• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US military cutbacks

Because the alternative is cuts in services that help everyday citizens. If there is a choice between guns and butter liberals come down on the side of butter.

This is an over-generalization. To say only non-military cuts would hurt everyday citizens is fallacious as it implies people who are employed in civilian defense or defense-dependent industries are not "everyday citizens". Let's not try to argue that the only wasteful spending in the federal budget comes from the military.

Other spending is internal and when the economy and GDP expand it's assumed more resources are needed. Military spending is how we compare outselves to other countries. Just because North Korea spends more as a % of their GDP in no way are they beating us or close to beating us in the arms race.

I understand the use of nominal dollars in terms of measuring military proficiency. The fallacy comes when using the figure to justify it as an out of control federal expenditure. Ideally, as your economy and GDP expands, internal spending should be reduced, is that not a core tenet in Keynesian economics?
 
Last edited:
I understand the cuts to Defense if we follow the next letter in the alphabet to E for Education.

Cut the Dept of Education by eliminating it.:2razz:
 
This is an over-generalization. To say only non-military cuts would hurt everyday citizens is fallacious as it implies people who are employed in civilian defense or defense-dependent industries are not "everyday citizens". Let's not try to argue that the only wasteful spending in the federal budget comes from the military.

I'm not arguing that military spending is wasteful. There's a long line of technologies that came from military spending and a lot of people employed by government spending. I think it's obvious to everybody there has to be large cuts...and Democrats think those large cuts should come in Defense not in other areas.
I understand the use of nominal dollars in terms of measuring military proficiency. The fallacy comes when using the figure to justify it as an out of control federal expenditure.
I guess that depends on what your strategic goals are. Are you building a military to take over the world therefore it needs to be exponentially stronger than any country on the planet? It's relavent to me because (and a lot of people seem to think this now) our military should be a defensive force and should not be the world police force. If that's the case...then our spending compared to other nations is relevant. Our military even reduced can easily meet any threat by any nation state in the world.

Ideally, as your economy and GDP expands, internal spending should be reduced, is that not a core tenet in Keynesian economics?

Sure, a short term boost in demand via government spending should be short term. Most of our government spending though is transfer payments and obligations promised to seniors. That's not something you can just cut because the economy rebounds.
 
"but...but...but...massive government spending will improve the economy!"

It will! But instead of spending it on new ways to kill people, we can spend it on rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, developing new forms of fuel and improving human life here.
 
Not even close to the cuts that are needed. We will still be spending as much as the next top 10 spending countries combined.

Too bad we don't have a liberal candidate in the running for President.

Actually we do have liberal candidates running for President its just that they are in third parties.

On Topic: I don't think that the cuts are going to do as much damage as everyone is saying they are. At end of the day even with these cuts, the US still has the power to protect itself and its allies.
 
It will! But instead of spending it on new ways to kill people, we can spend it on rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, developing new forms of fuel and improving human life here.

And there you go. It only took 28 posts until someone concluded: Money saved = more money to spend.
 
And there you go. It only took 28 posts until someone concluded: Money saved = more money to spend.

Where would you put the money saved?
 
Where would you put the money saved?

I think the more accurate point would be that since you aren't going to spend it, you don't need to borrow it in the first place.
 
Unless the cuts in the military makes up the 40% of every dollar spent by the feds, there is no money to spend. Congress and the Pres needs to balance the budget and pay off the debt.
 
And there you go. It only took 28 posts until someone concluded: Money saved = more money to spend.

It only took 28 posts for someone to cry about, "crumbling", infrastructure. :rofl

Although, it has been a long time since I heard that from someone.
 
It only took 28 posts for someone to cry about, "crumbling", infrastructure. :rofl

Although, it has been a long time since I heard that from someone.




Yeah, thank god we dont have any "crumbling", infrastructure.:roll:
 
Unless the cuts in the military makes up the 40% of every dollar spent by the feds, there is no money to spend. Congress and the Pres needs to balance the budget and pay off the debt.

Except doing so will mean tax increases as well as spending cuts.
 



Yeah, thank god we dont have any "crumbling", infrastructure.:roll:


Ah yes, roll out the this-bridge-was-designed-incorrectly-and-fell-down-but-lets-blame-it-on-crumbling-infrastructure video.

