3
3
0
With the current state of our national debt, how do you feel about the amount of the federal budget spent on the military? The numbers for 2014 cite military spending at $568 billion, at 58% of the federal discretionary spending, and about 12% of the total federal budget.
Do you think that we should be cutting spending on different programs to increase military spending? Do you think we should decrease military spending to put that money toward other government programs?
I understand this is a complex topic for most people and we have an inherent bias toward the military, being current and former service members, but from the perspective of of national necessity, what are your thoughts?
Reference: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Do you think that we should be cutting spending on different programs to increase military spending? Do you think we should decrease military spending to put that money toward other government programs?
I understand this is a complex topic for most people and we have an inherent bias toward the military, being current and former service members, but from the perspective of of national necessity, what are your thoughts?
Reference: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Military Industry
Politics Military Industry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
7
7
0
Here's what it really boils down to. Discretionary vs TOTAL budget.
Let's compare that to a "Household Budget" which is much easier to understand.
There are things you MUST pay for. Rent, Car (to get you to work), Food, etc. Then there are things that you SHOULD pay for, like Loans, entertainment, etc.
The problem the US has is that there are far to many things that have ended up in the "must" (80%~) category, and not enough in the "should" (20%~). When you add in "emergencies" like World Aid, that's when we go in the hole.
Now... here's the the deal. The Constitution mandates that Defense spending be looked at every 2 years. That's why it's part of "Discretionary" (Should) money. Everything else is pretty much Legislated. It was made into law, and getting it out of the Must Money is hard. It's hard to do.
We're not going to fix this problem by working with 20% (let alone 12%) of our TOTAL budget. Not feasible. You have to look at the entire budget. But that just isn't possible, because of the current set up.
Let's compare that to a "Household Budget" which is much easier to understand.
There are things you MUST pay for. Rent, Car (to get you to work), Food, etc. Then there are things that you SHOULD pay for, like Loans, entertainment, etc.
The problem the US has is that there are far to many things that have ended up in the "must" (80%~) category, and not enough in the "should" (20%~). When you add in "emergencies" like World Aid, that's when we go in the hole.
Now... here's the the deal. The Constitution mandates that Defense spending be looked at every 2 years. That's why it's part of "Discretionary" (Should) money. Everything else is pretty much Legislated. It was made into law, and getting it out of the Must Money is hard. It's hard to do.
We're not going to fix this problem by working with 20% (let alone 12%) of our TOTAL budget. Not feasible. You have to look at the entire budget. But that just isn't possible, because of the current set up.
(7)
(0)
SPC David Hannaman
I think it also bears mentioning that "World Aid" from a federal level isn't as effective as citizens voluntarily contributing to other people.
When Haiti was hit by an Earthquake in 2010 a simple "text this number to donate $10" ad on television raised 40% more money for relief than the federal government sent. That's the power of Americans uniting together for a cause.
When Haiti was hit by an Earthquake in 2010 a simple "text this number to donate $10" ad on television raised 40% more money for relief than the federal government sent. That's the power of Americans uniting together for a cause.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Im not sure my answer falls into any of the electable categories, I dont think we spend the money properly, for example, I am a ford technician. at my shop we had an air force recruiting mustang, so modded out that it was barley recognizable as a mustang, the air force recruiter proudly told us that the interior alone had cost nearly $100,000. ( they had replaced it with a fighter jet cockpit layout) with the rest of the mods, they said in total, the car cost 1.1 million dollars to get it the way it was. I was so mad I could hardly look at the car, I personally have seen soldiers in my unit with broken armor plates going on a mission anyway because our unit supposedly didnt have enough money for armor. our vehicles were falling apart, we were limited on supplies, and meanwhile the govt. is spending a million on a stupid recruiting tool.
(5)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
I think this falls in with my other comment about, "spend it if you got it so you can have more of it." It seems that too many units do not have a good way to spend excess funds and, in fear of losing money for the next fiscal year, they make frivolous expenditures because the way the budget is run.
(0)
(0)
SSG Paul Lanciault
I have seen the same nonsense. 30+ thousand dollars for kitchen improvements, but not 1500 dollars for required training...
