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

[King]

that's a Sept.10 mindset. Be careful.

You're right. I felt like this September 10th, 2009 as well.

So, how do we eliminate the budget deficit without cutting defense spending?

I put a government reform bill on individual politics. Check it out it's up for discussion.

So how do you cut 20% off the government budget without touching and even potentially expanding defense spending?  Cutting the President's salary doesn't accomplish anything.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It could be trimmed a fair amount more than that.

[dead0man]

dead0man's job relies on massive military spending and unneeded boondoggles, of course he supports bloating the military budget.

If you want to cut the budget so far that the HQs for (from wiki) space operations (such as military satellite), information operations (such as Information warfare), missile defense, global command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR), global strike and strategic deterrence (the United States nuclear arsenal), and combating weapons of mass destruction....no longer need secure communications with the outside world, then yeah, my job is a boondoggle and pure military waste*.

Feel free to find a post of mine that suggests we should "bloat the military budget" and I'll turn Nebraska Dem red.  Everytime it comes up I suggest we should cut the military budget.  I'm for bringing all the troops home from friendly countries and downsizing the military.



*that's not to say there is no waste.  I see waste all the time and bitch about it constantly, but I'm just a peon without a voice bitching to my cow-orkers who agree with me.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

dead0man's job relies on massive military spending and unneeded boondoggles, of course he supports bloating the military budget.

If you want to cut the budget so far that the HQs for (from wiki) space operations (such as military satellite), information operations (such as Information warfare), missile defense, global command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR), global strike and strategic deterrence (the United States nuclear arsenal), and combating weapons of mass destruction....no longer need secure communications with the outside world, then yeah, my job is a boondoggle and pure military waste*.

Sounds good, cut all that unnecessary crap.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?  And McCain toolishly agrees?

And then they complain about the deficit?

It is hurting our national security. I understand some of the people here who want military cuts, but $1 trillion being cut from our defense is going way too far.

Explain why.

Given how much we spend, I echo Franzl's question to TC.......whose answers I respect.

I understand those who say we're overspending on defense, but I can't support a $1 trillion cut because that's far too extreme. I don't know exactly how much we're spending right now, but I'm certain that $1 trillion represents a very large portion of our defense, and such a large, sudden cut in our defense is too risky.

[King]

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?  And McCain toolishly agrees?

And then they complain about the deficit?

It is hurting our national security. I understand some of the people here who want military cuts, but $1 trillion being cut from our defense is going way too far.

Explain why.

Given how much we spend, I echo Franzl's question to TC.......whose answers I respect.

I understand those who say we're overspending on defense, but I can't support a $1 trillion cut because that's far too extreme. I don't know exactly how much we're spending right now, but I'm certain that $1 trillion represents a very large portion of our defense, and such a large, sudden cut in our defense is too risky.

The article that started this thread says we'll spend about $650 billion this year.   Assuming it doesn't increase yearly (which it does, but let's just say that it doesn't), that's $6.5 trillion a decade.  So $1 trillion in cuts is 15%.

Not too much IMO.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?  And McCain toolishly agrees?

And then they complain about the deficit?

It is hurting our national security. I understand some of the people here who want military cuts, but $1 trillion being cut from our defense is going way too far.

Explain why.

Given how much we spend, I echo Franzl's question to TC.......whose answers I respect.

I understand those who say we're overspending on defense, but I can't support a $1 trillion cut because that's far too extreme. I don't know exactly how much we're spending right now, but I'm certain that $1 trillion represents a very large portion of our defense, and such a large, sudden cut in our defense is too risky.

The article that started this thread says we'll spend about $650 billion this year.   Assuming it doesn't increase yearly (which it does, but let's just say that it doesn't), that's $6.5 trillion a decade.  So $1 trillion in cuts is 15%.

Not too much IMO.

Thank you. So, it's actually cutting $100 billion from the $650 billion annual budget?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The defense budget should be at least halved.

[Zarn]

The defense budget should be at least halved.

Or we can eliminate useless programs like social security and just cut out unnecessary defense measures. If you want to go that far, why not go after some of the social programs?

[Franzl]

The defense budget should be at least halved.

Or we can eliminate useless programs like social security and just cut out unnecessary defense measures. If you want to go that far, why not go after some of the social programs?

You don't think Social Security serves a somewhat better purpose than most of our defense budget?

[Zarn]

The defense budget should be at least halved.

Or we can eliminate useless programs like social security and just cut out unnecessary defense measures. If you want to go that far, why not go after some of the social programs?

You don't think Social Security serves a somewhat better purpose than most of our defense budget?

No, note I said 'useless.' The military has it's uses.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And Social Security doesn't have uses?

[Derek]

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?

Now I hate Hannity as much as anybody but how is it NOT hurting our national security to have less war fighting capabilities?  Yeah, it might not ever come up, but having fewer F35s is worse than having more.  It's like leaving a window open unlocked somewhere in your house, sure your house still probably won't be broken into, but you are less secure.

I am still hoping for the day that the military will start producing mechs.

Sounds impractical...

Because it is.  Bipedal robots suck.  You either need an ass ton of feet/legs or tracks/tires.  Tracks or tires are much cheaper and easier to design and maintain.

It is hurting our security. We won't be able to afford missiles or defense systems anymore and Al-Qaida will crash a plane into the Sears Tower.

[King]

It is hurting our security. We won't be able to afford missiles or defense systems anymore and Al-Qaida will crash a plane into the Sears Tower.

So $550 bil isn't enough to stop Al-Qaeda but $650 bil--$100 of that deemed by the Defense Department themselves to useless and wasteful--is?
s

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?  And McCain toolishly agrees?

And then they complain about the deficit?

It is hurting our national security. I understand some of the people here who want military cuts, but $1 trillion being cut from our defense is going way too far.

