Politicians tend to talk about "Government Spending" (and budgets) and "Defense Spending/Budgets" as if they are two mutually exclusive things - or they imply there may be some overlap but they discuss them as fi they are essentially different things.
Of course, in reality, they are one in the same, in fact, Defense is just a large piece of the bigger Government Spending pie.
Defense spending employs military and non-military persons in wide rage of industries and jobs. And any district rich with government defense contracts is going to see a boost to their local economy over all via the multiplier effect-- employees of defense contractors spending their hard earned dollars on goods and services. Which generates more tax revenue. Tax dollars ---> allocated via budging to defense contracts ----> Companies pay employees a salary ----> employes spend money (a portion is taxed)…. all good for that particular district!!
With every defense contract and every active U.S. Military base, you could argue and parse out the benefits and needs of the program, product and personnel. Do we need this? Why? But either way, people are still being employed, put to work, and paid a wage.
Reality: That wage comes from tax revenue. As does the entire defense budget - wages, expenses, overhead, keeping the lights on etc.
Contracts paid to defense contractors -- also tax revenue.
My point - as soon as you acknowledge that some, BUT NOT ALL, defense spending is necessary and good, you must come to the conclusion that defense spending is a government run, tax payer funded jobs program. We call it defense but it's no different than infrastructure, government agencies and services, all Jobs programs (to some degree) that employ people to administer and provide government services.
Cutting defense means cutting jobs, putting people out of work. The only people who get to keep their jobs are military personnel as long as they're willing to go where they are sent.
I guess what I'm getting at is I'd like politicians to ask "How do we pay for this?" more often when discussing military and defense spending. The next most logical question is "Do we need this?" -- but a 'no' answer means putting someone out of work.
One of the biggest blunders of the Bush administration was taking us into two wars just after a massive across the board tax cut. You want to know where the bulk of our debt comes from (despite Fox news brainwashing) look at defense spending.
If we want to keep are military at current levels and maintain 'readiness' etc, inflation on wage increases will all necessitate spending increases, thus tax increases. If taxes don't go up, which they have not for over a decade, then military must be cut, the jobs program must be shrunk and we must make do with having a navy 8 times larger than any other country.
Of course, in reality, they are one in the same, in fact, Defense is just a large piece of the bigger Government Spending pie.
Defense spending employs military and non-military persons in wide rage of industries and jobs. And any district rich with government defense contracts is going to see a boost to their local economy over all via the multiplier effect-- employees of defense contractors spending their hard earned dollars on goods and services. Which generates more tax revenue. Tax dollars ---> allocated via budging to defense contracts ----> Companies pay employees a salary ----> employes spend money (a portion is taxed)…. all good for that particular district!!
With every defense contract and every active U.S. Military base, you could argue and parse out the benefits and needs of the program, product and personnel. Do we need this? Why? But either way, people are still being employed, put to work, and paid a wage.
Reality: That wage comes from tax revenue. As does the entire defense budget - wages, expenses, overhead, keeping the lights on etc.
Contracts paid to defense contractors -- also tax revenue.
My point - as soon as you acknowledge that some, BUT NOT ALL, defense spending is necessary and good, you must come to the conclusion that defense spending is a government run, tax payer funded jobs program. We call it defense but it's no different than infrastructure, government agencies and services, all Jobs programs (to some degree) that employ people to administer and provide government services.
Cutting defense means cutting jobs, putting people out of work. The only people who get to keep their jobs are military personnel as long as they're willing to go where they are sent.
I guess what I'm getting at is I'd like politicians to ask "How do we pay for this?" more often when discussing military and defense spending. The next most logical question is "Do we need this?" -- but a 'no' answer means putting someone out of work.
One of the biggest blunders of the Bush administration was taking us into two wars just after a massive across the board tax cut. You want to know where the bulk of our debt comes from (despite Fox news brainwashing) look at defense spending.
If we want to keep are military at current levels and maintain 'readiness' etc, inflation on wage increases will all necessitate spending increases, thus tax increases. If taxes don't go up, which they have not for over a decade, then military must be cut, the jobs program must be shrunk and we must make do with having a navy 8 times larger than any other country.
