• 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!

Do we spend enough on the Military?

Do we spend enough on the military?


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .

Winston

Give me convenience or give me death
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
24,760
Reaction score
24,136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
With Trump proposing a $54 Billion dollar hike in defense spending, I have to ask, do you agree with this? $54 Billion dollars that could be used to provide educational opportunities or rebuild our infrastructure. Americans constantly criticize people with big ideas like universal healthcare or free college. Who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for these bombers, fighters, and navy war ships? You are. Instead of cutting defense and reinvesting American tax payer money in our society, we've chosen to put it in the Pentagon to create more terrorists.

What do you think? Do we spend enough on the military?
 
Last edited:
54 billion isn't that much compared to the entirety of the Federal budget. Less than 2%.


Also, domestic spending vastly exceeds what we spend on the military.


So I won't be having a cow over this.
 
I *hope* we spend enough on the military.


If not we might find out the hard way.
 
total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.jpg
 
54 billion isn't that much compared to the entirety of the Federal budget. Less than 2%.


Also, domestic spending vastly exceeds what we spend on the military.


So I won't be having a cow over this.

The thing that bugs me about this is, the American perception that defense spending grows as a function of time.. but, if someone proposes an educational program that costs $54 Billion dollars, they get screamed at by people saying, "Who's going to pay for it?" So, there's a double standard. If someone wants $54 Billion for bombs and warships, it's okay. But, if someone wants to invest $54 Billion dollars in education, they are "pie in the sky". Then conservatives set in with the argument of "I'm not paying for someone else's school." That's fair but, then that validates the liberal argument of, "I'm not paying for someone else's war."
 
Last edited:
With Trump proposing a $54 Billion dollar hike in defense spending, I have to ask, do you agree with this? $54 Billion dollars that could be used to provide educational opportunities or rebuild our infrastructure. Americans constantly criticize people with big ideas like universal healthcare or free college. Who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for these bombers, fighters, and navy war ships? You are. Instead of cutting defense and reinvesting American tax payer money in our society, we've chosen to put it in the Pentagon to create more terrorists.

What do you think? Do we spend enough on the military?
Yes i think we do spend enough on the military but they need to spend it better.

I disagree with using that money peoposed on other things. We should be cutting the budget not increasing it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
We spend too much on the military. I realize that the current administration claims our military is wasting away and falling apart, but I have no idea where they get that perception from. We have the most dominate military force the planet has ever seen already, and I don't think pumping billions more into it is a responsible use of taxpayer money.
 
The thing that bugs me about this is, the American perception that defense spending grows as a function of time.. but, if someone proposes an educational program that costs $54 Billion dollars, they get screamed at by people saying, "Who's going to pay for it?" So, there's a double standard. If someone wants $54 Billion for bombs and warships, it's okay. But, if someone wants to invest $54 Billion dollars in education, they are "pie in the sky". Then conservatives set in with the argument of "I'm not paying for someone else's school." That's fair but, then does that not validate the liberal argument of, "I'm not paying for someone else's war."


I'm ok with spending on education, as long as we get our money's worth from it. There are issues.... we've found that simply throwing money at the problem doesn't improve education in a proportional manner... that is X spending does not equal Y improvement in education. There are major problems with our educational methodology which won't be solved by more money. Overemphasis on stardardized testing and tying it to funding so teachers end up teaching the test instead of educating, for one.

University for instance. My state started a lottery for education and began heavily subsidizing college tuition. Know what happened? MASSIVE raises in tuition at almost all colleges. Oops. Didn't really help any.

And some people probably resent the fact that military spending keeps getting bashed when it is less than 1/6th of the budget and most of the rest is some form of domestic spending or foreign aid, while our veterans often struggle to get decent care for service-related disabilities...
 
I *hope* we spend enough on the military.


If not we might find out the hard way.

So the US should just keep spending more and more money on the military?
 
