'd argue that we bought the gold-plated Ferrari version of defense instead of something more reasonable.

Kind of like how on the local level in states that are drowning in pension debt, cops and firefighters seem to be out of the discussion because they are heroes who deserve everything they get. Well, no, if the cop and firefighter pensions are too lavish, and allow them to retire in their 50's with 90% of pay in some of the more insane states (like CA), they need to feel the axe, too.

Yeah, people argue that until you go to war with unarmored Humvees and then everyone is complaining that you didn't properly equip our boys and girls.

Being just a little more powerful than your adversaries invites war and leads to high casualty counts when war does come (even if you end up prevailing).

Being a lot more powerful than your adversaries helps to prevent war and makes your diplomatic efforts far more successful. And if war does come, it leads to minimal casualties. (compare casualty rates between our modern wars and wars like WWII to see this effect).

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 10:57 AM
In some cases we create our own enemies. If one is self-reflective and responsible they would correct the things that lead to creation of enemies.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 11:00 AM
Yeah, people argue that until you go to war with unarmored Humvees and then everyone is complaining that you didn't properly equip our boys and girls.

Being just a little more powerful than your adversaries invites war and leads to high casualty counts when war does come (even if you end up prevailing).

Being a lot more powerful than your adversaries helps to prevent war and makes your diplomatic efforts far more successful. And if war does come, it leads to minimal casualties. (compare casualty rates between our modern wars and wars like WWII to see this effect).

We do not need the ability to fight two major wars on two fronts. I am not concerned about a need to go to war with Iran, North Korea, and/or China.

Iraq was an utter mistake, and we would have been fine in Afghanistan with our coalition if our defense spending was much less than it is now.

Honestly, I believe there is a microscopic chance of a major conventional world war in our lifetimes, and if the need appears to arise we can ramp up later.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 11:01 AM
In some cases we create our own enemies. If one is self-reflective and responsible they would correct the things that lead to creation of enemies.

I don't have any objection to that principle. I suspect that your application of the principle would be pretty crazy though.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 11:02 AM
Honestly, I believe there is a microscopic chance of a major conventional world war in our lifetimes, and if the need appears to arise we can ramp up later.

We've done this before successfully. What worked before will work again.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 11:12 AM
We do not need the ability to fight two major wars on two fronts. I am not concerned about a need to go to war with Iran, North Korea, and/or China.

Iraq was an utter mistake, and we would have been fine in Afghanistan with our coalition if our defense spending was much less than it is now.

Honestly, I believe there is a microscopic chance of a major conventional world war in our lifetimes, and if the need appears to arise we can ramp up later.

Given the history of the past 100 years, I think your instincts on this are pretty horrible. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I understand the appeal of seeing the pentagon budget as a big piggy bank that would be cost-free to tap, but IMO it would be a huge mistake that would lead to a much more dangerous world and a much less effective diplomatic capability for us. And since defense spending isn't the source of our fiscal problems in the first place, cutting that part of the budget only delays the problem. It doesn't fix it.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 11:19 AM
And since defense spending isn't the source of our fiscal problems in the first place.

I completely disagree with this statement. It may not be THE source, but it is A significant source.

Our projected entitlement spending debt will not be hard to fix. Raise the age to qualify, reduce the cost of living adjustment to something more reasonable, put in some restrictions on taxpayer-paid end-of-life care (ie if you want us to spend $250,000 to keep grandma alive for another 6 months when the prognosis says she has no chance, the answer is no. Pay for it yourself), means-test some of the benefit, uncap the payroll tax, and modestly raise taxes.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 11:32 AM
I completely disagree with this statement. It may not be THE source, but it is A significant source.

Our projected entitlement spending debt will not be hard to fix. Raise the age to qualify, reduce the cost of living adjustment to something more reasonable, put in some restrictions on taxpayer-paid end-of-life care (ie if you want us to spend $250,000 to keep grandma alive for another 6 months when the prognosis says she has no chance, the answer is no. Pay for it yourself), means-test some of the benefit, uncap the payroll tax, and modestly raise taxes.

