Military Spending


Tyme
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I think making our military spending 2/1 would lower global military spending overall. That would be a good thing in my opinion. The money could be used domestically to improve peoples lives.

It already is mostly spent domestically. As wages to the military and contracts to US businesses who then pay other US wages.

The US highway system? Military project. Internet? Military project. GPS, freeze dried food--canning of food was invented for Napoleon, computers... All military projects.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Fether said:

How about this. If there were no borders, then we would have no need for a military! I’m not arguing for open boarders, but rather expanding our boarders. 

Right now America is this.

F58A2637-3F71-4A68-8A43-5A9A843B7E0E.jpeg

Why can’t it be this?

513923A1-00C8-411C-9881-CF08BA2122F1.jpeg

 

I have a similar plan, but with slightly reduced scope, aimed at eliminating our debt. 

I figure the US should just declare bankruptcy and close up shop.  Then we open under new management.  We get to all keep the same buildings, jobs, and consitution, we're just opening under new management.  When China shows up looking to cash in United States of America treasury-bills, we just say "I'm sorry, nobody by that name works here.  This is the Associated Federation of Southern Canada.  Would you be interested in buying some of our treasury bills?  We do offer a rate that basically still drives the global economy..."

You might laugh, but when you realize how big our military is compared to the rest of the world, including China, you'll see the greatness of my plan.  Now, we just need to stop being the good guy.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Why should there be such a law?  I can't fathom why anyone would want this, unless that person was not informed about why things are the way things are currently...

2096597148_download(1).jpg.53a0b41bcee90a20304b0f6cccb448b8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

I have a similar plan, but with slightly reduced scope, aimed at eliminating our debt. 

I figure the US should just declare bankruptcy and close up shop.  We get to all keep the same buildings, jobs, and consitution, we're just opening under new management.  When China shows up looking to cash in United States of America treasury-bills, we just say "I'm sorry, nobody by that name works here.  This is the Associated Federation of Southern Canada.  Would you be interested in buying some of our treasury bills?  We do offer a rate that basically still drives the global economy..."

Chinese debt was done on purpose to prevent war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Fether said:

How about this. If there were no borders, then we would have no need for a military! I’m not arguing for open boarders, but rather expanding our boarders. 

Right now America is this.

 

 

F58A2637-3F71-4A68-8A43-5A9A843B7E0E.jpeg

Why can’t it be this?

513923A1-00C8-411C-9881-CF08BA2122F1.jpeg

 

But you fought a war to be rid of us!!!  :nownow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it surprise you to learn that US military spending has continually gone down since WWII (as % of GDP), while entitlement spending has exploded in the same time period.  No, our budget issues are not from having a strong military.

Also, would it surprise you that we are in an era of unprecedented peace globally?  That death from wars is almost non-existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Also, would it surprise you that we are in an era of unprecedented peace globally?  That death from wars is almost non-existent.

I wonder, though, to what degree this is a difference in terminology.  We seem to have more “interventions” and “police actions” and “occupations” and “insurrections”—and people die in those, and people lose their homes, and people get raped and beaten and brutalized, as they always have—but none dare call them “wars”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I wonder, though, to what degree this is a difference in terminology.  We seem to have more “interventions” and “police actions” and “occupations” and “insurrections”—and people die in those, and people lose their homes, and people get raped and beaten and brutalized, as they always have—but none dare call them “wars”.

And yet, the numbers bear out that these actions actually save more lives than they take.  Because of our inactions in the Middle East, for example, we saw the rise of ISIS, an organization that could easily have been stomped out, had we been paying more attention.  Even in Iraq, it wasn't that we took out Sadam, but it was that we stopped policing the area.

 

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Also, would it surprise you that we are in an era of unprecedented peace globally?  That death from wars is almost non-existent.

Sorry but there are plenty of people currently fleeing wars and who have seen their families wiped out.

A little infogram I used in class recently to start a discussion on this topic:

image.png.aeac6383f5f2a459fa45fa3a99f50f5d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Would it surprise you to learn that US military spending has continually gone down since WWII (as % of GDP), while entitlement spending has exploded in the same time period.  No, our budget issues are not from having a strong military.

