• 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!

Excluding defense from spending cuts

Should defense programs be excluded from across-the-board spending cuts?

  • Total voters
    30
sKiTzo

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
535
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
"Newsmax" just came out with poll results saying "most say exclude defense" and it made me suspicious that newsmax might be propaganda like all the mainstream outlets are. Surely, there can't be that many of us left willing to buy into the terrorism scam, considering how much we've been scammed already. Bengah-zi is a clear indication that the money should stop.
 
In past polls it has been back and forth but there is a clear sign that American's at least want to stop the increase on defense spending. Cutting development costs and a few other areas for a short period of time should not negatively effect the US military since it is the most developed in the world.
Here are two such polls;
What Kind of Defense Budget Would the American Public Make? | Spotlight | The Stimson Center | Pragmatic Steps for Global Security
Americans still don’t want to cut any actual government programs
and this study;
Program for Public Consultation - Majority of Americans Willing to Make Defense Cuts
Currently I see little reason not to cut the spending. The country should focus on strengthening it's economy, if it succeeds the country will have greater wealth which will also benefit weapon manufacturers in the long run. I suppose they would be the main opposition. I also don't foresee any great military threat to America or it's interests.
 
All sides agree that the programs they don't care about must be reduced. Then it gets more difficult.

Across-the-board spending cuts, while decried as "stupid" by virtually everyone (because virtually everyone has their own favorite thing to spend other people's money on), are actually the smartest thing in town. Do it any other way, and fnal decisions will be made accroding to political influence of advocates of particular programs, and not their actual relevance or value. Usually, there's no objective way to assesss these "relevance" and "value" anyway.

As for the military spending ("defense" is one of those loaded words...), it accounts for almost a quarter of the budget. Whoever talks about fiscal discipline and then excludes the largest or second largest source of red ink simply isn't serious.
 
Cyrylek said:
All sides agree that the programs they don't care about must be reduced. Then it gets more difficult.

Across-the-board spending cuts, while decried as "stupid" by virtually everyone (because virtually everyone has their own favorite thing to spend other people's money on), are actually the smartest thing in town. Do it any other way, and fnal decisions will be made accroding to political influence of advocates of particular programs, and not their actual relevance or value. Usually, there's no objective way to assesss these "relevance" and "value" anyway.

As for the military spending ("defense" is one of those loaded words...), it accounts for almost a quarter of the budget. Whoever talks about fiscal discipline and then excludes the largest or second largest source of red ink simply isn't serious.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to instantly pick out the headlines that are propaganda. I think Newsmax is full of it. It just goes to show just how instrumental the media has been for them. They don't want to cut defense, so they have some of their news agencies report some bogus poll to make the individual think that everybody wants to cut spending, but to exclude defense. So that individual now has his opinion influenced by the idea that everybody else wants this so maybe that's best. Now here's where it really gets scandalous - if the news propaganda doesn't work, they go to the next level, which is "problem, reaction, solution".

They will concoct some false flag type of operation so that we are attacked by either real or contrived enemies (because if they are not successful in provoking an enemy to attack, they will use the CIA + scapegoat). Then that will cause a stir in the people who now demand better security. The solution is more defense spending. Sound familiar? This is how our government operates. Be wary of the headlines. Go to independent/alternative news sources - as a favor to yourself and all americans.
 
sKiTzo said:
"Newsmax" just came out with poll results saying "most say exclude defense" and it made me suspicious that newsmax might be propaganda like all the mainstream outlets are.
Click to expand...

and then some.

we should honor and expand our commitments to veterans, and we should bring the rest home. if the world wants a global police force, that is not free.
 
No single program should be a sacred cow. They all have to be evaluated, and cut or expanded where needed. It would be very hard to convince me any need expanding, but there may be one or two.
 
sKiTzo said:
"Newsmax" just came out with poll results saying "most say exclude defense" and it made me suspicious that newsmax might be propaganda like all the mainstream outlets are. Surely, there can't be that many of us left willing to buy into the terrorism scam, considering how much we've been scammed already. Bengah-zi is a clear indication that the money should stop.
Click to expand...

Its not a scam, and I have no reason to beleive that most defense spending is useful and desireable. Im sure theres corruption and waste like anywhere else, but the bigger problem is that we simply dont need to be the worlds policeman. A military that focuses on defending the our actual borders should be enough. And that does not cost nearly as much as deploying troops around the world.
 
NewsMax "might be"? NewsMax is to conservatives what moveon.org is to liberals.

Lots of things weren't subject to "real" spending cuts. Medicare wasn't, and neither was the Washington Slush Fund - a.k.a. Social Security.

They have a weird definition of "discretionary" in D.C.
 
sKiTzo said:
"Newsmax" just came out with poll results saying "most say exclude defense" and it made me suspicious that newsmax might be propaganda like all the mainstream outlets are. Surely, there can't be that many of us left willing to buy into the terrorism scam, considering how much we've been scammed already. Bengah-zi is a clear indication that the money should stop.
Click to expand...

No, defense should not be excluded from cuts. There are lots of **** that we can cut. We can cut the expensive bio-fuels the navy buys.We can ban any drone programs that are used to spy on Americans. I am sure our government interferes in the affairs of other countries, that definitely should be cut. Over seas bases should be closed and I am sure there are all kinds of other useless **** or **** we should not be spending money on regarding defense.
 