If it wasn't hard to fix it would have already been fixed.

KC Dan
07-28-2011, 11:57 AM
I think most of the right leaning folks, as much as they respect the Armed forces and believe they are necessary to insure our safety, would be willing to not only cut the size of the increases but actually cut 25% of the defense budget if it were included with similar cuts across the board. Any conservatives disagree?No, I would agree if you couple 25% across the board cuts to every other federal gov't dept.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 11:58 AM
I completely disagree with this statement. It may not be THE source, but it is A significant source.

I agree and there is so much off budget that is paying for it too. Plus the inflation, stealth tax, that goes to paying for it. Then there were the effects of the high cost of oil during Bush because our actions over in the ME effects the energy market on an aggregate. Add in the high cost of medical care for injured and maimed soldiers. It adds up.

BucEyedPea
07-28-2011, 12:43 PM
pat likes the idea of a world empire based on on the Assyrian or Mongol models.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 12:58 PM
I agree and there is so much off budget that is paying for it too. Plus the inflation, stealth tax, that goes to paying for it. Then there were the effects of the high cost of oil during Bush because our actions over in the ME effects the energy market on an aggregate. Add in the high cost of medical care for injured and maimed soldiers. It adds up.

This is nothing more than a temporary surge in spending compared to the systemically-entrenched, exponentially-growing costs of entitlements and the long term effects of drags on business in the name of class warfare.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 12:59 PM
pat likes the idea of a world empire based on on the Assyrian or Mongol models.

I like the ideas of strong national defense and effective diplomacy.

Chief Roundup
07-28-2011, 01:44 PM
What would fall under "Other Discretionary" spending?
How long until we get past the "babyboomers"?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-28-2011, 01:47 PM
What would fall under "Other Discretionary" spending?
How long until we get past the "babyboomers"?

other discretionary would be paying for the President to take 200 of his closest friends with him on trips etc.

patteeu
07-28-2011, 02:36 PM
What would fall under "Other Discretionary" spending?
How long until we get past the "babyboomers"?

Housing subsidies, student loans, art and science grants, disease control, environmental protection, space exploration, national parks, tax collection, food and drug regulation, the federal court system, wagu steaks, federal highways, federal law enforcement, etc.

Chief Faithful
07-28-2011, 02:39 PM
Our projected entitlement spending debt will not be hard to fix.

That is what Obama said just before he tripled the annual deficit.

Bump
07-28-2011, 02:56 PM
the main problem is congress and corruption. The top 1% control half of the money and they makes EVERY single decision that happens in this country just to make themselves more money. The 90% of the American population just doesn't matter, we do not matter, our needs do not matter. Only the top 1%'s needs matter and that's that. It's the 1st ammendment!!! blah blah blah. ITS FUCKING BULLSHIT and there's never, never, ever, ever, ever going to be anything done about it. Ever.

mlyonsd
07-28-2011, 03:05 PM
How long until we get past the "babyboomers"?When everyone born before 1965 is dead.

And I'm not going quietly. I work out 5-6 times a week.

jiveturkey
07-28-2011, 03:56 PM
When everyone born before 1965 is dead.

And I'm not going quietly. I work out 5-6 times a week.
You'll probably get through your first couple of death panels without an issue. On the 3rd go around things get a bit tougher.

FishingRod
07-28-2011, 04:48 PM
Yes. Unless most of that 25% can be accounted for by winding down our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly, that's far too much of a chunk to take out of our defense budget.

The sources of our fiscal problems are, in no particular order:

* demographically unrealistic entitlement programs
* unworkable healthcare system (high cost inflation impacting entitlement costs)
* anemic economic growth (economy burdened by tax code and regulatory inefficiencies)
* lack of political restraints on government growth (progressive income tax, lack of anything like a balanced budget amendment)

Defense spending doesn't even make the list. Nor do foreign aid or elected official pensions or the space program. These are all things that people would like to believe can be cut without any direct suffering on their part. Some of them might be worthy of being cut, but none of them are the problem.

