Do We Really Need The Military?

Actually, pretty much all of the overseas bases are at little to no cost to the US Government.

In 2009, South Korea had an obligation of over $700 million to the US for the basing of US troops there. They (and other host nations) generally pay all the direct costs of those bases, from construction and maintenance to utilities and transportation. The only thing the US pays is the payroll for the people working there, and the expenses of the upkeep of their equipment.

And these troops would have been paid anyways. And if you want an idea how much bringing these troops home costs, look at Fort Bliss.

After 62 years of being based in Germany, the 1st Armored Division is moving back to the US. And at a minimum, this is costing the US taxpayers $500 million. The size of Fort Bliss is roughly doubling, in order to provide enough barracks, offices, and motor pools for them to move into. And then there are the other expenses, like a larger exchange complex, and base housing to support the families.

And the housing allowance has also been growing, because there are serious concerns that there may not be enough housing in the community to support all the families. So rents have been steadily increasing in the last 2 years, and will likely jump even more when the remainder of the units move here.

Yea, saying things like that sounds nice. Most people do not know what the reality is however.

 

Oh I get it now! When you say that the military budget is only 20% of our national debt...what you're really saying is that we are spending "only" $137,020,000,000, and that even if we did stop spending all that money, our national debt would still keep growing. Yeah...please show me your sources next time you decide to make an illogical statement.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=United+States+Federal+Budget&l=1

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=United+States+Public+Debt&l=1

Was that so hard?

 

Way to use Wikipedia as a source...you really know where to look when you want answers!

 

OK, you question my sources? Then give me your own.

Give me the US deficit. By year.

Then tell me the US military budget. See a difference between the two?

Show me the growth of Entitlement Spending over the last 5 years, and projected over the next 5 years.

Then show me the shrinkage projected in military spending over the next 5-10 years.

This is not rocket science here. The Military budget continues to shrink, and entitlement spending continues to grow. And the deficit continues to grow.

The facts are all there, feel free to find where I am wrong. And kindly prove I am wrong, do not just give me a snarky comment. If you are unable to look up the facts, then is best to not say anything.

 

First of all if you want to know answers to all these questions, i will happily not supply them for you. I did find one source you may be interested in
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...-cut-100-billion-Army-and-Marines-will-shrink
At one point in the article, it explains that "Overall, the defense budget – which does not including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – will continue to increase until 2015, when it flattens." It says quite obviously that cuts will "not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". Hmmm, well there will not be cuts there, but coincidentaly that is where most of the spending is done in terms of the defense budget.

 

Continue to increase? Are you flipping kidding me?



Defense spending per GDP is at the one of lowest points it has ever been in 60 years. The only time that the percentage was lower was during the Clinton administration, and we are still paying for that mistake.

Also, you fail to acknowledge that Obama's stimulus plan costs roughly the same as the combined cost of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last six and seven years respectively.

You want to know what Mushroom (and as I mentioned on the first page) is talking about in regards to still running up the deficit without the DoD, here are some pretty pictures for you:






Also, do not come here looking for a fight when you have no leg to stand on. You are getting defensive and it makes you look like an idiot.

 

At least the stimulus plan is a step in the right direction. Better our money spent building up than tearing down.

 

Hey, we're on the same page. Id like to see welfare eliminated and unemployment rolled back to 6 months!

 

Really? So crackhead union turds can keep their jobs at the expense of bond holders?

 

Of course, nobody ever considers that if the Defense budget is seriously cut or eliminated, tens if not hundreds of Union jobs will be lost.

After all, who makes this equipment? Oshkosk, Ford, General Motors, Boeing, and hundreds of other companies, large and small. Ending new Defense appropriations would be a crippling blow to the Unions.

But nobody ever thinks about that. They think that the military just throws money in the air and it magicaly transforms into equipment.

 

According to this recent study entitled The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities: 2011 Update:
http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/0b0ce6af7ff999b11745825d80aca0b8/publication/489/

This is basic Econ 101
Guns vs. Butter
Nations can buy either guns (invest in defense/military) or butter (invest in production of goods), or a combination of both...this can be seen as an analogy for choices between defense and civilian spending in more complex economies. The study I linked to above, indicates that DoD spending is not effective as a jobs program.

 

And you would not find me arguing that it is either. It is not effective, however it is essentially a jobs program. And it is creating things that are used.