"We must rebuild the military" ... but how do we pay for it???

And you haven't said what qualifies you to decide what level the armed forces should be at.

 

The same thing that qualifies me, you and every other blowhard on this forum? You're asking an insipid, diversionary question. You have a definite opinion on the subject as well...so what qualifies you?

 

I am a voting citizen.

 

So you basically just admitted you have no clue about the percentage of cuts you keep tossing out there and you are unqualified to do anything more than express some arbitrary number pulled out of thin air because you don't like the military.

Sure you are entitled to express an opinion, so back it up. I challenge your assumptions. The leadership of this country has given the military certain tasks and they need a certain force level to carry out those missions. We know that there have been problems for our servicemen and women with multiple and long deployments. It is a fact that readiness has been reduced because of less training and equipment that is wearing out. We also know that as they are being asked to do more they have less to do it with. I base what I say on those hard facts.

Your problem should be with the civilian leadership not the military.

 

Of course my problem is with the leadership. I have made my point based on the new mission I have suggested for our military. Defend our shores.

 

You've never explained what is so magical about "our shores".

- - - Updated - - -

And he saw a cool chart online that compared U.S. military spending to what other nations (supposedly) spend on their militaries.

 

You never explained what is so magical about our "interests"? Is this a serious debate or a child's game?

 

I have indeed explained the damage the U.S. economy would suffer if our overseas interests were not protected and the number of American citizens overseas who deserve protection by the U.S. military.

You've simply ignored my arguments and screamed "military industrial complex" as though that is some kind of vaccine against having to offer a rational rebuttal.

 

I have also explained how those interests are also the interests of every other country and that they will participate in their defense if only we demand it. You have presented no evidence for the massive military spending we do in comparison to other nations. You have indeed bought into the propaganda and paranoia of the military industrial complex

 

You want a rational rebuttal against your irrational fears? That's rich.

 

"You go to war with the Army you have." ~ Donald Rumsfeld

Our military is the strongest in the world and provides more deterrents than any other country, but none of that stopped terrorists from shooting up a holiday party or flying airplanes into skyscrapers. War has changed. We used "shock and awe" and the Mother Of All Bombs (MOAB) on our enemies, so the enemy just changed their tactics and still plot ways to kill Americans in the homeland. We spent trillions of dollars in weaponry and lives fighting against an idea and the idea only grew.

At the same time we are spending incredible amounts of money on war and the war machine, our infrastructure is crumbling at home, veterans die waiting on health care, and there is another economic bubble ready to burst over college loans. With finite resources, our priority of spending on war and the war machine has cost us dearly at home. We have some choices to make. What good does it do to spend so much money on defense of the country, if the country crumbles due to those spending priorities?

I'm not for cutting defense to the bone, but we have other pressing needs just as important as defense. We can cut some of the military expenditures and still have the strongest military in the world. There is a way to continue having the best military in the world and do some of the things here at home that needs to be done.

 

We are 19 trillion in debt. What's wrong with 19 trillion more? How can we even pay the first 19 trillion? The government needs to drop all entitlements no more handouts. This is more than enough money to fund the military, close the borders, and begin with infrastructure. Anything else is outside of government. Let the people take care of themselves. If they cannot, let the people give charity, not the government, who lies, steals and murders.

Healthcare is not for government, that is the people. Everybody wants the government to do everything for them. And then complains about spending for the military. Which without a military nothing else matters.

 

wow quite dramatic today...

you clearly don't know my stance in other messages, you just demonstrated above as much... you just wanted to mouth off and hear yourself speak based on presumptions you have rather than engaged in a dialogue to explore the depth of this subject and how it impacts us all in our lives as well as the future because we have frivolously spent beyond our means, and what that means to the social safety nets of the future as interest cost eats up more of our annual budget which means we will have less of an ability to fulfill those promises we made when we took that money... clearly you just want rage and hate... maybe try another thread where thats endorsed...

