A Defense Budget Cut We Can All Agree On

Red lipstick on a PIG. JD these fuckers do not get it....fuckem Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

You Tea baggers want to cut Government spending but do not want to cut the biggest outlay we have Defense Spending.

The DoD has already spent your surplus in Medicare and SS. That is why we have this huge deficit. So lets get this straight, You want to bring down the deficit without cutting Defense. You are ok with spending your retirement savings on Defense and you do not want to increase taxes to pay for Tanks we do not need. Yet you wanna bitch about the deficit!

It is perfectly reasonable to how much we spend on defense. It is certainly reasonable to talk about how we spend it. But if you believe those China defense numbers you are delusional. They categorize HUGE amounts of defense $ in non-defense terms. No onw know how much they really spend, but I guarantee it is not near as disproportional as your graph makes it look.

You are mistaken, Old-T.

The exorbitant amount that the US spends on defense is not reasonable and not anywhere even close.

. . . It is not just China that we outspend, it's all the other countries.

It is perfectly reasonable to how much we spend on defense. It is certainly reasonable to talk about how we spend it. But if you believe those China defense numbers you are delusional. They categorize HUGE amounts of defense $ in non-defense terms. No onw know how much they really spend, but I guarantee it is not near as disproportional as your graph makes it look. Originally Posted by Old-T

You are mistaken, Old-T.

The exorbitant amount that the US spends on defense is not reasonable and not anywhere even close.

. . . It is not just China that we outspend, it's all the other countries. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Please read my post before you attack it.

I did not even comment on whether the defense bill for the US is correct or not, so please don't tell me I said it was or was not exorbitant.

My point was the China amout is way, WAY low-balled. Just as the US woould put non-DoD projects into the DoD budget (the interstate highway system for example) so it would get passed--other countries put defense expenditures in non-defense parts of their budget to lok more "peace lovng". Some of the old Soviet budgets were truly laughable.

The other thing to look at are salaries: any guess how much China pays their low ranking soldiers?

Over simplifying defense expendatures on a single number is good fluff fow a TV sound bite, but is really bad for actually understanding anything.

What part of the DoD budget would you cut? It's always nice to see clueless people decide what is reasonable.

What part of the DoD budget would you cut? . Originally Posted by Old-T

All of it. Just as I would the rest of the budget.

I sure as hell would not cut Medicare spending and leave the DoD budget alone.

Sadly, in both cases we need to have some serious discussions that we have not had as a nation.

--What medical proceedures should and should not be "reasonable expectations" for all? Should we be paying for heart transplants for 90 year olds under medicare?

--What is a reasonable level of defense? How far out do we want out defenses to extend? Howwilling are we to lose foreign resources and markets in exchange for lower defense bills?

--How much are we willing to give up privacy for security at our boarders?

None are easy questions, but all three have been politicized by both sides that we have not had a serious national dialogue. We have had serious national screaming matches, and that does nothing useful.

Everyone seems to want 100% of the solution they prefer, and have forgotten how to listen to other points of view, or to compromise. Both extremes are stupid brainless puppets who refuse to see major flaws in the speach of their demigods. The right wing would pull the safety net out from people and wave their hand saying, "those people will get motivated and survive; those who don't, it was natural selection at work". The left wing believes if a benefit can be defined, it should be given.

Personally I'm sick of both.

All of it. Just as I would the rest of the budget.

I sure as hell would not cut Medicare spending and leave the DoD budget alone. Originally Posted by WTF

Far too easy and glib an answer. Some things--both in defense and in health--don't scale down very well. I tend to agree with you, but finding a good answer isn't that easy as just saying so.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few...No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, Political Observations (1795)

Far too easy and glib an answer. Some things--both in defense and in health--don't scale down very well. I tend to agree with you, but finding a good answer isn't that easy as just saying so. Originally Posted by Old-T

My point was that both sides need to give....or neither.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few...No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, Political Observations (1795) Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Our righties will say that Madison approves of what we are doing today because the world is much more dangerious and mobile.

The best way to save money is for the Pentagon to use some of the liberals here instead of all that expensive intelligence gathering. Despite arguably being the most open government in the world, I have no doubt that the Pentagon spends more money than the public knows. . .

Yet, the leftist mindreaders here at ECCIE know what is spent on the militaries of such closed countries as North Korea and China (didn't the Chinesse stealth plane recently unveiled surprise. . . the Chinese government?).

Imagine, India, Pakistan and North Korea got really far down the nuke development curve with nobody knowing about it. . . except the leftist here of course.

Who the hell needs satellites and the CIA? We've got mind reading leftists! (Would that be what is meant by "counter - intelligence"?

The best way to save money is for the Pentagon to use some of the liberals here instead of all that expensive intelligence gathering. Despite arguably being the most open government in the world, I have no doubt that the Pentagon spends more money than the public knows. . .

Yet, the leftist mindreaders here at ECCIE know what is spent on the militaries of such closed countries as North Korea and China (didn't the Chinesse stealth plane recently unveiled surprise. . . the Chinese government?).

Imagine, India, Pakistan and North Korea got really far down the nuke development curve with nobody knowing about it. . . except the leftist here of course.

Who the hell needs satellites and the CIA? We've got mind reading leftists! (Would that be what is meant by "counter - intelligence"? Originally Posted by Iaintliein

At the end of the day, it does not matter what other countries spend, it matters wtf we can afford to spend. Funny how a 14 Trillion dollar reality will catch up to a nation.

The History of Empires is a simple one but one that nations never seem to learn.

The best way to save money is for the Pentagon to use some of the liberals here instead of all that expensive intelligence gathering. Despite arguably being the most open government in the world, I have no doubt that the Pentagon spends more money than the public knows. . .

Yet, the leftist mindreaders here at ECCIE know what is spent on the militaries of such closed countries as North Korea and China (didn't the Chinesse stealth plane recently unveiled surprise. . . the Chinese government?).

Imagine, India, Pakistan and North Korea got really far down the nuke development curve with nobody knowing about it. . . except the leftist here of course.

Who the hell needs satellites and the CIA? We've got mind reading leftists! (Would that be what is meant by "counter - intelligence"? Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I truly have no idea at all what you are babbling about. Why is it that some folks on here take any comment they disagree with--any comment the don't understand--and try to respond to it by saying "Liberal" as loudly as they can? First, as if everyone who disagrees with anything they say must be a liberal (not true), and as if "liberal" is a code word for "evil and untrue (also untrue).

My point was that both sides need to give....or neither. Originally Posted by WTF

While both "sides" should give in this case, it need not always be so. Situations may well dictate risk needs to be taken one place but not another.

While both "sides" should give in this case, it need not always be so. Situations may well dictate risk needs to be taken one place but not another. Originally Posted by Old-T

You fail to see my point Old-T...the poorer you become as a nation , the fewer options you have, not more.

You think the British are going to war anytime soon? They are a glimps of our future.

The Swiss seem to be doing ok! LOL

WTF and others cannot understand the simple idea that we can either spend money or we can spend lives. I guess they prefer to spend lives. It is obvious that they didn't serve and have no dog in this debate. They go to some neutral corner and lick their own balls.