With Trump proposing a $54 Billion dollar hike in defense spending, I have to ask, do you agree with this? $54 Billion dollars that could be used to provide educational opportunities or rebuild our infrastructure. Americans constantly criticize people with big ideas like universal healthcare or free college. Who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for these bombers, fighters, and navy war ships? You are. Instead of cutting defense and reinvesting American tax payer money in our society, we've chosen to put it in the Pentagon to create more terrorists.

What do you think? Do we spend enough on the military?

We spend too much. It is not efficiently spent, due to the way the military industrial complex is able to control congress. When we are buying weapons systems that the military doesn't want or need, something is very wrong.
 
Yes i think we do spend enough on the military but they need to spend it better.

I disagree with using that money peoposed on other things. We should be cutting the budget not increasing it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The $54 Billion is being paid for by broad cuts to government agency. The EPA budget got decimated. The State Department budget also suffered. My state of Michigan, for example is losing 97% of it's Great Lakes federal funding to pay for the military.

Trump slashes Great Lakes funding by 97 percent in early budget plan | MLive.com
 
So the US should just keep spending more and more money on the military?


So the US should just keep spending more and more on failed domestic programs? Cuz we do. Lots of duplicate agencies, lots of failed programs that show few or no results after decades keep getting more money.






Look at the pie chart. Military/defense is less than 1/6th of the total budget.
 
So the US should just keep spending more and more on failed domestic programs? Cuz we do. Lots of duplicate agencies, lots of failed programs that show few or no results after decades keep getting more money.

At least that is measurable, the effectiveness of military spending is pretty much impossible to measure and a lot of goes to waste in the massive bureaucracy and needlessly expensive defense contracts. That money should be used to try and develop effective domestic programs.
 
At least that is measurable, the effectiveness of military spending is pretty much impossible to measure and a lot of goes to waste in the massive bureaucracy and needlessly expensive defense contracts. That money should be used to try and develop effective domestic programs.


Bud, you could say the same and worse about waste in domestic spending. We have duplicate programs and failed programs galore. IF we could totally scrap the existing domestic budget and re-do it from the ground up for efficiency, we could do twice as much good with the same money, easily.


Absent the Pax Americana, much of the world goes up in flames in short order.
 
Yes i think we do spend enough on the military but they need to spend it better.

I disagree with using that money peoposed on other things. We should be cutting the budget not increasing it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

There are times in this nation's history that we have allowed military readiness to decline and had no alternative then spending more on the military to bring it back up to par. For instance, by the time Former President Jimmy Carter left office, our readiness was very much in decline. The navy did not have enough ships to handle every possible or even probably threat, and the maintenance and repairs on those ships and Navy and Air Force aircraft was in decline. Not enough spare parts were available. They would often have to cannibalize one aircraft to repair another.. President Reagan and Congress at the time, turned that around. We are now again in a similar situation. And I am not restricting such problems to democrat presidents. When the cold war ended, Bush Senior, and congress could not wait to start shutting down military bases and cut the number of troops. Then when radical Islamic terrorism picked up steam, we were not as ready as we should have been. Even now, we do not have enough active duty troops to handle Afghanistan and other threats. We are calling up reservists at a rate that we had not done since WW2. One of my colleagues at work was a marine reservist and never expected to be called up to active duty. Yet he ended up serving two tours in Iraq, and probably would have served a third, except for losing a limb on the second tour. His unit did pull a third tour. Perhaps we can cut some of the wasteful spending such as what comes with social tinkering for the sake of political correctness...for instance sensitivity classes over gays and transsexuals in the military. We can also stop members of congress from demanding unrequested overahauls, just for the sake of employment at a shipbuilder in their district.
 
Bud, you could say the same and worse about waste in domestic spending. We have duplicate programs and failed programs galore. IF we could totally scrap the existing domestic budget and re-do it from the ground up for efficiency, we could do twice as much good with the same money, easily.


Absent the Pax Americana, much of the world goes up in flames in short order.

