The True Story on Military Spending

[BG42EDGE]

Just because there seems to be an incredible amount of confusion about just how many of our tax dollars are eaten up by military spending......here's a more honest pie chart than we normally see.

The important point to be made is that if military spending is chopped (which we can hope would be the priority of a second Obama presidential term) that could begin to address the profound, indeed, near emergency level, problems that now face our nation.

This chart is helpful in that it helps us to understand just how horrific the long-term and continuing costs are when hostilities cease. Cleaning up the mess and taking care of the victims costs far more than is commonly realized.

We now spend about 18 percent of our tax dollars paying for past wars.......and the more wars we get into, the higher that number will rise. We can't afford that, either in human terms or in terms of dollars.

http://www.warresisters.org/sites/de...hart-color.pdf

[Codger_64]

Sorry. I won't follow a link to "War Resisters .Org" no matter what graphics and charts they show.

[BlackKnight86]

......there seems to be an incredible amount of confusion about just how many of our tax dollars are eaten up by military spending......

LOL....I only see confusion from one source.....



That's a pretty presumptuous statement from someone who only cites a clearly biased website and presents it as "more honest".

[Trent Rock]

(which we can hope would be the priority of a second Obama presidential term)

Refuse to pay all or part of your federal income tax. Whatever you choose to refuse—$1, $10, or a percentage—send a letter to elected officials and tell them why. Though illegal, thousands of people openly participate in this form of protest. Contact us for information or referral to a counselor near you. Contribute resisted tax money to organizations that support the common good

Are you going to do that?

I don't care how much we spend on the military
As long as our country is safe and we can stop totalitarianism, spread democracy and foster free trade (I'm a pseudo neo-con, remember?)

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender... --Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill,

And it creates jobs

1 Lockheed Martin (123,000 employees)
2 General Dynamics (91,200)
3 Raytheon (72,000)
4 Northrop-Grumman (72,500 )
5 Boeing (164,495 )

And innovation that we can all benefit from, as noted in another thread

It's a pretty pie graph, though....


-18% is what the public wants. What percentage would you like BG? Give me a number....

Romney wants defense spending to be much, much higher. The public doesn’t.

[BlackKnight86]

Refuse to pay all or part of your federal income tax. Whatever you choose to refuse—$1, $10, or a percentage—send a letter to elected officials and tell them why. Though illegal, thousands of people openly participate in this form of protest. Contact us for information or referral to a counselor near you. Contribute resisted tax money to organizations that support the common good

Actually, that's a great idea to cut back on the amount of money given out to welfare queens, needle exchanges, bailouts, and "Janie Has Two Daddies" books for the Public Child Indoctrination Centers.

-18% is what the public wants.

Trent, you know full well that if any of that -18% cuts into someone's job or livelihood, the squawking would start....it always does.

[timcsaw]

I wonder if BG realizes that his military retirement and veterans benefits are included in his "honest" chart? Is he going to give those funds back and suggest that we stop paying those who have served?

[BlackKnight86]

I wonder if BG realizes that his military retirement and veterans benefits are included in his "honest" chart? Is he going to give those funds back and suggest that we stop paying those who have served?

Well, now, he was asked about that in another thread.....no answer. I'll wager you're not getting an answer here, either, Tim.

[BG42EDGE]

1 Lockheed Martin (123,000 employees)
2 General Dynamics (91,200)
3 Raytheon (72,000)
4 Northrop-Grumman (72,500 )
5 Boeing (164,495 )

So......my tax dollars go to their bosses, who pay them......so I actually provide their paychecks.

I see big savings coming!!!

[BG42EDGE]

What percentage would you like BG? Give me a number....

Oh, let's cut by 50 percent to start with......it's going to take many years to undo all the damage of the Bush wars, but that should get us off to a good start.

[BlackKnight86]

So......my tax dollars go to their bosses, who pay them......so I actually provide their paychecks.

I see big savings coming!!!

Hmmm....I'm thinking my tax dollars go to you, since you're collecting retirement. So I actually provide YOUR paychecks....

I see savings coming, too.....

[timcsaw]

Oh, let's cut by 50 percent to start with......it's going to take many years to undo all the damage of the Bush wars, but that should get us off to a good start.

Lets start by cutting the retirement of USAF Enlisted Historians first.

...and I think you mean the Bush/Obama wars.

