The True Story on Military Spending

[BG42EDGE]

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?

I often notice that there is a pronounced extremist or "black and white" attitude here. In other words, the thinking seems to immediately jump to the most extreme solution or reject ANY solution. A little slowing down and thinking moderately would be a far better way.

Cutting veterans and retirees benefits is already in the works, for those who are unaware.

The cuts will be moderate and they will primarily impact only new people entering the system and as far as I know the extent has not yet been set.

This will save money, but we're talking about FUTURE money.

The obvious and KEY point with the 18 percent that is spent on PAST wars is that we must STOP CURRENT WARS before that 18 percent grows dramatically--which will both bust the budget and force more drastic cuts that will cause great pain to veterans.

We must make dramatic changes NOW to avoid an unavoidable and devastating slashing of veterans benefits later.

Of course, the main reason for dramatic and courageous cuts in current overall military spending is that it consumes resources that are urgently needed for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and other essential programs.

[timcsaw]

I often notice that there is a pronounced extremist or "black and white" attitude here. In other words, the thinking seems to immediately jump to the most extreme solution or reject ANY solution. A little slowing down and thinking moderately would be a far better way.

Cutting veterans and retirees benefits is already in the works, for those who are unaware.

The cuts will be moderate and they will primarily impact only new people entering the system and as far as I know the extent has not yet been set.

This will save money, but we're talking about FUTURE money.

The obvious and KEY point with the 18 percent that is spent on PAST wars is that we must STOP CURRENT WARS before that 18 percent grows dramatically--which will both bust the budget and force more drastic cuts that will cause great pain to veterans.

We must make dramatic changes NOW to avoid an unavoidable and devastating slashing of veterans benefits later.

Of course, the main reason for dramatic and courageous cuts in current overall military spending is that it consumes resources that are urgently needed for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and other essential programs.

You suggest "black and white".... what do you think any shade of true gray is ultimatly comprised of?

[Preacher Man]

I often notice that there is a pronounced extremist or "black and white" attitude here. In other words, the thinking seems to immediately jump to the most extreme solution or reject ANY solution. A little slowing down and thinking moderately would be a far better way.

Cutting veterans and retirees benefits is already in the works, for those who are unaware.

The cuts will be moderate and they will primarily impact only new people entering the system and as far as I know the extent has not yet been set.

This will save money, but we're talking about FUTURE money.

The obvious and KEY point with the 18 percent that is spent on PAST wars is that we must STOP CURRENT WARS before that 18 percent grows dramatically--which will both bust the budget and force more drastic cuts that will cause great pain to veterans.

We must make dramatic changes NOW to avoid an unavoidable and devastating slashing of veterans benefits later.

Of course, the main reason for dramatic and courageous cuts in current overall military spending is that it consumes resources that are urgently needed for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare and other essential programs.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

Conservatives and liberals usually have a different view of what parts of the budget are essential. Their reasons are purely ideological. But from a non-partisan point of view, both welfare and defense are equally important. Your posts implies you think general social welfare programs need to grow, or at least need a larger budget. Did I understood you correctly? If so, why do you think so?

[BG42EDGE]

Most of the spending in several major social programs goes to the care of the elderly.

Since our population is aging (the baby-boom generation is beginning to put a huge burden on the system) and thus costs are going up, we need to shift money to those programs.

That's a well-known and well-publicized fact so I suppose I don't need to go find a link.

And even if some may not like it.......what are we going to cut if not the military?

[BG42EDGE]

But from a non-partisan point of view, both welfare and defense are equally important.

That view is partisan, not non-partisan, but you hit on a key talking point that is often used as misinformation by conservatives and it warrants further discussion.

One could easily make the argument that defense is far more important than welfare--after all, if defense fails--what good is welfare? We would be taken over by a foreign power.

However--and this is a BIG however--I haven't been talking about defense......I've been talking about an incredibly bloated military that is on OFFENSE......not defense.