I am not saying eliminate military spending but it could use some healthy cutting.
 
The $54 Billion is being paid for by broad cuts to government agency. The EPA budget got decimated. The State Department budget also suffered. My state of Michigan, for example is losing 97% of it's Great Lakes federal funding to pay for the military.

Trump slashes Great Lakes funding by 97 percent in early budget plan | MLive.com
That seems a bit drastic but i have become jaded when it comes to the impact they claim it's going to have on public welfare. Budget cuts are always met with apocalyptic predictions to resist their implementation. I suspect the 97% number they are citing is an exagerated hyperbolic scare tactic.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
54 billion isn't that much compared to the entirety of the Federal budget. Less than 2%.


Also, domestic spending vastly exceeds what we spend on the military.


So I won't be having a cow over this.

IIRC over the past decade plus, the number of contracted employees has skyrocketed. What are the costs involved, are there savings over the long term?
 
There are times in this nation's history that we have allowed military readiness to decline and had no alternative then spending more on the military to bring it back up to par. For instance, by the time Former President Jimmy Carter left office, our readiness was very much in decline. The navy did not have enough ships to handle every possible or even probably threat, and the maintenance and repairs on those ships and Navy and Air Force aircraft was in decline. Not enough spare parts were available. They would often have to cannibalize one aircraft to repair another.. President Reagan and Congress at the time, turned that around. We are now again in a similar situation. And I am not restricting such problems to democrat presidents. When the cold war ended, Bush Senior, and congress could not wait to start shutting down military bases and cut the number of troops. Then when radical Islamic terrorism picked up steam, we were not as ready as we should have been. Even now, we do not have enough active duty troops to handle Afghanistan and other threats. We are calling up reservists at a rate that we had not done since WW2. One of my colleagues at work was a marine reservist and never expected to be called up to active duty. Yet he ended up serving two tours in Iraq, and probably would have served a third, except for losing a limb on the second tour. His unit did pull a third tour. Perhaps we can cut some of the wasteful spending such as what comes with social tinkering for the sake of political correctness...for instance sensitivity classes over gays and transsexuals in the military. We can also stop members of congress from demanding unrequested overahauls, just for the sake of employment at a shipbuilder in their district.
Your points are valid but i also think we should be smaller with less bases overseas.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
I'm ok with spending on education, as long as we get our money's worth from it. There are issues.... we've found that simply throwing money at the problem doesn't improve education in a proportional manner... that is X spending does not equal Y improvement in education. There are major problems with our educational methodology which won't be solved by more money. Overemphasis on stardardized testing and tying it to funding so teachers end up teaching the test instead of educating, for one.

University for instance. My state started a lottery for education and began heavily subsidizing college tuition. Know what happened? MASSIVE raises in tuition at almost all colleges. Oops. Didn't really help any.

And some people probably resent the fact that military spending keeps getting bashed when it is less than 1/6th of the budget and most of the rest is some form of domestic spending or foreign aid, while our veterans often struggle to get decent care for service-related disabilities...

I understand your position on education. Just throwing money at a problem won't "OJ you out of the situation." Tuition going up because they could charge more to government funded students is a horrible symptom of capitalism. In my state, the city of Kalamazoo has had great success with free 4 year degrees at universities. Kalamazoo Promise 'significantly' increases college graduation rates, study finds | MLive.com

Mandatory spending includes entitlements, which are untouchable. I have ideas to fix entitlements but, they aren't conservative ones. Despite entitlements totaling more than the defense budget; I can't follow people who argue the defense budget is not big enough. Their justification is since we spend so much on entitlements, that justifies massive spending on the military. My argument is that given the defense budget being over 1/2 of all discretionary spending, and given that we do not have a major enemy right now, we should cut defense spending and invest that money first taking care of our veterans, then on societal perks like single-payer or an education program.