[jdm61]

Spot on, sir.

Well, now, he was asked about that in another thread.....no answer. I'll wager you're not getting an answer here, either, Tim.

[eyeeatingfish]

Oh, let's cut by 50 percent to start with......it's going to take many years to undo all the damage of the Bush wars, but that should get us off to a good start.

50%? I don't think so.
How about 5%, I think we could definitely find 5% waste in military spending without reducing capability. Maybe you could even get away with 10% without significant loss in capability but 50% is way too much to take seriously.
If there were no wars right now and many fewer threats to the USA maybe we could get something close to 50% but since that isn't the case it just isn't possible. Even with ending the wars we couldn't cut close to 50%.

I will admit you did bring up a valid point that I have not considered. How much are we paying in debt from previous wars? I don't know when the last time the government issued war bonds but if they have not all been cashed then we are still paying taxes towards the interest for war bonds from previous wars.
I would like to see a more neutral source discussing current financial obligations from previous wars though.

[Preacher Man]

just a preventive observation. Let's remember that we discuss the topic, not each other. Since the topic is cutting military spending, military pensions is a fair issue. But we must be careful not to turn it into personalisms.

[quietmike]

Oh, let's cut by 50 percent to start with......it's going to take many years to undo all the damage of the Bush wars, but that should get us off to a good start.

Would you be willing to repeal all gun control laws to help achieve cuts in the military while still providing security for the country?

I also have to ask why you have been silent about obamas wars in Libya and Yemen?

[tvranesic]

So......my tax dollars go to their bosses, who pay them......so I actually provide their paychecks.

I see big savings coming!!!

Sounds more like the union formula to me. Or, how about those beloved social services? There, your tax dollars go directly to many of the recipients and you're paying them even more directly...for absolutely nothing in many cases. In those scenarios, we've cut out the middle man to maximize the big savings that are coming!!

[Trent Rock]

Oh, let's cut by 50 percent to start with......it's going to take many years to undo all the damage of the Bush wars, but that should get us off to a good start.

So..... -$434.5B from G
Do you think that would help or hurt the GDP? Help or hurt the unemployment rate?

A reminder===>

begin to address the profound, indeed, near emergency level, problems that now face our nation.

The price of oil would go up because of instability in oil rich countries, I reckon??

[timcsaw]

So..... -$434.5B from G
Do you think that would help or hurt the GDP? Help or hurt the unemployment rate?

A reminder===>


The price of oil would go up because of instability in oil rich countries, I reckon??

Well put Trent... people who call for the complete recall of the US Military from around the world, and massive cuts to the military budget don't think about the economic fallout that would result. Closing Ramstein AFB and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center for example, would devastate the local German economy in the area, and it would leave the US without a critical location in Europe to protect US assets. SOSUS stations, remote radar stations on the tops of mountains, major Naval Bases throughout the world... these sorts of things are drivers of economy's and are critical to the protection of US interests in both a tactical and strategic sense.

[Preacher Man]

Just because there seems to be an incredible amount of confusion about just how many of our tax dollars are eaten up by military spending......here's a more honest pie chart than we normally see.

The important point to be made is that if military spending is chopped (which we can hope would be the priority of a second Obama presidential term) that could begin to address the profound, indeed, near emergency level, problems that now face our nation.

This chart is helpful in that it helps us to understand just how horrific the long-term and continuing costs are when hostilities cease. Cleaning up the mess and taking care of the victims costs far more than is commonly realized.

We now spend about 18 percent of our tax dollars paying for past wars.......and the more wars we get into, the higher that number will rise. We can't afford that, either in human terms or in terms of dollars.

http://www.warresisters.org/sites/de...hart-color.pdf

I'm not sure that you fully thought this through. You specifically mention the 18% the chart points to as past war spending as something we can't afford. This includes your own veteran pension and benefits. Are you ok with loosing those? Are you ok with denying those from veterans in general? In your opinion, what parts of the defense budget should remain? Why?

[timcsaw]

I'm not sure that you fully thought this through. You specifically mention the 18% the chart points to as past war spending as something we can't afford. This includes your own veteran pension and benefits. Are you ok with loosing those? Are you ok with denying those from veterans in general? In your opinion, what parts of the defense budget should remain? Why?

This is an EXCellent line of questioning... Is BG as ready tho throw himself under the bus, as he is others? This is "where the rubber meets the road".