US defense budget could be trimmed by 1 trillion $ over the next 10 years

[Vepres]

Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

I now proclaim you an honorary Yoda!

[TheGreatOne]

Isnt' the entire military budget just over 1 trillion dollars? 

[Vepres]

Isnt' the entire military budget just over 1 trillion dollars? 

$1 trillion over ten years essentially means the yearly military budget would be, on average, $100 billion less than today.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'd probably oppose this being big on defense. Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

You seriously support keeping defense spending at its current level....really?

Aye if it meant jobs, jobs, jobs. Unemployment is high enough as it is and it depresses me unutterably

Dave, that's a lot of money spent per job.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd probably oppose this being big on defense. Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

You seriously support keeping defense spending at its current level....really?

Aye if it meant jobs, jobs, jobs. Unemployment is high enough as it is and it depresses me unutterably

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'd probably oppose this being big on defense. Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

You seriously support keeping defense spending at its current level....really?

Aye if it meant jobs, jobs, jobs. Unemployment is high enough as it is and it depresses me unutterably

Dave, that's a lot of money spent per job.

Perhaps when our businesses start fulfilling their moral obligations to provide us work our government's may not need to spend so much. It's taking all my inner strength not to become some "lefty" agitating for protectionist populism and limits on the free movement of capital

And the G20 was waste of ruddy time. At a time when its vital we stimulate demand for goods and services, and a new consensus is needed, they agree to all go off and pursue their own economic policies. The Crash came, we were told to spend, spend, spend and now its cut, cut, cut

There has got to be some place better than this because Earth is Hell

War and militarism are the absolute worst misallocations of resources imaginable.

Building bombs or blowing people up are not real jobs; they are parasitic, destructive activities.

[Free Palestine]

I'd probably oppose this being big on defense. Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

Instead of raising taxes we could easily cut unnecessary "defense" spending.  Close all our bases in Europe at the very least and cut aid.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd probably oppose this being big on defense. Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

You seriously support keeping defense spending at its current level....really?

Aye if it meant jobs, jobs, jobs. Unemployment is high enough as it is and it depresses me unutterably

Dave, that's a lot of money spent per job.

Perhaps when our businesses start fulfilling their moral obligations to provide us work our government's may not need to spend so much. It's taking all my inner strength not to become some "lefty" agitating for protectionist populism and limits on the free movement of capital

And the G20 was waste of ruddy time. At a time when its vital we stimulate demand for goods and services, and a new consensus is needed, they agree to all go off and pursue their own economic policies. The Crash came, we were told to spend, spend, spend and now its cut, cut, cut

There has got to be some place better than this because Earth is Hell

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd probably oppose this being big on defense. Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

Instead of raising taxes we could easily cut unnecessary "defense" spending.  Close all our bases in Europe at the very least and cut aid.

Right now, I have never felt more fearful that the worst (Depression) has been far from averted. Livelihoods are at stake, lives are at risk

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Dave, what moral obligation do I have to hire someone if I can't afford to hire them, or simply don't want to fill  the position to save money?

[Free Palestine]

I'd probably oppose this being big on defense. Tackle the deficit by, modestly, raising taxes on the primary beneficiaries of that supply-side nonsense, I would

Instead of raising taxes we could easily cut unnecessary "defense" spending.  Close all our bases in Europe at the very least and cut aid.

Right now, I have never felt more fearful that the worst (Depression) has been far from averted. Livelihoods are at stake, lives are at risk

Wasting billions on our bloated "defense" budget and foreign wars of intervention isn't going to do anything to avert it.

[Democratic Hawk]

Dave, what moral obligation do I have to hire someone if I can't afford to hire them, or simply don't want to fill  the position to save money?

I just wish Western businesses were doing more to create jobs for Western people because I don't think government spending alone can secure the recovery

I maxed out on credit cards doing my bit - and I don't see a lot of light at the end of the tunnel. I've never felt to 'powerless'. I can't do anymore

[Associate Justice PiT]

     $100 billion per year is far too small a cut to military spending. I would suggest cutting $300 billion per year at minimum. No other country spends more than a small fraction of what we do, yet they manage to get by fine.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     $100 billion per year is far too small a cut to military spending. I would suggest cutting $300 billion per year at minimum. No other country spends more than a small fraction of what we do, yet they manage to get by fine.