And then, don't forget the final findings:

On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its investigation. The primary cause was the under-sized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick. Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete were added to the road surface over the years, increasing the dead load by 20%. Also contributing was the extraordinary weight of construction equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was estimated at 578,000 pounds (262,000 kg) consisting of sand, water, and vehicles. The NTSB determined that corrosion was not a significant factor, but that inspectors did not routinely check that safety features were functional.[135]
 
Except doing so will mean tax increases as well as spending cuts.

I agree, what we shouldn't do is cut the military then go and spend that cut on something else.
Getting our fiscal house in order is needed for sustain economic health.
 
Ah yes, roll out the this-bridge-was-designed-incorrectly-and-fell-down-but-lets-blame-it-on-crumbling-infrastructure video.

And then, don't forget the final findings:

On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its investigation. The primary cause was the under-sized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick. Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete were added to the road surface over the years, increasing the dead load by 20%. Also contributing was the extraordinary weight of construction equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was estimated at 578,000 pounds (262,000 kg) consisting of sand, water, and vehicles. The NTSB determined that corrosion was not a significant factor, but that inspectors did not routinely check that safety features were functional.[135]

It did collapse.:2wave:
 
Not because it, "crumbled". That's the point.

Whether it crumbled right after it was built, are lasted for a half-century; its still and interstate bridge and has to be replaced; mostly with federal funding. Reread my post #32.
 
Whether it crumbled right after it was built, are lasted for a half-century; its still and interstate bridge and has to be replaced; mostly with federal funding. Reread my post #32.

Except that if it was built using a proper design, it would still be there.

Using your logic, the fact that the WTC collapsed was due to bad building standards.
 
The following paragraph is quite interesting,

"The president said the new strategy would end "long-term nation-building with large military footprints". The Pentagon would instead pursue a national security strategy based on "smaller conventional ground forces".

It is/was a constant from top military commanders (Mcchrystal/Petraeus) et al that America's 'footprint' was indeed not big enough. If i remember correctly, the initial Iraq military expedition facilitated only half the amount of 'boots on the ground' that commanders were demanding. Fast forward to the latest Afghanistan surge, once again troop numbers fell well short of what commanders requested. So i suggest, the politicians footprint in no way matches the military aspiration.


Paul
 
Whether it crumbled right after it was built, are lasted for a half-century; its still and interstate bridge and has to be replaced; mostly with federal funding. Reread my post #32.

If the dumbass that designed it, along with the dumbasses that maintained it had done their job, it wouldn't have collapsed.
 
I'm all for the cuts. Cut, cut, cut. I just find it ironic that liberals are so behind it when, in the same breath, they bemoan that any cuts in spending will hurt the economy and cost Americans jobs. Using the "greater than the next top 10 combined" argument seems disingenuous when insisting that other spending be measured as a % of GDP and military spending be measured in nominal dollars.

View attachment 67120804

I agree with samsmart that it's smart to cut the Army and Marine Corps first. I'm no expert on military strategy but it seems to me that in the age when we can put a bomb in someone's office from a drone at 80,000 feet that there is no need to continue supporting an infrastructure designed for outdated warfare.

Luxembourg could spend 100% of its GDP on military operations and they would barely be a military rival of South Dakota. I think nominal dollars is a fine way to measure military spending because it's "number of tanks" rather than "tanks per capita" that determines your ability to invade a neighbor.

We have more carrier battle groups than.... well, everybody. Not to mention a nuclear arsenal that makes large-scale war suicidal for everyone involved. You will not be placed in any more danger by spending cuts in the USMC.
 
I don't get the **** why people are so worried about the cuts.
China is decades away from achieving what the US has already gotten right now. Even with hundreds of billions in cuts, the US will still have a defense budget that is bigger than the next 10 nations combined. Russia has proven itself inept in Georgia. Iran is far back from China. South Korean can handle North Korea alone, except for very high civilian casualties and damages, which can't be avoided even with US intervention (DMZ artillery).
Sure, they will leave their marks, but it's like comparing a small cut on an athelete, then complaining how overweight kids might catch him/her up in sports.


South korea can handle North Korea alone? Seems like a pretty big call to me but you obviously know more about it that I do. How does South Korea match up to the North in the amount of soliders they have?
 
Back
Top Bottom