When you're killing people on the other side of the world--that's offense, not defense.

[Hog Feet]

Most of the spending in several major social programs goes to the care of the elderly.

Since our population is aging (the baby-boom generation is beginning to put a huge burden on the system) and thus costs are going up, we need to shift money to those programs.

Why would they "be a burden" if they paid for it? There CAN NOT be a problem, because these programs were supposed to fund themselves. And there is this "we" again...are you planning to give up everything that won't cause you "pain" to provide for them?

[Preacher Man]

That view is partisan, not non-partisan, but you hit on a key talking point that is often used as misinformation by conservatives and it warrants further discussion.

One could easily make the argument that defense is far more important than welfare--after all, if defense fails--what good is welfare? We would be taken over by a foreign power.

However--and this is a BIG however--I haven't been talking about defense......I've been talking about an incredibly bloated military that is on OFFENSE......not defense.

When you're killing people on the other side of the world--that's offense, not defense.

I don't think that view is partisan. Conservatives emphasize defense and commerce, while liberals emphasize social programs and taxation. Neither ideology places equal importance to both welfare and defense. The problem is that militarily speaking defense and offense are irrevocably linked. It is not called The Defense and Offense Department. Militarily speaking, the idea of defense involves both defense and offense. Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" comes to mind. That certain military actions were ill conceived and unnecessary is something quite a few citizens will agree with. That is not the same as seeing all offensive moves and forces as unnecessary.

[Preacher Man]

Why would they "be a burden" if they paid for it? There CAN NOT be a problem, because these programs were supposed to fund themselves.

I agree with you, but in their "infinite wisdom" our elected officials from both sides of the isle decided to raid those dedicated funds and put those programs in part of the mess they are right now.

[BG42EDGE]

Why would they "be a burden" if they paid for it? There CAN NOT be a problem, because these programs were supposed to fund themselves. And there is this "we" again...are you planning to give up everything that won't cause you "pain" to provide for them?

Problem is that America's population is aging and more are in nursing homes.

Again......that black and white extremist thinking gets you nowhere.

I don't have to "give up" any more than I already am giving up because I probably pay MORE than my fair share of taxes and more would indeed cause me pain.

The rich, on the other hand, can give up a LOT and still be rich. That's because they don't pay their fair share.....and I do.

[BG42EDGE]

Militarily speaking, the idea of defense involves both defense and offense. Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" comes to mind. That certain military actions were ill conceived and unnecessary is something quite a few citizens will agree with. That is not the same as seeing all offensive moves and forces as unnecessary.

Can you make a case for throwing away trillions of badly needed dollars invading Iraq? Just how much offense do you see as justified while our social services, schools, libraries, parks, streets, highways, bridges, nursing homes, jobs, industries, home ownership, law enforcement, fire protection and the rest of our societal norms are quickly falling away into history?

[knifephan]

So I have a question that is indirectly related. Higher taxes for "the rich" keep popping up in these discussions. Can someone define for me exactly what is meant by "the rich". Top 1% earners? Top 5%, 10%? I know a lot of people who are in the top 10% and none of them are "rich" by my definition. How you define "the rich" will make a huge difference in which side of the argument a lot of people fall.

[Triton]

I don't have to "give up" any more than I already am giving up because I probably pay MORE than my fair share of taxes and more would indeed cause me pain.

How do you determine that your share is "fair" and theirs is not?

The rich, on the other hand, can give up a LOT and still be rich. That's because they don't pay their fair share.....and I do.

So because they have more means they should give more? Is that your arguement?

[Hog Feet]

I don't have to "give up" any more than I already am giving up because I probably pay MORE than my fair share of taxes and more would indeed cause me pain.

The rich, on the other hand, can give up a LOT and still be rich. That's because they don't pay their fair share.....and I do.