I said Conservatives Patteeu, JK

Libertarian is probably the most accurate description of my beliefs but even I think they go a bit too far in a number of areas including defense. Having said that, if we use our military more for the actual defense of our country and show far more restraint and less willingness to be the world’s policeman. A 25% reduction would by most accounts still leave us as the highest funded military in the world. I did also link the cuts to similar cuts across the board. Anyone ever involved in the investment game is familiar to the rule of 72. Take 72 and divide it buy x and it gives you the years at that amount of interest to double your money. If we continue adding to the debt at this rate and I’ll round down to 12%, in 12 years the debt will be 56 TRILLION dollars.

Earthling
07-28-2011, 04:53 PM
What would fall under "Other Discretionary" spending?
How long until we get past the "babyboomers"?

Well, this boomer is still kickin' but will do my part when the bucket-kick time approaches and take out a couple of youngsters with me; thereby preventing them from becoming a future drag on our great society. Where do you live exactly btw? :p

patteeu
07-28-2011, 05:02 PM
I said Conservatives Patteeu, JK

Libertarian is probably the most accurate description of my beliefs but even I think they go a bit too far in a number of areas including defense. Having said that, if we use our military more for the actual defense of our country and show far more restraint and less willingness to be the world’s policeman. A 25% reduction would by most accounts still leave us as the highest funded military in the world. I did also link the cuts to similar cuts across the board. Anyone ever involved in the investment game is familiar to the rule of 72. Take 72 and divide it buy x and it gives you the years at that amount of interest to double your money. If we continue adding to the debt at this rate and I’ll round down to 12%, in 12 years the debt will be 56 TRILLION dollars.

We agree that there is a debt problem. I think we should address it by focusing on it's main causes instead of sacrificing our standards of national security.

SNR
07-28-2011, 05:07 PM
We agree that there is a debt problem. I think we should address it by focusing on it's main causes instead of sacrificing our standards of national security.How much defense spending could we cut before we begin to "compromise" our security? 10%? Less than that? Can we at least pull out of Libya?

This kind of talk sounds fair, but on the surface it pretty much means "we can't afford to cut ANY defense spending." And I think you'll agree that's simply not true.

Earthling
07-28-2011, 05:13 PM
How much defense spending could we cut before we begin to "compromise" our security? 10%? Less than that? Can we at least pull out of Libya?

This kind of talk sounds fair, but on the surface it pretty much means "we can't afford to cut ANY defense spending." And I think you'll agree that's simply not true.

Agree. :thumb:

patteeu
07-28-2011, 06:41 PM
How much defense spending could we cut before we begin to "compromise" our security? 10%? Less than that? Can we at least pull out of Libya?

This kind of talk sounds fair, but on the surface it pretty much means "we can't afford to cut ANY defense spending." And I think you'll agree that's simply not true.

I think we'll be able to cut some expenses as the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya draw down. I don't think we should cut the base defense budget by 10%. We might be able to freeze it for a while or limit it's growth. But again, why are we looking for answers in the defense budget instead of fixing the actual drivers of our fiscal problems?

vailpass
07-28-2011, 06:59 PM
The real budget problem is health care spending and it is going to get much worse if/when obamacare kicks in.

SNR
07-28-2011, 07:17 PM
I think we'll be able to cut some expenses as the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya draw down. I don't think we should cut the base defense budget by 10%. We might be able to freeze it for a while or limit it's growth. But again, why are we looking for answers in the defense budget instead of fixing the actual drivers of our fiscal problems?Most Republicans ARE going after the actual drivers of our fiscal problems.

I still don't think all that defense spending is necessary, though. I'd rather cut taxes than have my current tax allotment go towards Obama's idiot war in Libya

Chief Roundup
07-28-2011, 11:29 PM
When everyone born before 1965 is dead.

And I'm not going quietly. I work out 5-6 times a week.

Wheeew I just missed that date. 1970 was a good year.

Chief Roundup
07-28-2011, 11:32 PM
Well, this boomer is still kickin' but will do my part when the bucket-kick time approaches and take out a couple of youngsters with me; thereby preventing them from becoming a future drag on our great society. Where do you live exactly btw? :p

In the middle of no where you old fart. :p

FishingRod
07-29-2011, 04:03 PM
you know I see these numbers often, $520 billion in other. WTF is other.

