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

We are now spending only more than the total of the next eight laragest militaries. We used to spend more than the next twelve.

Be afraid! Be very afraid!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Please define the word "few"

 

So, we are about the same age, I'll be 51 in April. Thus, it seems that you are advocating for cutting your own social security benefits.

Let me ask you this: Do you think you'll be able to work until age 72? I definitely would hope that I would for myself. However, I feel that staying productive and innovative is getting harder every year I grow older, and I am sure I am not the only one affected by aging. Looking back at my father, he retired at age 62. Could he have worked until 65? Absolutely. Could he have worked until 72? I don't think so. By that time, physical decline (hips) and some slowing in mental capacity had already set in (and he was a very sharp guy). Therefore, I don't believe that the majority of people will be able to work until they are 72, especially not those who had physically demanding and grueling jobs.

So, we are in a hard place: People live longer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can produce longer. What to do? Cutting SS is the wrong approach in my view. People need to get accustomed to saving more throughout their lives, be it through retirement accounts or increased SS contributions. The first thing is to eliminate the salary cap on SS contributions.

Back to the original post: I definitely feel that retirement benefits shouldn't be sacrificed for even more military spending, which is the last thing the country needs.

 

A carrier is a hard asset with a long life span. A base is a place where thousands of salaries and benefits must be paid for an indefinite amount to time. I choose the former. That said, not sure we need any additional aircraft carriers any time soon.

As for the nukes, I think that the chances of Russia targeting us with nukes is about 0%. We have plenty of other more likely nuclear threats on the horizon such as North Korea or Iran. Not only do we not need that many nukes to deal with those two but would we really ever Nuke one of those nations? Probably not.

 

Yes. Without much difficulty

 

Let's see, lots of years between 49 and 72, so many things can happen. You know this thing called aging. And sometimes it can happen in unpredictable and unexpected ways.

If you will, in fact, be able to work at age 72, thank your genes and your lucky stars, but don't try to deny people a retirement who were not blessed with such good genes, or such an easy job.

 

A person can change to an easier job. It has been done before.

 

Good luck to you. You are free to forfeit your social security check until you are 72, or until you die for that matter. That would save the system some money.

However, I have a feeling that you would be quick to change your tune should you have the misfortune to be unable, physically or mentally, to work until that age. Ayn Rand has set a nice example here.

 

Serious question: As a grown man, does it bother your conscience at all that you're basically calling for senior citizens to work harder because you're essentially scared that the largest and strongest military on the planet isn't enough to protect you?

Personally, even if I felt that same irrational fear and wanted old people to make sacrifices to assuage it, I think I'd be too ashamed to actually say it, much less push for it.

 

I don't have an irrational fear. I consider it a perfectly reasonable desire to want the U.S. military not only to be hands down invincible but to be so strong that no other nation even considers the possibility of conducting armed conflict against the United States.

Beyond that I do not like the American federal govt. serving as mainly a method of wealth redistribution from those who produce wealth to those who are no longer productive.

 

1) The US military is already so strong and big that no nation on earth would attack it. Suicide bombers, that's a different story. However, it is clear that the proponents of military expansion are stuck in cold war mentality from 40 years ago. instead of thinking about what defense really needs for today's threats.

2) What if you stop being productive (it WILL happen, even though you may have a hard time picturing it)? Are you going to off yourself so you don't become a burden on the producers?

 

1) The Chinese seem to be building lots of weapons systems and deploying them forward (islands in the South China Sea).

2) I will just live on my savings. Which by the way is what retired people were supposed to do as Social Security was considered SUPPLEMENTAL not primary.

 

Your fear is most definitely irrational. There isn't a country on the face of the Earth considering going to war with the United States. You think China, one of our largest trading partners, is going to attack us? That would make zero sense. Stop letting the fear mongers get inside your head.

As for "wealth redistribution," you clearly don't understand what the term means. You're just regurgitating words that you heard in your echo chamber. Had those retirees been allowed to invest the money forcibly taken from them their entire working lives they would come out way ahead. You really should be ashamed because you're basically advocating for stealing from the people who are least able to defend themselves. Pretty pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrational fear.

The hell you will...We need your savings to make more weapons because we're scared. Sorry, our fear trumps your retirement.

 

Nations often go to war when they do not wish to or have no plans to.

It isn't hard to present a scenario where that happens to the U.S. and China. A confrontation over fishing rights between Taiwan and China gets out of hand. Threats are made. Finally one side or the other fires off some anti ship missiles. The other side retaliates with some air strikes. And so forth. China declares the Straits of Taiwan off limits to other nations vessels. The U.S. sends carrier battle groups to assert its rights of navigation. .

The idea that China and the U.S. will not go to war because of whats on the shelves at Walmart is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

First why do we need to build up the military are we planning on attacking other countries

 

You said tax and war in the same sentance the rightwinger will be up in arms

 

I'm sure we will eventually. Are you willing to guarantee that North Korea, Iran or any others will not provoke some kind of major confrontation in the next decade or two?

 

Cons are so willing to give hundreds of billion$ to foreign countries every year, while throwing elderly Americans out in the street. Cons have given hundreds of billion$ to Afghanistan, and hundreds of billion$ to Iraq, and waste trillion$ on an incompetent military every year. And their answer is to throw trillion$ more to the military industrial complex that builds useless equipment that doesn't work.

 

Even if they did we would still knock them out with the current military in a matter of weeks. This rightwing freak out amazes me . No we do not need more military spending we need to be cutting military and getting rid of waste and fruad just like in any other social programs

 

Are you sure there is significant waste and fraud in the U.S. military? Care to post a link proving it?

- - - Updated - - -

That is the completely stupidest post of the day here at Political Forum.

 

People who have an interest in the military industrial complex might have a stake.

War is profitable.

 

There are numerous articles and indictments and convictions on the web about def3nse contractor fruad one in paticular this is a very simple search. Do you want me to hold your hand when you go to the bathroom as well or are you a big boy.

Google David H brooks than again you probably wont because you will have to eat your words

 

The "military industrial complex" is largely a myth. It barely existed when Eisenhower made his famous speech.

Now the majority of military contractors no longer even exist as independent corporations anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove that there is an atypical amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that one would not expect in a multi hundred billion dollar budgeted department.

 

So this imaginary war over fish wouldn't take place if the US spends a few more hundred billion per year on the military?? Is that what you're saying?

What's the magic number? How much do we need to spend on the military to prevent your fish war?

 

I gave you a name if you refuse to do your own research on contractor fruad then youbsilly qnd ignorant and not worth ingaging in any conversation. In other words I do not have to prove shot to you because you havent shown where we need to rebuild the military. One it is not weak two we dont have the money and first you need to pay for it. And not off the backs of the poor.

 

I want to post in detail on the Pentagon budget in a little bit here, but before I do, I think we'd be remiss if we didn't address military family housing. If you take what was spent on this field during the Clinton Administration and you look at where it is today, it's about a fifth of what it was. Think about that for a second. At the very time we've been sending troops all over the world and asking them to do more and more with less and less, what we spend to look after their families has been slashed. Bush cut the Clinton levels by almost a half and then Obama just about halved what Bush spent. This isn't right and it urgently needs to be addressed.