Also to put it in perspective..

americanmilitaryspending.jpg
 
I understand your position on education. Just throwing money at a problem won't "OJ you out of the situation." Tuition going up because they could charge more to government funded students is a horrible symptom of capitalism. In my state, the city of Kalamazoo has had great success with free 4 year degrees at universities. Kalamazoo Promise 'significantly' increases college graduation rates, study finds | MLive.com

Mandatory spending includes entitlements, which are untouchable. I have ideas to fix entitlements but, they aren't conservative ones. Despite entitlements totaling more than the defense budget; I can't follow people who argue the defense budget is not big enough. Their justification is since we spend so much on entitlements, that justifies massive spending on the military. My argument is that given the defense budget being over 1/2 of all discretionary spending, and given that we do not have a major enemy right now, we should cut defense spending and invest that money first taking care of our veterans, then on societal perks like single-payer or an education program.

Also to put it in perspective..

View attachment 67214794



I don't agree that entitlements are untouchable or with only looking at "non-discretionary" spending.


The "entitlement" system is part of the problem that needs to be scrapped entirely and re-done from start. The waste is incredible, as is what could be accomplished with that money if it were used efficiently.


As for the military, here's a truth for you: you can spend money, or you can spend lives.

China and Russia are willing to spend lives.

The Saudis, France, the UK, India and Germany are under the umbrella of US protection and don't have to spend massive amounts on defense (yer welcome).


We use technology so we don't have WW2-like casualty rates when the military is deployed.
 
I understand your position on education. Just throwing money at a problem won't "OJ you out of the situation." Tuition going up because they could charge more to government funded students is a horrible symptom of capitalism. In my state, the city of Kalamazoo has had great success with free 4 year degrees at universities. Kalamazoo Promise 'significantly' increases college graduation rates, study finds | MLive.com

Mandatory spending includes entitlements, which are untouchable. I have ideas to fix entitlements but, they aren't conservative ones. Despite entitlements totaling more than the defense budget; I can't follow people who argue the defense budget is not big enough. Their justification is since we spend so much on entitlements, that justifies massive spending on the military. My argument is that given the defense budget being over 1/2 of all discretionary spending, and given that we do not have a major enemy right now, we should cut defense spending and invest that money first taking care of our veterans, then on societal perks like single-payer or an education program.

Also to put it in perspective..

View attachment 67214794

Your table is misleading....We help support four of those countries with our military.....If some of those countries had to pay 100% of their military spending, they wouldn't be able to afford to support their socialist state governments. Why do you think they want our military bases in their countries? Duh....
 
Bud, you could say the same and worse about waste in domestic spending. We have duplicate programs and failed programs galore. IF we could totally scrap the existing domestic budget and re-do it from the ground up for efficiency, we could do twice as much good with the same money, easily.


Absent the Pax Americana, much of the world goes up in flames in short order.
And NATO must step up spending. Each member to have a guaranteed goal to meet within X number of years.
Lower costs by using the same or similar platforms- Air- Land - Sea. That would cause much upset withing the defense industries, but production can be shared.
 
I don't agree that entitlements are untouchable or with only looking at "non-discretionary" spending.


The "entitlement" system is part of the problem that needs to be scrapped entirely and re-done from start. The waste is incredible, as is what could be accomplished with that money if it were used efficiently.


As for the military, here's a truth for you: you can spend money, or you can spend lives.

China and Russia are willing to spend lives.

The Saudis, France, the UK, India and Germany are under the umbrella of US protection and don't have to spend massive amounts on defense (yer welcome).


We use technology so we don't have WW2-like casualty rates when the military is deployed.

The same thing applies to the military, the waste in the military is also incredible. If the US really focused more on technology there would be no need for nearly as large a force as the US currently has, pay for the technology with cuts to personnel. The UK has adopted the strategy of smaller but more specialized forces, maybe a similar approach is in order. Also the US needs to start sharing more resources with its allies instead of trying to be fully self-sufficient.
 
Back
Top Bottom