And my point to Dave is, the cost to the Government for the unemployed workers that will come with those cuts is minimal compared to $300B, right, PiT?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     $100 billion per year is far too small a cut to military spending. I would suggest cutting $300 billion per year at minimum. No other country spends more than a small fraction of what we do, yet they manage to get by fine.

And my point to Dave is, the cost to the Government for the unemployed workers that will come with those cuts is minimal compared to $300B, right, PiT?

     I imagine so. Much of our military budget is spent on things like R&D or production. I remember reading that a single B-2 Bomber costs $1.1 billion to build. Granted we obviously aren't building them by the hundreds, but it still really makes you think.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     $100 billion per year is far too small a cut to military spending. I would suggest cutting $300 billion per year at minimum. No other country spends more than a small fraction of what we do, yet they manage to get by fine.

And my point to Dave is, the cost to the Government for the unemployed workers that will come with those cuts is minimal compared to $300B, right, PiT?

    I imagine so. Much of our military budget is spent on things like R&D or production. I remember reading that a single B-2 Bomber costs $1.1 billion to build. Granted we obviously aren't building them by the hundreds, but it still really makes you think.

I don't know what the magic number is to cut spending by and still be safe, but lord in heaven it should be even more than the numbers we're bandying about.

[Democratic Hawk]

    $100 billion per year is far too small a cut to military spending. I would suggest cutting $300 billion per year at minimum. No other country spends more than a small fraction of what we do, yet they manage to get by fine.

And my point to Dave is, the cost to the Government for the unemployed workers that will come with those cuts is minimal compared to $300B, right, PiT?

Aye, its cheaper to keep folks on welfare. That's a Conservative trick too. Work is much more positive for the human psyche. I'd take earning a living wage over existing on welfare

[Associate Justice PiT]

     $100 billion per year is far too small a cut to military spending. I would suggest cutting $300 billion per year at minimum. No other country spends more than a small fraction of what we do, yet they manage to get by fine.

And my point to Dave is, the cost to the Government for the unemployed workers that will come with those cuts is minimal compared to $300B, right, PiT?

Aye, its cheaper to keep folks on welfare. That's a Conservative trick too. Work is much more positive for the human psyche. I'd take earning a living wage over existing on welfare

     As would I, but how positive is it to the psyche to perform a job whose fruit will either be wasted (should we not go to war) or else will cause the deaths of thousands or even millions (should we go to war)? I would think that these people can be moved to some other public sector job that will also bring them the fulfillment of a living wage without the massive cost (both economic & potentially human) of the military industrial complex.

[The Mikado]

Can I be pardoned for repeating a fact that literally everyone knows, but our friend Dave Hawk needs to hear it:

Three quarters of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and Defense.  If you're into fiscal responsibility, one of those must be cut. It's pure sophistry to support keeping all of these at their current levels and still say you're a fiscal conservative or budget hawk. 

[Free Palestine]

Dave, what moral obligation do I have to hire someone if I can't afford to hire them, or simply don't want to fill  the position to save money?

I just wish Western businesses were doing more to create jobs for Western people because I don't think government spending alone can secure the recovery

I maxed out on credit cards doing my bit - and I don't see a lot of light at the end of the tunnel. I've never felt to 'powerless'. I can't do anymore

Using that same reasoning, wouldn't it make sense to stop spending so much money on foreign countries?

[Derek]

Dave, what moral obligation do I have to hire someone if I can't afford to hire them, or simply don't want to fill  the position to save money?

I just wish Western businesses were doing more to create jobs for Western people because I don't think government spending alone can secure the recovery

I maxed out on credit cards doing my bit - and I don't see a lot of light at the end of the tunnel. I've never felt to 'powerless'. I can't do anymore

Lol you rely on the government to take care of the problems facing this country.

[phk]

There should be a few base withdrawals in select countries.

[Democratic Hawk]

Can I be pardoned for repeating a fact that literally everyone knows, but our friend Dave Hawk needs to hear it:

Three quarters of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and Defense.  If you're into fiscal responsibility, one of those must be cut. It's pure sophistry to support keeping all of these at their current levels and still say you're a fiscal conservative or budget hawk. 

Right now, I'm very, very, very wary about premature cuts in spending even I do consider good government to be solvent government. Not always possible. I'm pragmatic enough to get that. I'm more a defense 'hawk'

[Derek]

I'm proud to support a massive defense budget.

[Free Palestine]

I'm proud to support a massive defense budget.

Lulz