Chief Roundup
07-29-2011, 04:36 PM
you know I see these numbers often, $520 billion in other. WTF is other.

Housing subsidies, student loans, art and science grants, disease control, environmental protection, space exploration, national parks, tax collection, food and drug regulation, the federal court system, wagu steaks, federal highways, federal law enforcement, etc.
.

teedubya
07-30-2011, 04:06 AM
America would be the second major superpower to fall during a futile war with Afghanistan.

BucEyedPea
07-30-2011, 08:55 AM
America would be the second major superpower to fall during a futile war with Afghanistan.

You need to put this on a piece of paper and pin it on pat.

Ace Gunner
07-30-2011, 10:50 AM
the funniest part is we've spent decades fighting sheep hearders and we are losing, yet dumbasses keep the faith

BigChiefFan
07-30-2011, 10:54 AM
The shame of all of this, is these pricks in DC would rather see little old ladies go without their SS checks, than to cut the defense budget. The people that actually help pay for all of this, gets shafted, while Warren Buffett gets tax breaks. This country is fucked.

Ace Gunner
07-30-2011, 11:05 AM
yep

patteeu
07-30-2011, 01:00 PM
the funniest part is we've spent decades fighting sheep hearders and we are losing, yet dumbasses keep the faith

Tell that to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Ace Gunner
07-30-2011, 08:06 PM
Tell that to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

ah, yes. the 6 trillion dollar men. good job big spender. your kids will pay your bill.

patteeu
07-30-2011, 08:11 PM
ah, yes. the 6 trillion dollar men. good job big spender. your kids will pay your bill.

Don't quit your day job for anything involving numbers or strong argument skills.

Ace Gunner
07-31-2011, 09:17 AM
Hmmm..



























that is weak sauce

Earthling
07-31-2011, 10:41 AM
In the middle of no where you old fart. :p

Hehehe...Couldn't resist. :thumb:

Backwards Masking
07-31-2011, 11:13 AM
The real budget problem is health care spending and it is going to get much worse if/when obamacare kicks in.

No, obviously the real problem is the fact that we're spending 800 billion plus on defense to fight Al Quida and international terrorism. I'm not for Obamcare by any means, but 500,000 plus die prematurely from health related issues each year, wheras maybe 50 die from international terrorism. Obamacare would be a better investment in our best interests than 800 BILLION on defense.

These Defense statistics are the best example of our government working against us instead of for us. And we were spending quite a bit before OKC and 911 - oops!

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 12:52 PM
No, obviously the real problem is the fact that we're spending 800 billion plus on defense to fight Al Quida and international terrorism. I'm not for Obamcare by any means, but 500,000 plus die prematurely from health related issues each year, wheras maybe 50 die from international terrorism. Obamacare would be a better investment in our best interests than 800 BILLION on defense.

These Defense statistics are the best example of our government working against us instead of for us. And we were spending quite a bit before OKC and 911 - oops!

Were fighting a total of 23 men, according to CIA sources, those guys are worth quite a bit of our tax dollars.

BIG_DADDY
07-31-2011, 01:25 PM
Other discretionary? LMAO Like it's $20 my man.

BIG_DADDY
07-31-2011, 01:28 PM
We have almost 1.3 trillion under either other or other discretionary. Like most of your stuff KC but this chart is a joke.

Backwards Masking
07-31-2011, 01:32 PM
Like most of your stuff KC but this chart is a joke.

The chart as a whole might be, but the 895 billiion spent on Defense is unfortunately, not a joke.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 01:34 PM
We have almost 1.3 trillion under either other or other discretionary. Like most of your stuff KC but this chart is a joke.

It's from the Washington Post, not that it makes any difference.

patteeu
07-31-2011, 01:49 PM
We've got a lot of people in our midst who don't appreciate the value of a strong national defense. Sure, let's gut the military budget to pay for all of the things that previous generations found unnecessary. What could possibly go wrong with that?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 01:50 PM
We've got a lot of people in our midst who don't appreciate the value of a strong national defense. Sure, let's gut the military budget to pay for all of the things that previous generations found unnecessary. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Yes because were speaking of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. :drool:

BIG_DADDY
07-31-2011, 02:01 PM
It's from the Washington Post, not that it makes any difference.

