How do you feel about military spending?

SGT Darryl Allen — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:07 -0400

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/

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go

In fiscal year 2014, the federal government will spend around $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up a considerable chunk - around 22 percent - of the US. economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That means that federal government spending makes up a sizable share of all money spent in the United States each year. So, where does all that money go?

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Sep 11 at 2015 9:50 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:50:28 -0400

We need to provide our men and women with the best equipment possible to insure their safety and success of the mission.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 11 at 2015 10:00 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:00:56 -0400

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.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 11:19 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:19:27 -0400

Military spending is OK where it is. It could go up, it could go down. Other nations spend more (%-wise) but many others also spend a whole lot less. It's hard to compare to other nations since our military and our world role is different.

I think we need to get federal spending in check in general and stop doing "blanket" cuts to try to save money. A lot of times all this does is defer expenditures and actually increase the amount whatever that item is will end up costing in the future. Budget cuts can't be straight across nor spur of the moment and still be effective.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 11 at 2015 11:22 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:22:00 -0400

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.

Response by SGT John Rauch made Sep 11 at 2015 12:07 PM

SGT John Rauch — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:07:26 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Sep 11 at 2015 1:09 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:09:09 -0400

Complicated question. I think we spend too much, but not because we have too big of a military.

1. Politicians use the military as ideologically acceptable state welfare, overriding DoD leadership when it comes to cutting projects, cancelling equipment orders or moving installations that would otherwise benefit their state (Here's looking at you, Jordan, Sherrod and Brown).

2. Quality vs. Price - The lowest bidder is going to cost you more in the long run.

3. We seem to think that we need to be able to solve any problem anywhere at any time with military force. I'm not convinced this is the case. We need to be prepared to deal with existential threats immediately, but distant or indirect threats should not be shouldered primarily by us.

4. Waste, fraud and abuse...How much did we spend on projects in Afghanistan that either never happened, were never used or were not a good idea to begin with?

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Sep 11 at 2015 1:10 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:10:07 -0400

I believe it in moderation. Put it where it's needed.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 11 at 2015 3:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:11:08 -0400

Spending on new weapons, planes, equipment, ships, and vehicles is a crap shoot as we don't know what the next war will be like.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Sep 11 at 2015 5:26 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:26:00 -0400

None of the above. I think we need to spend SMARTER not necessarily more or less.

For instance I watched a program on body armor and the traitor that delivered inferior product, overcharged, and then asked for the acceptable standards to be reduced... not acceptable whatsoever.

So where do we get the most "bang for the buck" (pun intended)?

First priority is to protect the troops in my opinion... second is to end the battle quickly and decisively. I don't think either is a problem with training or equipment, I think it's a problem with tactics.

I'm not advocating genocide or the killing of non-combatants, but I am in favor of a "scorched earth" policy. The ten years following Desert Storm we the United States followed a policy that IMO led to the creation of an anti-American mentality in Iraq among that unnecessarily cost many soldiers lives and health. It most likely could have been avoided by lending air support to the Kurdish uprising in 1993.

This is a repeat of the mistake made in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs invasion. IMO

So it bears the question when will we learn? The United States has never lost a conflict when we went all in and "let slip the dogs of war"... but every time we start thinking "rules of engagement" and "politically correct war" we end up with egg on our face, war crimes, and paying a heavy toll in world opinion.

Desert Storm is seen as a success because it was quick and decisive. I don't think we need a military the size of the next eight countries combined to achieve that objective.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Sep 11 at 2015 6:08 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:08:46 -0400

In short--We can spend it now on equipment or wish we did when we lose everything---it's not a safe world we live in---it's becoming less safe everyday.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 3 at 2016 2:40 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:40:36 -0500

None of the above. How about a choice for "Let's spend it more wisely" We could probably reduce military spending somewhat and still offer better pay and benefits as well as develop better equipment and training if we just eliminated all of the waste. Keep in mind that military spending isn't what's putting our nation's economy in trouble. Compared to entitlement spending (and Social Security is not an entitlement - it's a benefit that beneficiaries paid for. It's not their fault that the government squandered the money on other things)... Again, compared to entitlement spending, military spending is merely a drop in the fiscal bucket.