Explain why.

Given how much we spend, I echo Franzl's question to TC.......whose answers I respect.

I understand those who say we're overspending on defense, but I can't support a $1 trillion cut because that's far too extreme. I don't know exactly how much we're spending right now, but I'm certain that $1 trillion represents a very large portion of our defense, and such a large, sudden cut in our defense is too risky.

The article that started this thread says we'll spend about $650 billion this year.   Assuming it doesn't increase yearly (which it does, but let's just say that it doesn't), that's $6.5 trillion a decade.  So $1 trillion in cuts is 15%.

Not too much IMO.

Thank you. So, it's actually cutting $100 billion from the $650 billion annual budget?

On average.  I imagine the amount cut would increase yearly to fit the budget's yearly increase (i.e. $35 billion cut this year, $45 bil cut next year, $350 bil cut in the final year, etc)

[Zarn]

And Social Security doesn't have uses?

No, it doesn't help the country at all.

[King]

And Social Security doesn't have uses?

No, it doesn't help the country at all.

When it wasn't going bankrupt due to three decades of mismanagement, it boosted worker morale by guaranteeing the promise of a retirement in the future of even the poorest Americans.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

It is hurting our security. We won't be able to afford missiles or defense systems anymore and Al-Qaida will crash a plane into the Sears Tower.

So $550 bil isn't enough to stop Al-Qaeda but $650 bil--$100 of that deemed by the Defense Department themselves to useless and wasteful--is?
s

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?  And McCain toolishly agrees?

And then they complain about the deficit?

It is hurting our national security. I understand some of the people here who want military cuts, but $1 trillion being cut from our defense is going way too far.

Explain why.

Given how much we spend, I echo Franzl's question to TC.......whose answers I respect.

I understand those who say we're overspending on defense, but I can't support a $1 trillion cut because that's far too extreme. I don't know exactly how much we're spending right now, but I'm certain that $1 trillion represents a very large portion of our defense, and such a large, sudden cut in our defense is too risky.

The article that started this thread says we'll spend about $650 billion this year.   Assuming it doesn't increase yearly (which it does, but let's just say that it doesn't), that's $6.5 trillion a decade.  So $1 trillion in cuts is 15%.

Not too much IMO.

Thank you. So, it's actually cutting $100 billion from the $650 billion annual budget?

On average.  I imagine the amount cut would increase yearly to fit the budget's yearly increase (i.e. $35 billion cut this year, $45 bil cut next year, $350 bil cut in the final year, etc)

Oh, ok.

The defense budget should be at least halved.

Absolutely not! Now, that's going too far.

[President Mitt]

The defense budget should be at least halved.

At the very least.

[Zarn]

And Social Security doesn't have uses?

No, it doesn't help the country at all.

When it wasn't going bankrupt due to three decades of mismanagement, it boosted worker morale by guaranteeing the promise of a retirement in the future of even the poorest Americans.

It did not boost morale. People look forward to retiring, not getting social security. Also, coming out of a depression into a massive boom helps. Social Security is a massive budget drain. If morale is your reasoning, then you should not approve of it, either. This is especially since the budget itself was misused.

[Storebought]

Old thread, but, if true, then expect US creditors to start calling in their loans over the next 10 years.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It is hurting our security. We won't be able to afford missiles or defense systems anymore and Al-Qaida will crash a plane into the Sears Tower.

So $550 bil isn't enough to stop Al-Qaeda but $650 bil--$100 of that deemed by the Defense Department themselves to useless and wasteful--is?
s

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?  And McCain toolishly agrees?

And then they complain about the deficit?

It is hurting our national security. I understand some of the people here who want military cuts, but $1 trillion being cut from our defense is going way too far.

Explain why.

Given how much we spend, I echo Franzl's question to TC.......whose answers I respect.

I understand those who say we're overspending on defense, but I can't support a $1 trillion cut because that's far too extreme. I don't know exactly how much we're spending right now, but I'm certain that $1 trillion represents a very large portion of our defense, and such a large, sudden cut in our defense is too risky.

The article that started this thread says we'll spend about $650 billion this year.   Assuming it doesn't increase yearly (which it does, but let's just say that it doesn't), that's $6.5 trillion a decade.  So $1 trillion in cuts is 15%.

Not too much IMO.

Thank you. So, it's actually cutting $100 billion from the $650 billion annual budget?

On average.  I imagine the amount cut would increase yearly to fit the budget's yearly increase (i.e. $35 billion cut this year, $45 bil cut next year, $350 bil cut in the final year, etc)

Oh, ok.

The defense budget should be at least halved.

Absolutely not! Now, that's going too far.

That's not going anywhere near far enough.

[opebo]

And Social Security doesn't have uses?

No, it doesn't help the country at all.

When it wasn't going bankrupt due to three decades of mismanagement, it boosted worker morale by guaranteeing the promise of a retirement in the future of even the poorest Americans.

Anyone who thinks that Social Security doens't 'help the country' must consider 99% of the population not 'part of the country'. 

In fact a majority of people depend almost entirely on Social Security for survival when they are old, and they would have absoutely no other way to survive if the program were not there. 

In addition to this minor detail of the survivability of 'useless' serfs, there is also the beneficial Keynesian economic effect, which benefits even people who matter (the owners), by stabilizing the economy, boosting demand directly, and indirectly boosting demand by increasing a 'sense of security' for serfs throughout life and especially in their last decade or two of earning.

[Democratic Hawk]

How long till Hannity proclaims this is hurting our national security?  And McCain toolishly agrees?

And then they complain about the deficit?

Of course silly! Every self-respecting conservative knows that the main deficit culprits are earmarks and welfare queeens.

... driving around in cadillacs no doubt

[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

[Franzl]

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?