Funny, a chart on spending that doesn't even list Federal employees, their wages and some of the retarded unsustainable spending on their pensions. The person who made it obviously had an agenda to say the very least.

patteeu
07-31-2011, 02:03 PM
Yes because were speaking of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. :drool:

You guys have given me no reason to believe you know the difference.

Coyote
07-31-2011, 02:08 PM
Classic "Guns and/or Butter" chart from the Butter side. Argument hasn't been resolved since it started and I doubt it will be soon. The traditional elements of National Power: (Diplomacy, Information-"soft power," Military, & Economy (DIME)) argue against sustaining this level of debt and for cutting both Guns and Butter. However, if we will be satisfied with being just another member of the U.N, we're on a great glideslope.

BIG_DADDY
07-31-2011, 02:21 PM
Nice video too, she wants to move the money spent there to support free health care. LMAO What about the debt you stupid beeotch?

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2011, 02:27 PM
You guys have given me no reason to believe you know the difference.

I know we can't afford it.

ROYC75
08-01-2011, 12:07 PM
We've got a lot of people in our midst who don't appreciate the value of a strong national defense. Sure, let's gut the military budget to pay for all of the things that previous generations found unnecessary. What could possibly go wrong with that?


No kidding, why even have one,Right?

I can see it now, we get another 3 branch Liberal government and they cut military by 60% to save all the other entitlements ( surprise it didn't happen 2 years ago.)

What do you think will happen soon?

FishingRod
08-01-2011, 12:25 PM
I tend to be strongly on the side of a very well funded national defence but, by most acounts we spend something like 180 billion more per year than China, the UK, France, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, India and Italy Combined. They are in order the next 9 largest military budgets. Weapons that we never actually have to use because they deterred aggression against us is very much money well spent in my opinion but, to look at this list we probably have some room to cut. I don’t see much chance of France and Italy kicking ass and taking names.

BigChiefFan
08-01-2011, 07:26 PM
I'm all for defense. I think you'll be hard pressed to find many that are against it. However, the spending is out of control. It's not sustainable at the current rate and needs to be reeled in. We are spending $1 million, PER YEAR, PER SOLDIER. Utterly ridiculous.

banyon
08-01-2011, 07:39 PM
Honestly, I believe there is a microscopic chance of a major conventional world war in our lifetimes, and if the need appears to arise we can ramp up later.

I agree there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon budget, but with the near complete demolition of our industrial production capacity, I'm not sure how quickly or effectively we can ramp up anymore.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-01-2011, 08:17 PM
I agree there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon budget, but with the near complete demolition of our industrial production capacity, I'm not sure how quickly or effectively we can ramp up anymore.

Well if we go to war with China, we can have them manufacture weapons for us. LMAO

patteeu
08-01-2011, 11:11 PM
I'm all for defense. I think you'll be hard pressed to find many that are against it. However, the spending is out of control. It's not sustainable at the current rate and needs to be reeled in. We are spending $1 million, PER YEAR, PER SOLDIER. Utterly ridiculous.

Relative to the size of our economy, defense spending is about the same as it's been for the past half century. It's non-defense discretionary spending that's ballooned in the past two years and it's entitlement spending that threatens to break our backs. It's ridiculous to say, now that overspending on the domestic side has put us in a bind, that defense spending is out of control or that defense spending has to take an equal hit as a part of the solution.

The defense budget should certainly be reviewed to make sure that it meets our needs of the future and to eliminate programs that are no longer necessary, but the size of the budget should be threat driven not "I-want-to-keep-my-government-handout" driven.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qve2Ds-cMvk/SQfHyKlOaWI/AAAAAAAAAhw/GXZEXD_UDp8/s400/Defense+spending+as+a+percent+of+gdp+1949+-+2009.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Us_gov_spending_histry_by_function_1902_2010.png

patteeu
08-01-2011, 11:14 PM
I'm all for defense. I think you'll be hard pressed to find many that are against it. However, the spending is out of control. It's not sustainable at the current rate and needs to be reeled in. We are spending $1 million, PER YEAR, PER SOLDIER. Utterly ridiculous.

