- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 707
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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: