Another way to look at cost of US military

[Lucky... 0]

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Itemized:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Pie chart:

http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png


So 44% of budget goes to military past and present. I imiagine some of that is debt interest and some military pensions, which some are justified, esp WWII debt. But this is ridiculous. We supposedly cheered when Communism fell, will they cheer when we fall? Will China keep lending us billions when we just use it for the military so we can have an upper hand on them? There is no good outcome if we don't cut that number in half.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Will China keep lending us billions when we just use it for the military so we can have an upper hand on them?

Our military isn't going to do much good if they decide they want to destroy the dollar.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Will China keep lending us billions when we just use it for the military so we can have an upper hand on them?

Our military isn't going to do much good if they decide they want to destroy the dollar.

Uh, they haven't destroyed the dollar, Reagan and GWB pretty much did that by themselves.

If fact, the only reason China doesn't pull out of lending us miney is that that would destroy our dollar and our products would then compete with theirs. So they're in a tougher spot than us.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Actually devaluing the dollar may hurt initially, but would be of some benefit to us.

It would make our money and properties less desirable to other nations, it would help to end foreign banks intrusion into our lending markets.

[Misternatural 0]

>it would help to end foreign banks intrusion into our lending markets.

you do know that our financial system infiltrates just about everywhere else in the world.

I wish you could relax with the xenophobia sometimes, we are heading toward a more globalized economy that's the fact...as long as it is a carefully monitored transition to filter out destructive or extremist agendas it should stabilize the world politically over time. don't worry you don't have to learn to speak Esperanto.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[kbordson 8]

But how and what do you cut?

Decrease the fighting force - unemployment.

Close bases? Then Rapid City will loose a lot as will many other small cities near military bases.

Decrease the production of the fighters/bombers - government bailout for Lockheed?

Decrease the production of small arms? what about Remington, Colt? And what about now not having supplies for the forces currently fighting?

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

But how and what do you cut?

GWHB and Clinton did it? They pulled it off and it was a good thing. I'm sure bases like my old base, KI Sawyer in the UP of Michigan will hurt Gwinn, Michigan and Marquette, but the need isn't there.

Quote

Close bases? Then Rapid City will loose a lot as will many other small cities near military bases.

I love RC, I was there in 88 for Rockwell on the B-1. So we keep spanking the debt to provide a military that is unneeded? And you call welfare to the poor, sucking the nipple? You've just defended corporate/gov welfare via the military.

Quote

Decrease the production of the fighters/bombers - government bailout for Lockheed?

Nah, when have we ever bailed out a miliary contractor?

Quote

Decrease the production of small arms? what about Remington, Colt? And what about now not having supplies for the forces currently fighting?

Maybe Colt can go back to selling to the public, you recall they quit at GHWB's request. There will be many remaining suppliers for the military.

Quote

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

Make a goal of cutting it at least 25% per Barney Franks. Probably a good idea to work slowly so there isn't a big reverberation. Just layout a map of priority based upon venue and type of the base's mission. Then draw a line and cut all below that. Come back in 4 years and do it again. Just look back at the years 1989 to 2001 and see how the debt was flattened out by 12 years of cutting back.

[kbordson 8]

Again... I'm NOT saying that it shouldn't be cut.

Just how and where. Those details are the the problems.

It's easy to say "let's save money" - but you have to realize that there are intended and unintended consequences to that decision.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Actually devaluing the dollar may hurt initially, but would be of some benefit to us.

It would make our money and properties less desirable to other nations, it would help to end foreign banks intrusion into our lending markets.

No way, Canadians were wanting to come down here to buy stuff when we dropped 10 cents below them.

And as the other poster stated, we ahve fucked a kot of other systems, esp with teh bank failures, I think they may not play with us for a while.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

i would start with overseas bases. there are a hell of a lot of them and i'm sure we could find several that are not necessary.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

i would start with overseas bases. there are a hell of a lot of them and i'm sure we could find several that are not necessary.

Yep, guard our borders, coasts, ports; leave the imperialism for others.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

i would start with overseas bases. there are a hell of a lot of them and i'm sure we could find several that are not necessary.

Yep, guard our borders, coasts, ports; leave the imperialism for others.

We're already skating dangerously close to posse comitatus with the troops at airports - I don't think that one would fly.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I completely agree. The military is TOO BIG. But where and what?

i would start with overseas bases. there are a hell of a lot of them and i'm sure we could find several that are not necessary.

Yep, guard our borders, coasts, ports; leave the imperialism for others.

We're already skating dangerously close to posse comitatus with the troops at airports - I don't think that one would fly.

You can guard airports w/o having 18 yo kids holding AR's at the gate, as it was right after 911. You can have security behind teh scenes monitoring via cameras, TSA screening, etc.

[nanook 1]

I'll be truthful. I could use a break. Hypothetically, if we are to cut the military budget, we should cut it where in areas it can be supplemented by other countrys' militaries taking up some of the slack. A lot of the european govts would have to, on average double, some quadruple, thier military spending. This may have an effect on their Healthcare and definitely will have a major economic impact on them, which means it will have a major impact on us. Haven't figured out if it will be good or bad, but bad for any major country over the long term usually hurts everyone else.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I'll be truthful. I could use a break.

That's something I hear as well and observe analytically too, e.g., internal & external military medicine reports, attrition rates of E-7s and O-3s, etc.