Just out of curiousity, were you one of the guys defending Donald Rumsfeld when our troops were getting blown up by IEDs in unarmored Humvees?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2011, 11:20 PM
The ole' GDP trick again—another phony govt statistic which includes govt spending.

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 12:03 AM
Just out of curiousity, were you one of the guys defending Donald Rumsfeld when our troops were getting blown up by IEDs in unarmored Humvees?I didn't care for that. Who in their right mind would? BUT, they used that story to up the ante. They squandered the money and put that story out to be able to explain the budget on defense was needed and even at the price we pay, it wasn't sufficient enough. It's elementary, my dear, Watson.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-02-2011, 01:20 AM
9/10/01 anyone remember this?

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xU4GdHLUHwU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xU4GdHLUHwU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

banyon
08-02-2011, 08:06 AM
Relative to the size of our economy, defense spending is about the same as it's been for the past half century. It's non-defense discretionary spending that's ballooned in the past two years and it's entitlement spending that threatens to break our backs. It's ridiculous to say, now that overspending on the domestic side has put us in a bind, that defense spending is out of control or that defense spending has to take an equal hit as a part of the solution.

The defense budget should certainly be reviewed to make sure that it meets our needs of the future and to eliminate programs that are no longer necessary, but the size of the budget should be threat driven not "I-want-to-keep-my-government-handout" driven.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qve2Ds-cMvk/SQfHyKlOaWI/AAAAAAAAAhw/GXZEXD_UDp8/s400/Defense+spending+as+a+percent+of+gdp+1949+-+2009.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Us_gov_spending_histry_by_function_1902_2010.png

Your chart shows that health care and "pensions" have increased since the 70s, everything else has been relatively stable.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:36 AM
Your chart shows that health care and "pensions" have increased since the 70s, everything else has been relatively stable.

Yes, SS and Medicare/Medicaid are probably the biggest parts of the spending growth. Interest on the debt isn't shown on the graph but that has grown tremendously too. And the graph cuts off before Obama's dramatic increase in non-defense discretionary spending too.

banyon
08-02-2011, 08:38 AM
Yes, SS and Medicare/Medicaid are probably the biggest parts of the spending growth. Interest on the debt isn't shown on the graph but that has grown tremendously too. And the graph cuts off before Obama's dramatic increase in non-defense discretionary spending too.

I guess my point was most of that is entitlements and not non-defense discretionary.

I think it also considers the two wars to be "off-budget" from its appearance.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 08:45 AM
I guess my point was most of that is entitlements and not non-defense discretionary.

I think it also considers the two wars to be "off-budget" from its appearance.

I agree that entitlements are the biggest part of the problem. I said that in the post with the graphs but it must not have been clear.

Even if the wars were off budget, defense has been one of the flattest segments of the budget. And in any event, the wars are winding down. Those calling for large defense cuts are calling for cuts beyond the savings derived from the end of the wars.

FishingRod
08-02-2011, 10:08 AM
I do tend to agree that spending need to be looked at from a percentage of GNP, My daugher was in Iraq when things were at their worst, her husband just came back from Afganistan. Trust me I am not looking to do anything to put are people at any additional risk. But I think we don't need to Spend our money to Defend Japan, the UK South Korea

Alex I'l like to choose "other" for $520 billion. WTF is that?

patteeu
08-02-2011, 10:20 AM
I do tend to agree that spending need to be looked at from a percentage of GNP, My daugher was in Iraq when things were at their worst, her husband just came back from Afganistan. Trust me I am not looking to do anything to put are people at any additional risk. But I think we don't need to Spend our money to Defend Japan, the UK South Korea

I'm all for the idea of some of our allies picking up a larger share of the tab for their defense, but if we abandon them entirely, they will have no choice but to start trying to curry favor with China and that will mean that we can no longer count on their support in international affairs.