The defense budget doesn't defend us.
 
I feel the sole purpose of our military is to protect the nation. Not peace keeping across the globe, not concurring and installing governments, not chasing drug cartels, not having bases in over 140+ countries world wide, but defending our borders. I feel if we only worried about our own nation and not use the excuse of "national interests" across the globe that we could cut our military spending by at least half and still be secure.
 
Why should defense be excluded? We could cut a lot of money from the defense budget, but most politicians in Washington think we need to be in every body else's business and police the whole world. We need to protect our country. That's it.
 
sKiTzo said:
"Newsmax" just came out with poll results saying "most say exclude defense" and it made me suspicious that newsmax might be propaganda like all the mainstream outlets are. Surely, there can't be that many of us left willing to buy into the terrorism scam, considering how much we've been scammed already. Bengah-zi is a clear indication that the money should stop.
Click to expand...
Newsmax is a biased right wing extremist propaganda mill..
I still believe that we should have a strong up to date military, that it was one huge mistake to dis-arm so completely after the first "great war", a century ago....But, we do not need to be fighting these wars..We must overhaul the way things are done...
 
DD should not be exempt but a trillion dollars is a little much.
 
jamesrage said:
No, defense should not be excluded from cuts. There are lots of **** that we can cut. We can cut the expensive bio-fuels the navy buys.We can ban any drone programs that are used to spy on Americans. I am sure our government interferes in the affairs of other countries, that definitely should be cut. Over seas bases should be closed and I am sure there are all kinds of other useless **** or **** we should not be spending money on regarding defense.
Click to expand...

You'll get a kick out of this:

Army suspends tuition assistance program for troops - News - Stripes

But luckily we still have the cash to drop 400 billion dollars to get 64 F-35s

General Urges Constraints on F-35 Jet Costs - WSJ.com

Doesn't tat make you're skin crawl? It does for mine.
 
jamesrage said:
Is a trillion being cut from defense spending?
Click to expand...

That is what Obama wants............He already got 500 billion and he wants 500 billion more..........Even at the time his def sec Panetta was arguing against it.
 
Gipper said:
NewsMax "might be"? NewsMax is to conservatives what moveon.org is to liberals.

Lots of things weren't subject to "real" spending cuts. Medicare wasn't, and neither was the Washington Slush Fund - a.k.a. Social Security.

They have a weird definition of "discretionary" in D.C.
Click to expand...
Either SS must be cut ( begin the retirement age at 67, rather than 65) and or remove the cut off amount - which the coservatives, the rich ones will never allow...I doubt if the rich liberals will like this either.....And that 67 age threshold is for "non-workers". Coal miners should start at 55..
 
Navy Pride said:
That is what Obama wants............He already got 500 billion and he wants 500 billion more..........Even at the time his def sec Panetta was arguing against it.
Click to expand...

The DoD budget isn't even a 1 trillion dollars to start with, so how are you going to cut 1 trillion from it?

DOESN'T MATTER I'M ANGRY!!!!11 OBAMA, MUSLIMS, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, ANARCHISM, TOTALITARIANISM, BLACK LIBERATION, BLACK CHRISTIAN, ATHEISM.
 
earthworm said:
Either SS must be cut ( begin the retirement age at 67, rather than 65) and or remove the cut off amount - which the coservatives, the rich ones will never allow...I doubt if the rich liberals will like this either.....And that 67 age threshold is for "non-workers". Coal miners should start at 55..
Click to expand...
By "cutoff" are you talking about the upper end of the payroll tax, ~$106k? If so, they don't need to remove it, they just need to adjust it for inflation since 1980 and keep it there by chaining it to inflation or the CPI.
 
Navy Pride said:
That is what Obama wants............He already got 500 billion and he wants 500 billion more..........Even at the time his def sec Panetta was arguing against it.
Click to expand...

Cuts should be made when they can.Does the Navy need to spend 26 dollars a gallon on bio-fuel? Do we need to give military aid to nations not friendly to us? Should be we be spending money programs designed to spy on Americans? Should be we wasting money with over seas military bases when those would be better served being along our borders? I am sure there are many other things that defense does not need to spend money on.
 
Wiseone said:
The DoD budget isn't even a 1 trillion dollars to start with, so how are you going to cut 1 trillion from it?

DOESN'T MATTER I'M ANGRY!!!!11 OBAMA, MUSLIMS, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, ANARCHISM, TOTALITARIANISM, BLACK LIBERATION, BLACK CHRISTIAN, ATHEISM.
Click to expand...


I don't know what their budget is but at first Obama took 500 billion and then he wanted 500 billion more........Panetta then the SECDEF testified in congress and asked to cancel the second 500 billion....He said the military could not survive that cut but was turned down. It was televised on CSPAN about a month ago.
 
jamesrage said:
Cuts should be made when they can.Does the Navy need to spend 26 dollars a gallon on bio-fuel? Do we need to give military aid to nations not friendly to us? Should be we be spending money programs designed to spy on Americans? Should be we wasting money with over seas military bases when those would be better served being along our borders? I am sure there are many other things that defense does not need to spend money on.
Click to expand...

For once I agree with you.....I would cut all foreign aid to the Arabs and get the hell out of those countries......they are not our friends........The only exception would be South Korea.....and Israel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom