22
   

Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Aug, 2011 10:37 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Meanwhile the United States spent from 25% to 40% of gross revenues to confront the Soviet Union and meet all of its other military commitments.


No, the US had all you dumb assholes paying for this while huge profits were made by a narrow few. Then, that same narrow few made even more by stealing the wealth of scores of countries, murdering millions in the process.

Now that oughta make you feel a whole lot better.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2011 02:51 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

It'd have the side effect of not killing a bunch of people as well and making America fewer enemies. Seems like a better idea to me.

Your question is predicated on the assumption that the money spent on defense is being wasted, which would only be true if the various military programs were not countering real dangers. Is there waste in the defense budget? Yes, lots, but it doesn't mean that there aren't real dangers which need to be addressed. It certainly isn't true that the only real danger occurs when someone is in the act of harming us. The potential of entities to harm us is just as real a danger. If your implied logic were corrent, every country in the world could solve its budget problems by eliminating its defense capability.
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2011 10:06 am
@Brandon9000,
You live in a fantasy world, Brandon, one replete with all manner of bogeymen designed to make y'all a bunch of dust bunnies, physically as well as mentally.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Aug, 2011 02:48 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

You live in a fantasy world, Brandon, one replete with all manner of bogeymen designed to make y'all a bunch of dust bunnies, physically as well as mentally.

Then it's your assertion that there are no current or potential military or security dangers in the world worth spending money on - no national interests worth defending? If you believe this, then you disagree with the rulers of basically every national entity in history.
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Sun 7 Aug, 2011 11:40 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Then it's your assertion that there are no current or potential military or security dangers in the world worth spending money on - no national interests worth defending?


You are making a false dilemma by insisting that those who criticize the inordinate war spending by the USA are calling for the USA to spend nothing. That is certainly an easier position to knock down than to deal with the actual position (that the USA spends inordinately on war and should cut there instead of social spending) but it would be more intellectually honest not to construct such a straw man and actually deal with the arguments with a bit of integrity.

A claim that there is no threat that justifies US levels of war spending does not mean there are no threats to justify any level of spending. That is just your way of making opposing positions more amenable to your capacity to argue against them.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Aug, 2011 11:47 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

It'd have the side effect of not killing a bunch of people as well and making America fewer enemies. Seems like a better idea to me.
The answer is because security spending is only a tiny piece of the Problem, we already borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend and we are headed into huge boomer retirement bills. You dont fix this problem without making the healthcare system much cheaper to operate an without cutting retired benefits.


0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 07:31 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

If that narrative (the notion that we would be jerking off the "security blanket" of other countries) is what it takes for the American right to let go of military footprints around the world (that are really more about projection of American power and an expansion of our sphere of influence than any desire to protect anyone) then I can only encourage the misguided sentiment. But let's not stop at Europe, the war in Iraq was as much motivated by the desire to establish a new military footprint as anything else and the cost of doing so just doesn't begin to justify it. Let's stop trying to project military power to every corner of the globe.

I'm all for decreasing the US military footprint and if we have to start with Europe due to the anti-European sentiments of the right that works for me.


I'm not talking about jerking anyone off... But, when looking at the European countries, we can see that they have come to rely on US protection and have greatly decreased their military budgets because Uncle Sam is there if needed. You can see it in the Libya conflict now. Europe has an inadequate military to defend itself. Meanwhile, the US constantly gets compared to European countries when it comes to social issues and how much "better" they have it in Europe when it comes to retirement, working conditions, health care, etc. Europe is no longer a front that needs such a defense built there and I believe that closing a majority of the military installations there would have a beneficial effect on reducing spending in the DoD.

I do not foresee the time that we do not have troops in the ME and Pacific. That's where the loons are these days. We should, however, figure out a time when that will happen.

Quote:

Not really. This is one of the most popular budget to cut when polling Americans, for obvious reasons, but it's really not that much as it usually constitutes less than 1% of the federal budget. Defense spending and social programs constitute the majority of the budget, talking about anything else when it comes to a desire to balance the budget is just deflection from the elephants in the room.


