Military Spending

[KanhojiAngre]

How about downsizing the military-industrial establishment?

One and the same, aren't they?

Paul has talked about getting us out of the global empire business, reducing the number of overseas bases dramatically, pulling out of our current Arab world wars, etc.

There's not a candidate supporting smaller government in all forms more than him. No one even close.

 

[sailordeac]

As has been pointed out many times before, the real difficulty in cutting defense is that virtually all of our representatives and senators benefit from defense spending. And no one wants to upset the voters back home by cutting defense spending in their own district or state.

The same thing applies to trying to cut ineffective, or inefficiently functioning, entitlements. And which ones might these be? Just about all of them save for social security.

So, even if you can get a general consensus on cutting either entitlements or defense, once you get down to specifics, the consensus disappears.

Yup, everybody. Your tax dollars at work. Damn! Democracy is expensive.

 

[ONW]

As has been pointed out many times before, the real difficulty in cutting defense is that virtually all of our representatives and senators benefit from defense spending. And no one wants to upset the voters back home by cutting defense spending in their own district or state.

The same thing applies to trying to cut ineffective, or inefficiently functioning, entitlements. And which ones might these be? Just about all of them save for social security.

So, even if you can get a general consensus on cutting either entitlements or defense, once you get down to specifics, the consensus disappears.Yup, everybody. Your tax dollars at work. Damn! Democracy is expensive.

Absolutely great posting.

 

[WakeandBake]

comprehending jhmd's vision of America is at once humorous and downright horrifying.

 

[jhmd2000]

comprehending jhmd's vision of America is at once humorous and downright horrifying.

I don't think we should borrow money we don't have and can never repay in order to fulfill discretionary, unsustainable promises.

I also think government should follow the rules set forth in Article I, Section 8.

ETA: Rather than fend off another barrage of ad hominem attacks that misstate my positions, let me ask you a question: What's the plan to pay back this year's trillion dollar deficit?

 

[RJKarl]

We have to get out of the land wars. That will save tens of billions.

We also have to cut other spending but it is a double edged sword. Some of those cuts will cost jobs.

What's amazing to me is that some people think cutting spending doesn't have any impact on unemployment.

 

[WakeandBake]

I don't think we should borrow money we don't have and can never repay in order to fulfill discretionary, unsustainable promises.

I also think government should follow the rules set forth in Article I, Section 8.

ETA: Rather than fend off another barrage of ad hominem attacks that misstate my positions, let me ask you a question: What's the plan to pay back this year's trillion dollar deficit?

how did I misstate your position?

You have made your opinion clear on this board - you are a proponent of severe austerity measures to balance the budget. Your position is to indiscriminately slash all spending. For you, entitlements are the bane of our existence and will bring down the republic if not slashed at this moment - Paul Ryan style - no matter the consequences. Am I right?

I think you are suffering from debt hysteria.

 

[Liquid Karma]

We have to get out of the land wars. That will save tens of billions.

+infinity

 

[ONW]

+infinity

It is interesting that a group of people so pro-troop and anti-healthcare have no problem sending young men and women into harms way, yet entitlements are unsustainable, and the cost of medical treatment for people we've sent overseas is irrelevant when we decide to go to war.

 

[TheShot]

i give ron paul some credit for last night reminding everyone that the pres. is the commander in chief. a little sick of the "i'd listen to my generals" cop-out.

 

[PhDeac]

i give ron paul some credit for last night reminding everyone that the pres. is the commander in chief. a little sick of the "i'd listen to my generals" cop-out.

Yep. It's like they forget the founding fathers installed a civilian in charge for a reason.

 

[jhmd2000]

It is interesting that a group of people so pro-troop and anti-healthcare have no problem sending young men and women into harms way, yet entitlements are unsustainable, and the cost of medical treatment for people we've sent overseas is irrelevant when we decide to go to war.

If this is intended to be a synopisis of my position outlined in my posts, this would be a textbook example of the ad hominem, deliberate mischaracterizations I was referring to earlier in my post to W&B.

Promoting sustainable, efficient solutions funded by stake-holding consumers as an alternative to another albatross, unsustainable entitlement program administered by an unaccountable bureaucracy on a collision course with insolvency---isn't "anti-healthcare." It's perhaps the most "pro-health care" position one could have, if you desire a health care system we can actually sustain. What I'm "anti'-" is the insincere fable that the entitlement-fairy will just provide for all of us, happily ever after.

I won't even address the insinuation that anyone could have "no problem sending young men and women into harms way....[costs]....irrelevant." If you want to claim a baseless, ad hominem, exhausted refrain as a serious argument, then I can't debate with you.