 

Where did I mention you? I will admit where I said everybody wants the government to do everything for them. I should of said most people. But never did I mention you.

 

I believe we can expand the military by changing how the present budget is spent. Close overseas bases and base those troops at home, bringing the economic benefits of having a base nearby to US cities and towns. We don't need 28, 000 men in South Korea, they can handle the North on their own. We don't need Marines in Okinawa and they really don't want us there. Bring the tanks home from Germany. Leave Spain and Italy. There are HUNDREDS of bases overseas that we can shutter and get enormous savings by doing so.

The F35 is a money pit. We can buy Silent Eagle F15's NOW, ready to fly and proven technology. We have so many M1 tanks we won't need any more for the foreseeable future, and we can keep the Lima plant up and running modernizing what we do have when we need to. There are all kinds of ways to save...modernize procurement and R&D....spend wisely and squeeze those dollars.

 

All good ideas. The Navy also needs major cuts. Ships are expensive. Expand drone squadrons and research into space defenses.

 

I believe we should do a freeze of military spending at present levels, but spend the money differently. We can close some overseas bases and cut out waste, but we should also build our ground troops up. We should also be better prepared to prevent bad guys in the world from spreading their hate, such as radical muslims.

At the same time, it should be mandatory that the other areas of spending in our budget should first be frozen, and no additional spending other than per capita.

 

I don't think we are too far apart. I agree that we can change our priorities and revamp our defense spending to be much more effective with actual defense of the homeland. However, I do not think we need to continue the same amount of dollars going to the defense budget. As you suggested, we can streamline where our troops are placed around the world and we can cut some ridiculous and wasteful spending like the F35. Programs like the F35 take too long to develop and is off the cutting edge by the time it is usable. We have to change our priorities and I agree there are lots of ways to save money while retaining our effectiveness. My preference would be to take the money being saved by streamlining and changing the focus of how our troops are used and either pay down some of the debt from the Afghan/Iraq war or use the money on neglected needs in the homeland.

 

You will note I had question marks in my post? Whether I am in the military or not is irrelevant and no, the number one duty of the US government is most assuredly not military based or biased or even has much to do with the people. One only needs to look at the oaths of office for the executive and legislative branches to understand this. As for having a military capable of defending the nation - do you really think today's military does not have the capability and/or the necessary assets to defend the nation? If however one wants to attack, invade and dominate other parts of the globe one needs a military similar in size to today's military - larger if occupations are the goals. So, it all depends on what you want a military for - doesn't it?

Defense spending is down I think (I haven't looked it up) which wouldn't surprise me given the pullbacks in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. however this spending is still massive, about 36% of world total military spending. Put another way, US spending is at least 41% more than the combined spending of the next 4 biggest spending nations. If, as you say, defending the nation and its people are the goal, you do not need this level of spending - this level of spending is only necessary if the goal is the ability to project and use power around the world. There is a price to being a superpower.....

 

To get more funding you must always cry that things are falling apart and it is a "crisis" that can only be solved with more cash. And no one does that better than the military industrial complex.

 

There are limits to what you can squeeze out of a more than 40 year old design.

- - - Updated - - -

You've provided no evidence or proof that other nations will "participate in their defense". For that matter, you've provided no evidence that the so called military industrial complex even exists.

 

Again I don't need evidence they will participate. That is their choice. We on the other hand will be fine and trade will continue to flow as smoothly as the world wants it to flow. The military industrial complex are always coming up with doomsday scenarios if we cut one penny of defense spending. They live off fear and paranoia. It is in their vested financial interest to promote as much fear and hysteria as possible. The time has come for a change

 

You've offered no evidence that this "military industrial complex" even exists.

You and others are milking a lot out of a single line in a poorly understood (by your side) speech by a president.

55 years ago.

 

Again.....no evidence needed

 

Evidence is ALWAYS needed when you are proposing a major change in the status quo.