3
3
0
With the current state of our national debt, how do you feel about the amount of the federal budget spent on the military? The numbers for 2014 cite military spending at $568 billion, at 58% of the federal discretionary spending, and about 12% of the total federal budget.
Do you think that we should be cutting spending on different programs to increase military spending? Do you think we should decrease military spending to put that money toward other government programs?
I understand this is a complex topic for most people and we have an inherent bias toward the military, being current and former service members, but from the perspective of of national necessity, what are your thoughts?
Reference: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Do you think that we should be cutting spending on different programs to increase military spending? Do you think we should decrease military spending to put that money toward other government programs?
I understand this is a complex topic for most people and we have an inherent bias toward the military, being current and former service members, but from the perspective of of national necessity, what are your thoughts?
Reference: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Military Industry
Politics Military Industry
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
7
7
0
Here's what it really boils down to. Discretionary vs TOTAL budget.
Let's compare that to a "Household Budget" which is much easier to understand.
There are things you MUST pay for. Rent, Car (to get you to work), Food, etc. Then there are things that you SHOULD pay for, like Loans, entertainment, etc.
The problem the US has is that there are far to many things that have ended up in the "must" (80%~) category, and not enough in the "should" (20%~). When you add in "emergencies" like World Aid, that's when we go in the hole.
Now... here's the the deal. The Constitution mandates that Defense spending be looked at every 2 years. That's why it's part of "Discretionary" (Should) money. Everything else is pretty much Legislated. It was made into law, and getting it out of the Must Money is hard. It's hard to do.
We're not going to fix this problem by working with 20% (let alone 12%) of our TOTAL budget. Not feasible. You have to look at the entire budget. But that just isn't possible, because of the current set up.
Let's compare that to a "Household Budget" which is much easier to understand.
There are things you MUST pay for. Rent, Car (to get you to work), Food, etc. Then there are things that you SHOULD pay for, like Loans, entertainment, etc.
The problem the US has is that there are far to many things that have ended up in the "must" (80%~) category, and not enough in the "should" (20%~). When you add in "emergencies" like World Aid, that's when we go in the hole.
Now... here's the the deal. The Constitution mandates that Defense spending be looked at every 2 years. That's why it's part of "Discretionary" (Should) money. Everything else is pretty much Legislated. It was made into law, and getting it out of the Must Money is hard. It's hard to do.
We're not going to fix this problem by working with 20% (let alone 12%) of our TOTAL budget. Not feasible. You have to look at the entire budget. But that just isn't possible, because of the current set up.
(7)
(0)
SPC David Hannaman
I think it also bears mentioning that "World Aid" from a federal level isn't as effective as citizens voluntarily contributing to other people.
When Haiti was hit by an Earthquake in 2010 a simple "text this number to donate $10" ad on television raised 40% more money for relief than the federal government sent. That's the power of Americans uniting together for a cause.
When Haiti was hit by an Earthquake in 2010 a simple "text this number to donate $10" ad on television raised 40% more money for relief than the federal government sent. That's the power of Americans uniting together for a cause.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Im not sure my answer falls into any of the electable categories, I dont think we spend the money properly, for example, I am a ford technician. at my shop we had an air force recruiting mustang, so modded out that it was barley recognizable as a mustang, the air force recruiter proudly told us that the interior alone had cost nearly $100,000. ( they had replaced it with a fighter jet cockpit layout) with the rest of the mods, they said in total, the car cost 1.1 million dollars to get it the way it was. I was so mad I could hardly look at the car, I personally have seen soldiers in my unit with broken armor plates going on a mission anyway because our unit supposedly didnt have enough money for armor. our vehicles were falling apart, we were limited on supplies, and meanwhile the govt. is spending a million on a stupid recruiting tool.
(5)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
I think this falls in with my other comment about, "spend it if you got it so you can have more of it." It seems that too many units do not have a good way to spend excess funds and, in fear of losing money for the next fiscal year, they make frivolous expenditures because the way the budget is run.
(0)
(0)
SSG Paul Lanciault
I have seen the same nonsense. 30+ thousand dollars for kitchen improvements, but not 1500 dollars for required training...
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
We have cut military spending to the bone, and have lost critical capability in doing so. We need to increase military spending to meet the challenges we face.
(4)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
What critical capabilities are you referring to? Could those problems be rectified, not by increasing the budget, but by properly allocating resources to the units that require them most?
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT Darryl Allen, our military strength has fallen to the point that we can no longer sustain a war on two fronts while the world situation has become ever more dangerous. It is not even clear that we can take on Russia alone at this point, according to some military leaders.
(0)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
Capt Seid Waddell We have terrible, horrible weapons at our disposal and should Russia ever pose a threat again (I highly doubt it, Russians for the most part like Americans, though I'm sure some of the older generation may be pretty sour since the Cold War), we would most certainly be able to emerge victorious. In this nuclear age though, I can't image what the cost to our country might be.
And without stirring the pot too much, does it seem wise that we're fighting a war on two fronts when we get so little support from the countries we're intending to help?
And without stirring the pot too much, does it seem wise that we're fighting a war on two fronts when we get so little support from the countries we're intending to help?
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT Darryl Allen, it has nothing to do with wisdom or choice - it has to do with necessity. The alternative is defeat and subjugation - think Crimea or Georgia.
Our nuclear weapons, like the Russian nuclear weapons, are doomsday weapons that are highly unlikely to ever be used in anger; and if they are, everybody on earth loses the war.
With sufficient conventional strength the tyrants of the world won't take us on - but in our present weakened state none of them are afraid to start whatever they wish to start.
Think of Saddam just prior to the Second Gulf War; he knew that he didn't have the conventional strength to take us on, but he didn't think we had the heart for the fight and that we would fold at the first casualties. He miscalculated; Clinton was no longer the POTUS.
Weakness is provocative to the tyrants of the world, and Obama reeks of weakness and has stripped our country of the military strength required to discourage the tyrants before they even start. As a result it is FAR more likely that we will be thrust into a major war, and on several fronts at once. In the present circumstances we will lose that fight.
Our nuclear weapons, like the Russian nuclear weapons, are doomsday weapons that are highly unlikely to ever be used in anger; and if they are, everybody on earth loses the war.
With sufficient conventional strength the tyrants of the world won't take us on - but in our present weakened state none of them are afraid to start whatever they wish to start.
Think of Saddam just prior to the Second Gulf War; he knew that he didn't have the conventional strength to take us on, but he didn't think we had the heart for the fight and that we would fold at the first casualties. He miscalculated; Clinton was no longer the POTUS.
Weakness is provocative to the tyrants of the world, and Obama reeks of weakness and has stripped our country of the military strength required to discourage the tyrants before they even start. As a result it is FAR more likely that we will be thrust into a major war, and on several fronts at once. In the present circumstances we will lose that fight.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google