Alex I'l like to choose "other" for $520 billion. WTF is that?

Housing subsidies, student loans, art and science grants, disease control, environmental protection, space exploration, national parks, tax collection, food and drug regulation, the federal court system, wagu steaks, federal highways, federal law enforcement, etc.

FishingRod
08-02-2011, 10:50 AM
Patteeu,

I don't think we are on differnt sides of the fence but haggeling on %.

Is it just me or does anyone else fear a balanced budget ammendment will end up looking a lot like a debt limit. I have little confidence in our honorable servants in congress to have any honor.

Backwards Masking
08-02-2011, 07:43 PM
I'm all for the idea of some of our allies picking up a larger share of the tab for their defense, but if we abandon them entirely, they will have no choice but to start trying to curry favor with China and that will mean that we can no longer count on their support in international affairs.

Don't we already curry favor with China? I know we owe the Fed trillions, don't we owe China directly trillions too? With everything we borrow and depend on them for, it would be dumb for them to bomb us I would think. Not when they can just buy us instead. Why not use some of this defense money to pay them back?

banyon
08-02-2011, 07:53 PM
I agree that entitlements are the biggest part of the problem. I said that in the post with the graphs but it must not have been clear.

Even if the wars were off budget, defense has been one of the flattest segments of the budget. And in any event, the wars are winding down. Those calling for large defense cuts are calling for cuts beyond the savings derived from the end of the wars.

The wars are winding down, but the VA medical bills are just beginning.

We are going to have the biggest long term medical payments from a war in our nation's history, ironically due to improvements in medicine which turned wounded soldiers who would have died in previous wars into livable casualties. It's great for our soldiers, but it has some of the same strange dynamics that say the decline in smoking has for our health care costs.

BigChiefFan
08-02-2011, 07:57 PM
Over $1.4 TRILLION SPENT EVERY YEAR on defense and we can't ask them to be more fiscally responsible? I call bull butter on that.

patteeu
08-02-2011, 09:19 PM
Don't we already curry favor with China? I know we owe the Fed trillions, don't we owe China directly trillions too? With everything we borrow and depend on them for, it would be dumb for them to bomb us I would think. Not when they can just buy us instead. Why not use some of this defense money to pay them back?

No. We don't. We get along with China in what, so far at least, is a mutually beneficial relationship.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 12:25 AM
No. We don't. We get along with China in what, so far at least, is a mutually beneficial relationship.

So does a hooker and her client.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 01:00 AM
So does a hooker and her client.

That's true.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-03-2011, 01:09 AM
That's true.

For greater comparison it's illegal and one party usually gets F*****, Just sayin'.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 06:19 AM
No. We don't. We get along with China in what, so far at least, is a mutually beneficial relationship.

I can't believe you said that.

Our relationship with China does not stem from free-market forces but from state arrangements.

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 08:11 AM
kids. rewriting history one lie at a time. Orwell prophecy is just around the corner.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 08:25 AM
I can't believe you said that.

Our relationship with China does not stem from free-market forces but from state arrangements.

I can't believe you think that has something to do with my post. I didn't say anything about free-market forces. Of course it's a state arrangement.

BWillie
08-03-2011, 03:56 PM
Just think of all the money we would have if we spent 25-50% less on the military. The majority of crap it's spent on just fuels the fire for more global conflicts which in turn will cause us to have to bump up military spending anymore. It's a never ending cycle. Start tapering down. We have no money now, and yet we are going to spend all this money on health care? I can't even fathom where it's going to come from. Ron Paul is the only man to the job, cheap enough to START to dig us out of this hole. We think people have a right to shit from the govt, that is what gets us in trouble.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 07:35 PM
Just think of all the money we would have if we spent 25-50% less on the military. The majority of crap it's spent on just fuels the fire for more global conflicts which in turn will cause us to have to bump up military spending anymore. It's a never ending cycle. Start tapering down. We have no money now, and yet we are going to spend all this money on health care? I can't even fathom where it's going to come from. Ron Paul is the only man to the job, cheap enough to START to dig us out of this hole. We think people have a right to shit from the govt, that is what gets us in trouble.