Quote

Hypothetically, if we are to cut the military budget, we should cut it where in areas it can be supplemented by other countrys' militaries taking up some of the slack. A lot of the european govts would have to, on average double, some quadruple, thier military spending. This may have an effect on their Healthcare and definitely will have a major economic impact on them, which means it will have a major impact on us. Haven't figured out if it will be good or bad, but bad for any major country over the long term usually hurts everyone else.

Suspect most of that is valid. The flip side and the politics, which may determine the viability of such a proposal especially under a Democratic administration, is that means that the US would have to be willing to give up some of the tacit (if not statutory) power in NATO, which I'm not sure that the American populace would be willing to accept.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[champu 1]

I worry about small areas that don't have as loud of a voice but actually get their job done. I'm not saying reductions can't or shouldn't be done, but a lot of congress people and senators need to be re-enlightened to the fact that a world exists outside their constituency so we don't end up throwing out the baby and 20% of the bath water in order to claim "victory." Some of the loudest proponents in congress of military cutbacks don't have me convinced that they really share this concern.

Proper staging of reductions has promise.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Again... I'm NOT saying that it shouldn't be cut.

Just how and where. Those details are the the problems.

It's easy to say "let's save money" - but you have to realize that there are intended and unintended consequences to that decision.

I don't see a lot of realistic vigor on your part to cut the military. Kinda like the people saying single payer is bad, but something has to be done, so let's just wait. I read you as saying you want to maintain the military. Cutting bases, cutting troops via attrition w/o replacement, cutting contracts for killing machines.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'll be truthful. I could use a break. Hypothetically, if we are to cut the military budget, we should cut it where in areas it can be supplemented by other countrys' militaries taking up some of the slack. A lot of the european govts would have to, on average double, some quadruple, thier military spending. This may have an effect on their Healthcare and definitely will have a major economic impact on them, which means it will have a major impact on us. Haven't figured out if it will be good or bad, but bad for any major country over the long term usually hurts everyone else.

Other counties could be ok w/o us on their soil. Who wouldn't be? I think you think the US is teh world's savior. I think European countries are just fine and able by themselves.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I worry about small areas that don't have as loud of a voice but actually get their job done. I'm not saying reductions can't or shouldn't be done, but a lot of congress people and senators need to be re-enlightened to the fact that a world exists outside their constituency so we don't end up throwing out the baby and 20% of the bath water in order to claim "victory." Some of the loudest proponents in congress of military cutbacks don't have me convinced that they really share this concern.

Proper staging of reductions has promise.

Definitely stage the reduction, as GHWB and CLintion did. Even GWB closed some bases and realligned. It's time to put Reagan's military model to bed.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Again... I'm NOT saying that it shouldn't be cut.

Just how and where. Those details are the the problems.

It's easy to say "let's save money" - but you have to realize that there are intended and unintended consequences to that decision.

I don't see a lot of realistic vigor on your part to cut the military. Kinda like the people saying single payer is bad, but something has to be done, so let's just wait. I read you as saying you want to maintain the military. Cutting bases, cutting troops via attrition w/o replacement, cutting contracts for killing machines.

Oh. So, I guess that you want me jumping up and down saying "Fire those lazy Army grunts. I don't care about what they do in life. Just as long as they're not a burden to the American people."

Or maybe I should be saying "Fuck Boeing. Who needs airplanes anyway?"

"I read you as saying" means that I'm going to interpret what you so to fit what I want it to say.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

I worry about small areas that don't have as loud of a voice but actually get their job done. I'm not saying reductions can't or shouldn't be done, but a lot of congress people and senators need to be re-enlightened to the fact that a world exists outside their constituency so we don't end up throwing out the baby and 20% of the bath water in order to claim "victory." Some of the loudest proponents in congress of military cutbacks don't have me convinced that they really share this concern.

Proper staging of reductions has promise.

Definitely stage the reduction, as GHWB and CLintion did. Even GWB closed some bases and realligned. It's time to put Reagan's military model to bed.

Bring the troops home from Korea, and leave behind only logistical support to maintain staging areas if we were to return to Europe or other areas. As for the border, this president and those before him (except Eisenhower) does not possess the will to close the border. You cannot defend the United States primarily at the borders. It's called defense in depth, and it will still require a lot of muscle. If you think the Chinese only look at us as consumers, you are mistaken. We are a goal if not a target to the Chinese military. When they have the means to restrict or stop our own commerce, they will do it.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

> When they have the means to restrict or stop our own commerce, they will do it.

How would that benefit them?

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

> When they have the means to restrict or stop our own commerce, they will do it.

How would that benefit them?

It would not benefit them now. At the moment, we are one of their best customers. Edited to add: We are also a great source for Chinese espionage.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>It would not benefit them now.

Correct. Much of their prosperity is built on our markets; much of our prosperity is built on their banks and their industry. It would be foolish of either country to want to destroy the other.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>It would not benefit them now.

Correct. Much of their prosperity is built on our markets; much of our prosperity is built on their banks and their industry. It would be foolish of either country to want to destroy the other.

Any of our prosperity built on their banks and industry left American workers with cheap imports and no jobs. The collection of American debt can't last forever. "One day China will say, 'honey you maxed out your credit cards for the last time'"--( Dental Office Newsweek magazine) Yes, it would be foolish to destroy one another for the moment.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.