 

[PhDeac]

Anything is "sustainable" if you really want to sustain it. If you want to sustain our defense presence, you borrow. If you want to sustain the Bush/Obama tax cuts, you borrow. If you want to sustain Medicare, you borrow.

Regardless of the political philosophies, we're all in a nation of borrowers.

 

[pourdeac]

As has been pointed out many times before, the real difficulty in cutting defense is that virtually all of our representatives and senators benefit from defense spending. And no one wants to upset the voters back home by cutting defense spending in their own district or state.

The same thing applies to trying to cut ineffective, or inefficiently functioning, entitlements. And which ones might these be? Just about all of them save for social security.

So, even if you can get a general consensus on cutting either entitlements or defense, once you get down to specifics, the consensus disappears.

Yup, everybody. Your tax dollars at work. Damn! Democracy is expensive.

And yet defense has been the one government spending area where large reductions have occurred.

In 1960 defense spending was 9.3% of GDP and 52.2% of the federal budget. It is now 4.8% of GDP and 19% of the federal budget. That's a very large reduction in spending.

In 1980 during what many would call a low point of the US military, spending was 4.8% of GDP and 22.7% of the federal budget, so the GDP burden was the same but the % budget was higher. That moved back up to 6.2% of GDP and 28% of the budget by ~1986 in response to Reagen's buildup. But then it moved back down. In 1999 before all the terrorist issues, it dropped to a low of 3% of GDP and 16.4% of the federal budget which is half the burden. It then ratcheted back up to where it is now after 9/11.

So it's pretty clear that meaningful spending and spending burdens can and have occurred in defense. The fear that defense will control everything (because of the ever elusive MIC) and spending will always go up is pretty much a myth.....part of the "new deal" dogma that controls the debate.

But can you point to a meaningful non-defense spending decrease? I'm looking at the data and I don't see a single one. That's the problem.

 

[PhDeac]

And yet defense has been the one government spending area where large reductions have occurred.

In 1960 defense spending was 9.3% of GDP and 52.2% of the federal budget. It is now 4.8% of GDP and 19% of the federal budget. That's a very large reduction in spending.

In 1980 during what many would call a low point of the US military, spending was 4.8% of GDP and 22.7% of the federal budget, so the GDP burden was the same but the % budget was higher. That moved back up to 6.2% of GDP and 28% of the budget by ~1986 in response to Reagen's buildup. But then it moved back down. In 1999 before all the terrorist issues, it dropped to a low of 3% of GDP and 16.4% of the federal budget which is half the burden. It then ratcheted back up to where it is now after 9/11.

So it's pretty clear that meaningful spending and spending burdens can and have occurred in defense. The fear that defense will control everything (because of the ever elusive MIC) and spending will always go up is pretty much a myth.....part of the "new deal" dogma that controls the debate.

But can you point to a meaningful non-defense spending decrease? I'm looking at the data and I don't see a single one. That's the problem.

Have the costs of defense increased at the same rate as the costs of health care?

Honest question.

 

[jhmd2000]

Anything is "sustainable" if you really want to sustain it. If you want to sustain our defense presence, you borrow. If you want to sustain the Bush/Obama tax cuts, you borrow. If you want to sustain Medicare, you borrow.

Regardless of the political philosophies, we're all in a nation of borrowers.

There is another way.

 

[Milhouse]

We have to get out of the land wars. That will save tens of billions.

We also have to cut other spending but it is a double edged sword. Some of those cuts will cost jobs.

What's amazing to me is that some people think cutting spending doesn't have any impact on unemployment.

my god, i agree with this

 

[pourdeac]

Have the costs of defense increased at the same rate as the costs of health care?

Honest question.

The costs of defense? What does that mean? A B52 in 1962 cost 9.28m. A B2 bomber cost 1b today or 108x the cost. That's a pretty large cost increase for a bomber.

 

[jhmd2000]

The costs of defense? What does that mean? A B52 in 1962 cost 9.28m. A B2 bomber cost 1b today or 108x the cost. That's a pretty large cost increase for a bomber.

There are of course reasons why this analogy is flawed. We spend 2.0B on a B-2 and it provides intercontinental, direct, strategic attack capabilities (at a tremendous cost savings by eliminating the need for basing the ops overseas---they operate from the Democratic People's Republic of Missouri); whereas we spend 70% of the costs for health care in the last 18 months of life.

Returns on investment are a bit skewed.

 

[PhDeac]

There are of course reasons why this analogy is flawed. We spend 2.0B on a B-2 and it provides intercontinental, direct, strategic attack capabilities (at a tremendous cost savings by eliminating the need for basing the ops overseas---they operate from the Democratic People's Republic of Missouri); whereas we spend 70% of the costs for health care in the last 18 months of life.

Returns on investment are a bit skewed.

So how do we eliminate the last 18 months of life and get our 70% back?