Just think how much more money our cities could have if we just cut the police force and the fire departments by 50%!

Backwards Masking
08-03-2011, 07:43 PM
Just think how much more money our cities could have if we just cut the police force and the fire departments by 50%!

Well, those are actually here in America helping American citizens, as opposed to halfway around the world helping poor indegenious strangers.

Not at all saying the military doesn't help out here, but a lot of that money and labor winds up going elsewhere.

patteeu
08-03-2011, 07:47 PM
Well, those are actually here in America helping American citizens, as opposed to halfway around the world helping poor indegenious strangers.

Not at all saying the military doesn't help out here, but a lot of that money and labor winds up going elsewhere.

No, the military helps Americans whether they're stationed stateside or in some remote outpost in Afghanistan. Wherever they are, they're doing our bidding for the purpose of promoting and protecting our wellbeing. Any help that poor indigenous strangers get is incidental.

gonefishin53
08-04-2011, 09:19 AM
I don't see how we can reduce "defense" spending when the UN can commit American troops to battle anywhere in the world without any authorization from Congress.

patteeu
08-04-2011, 09:28 AM
I don't see how we can reduce "defense" spending when the UN can commit American troops to battle anywhere in the world without any authorization from Congress.

The UN doesn't commit American troops to anything. You're confusing a situation where our President committed troops without authorization from Congress using the UN as a fig leaf.

BWillie
08-04-2011, 03:28 PM
No, the military helps Americans whether they're stationed stateside or in some remote outpost in Afghanistan. Wherever they are, they're doing our bidding for the purpose of promoting and protecting our wellbeing. Any help that poor indigenous strangers get is incidental.

You don't think that terrorists would bomb us less if we didn't occupy their home country and buy weapons for Israel?

mlyonsd
08-04-2011, 03:44 PM
...and buy weapons for Israel?What does that mean?

patteeu
08-04-2011, 07:28 PM
What does that mean?

A large portion, if not most, of our foreign aid to Israel is given to them under the understanding that they will use it to buy American military hardware so in essence, we are buying them weapons.

patteeu
08-04-2011, 07:38 PM
You don't think that terrorists would bomb us less if we didn't occupy their home country and buy weapons for Israel?

I think we would pay a different, but larger, price if we dramatically downsize our military and withdraw from the world. I think our diplomacy would be less effective and our ability to trade globally (with oil being an important example) would become insecure.

Furthermore, for all the terrorists that we might convince to lose interest in us by withdrawing from the world, we'd create ill will among the people who are currently inclined to be our allies for abandoning them. Our rivals like China, Iran, and Venezuela would love to see us do just what you suggest.

Chocolate Hog
08-04-2011, 07:59 PM
Yes. Unless most of that 25% can be accounted for by winding down our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly, that's far too much of a chunk to take out of our defense budget.

The sources of our fiscal problems are, in no particular order:

* demographically unrealistic entitlement programs
* unworkable healthcare system (high cost inflation impacting entitlement costs)
* anemic economic growth (economy burdened by tax code and regulatory inefficiencies)
* lack of political restraints on government growth (progressive income tax, lack of anything like a balanced budget amendment)

Defense spending doesn't even make the list. Nor do foreign aid or elected official pensions or the space program. These are all things that people would like to believe can be cut without any direct suffering on their part. Some of them might be worthy of being cut, but none of them are the problem.

So does building all those schools and bridges that keep getting blown up overseas count as Unrealistic entilements, lack of political restraints or defense spending?

Chocolate Hog
08-04-2011, 08:02 PM
The size of the Pentagon is so big 2.3 trillion of it can't be tracked.

teedubya
08-04-2011, 08:08 PM
The size of the Pentagon is so big 2.3 trillion of it can't be tracked.

That was 10 years ago.... and over the past decade the budget has given the Dept of Defense at least 7 trillion dollars... so, who knows how much of that is unaccounted for?

wazu
08-04-2011, 08:24 PM
What is the 600 Billion "Other" category?