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
We have cut military spending to the bone, and have lost critical capability in doing so. We need to increase military spending to meet the challenges we face.
(4)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
What critical capabilities are you referring to? Could those problems be rectified, not by increasing the budget, but by properly allocating resources to the units that require them most?
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT Darryl Allen, our military strength has fallen to the point that we can no longer sustain a war on two fronts while the world situation has become ever more dangerous. It is not even clear that we can take on Russia alone at this point, according to some military leaders.
(0)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
Capt Seid Waddell We have terrible, horrible weapons at our disposal and should Russia ever pose a threat again (I highly doubt it, Russians for the most part like Americans, though I'm sure some of the older generation may be pretty sour since the Cold War), we would most certainly be able to emerge victorious. In this nuclear age though, I can't image what the cost to our country might be.
And without stirring the pot too much, does it seem wise that we're fighting a war on two fronts when we get so little support from the countries we're intending to help?
And without stirring the pot too much, does it seem wise that we're fighting a war on two fronts when we get so little support from the countries we're intending to help?
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT Darryl Allen, it has nothing to do with wisdom or choice - it has to do with necessity. The alternative is defeat and subjugation - think Crimea or Georgia.
Our nuclear weapons, like the Russian nuclear weapons, are doomsday weapons that are highly unlikely to ever be used in anger; and if they are, everybody on earth loses the war.
With sufficient conventional strength the tyrants of the world won't take us on - but in our present weakened state none of them are afraid to start whatever they wish to start.
Think of Saddam just prior to the Second Gulf War; he knew that he didn't have the conventional strength to take us on, but he didn't think we had the heart for the fight and that we would fold at the first casualties. He miscalculated; Clinton was no longer the POTUS.
Weakness is provocative to the tyrants of the world, and Obama reeks of weakness and has stripped our country of the military strength required to discourage the tyrants before they even start. As a result it is FAR more likely that we will be thrust into a major war, and on several fronts at once. In the present circumstances we will lose that fight.
Our nuclear weapons, like the Russian nuclear weapons, are doomsday weapons that are highly unlikely to ever be used in anger; and if they are, everybody on earth loses the war.
With sufficient conventional strength the tyrants of the world won't take us on - but in our present weakened state none of them are afraid to start whatever they wish to start.
Think of Saddam just prior to the Second Gulf War; he knew that he didn't have the conventional strength to take us on, but he didn't think we had the heart for the fight and that we would fold at the first casualties. He miscalculated; Clinton was no longer the POTUS.
Weakness is provocative to the tyrants of the world, and Obama reeks of weakness and has stripped our country of the military strength required to discourage the tyrants before they even start. As a result it is FAR more likely that we will be thrust into a major war, and on several fronts at once. In the present circumstances we will lose that fight.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Complicated question. I think we spend too much, but not because we have too big of a military.
1. Politicians use the military as ideologically acceptable state welfare, overriding DoD leadership when it comes to cutting projects, cancelling equipment orders or moving installations that would otherwise benefit their state (Here's looking at you, Jordan, Sherrod and Brown).
2. Quality vs. Price - The lowest bidder is going to cost you more in the long run.
3. We seem to think that we need to be able to solve any problem anywhere at any time with military force. I'm not convinced this is the case. We need to be prepared to deal with existential threats immediately, but distant or indirect threats should not be shouldered primarily by us.
4. Waste, fraud and abuse...How much did we spend on projects in Afghanistan that either never happened, were never used or were not a good idea to begin with?
1. Politicians use the military as ideologically acceptable state welfare, overriding DoD leadership when it comes to cutting projects, cancelling equipment orders or moving installations that would otherwise benefit their state (Here's looking at you, Jordan, Sherrod and Brown).
2. Quality vs. Price - The lowest bidder is going to cost you more in the long run.
3. We seem to think that we need to be able to solve any problem anywhere at any time with military force. I'm not convinced this is the case. We need to be prepared to deal with existential threats immediately, but distant or indirect threats should not be shouldered primarily by us.
4. Waste, fraud and abuse...How much did we spend on projects in Afghanistan that either never happened, were never used or were not a good idea to begin with?
