What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Which Military Budget Do You Prefer?

Which Military Budget Proposal Do You Endorse?

  • Post-Cold War Scale Down to $425-50 billion/yr

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • Sequestration Cuts to $500ish billion/yr

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Nail-Trimming, Levelling Off, Status Quo of $550-75 billion/yr

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Ramp-Up Immediately to $750-800 billion/yr

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13

Interpol

Radical Centrist
Joined
Apr 14, 2012
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
U.S.
Below is a graph that shows where the defense budget will go depending on the variables currently in play.

Note: The two wars are separate from this chart through much of the last decade due to the fact that "emergency" spending bills by President Bush covered those conflicts.

I'm interested in hearing from you. If you were a politician in Washington who got to vote on the defense budget, which would you vote for and why? Where would you take it?

There's a Post Cold War scale down that would take things down to about $425 billion a year.

If the gov't can't get its shit together by New Year's Day, than we'll see Sequestration measures that bring it down to about $500.

There's Obama's plan, which basically cuts the defense budget's nails, leveling things off minus the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq, at about $550 or so billion. Status quo.

And finally, there is Gov. Romney's plan, which would dramatically increase the defense budget by over $200 billion a year to a total of $800 billion/yr through his first term, and then approaching $900 billion/yr by the year 2020.

Which budget would you endorse and why? And if you decide to pick the Ramp-Up choice, please talk about how the country could pay for such an escalation.

I'll post this and then figure out my pick in a few minutes and post about it.

s4a0iu.jpg
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
16
Reaction score
6
Points
1
Location
california
Actually I am quite ambivalent about the military. There is NO WAY any serious scaling back is going to happen, and it would not be good for the economy if it did. And... If it were up to me, I'd make 1-2 years of military service (substitutable with service projects such as Teach for America, Peace Corps, medical service in poor areas, Americorps, etc) OBLIGATORY for everyone, man and woman. That would cost a lot of money;-)
 
OP
Interpol

Interpol

Radical Centrist
Joined
Apr 14, 2012
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
U.S.
I took a tricky vote. I went with Sequestration. I don't agree with all the measures in the current one that is scheduled to kick in in the New Year if Congress doesn't get its act together; I like the number, though, as an eventual target we should level down to by 2020.

Put half the savings towards the debt and the other half to veteran's needs such as health care, social security, and jobs.

But even if we strike the balance that the President's plan offers, I could accept that.
 

Oldguy

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
4,328
Reaction score
593
Points
48
Location
Texas
I prefer the military budget which best meets our needs...and I don't give a damn who proposes it.
 

Political Junky

Gold Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
25,793
Reaction score
3,984
Points
280
Below is a graph that shows where the defense budget will go depending on the variables currently in play.

Note: The two wars are separate from this chart through much of the last decade due to the fact that "emergency" spending bills by President Bush covered those conflicts.

I'm interested in hearing from you. If you were a politician in Washington who got to vote on the defense budget, which would you vote for and why? Where would you take it?

There's a Post Cold War scale down that would take things down to about $425 billion a year.

If the gov't can't get its shit together by New Year's Day, than we'll see Sequestration measures that bring it down to about $500.

There's Obama's plan, which basically cuts the defense budget's nails, leveling things off minus the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq, at about $550 or so billion. Status quo.

And finally, there is Gov. Romney's plan, which would dramatically increase the defense budget by over $200 billion a year to a total of $800 billion/yr through his first term, and then approaching $900 billion/yr by the year 2020.

Which budget would you endorse and why? And if you decide to pick the Ramp-Up choice, please talk about how the country could pay for such an escalation.

I'll post this and then figure out my pick in a few minutes and post about it.

s4a0iu.jpg
How does Willard plan to pay for the increased military spending, after he cuts $5 Trillion in taxes?
It didn't work for Bush, Jr., what makes anyone think it'll work now?
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,585
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Granny says...

... the one dat gives us plenty of bunker busters to bomb the schlitz outta Iran...

... an' plenty of rockets an' missiles...

... to fling at Russia an' China when dey come to Iran's rescue.
:cool:
 
OP
Interpol

Interpol

Radical Centrist
Joined
Apr 14, 2012
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
495
Points
210
Location
U.S.
Granny says...

... the one dat gives us plenty of bunker busters to bomb the schlitz outta Iran...

... an' plenty of rockets an' missiles...

... to fling at Russia an' China when dey come to Iran's rescue.
:cool:

So you want to increase the deficit. Cool. Mitt Romney's your guy.
 