It may be a small piece of the pie, but it would make a positive change in America. Seeing the country spend the money at home instead of abroad would strengthen the perceived concern the government has for it's own people. Take that 50% and spend it on domestic issues instead. 1/2 of 1% of our federal budget on domestic programs is a heck of a lot of money that we aren't spending at home now.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 10:28 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Europe is no longer a front that needs such a defense built there and I believe that closing a majority of the military installations there would have a beneficial effect on reducing spending in the DoD.
We're actually increasing our military presence there. The current administration has promised new bases for Poland and rescinded the previous administration's 2007 withdrawal commitment by, I believe, one brigade at least. By 2015, we'll have the largest presence in Europe than we've seen in the past decade.

0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 11:32 am
Unlike Social spending, the Constitution says we have to spend money on the military, it says nothing about social programs. Why not cut social security, it is used by more then old people who are retired, those that are not retired should not be receiving it in the first place.
Below viewing threshold (view)
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 12:48 pm
We spend more money on air-conditioning military tents, than we do on the whole of NASA's budget.

A
R
T
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 12:54 pm
@failures art,
And both are focused on reaching out to Muslims
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  8  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 01:09 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Unlike Social spending, the Constitution says we have to spend money on the military, it says nothing about social programs. Why not cut social security, it is used by more then old people who are retired, those that are not retired should not be receiving it in the first place.

In that case, we can get rid of the Air Force too right? The USAF isn't a part of the constitution, only the Army and Navy. Wait, neither is 14 of the 16 (that's right) intelligence agencies.

Wanna follow your logic to the end?

How come providing for the "common defense" is a term that can be interpreted to fund military outside of the constitutional wording, but providing for the "general welfare" is not allowed the same in your view?

A
R
T
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 04:34 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
In that case, we can get rid of the Air Force too right? The USAF isn't a part of the constitution, only the Army and Navy. Wait, neither is 14 of the 16 (that's right) intelligence agencies.


Air Force is still part of the military and fills a specific function within the Armed Forces. When it comes to Intelligence we could stand to have some of those cut back. We have the DHS which should encompass most of the security for the US. We have the CIA and the NSA which should handle most of the intelligence gathering for outside the US. I have no problem with cutting down on over blown budgets and cutting down on redundant depts.

Quote:
How come providing for the "common defense" is a term that can be interpreted to fund military outside of the constitutional wording, but providing for the "general welfare" is not allowed the same in your view?/quote]

The military and intelligence groups all play a part in defending the country against enemies both foreign and domestic. Please tell me how social spending is talked about in the Constitution in regards to Section 8 where the "Common Defense and the General Welfare" are mentioned? You won't be able to because it isn't there. You have to make up meanings to fit what you think "General Welfare" means.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Aug, 2011 06:32 pm
The final clause of Article One, Section Eight reads: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I know that's inconvenient for your argument, but you don't get to cherry-pick the constitution, it's an all or nothing affair.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 03:20 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
In that case, we can get rid of the Air Force too right? The USAF isn't a part of the constitution, only the Army and Navy. Wait, neither is 14 of the 16 (that's right) intelligence agencies.


Air Force is still part of the military and fills a specific function within the Armed Forces.

Sure, that's not what's at question. We are speaking to the extra-constitutionality of the USAF. If the "common defense" is enough of a justification for the USAF, then obviously the department does not need to be specifically named in the constitution.

Baldimo wrote:

When it comes to Intelligence we could stand to have some of those cut back. We have the DHS which should encompass most of the security for the US. We have the CIA and the NSA which should handle most of the intelligence gathering for outside the US. I have no problem with cutting down on over blown budgets and cutting down on redundant depts.

What about the cutting non-redundant services? Take for example the USPS, which--might I add--is specifically named in the constitution and is not redundant.