(1)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
SGT Jeremiah B. I agree with these points wholeheartedly. The DoD has a habit of going with the lowest number because they end up in a quantity over quality mindset. Why spend money to fix something when it can be just as easily (and cheaply) replaced? From a fiscal perspective that seems fine, because units get new supplies rather than have to fix things. The downside is the implied unreliability with those products, in which service members lose faith in their equipment because they know it will inevitably fail.
Point 3 is a huge one to me, and it's not really on the same line as the topic itself, but I've certainly wondered throughout my time in the Army. Why are we self-imposing a sense of global protectors. Frankly, nobody has asked for us to do this, and I think it's a holdover mindset coming from WW2 that it's our responsibility to swoop in when times are tough and save the day. I take issue with that for a plethora of reasons, not the least of which being the financial stability of managing a global police force.
And to your last point, when I was in BAF, we walked to our hangar everyday, passing the skeletons of mammoth hangars that were never to be finished. We built a city at BAF with the service members in mind, but ran into questions of the sustainability of it all. Afghanistan is turning into a state of huge US projects that were financed but never finished, bases that are being shut down with large amounts of infrastructure being left to the wayside because we have no use for them anymore, and a sense that there is no accountability for any of it. That some anonymous entity made the call for all of this spending, and now that we've spent the money, and have little to show for it, there is confusion as to how it all came to be.
Point 3 is a huge one to me, and it's not really on the same line as the topic itself, but I've certainly wondered throughout my time in the Army. Why are we self-imposing a sense of global protectors. Frankly, nobody has asked for us to do this, and I think it's a holdover mindset coming from WW2 that it's our responsibility to swoop in when times are tough and save the day. I take issue with that for a plethora of reasons, not the least of which being the financial stability of managing a global police force.
And to your last point, when I was in BAF, we walked to our hangar everyday, passing the skeletons of mammoth hangars that were never to be finished. We built a city at BAF with the service members in mind, but ran into questions of the sustainability of it all. Afghanistan is turning into a state of huge US projects that were financed but never finished, bases that are being shut down with large amounts of infrastructure being left to the wayside because we have no use for them anymore, and a sense that there is no accountability for any of it. That some anonymous entity made the call for all of this spending, and now that we've spent the money, and have little to show for it, there is confusion as to how it all came to be.
(1)
(0)
SSG Paul Setterholm
After the gulf war, the u.s. Military forgot several f16's in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis returned them but the federal govt did not want them because them had already bought new ones. The planes sat outside a FedEx hanger in my city for a few years until the South Dakota air guard acquired them. They are still in use today. My point is the waste of money that is needed elsewhere in the federal budget. Infrastructure for example. A friends daughter is still suffering from the bridge collapse in Minneapolis
(1)
(0)
SSG Paul Setterholm
https://www.facebook.com/Estes.Park.Democrats.OFA/posts/ [login to see] 38435
This really does feel more and more like... - Democrats Organizing For America | Facebook
This really does feel more and more like the last days of the Roman empire
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Military spending is OK where it is. It could go up, it could go down. Other nations spend more (%-wise) but many others also spend a whole lot less. It's hard to compare to other nations since our military and our world role is different.
I think we need to get federal spending in check in general and stop doing "blanket" cuts to try to save money. A lot of times all this does is defer expenditures and actually increase the amount whatever that item is will end up costing in the future. Budget cuts can't be straight across nor spur of the moment and still be effective.
I think we need to get federal spending in check in general and stop doing "blanket" cuts to try to save money. A lot of times all this does is defer expenditures and actually increase the amount whatever that item is will end up costing in the future. Budget cuts can't be straight across nor spur of the moment and still be effective.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We need to provide our men and women with the best equipment possible to insure their safety and success of the mission.
(1)
(0)
SCPO David Lockwood
SGT Darryl Allen - That thought process has to change. Why with hold funding next year from a unit that was able to save operating costs the previous year. It makes no sense. I dealt with that for the 26 years I was in and that thought process leads to wasteful spending.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Darryl Allen - The private sector uses the same budgeting process. What you don't spend, you don't need so it gets reallocated. If you spend it all, you obviously need more so can get an increase. It makes sense if you think about it, but it also encourages enormous waste.