There are an estimated 1 billion people starving in the world. Don't you think it would be "fair" for governments to take the property of those who have more to provide for them? How many pairs of pants or custom buck knives does one really need? Surely one doesn't need five or ten pairs of pants...those evil middle class and slightly poor people can certainly manage with only 2 pair of pants and two meals a day. If someone is unable to live in a mud hut and doesn't have enough food to eat, maybe then they can lecture others about what is fair. Wouln't you say?

[BG42EDGE]

There are an estimated 1 billion people starving in the world. Don't you think it would be "fair" for governments to take the property of those who have more to provide for them? How many pairs of pants or custom buck knives does one really need? Surely one doesn't need five or ten pairs of pants...those evil middle class and slightly poor people can certainly manage with only 2 pair of pants and two meals a day. If someone is unable to live in a mud hut and doesn't have enough food to eat, maybe then they can lecture others about what is fair. Wouln't you say?

No, that strategy won't work.......although the rich would probably enjoy having all of us living in poverty because then it would be easier to silence us.

We won't be silenced.

Until America gets her own act together, nothing will change in the world outside America and we fix that through political action--which takes a strong middle-class.

[timcsaw]

I don't have to "give up" any more than I already am giving up because I probably pay MORE than my fair share of taxes and more would indeed cause me pain.

The rich, on the other hand, can give up a LOT and still be rich. That's because they don't pay their fair share.....and I do.

And there it is... 'What I pay is fair, what other's pay isn't fair.' 'I have just enough money, they have too much money'.

[Hog Feet]

No, that strategy won't work.......although the rich would probably enjoy having all of us living in poverty because then it would be easier to silence us.

We won't be silenced.

Us? We? Are not some of the rich Americans (with the obvious exceptions of of people like Eduardo Saverin, who are doing just as Ayn Rand described and you claimed would not happen) .Basing economic theory on class warfare hypocrisy, rhetoric and jealousy will get US nowhere.

WE are all still waiting to hear why you think the rates you proposed are fair, who should be paying them, and what (besides emotion and unicorn flatulence) should convince us to agree with your position....

[tvranesic]

Can someone define for me exactly what is meant by "the rich". How you define "the rich" will make a huge difference in which side of the argument a lot of people fall.

Exactly! For the left the definition tends to be the same as it for many kids: Anyone who has more money than they do and/or can afford to do things that they can't.

For the average 10 year-old, anyone who can show them a $100 bill is "rich". Without regard to how much of that $100 is actually aready spent, owed, or will be taken to give to someone who doesn't have their own $100 bill.

[jdm61]

Or we could just raise the age at which you can participate in those age based programs to reflect the changes in demographics and life expectancy that have taken place since the 1930's.

Most of the spending in several major social programs goes to the care of the elderly.

Since our population is aging (the baby-boom generation is beginning to put a huge burden on the system) and thus costs are going up, we need to shift money to those programs.

That's a well-known and well-publicized fact so I suppose I don't need to go find a link.

And even if some may not like it.......what are we going to cut if not the military?

[timcsaw]

So I have a question that is indirectly related. Higher taxes for "the rich" keep popping up in these discussions. Can someone define for me exactly what is meant by "the rich". Top 1% earners? Top 5%, 10%? I know a lot of people who are in the top 10% and none of them are "rich" by my definition. How you define "the rich" will make a huge difference in which side of the argument a lot of people fall.

To some, "the rich" means anyone who is "less hurt" by their success, life style, and taxation than they are. Everyone needs to "hurt" equally so we should punish success and bring everyone down to the same level of "hurt" to be "fair".

Evidently, some believe that the government should be depended upon to support us all... (equally).

[timcsaw]

Exactly! For the left the definition tends to be the same as it for many kids: Anyone who has more money than they do and/or can afford to do things that they can't.

For the average 10 year-old, anyone who can show them a $100 bill is "rich". Without regard to how much of that $100 is actually aready spent, owed, or will be taken to give to someone who doesn't have their own $100 bill.

An excellent analogy! "Johnny has a bigger piece of cake than I do so give me a bit of his AND throw some of his away so we have the same amount."