DiamondDave

Army Vet
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
18,169
Reaction score
2,824
Points
183
Location
MD, on the Potomac River
One where we stay at the forefront having things before they are needed... auditing all spending and projects to see what can be cut out that is behind, inept, improper, etc
 

Dr.Traveler

Mathematician
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
652
Points
190
I'd like to see the deficit and debt addressed, and I don't see that as possible if you don't actually cut military spending along with the other government programs. It definitely won't happen under a ramp up of spending.

I'd be happy with sufficient spending to:
1. Fund special forces and drone technology, as these appear to be the most effective military options against non-state actors.
2. Fund the Navy sufficiently to protect American boats abroad and the American coast.
3. Fund the Marines sufficiently to act as an expeditionary force in the event of actual war scenario
4. Fund the Army sufficiently to maintain an officer core, equipment hubs, and armored divisions in the event of an actual war. Reduce the standing rank and file soldier numbers
5. Fund the Air Force enough to protect American airspace.
6. Fund DARPA enough to develop protection against missile, cyberspace, and biological attack.

Past that, I'd like to see a massive drawdown. The standing army and oversea bases are killing us. Let's get down to what is absolutely necessary.
 

Mad Scientist

Feels Good!
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
24,196
Reaction score
5,426
Points
270
I prefer the military budget which best meets our needs...and I don't give a damn who proposes it.
So what would that be?
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
6,510
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
We have a war we need to win.

Can't make cuts during a war, it's just ignorant.

however

If you can find unneeded things like, NATO and the UN, we can cut funding to those. Plus there's plenty of overseas bases and ports that don't need to be used anymore.
 

JWBooth

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
11,284
Reaction score
3,498
Points
325
Location
Texas Republic
At this point, sequestration.

What I'd rather see is a big time break down of the DOD budget and start looking at specifics and when done taking a meat axe at some of that, determine was the totals are and go from there.
 

Conservative

Type 40
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
17,082
Reaction score
2,053
Points
48
Location
Pennsylvania
How does Willard plan to pay for the increased military spending, after he cuts $5 Trillion in taxes?
It didn't work for Bush, Jr., what makes anyone think it'll work now?

there is no 5 trillion tax cut under Romney. You're spewing libtard talking points (lies) again.
 

Desperado

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
34,880
Reaction score
9,041
Points
1,340
We have a war we need to win.
Can't make cuts during a war, it's just ignorant.

If you are talking about Afghanistan define a win there?
Pulling out our troops and bringing them home would be considered a win.


however
If you can find unneeded things like, NATO and the UN, we can cut funding to those. Plus there's plenty of overseas bases and ports that don't need to be used anymore.

Agreed, it is about time we pulled out troops out of Germany, Japan and Korea.
That would save quite a bit of money.

But seriously when your military spending more than the next 20 countries combined, you can afford to make some serious cuts to that budget.
 

Dissent

Rookie
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
3,131
Reaction score
213
Points
0
Location
FEMA region 4
We have a war we need to win.

Can't make cuts during a war, it's just ignorant.

however

If you can find unneeded things like, NATO and the UN, we can cut funding to those. Plus there's plenty of overseas bases and ports that don't need to be used anymore.

What war? War was never declared in either Afghanistan or Iraq so....we need to leave NATO and the UN,shut down ALL bases overseas and just come home.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
80,463
Reaction score
20,480
Points
2,180
I prefer one that gets rid of the branches and converts us to a single military entity. Do we really need all four branches to have air power? No. Just call it the military and be done with it.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,157
Reaction score
2,600
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
There is NO WAY any serious scaling back is going to happen, and it would not be good for the economy if it did.
So what are you saying? That our economy is dependent on "war"? For Americans to have jobs, we have to be in a constant state of war? Our foreign policy becomes a carrier group?

The economy would be a lot better if we weren't spending over $4 trillion dollars in other country's just to keep a military presence there. How does our military protect this country, when they're not physically in the country they're defending?

I fail to see how paying the Taliban to guard our convoy's to remote outposts, just so we can deliver gas to troops stationed there at $15/gal, can help our economy here? How does funding green-on-blue killings, help the economy in this country? How is allowing contractors to reap billions of tax payer dollars for un-finished re-construction projects, helping this country's economy? And how is building other country's infrastructure, while ours is falling apart, helping this economy?

We need to cut that fuckin' defense budget in half, end these bullshit wars and bring all these troops home to their families. And anyone thinking we should keep being the big bully on the block, can go fuck themselves!
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
49,868
Reaction score
11,798
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
I prefer one that gets rid of the branches and converts us to a single military entity. Do we really need all four branches to have air power? No. Just call it the military and be done with it.

Canada tried that it doesn't work.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top