Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Gainzo, Aug 23, 2012.
Why does our government spend nearly $700 billion a year on the military?
its the drones.....they cost alot
They only cost about $2 billion.
Why does Mitt want to spend more on the military? Why is the USA the world police? The Brits can take of Europe and the Aussies can take care of Indonesia and the rest of that region.
You underestimate the actual cost of the military.. and of course Mitt wants to spend more.. something about stimulating the economy, the only thing it will stimulate are the gonads of the fat cat war profiteers...
Our DOD Base Budget is 530.5 525.4 Widely reported by the press as the "base" DOD budget, and our Overseas Contingency Operations 115.1 88.5, add to that DOE/Nuclear (Total) 18.5 19.4, International Affairs (Total) 61.3 69.8 Includes $8.2 billion in OCO for Budget Function 150. The OCO grand total is $96.7 billion.
Veterans Affairs (Total) 124.6 137.7 This spending encompasses the effects of past and current wars; spending for veterans of the last ten years will be increasing dramatically in coming years.
Homeland Security (Total) 46.0 46.3 Includes HS spending in DHS and all federal agencies not shown on this summary.
Subtotal of the Above 928.7 930.6 Total Federal Spending is $3.8 trillion in outlays in 2012 and 2013.
When you add it all up, we currently spend more than $700 billion per on all things military. That is simply far too much. Be it our need to act as world police, or our croniism to the MIC, cuts in military spending will have to happen if we're going to avoid a Greek like collapse.
Just think what we could do to this country if that number (whether its 700 or 900) was half.
Couple that with legalizing and taxing pot....
The possibilities are endless.
U.S. infrastructure lagging far behind Europe | Homeland Security News Wire
Our infrastructure is horrible.... indescribably bad.
And that graph, while interesting to see what WW2 cost in "today's" money, just leaves me shaking my head....
Is federal spending alone, or does that include local spending too?
Did you ever think about all those companies who rely solely on defense contracting, then used the money for lobbying congress?? Seems like a baztardization of the federal taxpayer dollar...
Heritage Foundation is not an unbiased source, if you read the graph terms like "Carter Era of Neglect", "Bush Catch Up" and "Obama Defense Freeze" are highly suggestive. To ignore the lies of George Bush about Iraq, and call them "Bush Catch UP" is a lot wacko.
Maybe more reliable.. but this is the Feds Spin..
A graph I like better.. which reflects the numbers I posted earlier, 2.65 Trillion.. what many of these graphs leave out is the coinciding civilian side of defense spending... and the "legacy" costs... and the Homeland Security Costs etc.
Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weaponsâ€“ is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.
What will be interesting is now that 45% of our returning veterans are applying for permanent disability, what will be the impact on the legacy costs for these veterans on this system and on federal disability.
I caught that ling too.
What about legacy costs? They seem incalculable:
Category:Military Superfund sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This one in particular really jumps out:
The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, but the decades of manufacturing left behind 53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste (tank waste); an additional 25 million cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste, most of it buried; 200 square miles (520 km2) of contaminated groundwater beneath the site, with the potential to leach into the Columbia; and occasional discoveries of undocumented contaminations that slow the pace and raise the cost of cleanup.
The Hanford site represents two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume. Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup. While most of the current activity at the site is related to the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the LIGO Hanford Observatory.
Hanford Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not as bad as handing it out on EBTs?.....how much of the defense spending is paying employee salaries and soldier salaries?
That was funny.
You are joking, right?
A lot of john smiths earn a good salary because of the defense spending.......in all actualities, it is better ROI than welfare spending
I think you'd have to be an idiot to think simply giving it away on EBTs is a better way to spend money
Corporations that live on the government defense spending should be banned from lobbying. Hell non-defense too.
I'd say welfare recipients in general but they rarely even vote.
Defense spending is the main reason Republicans aren't fiscal conservatives, it's ridiculous.
True snow - it has dumbfounded me as well. How you can preach "small government, be fiscally conservative" yet stand behind, and in many cases want to increase, the single biggest expenditure.
Proof to me that the current brand isn't what they historically "have been".
LOL.....then the Tea Party is your path
A Tea Party Defense Budget | The American Conservative
No sir....they lose me once you get past their fiscal views.
EDIT - By and large, I view the Tea Party as "Old Tyme Fiscal Responsibility and a side of Jesus". No thanks.
I know......it's a real shame
to think that the only way to have a choice is to continue to spend mind-boggling amounts of $$ on really expensive (albeit cool) stuff
I will say that the advent of the Tea Party gives me hope to one day see a "Common Good, Common Sense" centrist party.
But government in this country is big business. And more parties are bad for business (D/R), so that will probably remain a pipe dream.
Your chart ignores all the entitlement programs. Of course the constitution calls for the Federal Government to spend $$ to protect the country entitlement programs aren't mentioned in the constitution at all.
Isn't General Welfare mentioned twice?
EDIT - Of course, one could argue that General Welfare is too vague a term to imply that it meant the General Welfare of the people, which could included social and entitlement programs.
Certainly that has been the rationale for bankrupting the country.
I would argue that if social programs are bankrupting the country (which is possible), defense programs have to share that same burden.
One can't be "good" while the other is "bankrupting the country"
Without one we wouldn't have a country.
I would argue without some of both you would have a country no one would want to have.
It would look like Hill Valley in Back to the Future II
Team Either Or strikes again
LOL at the paranoia......
Of course it doesn't, as this is specific to defense spending.. it does not include post office spending or any other spending..
Separate names with a comma.