(1)
(0)
SCPO David Lockwood
SGT Jeremiah B. - But to reduce your funding for the next FY because you didn't use all your funding this year is not right.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SCPO David Lockwood - Oh, I agree. I'm just not sure how to fix it when you're dealing with finite resources. For every unit that saves money, there's another that didn't have enough.
That said, I think part of the problem is commands not being particularly good at pacing themselves. I can think of a few years where we eked by throughout the year with very little parts or ammo only to have more than we could reasonably use come September. Essentially, what appeared to be savings/unneeded budget on paper was really under-training due to wrong estimations. Someone much higher in the food chain than me would need to chime in on how that can be improved though.
That said, I think part of the problem is commands not being particularly good at pacing themselves. I can think of a few years where we eked by throughout the year with very little parts or ammo only to have more than we could reasonably use come September. Essentially, what appeared to be savings/unneeded budget on paper was really under-training due to wrong estimations. Someone much higher in the food chain than me would need to chime in on how that can be improved though.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
None of the above. How about a choice for "Let's spend it more wisely" We could probably reduce military spending somewhat and still offer better pay and benefits as well as develop better equipment and training if we just eliminated all of the waste. Keep in mind that military spending isn't what's putting our nation's economy in trouble. Compared to entitlement spending (and Social Security is not an entitlement - it's a benefit that beneficiaries paid for. It's not their fault that the government squandered the money on other things)... Again, compared to entitlement spending, military spending is merely a drop in the fiscal bucket.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In short--We can spend it now on equipment or wish we did when we lose everything---it's not a safe world we live in---it's becoming less safe everyday.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
None of the above. I think we need to spend SMARTER not necessarily more or less.
For instance I watched a program on body armor and the traitor that delivered inferior product, overcharged, and then asked for the acceptable standards to be reduced... not acceptable whatsoever.
So where do we get the most "bang for the buck" (pun intended)?
First priority is to protect the troops in my opinion... second is to end the battle quickly and decisively. I don't think either is a problem with training or equipment, I think it's a problem with tactics.
I'm not advocating genocide or the killing of non-combatants, but I am in favor of a "scorched earth" policy. The ten years following Desert Storm we the United States followed a policy that IMO led to the creation of an anti-American mentality in Iraq among that unnecessarily cost many soldiers lives and health. It most likely could have been avoided by lending air support to the Kurdish uprising in 1993.
This is a repeat of the mistake made in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs invasion. IMO
So it bears the question when will we learn? The United States has never lost a conflict when we went all in and "let slip the dogs of war"... but every time we start thinking "rules of engagement" and "politically correct war" we end up with egg on our face, war crimes, and paying a heavy toll in world opinion.
Desert Storm is seen as a success because it was quick and decisive. I don't think we need a military the size of the next eight countries combined to achieve that objective.
For instance I watched a program on body armor and the traitor that delivered inferior product, overcharged, and then asked for the acceptable standards to be reduced... not acceptable whatsoever.
So where do we get the most "bang for the buck" (pun intended)?
First priority is to protect the troops in my opinion... second is to end the battle quickly and decisively. I don't think either is a problem with training or equipment, I think it's a problem with tactics.
I'm not advocating genocide or the killing of non-combatants, but I am in favor of a "scorched earth" policy. The ten years following Desert Storm we the United States followed a policy that IMO led to the creation of an anti-American mentality in Iraq among that unnecessarily cost many soldiers lives and health. It most likely could have been avoided by lending air support to the Kurdish uprising in 1993.
This is a repeat of the mistake made in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs invasion. IMO
So it bears the question when will we learn? The United States has never lost a conflict when we went all in and "let slip the dogs of war"... but every time we start thinking "rules of engagement" and "politically correct war" we end up with egg on our face, war crimes, and paying a heavy toll in world opinion.
Desert Storm is seen as a success because it was quick and decisive. I don't think we need a military the size of the next eight countries combined to achieve that objective.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google