Republicans don't want to cut the Defense budget

[Billo_Really]

It's a bit hard when all these republicans are teaming up on me haha

Even when you add them all up, they can't make a lucid point.

 

[Billo_Really]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPZb9J2_lk&feature=player_embedded]Military spending disaster - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Military spending disaster - YouTube

They will keep denying or change the topic, amnesty international posted our spending compared to others they have a legit chart

 

[Claudette]

I'm sure there are loads of things that can be cut in defense without harming our men and women in the field.

Everything should be on the table for cutting. Everything.

 

[editec]

If the automatic cuts happen the DoD is going to experience major cuts.

I do find it ironic that the military budget is probably one of the most effective ways the FEDs can pump money directly into this economy.

The Dod budget is one of the best KEYNESIAN economic tools this nation has.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I do find it ironic that the military budget is probably one of the most effective ways the FEDs can pump money directly into this economy.

There is an ROI on a need enumerated to the United States under the Constitution with defense.

Not so much on a EBT card to buy a tattoo.

 

[Care4all]

If the automatic cuts happen the DoD is going to experience major cuts.

I do find it ironic that the military budget is probably one of the most effective ways the FEDs can pump money directly into this economy.

The Dod budget is one of the best KEYNESIAN economic tools this nation has.

It used to be and still is with keeping people in this country employed, but the money spent these days on Defense is spent in the trillions(Iraq/Afghanistan etc), in other countries and even manufactured overseas in some cases.

 

[dblack]

The GOP thinks non-stop warmongering from the chickenhawks to bankroll the snot out of their weapons contractor cronies at the expensive of the taxpayer, american lives, and sending the economy into the shitter is the answer to everything.

Libertarians as well as the democrats stand behind the constitution to defend the nation. It's not our job to start wars overseas and police the world.

This is another perfect example of how the libertarians and democrats support the constitution, where they GOP thugs could care less.

Hehe.... well, that's a little hard to swallow. It's not like Obama has made any radical changes in our foreign policy. If and when Democrats want to court the libertarian vote and reclaim ideological liberalism, I'll welcome it. They haven't yet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I do find it ironic that the military budget is probably one of the most effective ways the FEDs can pump money directly into this economy.

There is an ROI on a need enumerated to the United States under the Constitution with defense.

Not so much on a EBT card to buy a tattoo.

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much must be spent on defense.

 

[Dissent]

Typical idiot chart.

China is full of shit with their numbers since they are covering up what they actually spend on defense.

As for the US compared to the rest of the world, World War II woke the US up to the FACT that we have to be the big dog on the planet or else millions of people die and the future of the US is put in danger.

Now go fuck yourself.

Your pretty good at shit talking but not much else.

 

[Katzndogz]

The left sees national defense the same way they see self defense.

Unnecessary.

 

[eflatminor]

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much must be spent on defense.

Now you care what is and what isn't in the Constitution?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Let's get this thread up again I like seeing this discussion it will be interesting

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much must be spent on defense.

Now you care what is and what isn't in the Constitution?

When didn't I?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You cannot balance the budget without either raising taxes or cutting spending that includes cutting defense.

It is mathematically/politically impossible.

Anyone who argues for keeping defense and taxes where they are, or worse yet, argues for cutting taxes and increasing defense spending,

is arguing for increasing the deficit.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

You cannot balance the budget without either raising taxes or cutting spending that includes cutting defense.

It is mathematically/politically impossible.

Anyone who argues for keeping defense and taxes where they are, or worse yet, argues for cutting taxes and increasing defense spending,

is arguing for increasing the deficit.

Very good point

 

[eflatminor]

You cannot balance the budget without either raising taxes or cutting spending that includes cutting defense.

While I support the idea of cutting defense spending, you are incorrect about that being required to balance the budget. Defense makes up about 20% of federal spending. 61% of the federal budget is spent on SS, Medicare, Medicade, education, transportation, research and other safety net programs. I'd argue all of those programs are for states to consider, not the federal government. Those enumerated powers and all...

Anyone who argues for keeping defense and taxes where they are, or worse yet, argues for cutting taxes and increasing defense spending, is arguing for increasing the deficit.

Not necessarily so. As we've argued on this board many times, nobody really knows what will happen to revenues following an increase or decrease in tax rates. We have cut rates in the past and saw an increase in revenue...other times, we've seen the opposite. There are many factors that determine the amount of revenue realized, not just rates.

 

[Care4all]

You cannot balance the budget without either raising taxes or cutting spending that includes cutting defense.

While I support the idea of cutting defense spending, you are incorrect about that being required to balance the budget. Defense makes up about 20% of federal spending. 61% of the federal budget is spent on SS, Medicare, Medicade, education, transportation, research and other safety net programs. I'd argue all of those programs are for states to consider, not the federal government. Those enumerated powers and all...

Anyone who argues for keeping defense and taxes where they are, or worse yet, argues for cutting taxes and increasing defense spending, is arguing for increasing the deficit.

Not necessarily so. As we've argued on this board many times, nobody really knows what will happen to revenues following an increase or decrease in tax rates. We have cut rates in the past and saw an increase in revenue...other times, we've seen the opposite. There are many factors that determine the amount of revenue realized, not just rates.

You do know that social security was never in the federal budget until pres johnson put it in there...and do you know why he put it in the budget and did not keep it in the separate account that it once had? He added it to the budget so he COULD MASK THE PERCENTAGE OF discretionary money that was being used on Defense...he didn't want the public to know the true percentage of our income tax monies that was being used on defense, the vietnam war.

social security is not paid for with income tax monies and should not be in the budget, as was the case before Johnson...and if you look at what the federal gvt spends in discretionary income tax monies on.... almost 90% is the defense budget.

 

[Care4all]

surely the republicans and democrats can agree that we need to cut the defense budget....there is plenty of waste to be cut, keeping us still way ahead of all other nations

 

[BecauseIKnow]

surely the republicans and democrats can agree that we need to cut the defense budget....there is plenty of waste to be cut, keeping us still way ahead of all other nations

How are republicans gonna agree? They are strongly opposed to it