How are you coming up with the standard of what stays and what is cut? It seems like you're feeling your way through this without any real objective measure. Certainly, it's not a constitutional navigation.

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
How come providing for the "common defense" is a term that can be interpreted to fund military outside of the constitutional wording, but providing for the "general welfare" is not allowed the same in your view?


The military and intelligence groups all play a part in defending the country against enemies both foreign and domestic.

But are they named in the constitution? Or are they rationalized under "common defense?"

Baldimo wrote:

Please tell me how social spending is talked about in the Constitution in regards to Section 8 where the "Common Defense and the General Welfare" are mentioned? You won't be able to because it isn't there. You have to make up meanings to fit what you think "General Welfare" means.

No more than you do to define what the "common defense" is. Why is "general welfare" any more difficult? You're distinction is personal and arbitrary. Social welfare programs are easily classified to be in the interest and promotion of the "general welfare." You're going out of your way to not understand this. Your justification for including the USAF, but excluding social programs is special pleading.

A
R
T

Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 09:09 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
I'm all for decreasing the US military footprint and if we have to start with Europe due to the anti-European sentiments of the right that works for me.
It could also be a generational thing. In one of his last speeches as he was retiring, Gen. Gates made the point that the Cold War has been over for more than two decades and future political leaders won't have the sentimental attachment formed by leaders of his generation (the Cold War having been the formative experience for many of that era and justified the U.S. absorbing 50% of the burden). Unfortunately, that burden has now ramped up to 75% and...

Quote:
The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 09:59 am


Why not cut frivolous government spending and leave the US military machine alone?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 10:40 am
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
and leave the US military machine alone?


Right on, H2oman. The mafia doesn't take away the weapons of its enforcers, assassins, murderers, torturers, ... .
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2011 03:12 pm
@failures art,
@Art
Quote:
Sure, that's not what's at question. We are speaking to the extra-constitutionality of the USAF. If the "common defense" is enough of a justification for the USAF, then obviously the department does not need to be specifically named in the constitution.


If that’s the way you feel then let’s cut the Air Force out of the Military and see if we can maintain air dominance in future military engagements. If you can honestly say the Air Force doesn't matter then write to your congressmen/woman and ask them to start defunding the Air Force.

Quote:
What about the cutting non-redundant services? Take for example the USPS, which--might I add--is specifically named in the constitution and is not redundant.

How are you coming up with the standard of what stays and what is cut? It seems like you're feeling your way through this without any real objective measure. Certainly, it's not a constitutional navigation.


Not sure why you brought up the USPS. They are already taking steps to cut back on spending. They are looking at getting rid of Saturday deliveries and downsizing their motor fleet (which is the largest in the US). They already see an issue and are taking steps to correct it. Besides they partial fund themselves anyways, not many govt agencies can say that.

You tell me your Constitutional navigation and I will tell you mine. We all know that social spending is sacred with the left and military spending is sacred with the right. I have offered a few places I would do cuts and that included in the defense budget, can you name any social spending you would cut?

Quote:
But are they named in the constitution? Or are they rationalized under "common defense?"

Quote:
No more than you do to define what the "common defense" is. Why is "general welfare" any more difficult? You're distinction is personal and arbitrary. Social welfare programs are easily classified to be in the interest and promotion of the "general welfare." You're going out of your way to not understand this. Your justification for including the USAF, but excluding social programs is special pleading.


I explained above, can you try and defend social spending under "general welfare"? I defended defense spending as defined by Section 8 under the constitution please do the same for social spending.

I am not going out of my way to not understand, you haven't even tried to explain anything about social spending in regards to "general welfare" other than to say "easily classified to be in the interest and promotion of the "general welfare." If that is the case then please explain how social spending effects/benefits me?

@Set
Quote:
The final clause of Article One, Section Eight reads: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I know that's inconvenient for your argument, but you don't get to cherry-pick the constitution, it's an all or nothing affair.


?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 10:09:24