Why not cut war spending instead of social spending?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

and leave the US military machine alone?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.