Also, would it surprise you that we are in an era of unprecedented peace globally?  That death from wars is almost non-existent.

Social Security and Medicare aren't entitlements. They make about 60% of the total budget. Military spending makes up about 50% of discretionary spending.

Also it appears like we are in an unprecedented era of peace because less people are dying from war. A big part of that is because war time medical has gotten better. If you account for all the injuries sustained during Iraq and Afghanistan it would come pretty close to equaling Vietnam causalities. Also, there isn't a world war going on so you'd expect less causalities. The utter damage laid upon Iraq is just as bad as what was done to Vietnam.

Edited by Tyme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KScience said:

Sorry but there are plenty of people currently fleeing wars and who have seen their families wiped out.

A little infogram I used in class recently to start a discussion on this topic:

image.png.aeac6383f5f2a459fa45fa3a99f50f5d.png

Yes, but compare that to wars of the past.  10,000 is actually minor to the deaths of millions under Communist rule, in China, Russia, etc.  And that's not even counting WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Social Security and Medicare aren't entitlements. They make about 50% of the total budget. Military spending makes up about 50% of discretionary spending.

Also it appears like we are in an unprecedented era of peace because less people are dying from war. A big part of that is because war time medical has gotten better. If you account for all the injuries sustained during Iraq and Afghanistan it would come pretty close to equaling Vietnam causalities. Also, there isn't a world war going on so you'd expect less causalities. The utter damage laid upon Iraq is just as bad as what was done to Vietnam.

They are entitlements, under the budgetary definitions of our government.  And you are wrong on your budget numbers as well.  Perhaps you are doing the old switcheroo by looking only at discretionary spending and not overall spending.

And no, we aren't suddenly saving millions of lives on the battlefield.  We just aren't killing as many people.   And, no, the Middle East conflicts are not equating the numbers of Vietnam either.  We can go over the numbers in detail if you want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bytebear I was addressing your comment "That death from wars is almost non-existent."

I don't have numbers to compare so but would also assume that the number of deaths in the WWI and WWII would be higher; but would consider these anomalies rather than the normal pattern of events. How many people dying annually would need to comparable?

Edited by KScience
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bytebear said:

They are entitlements, under the budgetary definitions of our government.  And you are wrong on your budget numbers as well.  Perhaps you are doing the old switcheroo by looking only at discretionary spending and not overall spending.

And no, we aren't suddenly saving millions of lives on the battlefield.  We just aren't killing as many people.   And, no, the Middle East conflicts are not equating the numbers of Vietnam either.  We can go over the numbers in detail if you want. 

How am I wrong on my budget numbers? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

I'd like to go over those numbers... An example is I had a SSG. who lost his leg in Afghanistan he would have died in Vietnam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KScience said:

@bytebear I was addressing your comment "That death from wars is almost non-existent."

I don't have numbers to compare so but would also assume that the number of deaths in the WWI and WWII would be higher; but would consider these anomalies rather than the normal pattern of events. How many people dying annually would need to comparable?

Not really.  WWII was high, but so was post WWII Communist rule both in China, Vietnam and Russia. But even still Vietnam was a blip in comparison, but looks like a mountain compared to the wars in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right on civilian deaths. My research shows 2 million Vietnamese civilians died and 500,000 Iraqis died. You have to remember though that Vietnam's population is three times what Iraq's is. The amount of American military who served in Vietnam was also way higher than Iraq. If you do your calculations they are not that far off from each other.

Edited by Tyme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tyme said:

How am I wrong on my budget numbers? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

I'd like to go over those numbers... An example is I had a SSG. who lost his leg in Afghanistan he would have died in Vietnam.

Well, you said military spending was 50% of the budget.  But even your own source lists it as 15%.  And if you look at historical numbers, military spending went down since WWII,  whereas entitlement spending (or what you would call Social Security and Medicare, among others) went from zero to about (33% + 27%).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share