Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Iowa City debates whether police officers belong in schools
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Should military spending be reassessed?
Related Stories
Gazette guest columnist Kathleen Hall thinks the nation’s military spending has spiraled out of control, and it’s time to rein it in.
“There’s a lot of talk about balance in the budget between cutting expenditures and increasing tax revenue. There’s another kind of balance to consider on the spending side: domestic spending and military spending,” Hall, a member of Workers for Peace Iowa, said in a guest column published Wednesday. “The military budget has long been a sacred cow, but it’s time to look at it rationally.
“Rather than automatically giving the Pentagon whatever it asks, let’s reassess our military mission with respect to terrorism, unrest and instability,” she added. Analyze what works, what’s needed, and what isn’t. And be suspicious of military contractors and politicians lobbying for more than the Pentagon asks.
“Military budgets are swollen at the cost of other needed programs. What do we spend on peace? Worldwide, just $1 is spent on conflict prevention for every $1,885 on military budgets. Here in the United States, less than 2 percent of income tax goes to civilian foreign affairs agencies, while 39 percent goes to the military.
“Let’s put our tax dollars where they will be of most benefit,” she concluded. “And never forget: While war is costly, peace is priceless.”
Read the column linked above for more information. Do you agree with Hall? Is it time to reassess the nation’s military spending and priorities?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
With 52 cents out of every dollar spent on the military, how could we not look to find savings here. It only makes sense to take money away from something that does little to improve things and mainly is spent to destroy lives and livelihoods.
Yeah, I gotta call you on that one. Not sure where you got your number at, but if you add Fed Pensions, Fed Healthcare and Fed Welfare, you have over a 2 to 1 ratio to Fed Defense spending. Here’s a graph so you can get a visual. Spending 14% of the budget on defense isn’t too much, considering China has started operating an aircraft carrier.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart
According to your link, Federal payout to defense is 24% of the federal budget, not 14%. The pie chart on the opening page of your link summarizes all US spending, not just the federal budget’s slice.
US defense spending accounts for 40% of the world’s defense spending, and our annual military budget is 6 times that of China. Lots of room for cuts.
Abernathy,
The site you linked to is a blog authored by Chritopher Chantrill, whoever he is. The 2 to 1 ratio is federal military spending compared to all non-military spending federal, state, county, local.
And why should I care that China has an aircraft carrier. Are they about to chug across the Pacific and bomb Pearl Harbor? Like what are you talking about?
Wow Steve, I bet you’re a big hit at the Veterns Day, acouple of weeks ago. Did you take a minute to think that something that mainly destroys lives and livelihoods is the reason you are free to voice such an opinion?
Aside from that. Why not limit the federal govt to its enumerated powers? 52 cents seems about right, according to the constitution at least.
Here is a link to US military spending relative to military spending by the rest of the World, and some comments:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
And another ( there are many more ):
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-military-spending-v-the-rest-of-the-world/
“Gazette guest columnist Kathleen Hall thinks the nation’s military spending has spiraled out of control, and it’s time to rein it in.”
Would be nice to provide some facts behind this statement since military spending has shrunk as a percent of GDP over time.
What is really needed is to examine all the waste in the rest of the federal budget where waste is king. First off there should be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that prevents spending money you don’t have.
Today Social Security is drawing tax dollars from current tax revenues to pay benefits because over the last 30+ years Congress has spent the surplus.
I’m in favor of cutting the UN which has become a terrorists supporting organization.
I’m in favor of cutting US military bases in places like Europe and Japan because they should fund their own security.
I’m not in favor of cutting the Air Force, Navy or Army just so liberals can waste more tax dollars.
Hall didn’t specify what percentage of the federal budget goes to military spending.
Military spending (Dept of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Nuclear weapons programs, and however many wars we are engaged in this week) is approximately 60% of the federal budget (2012 federal discretionary budget sent to Congress Feb, 2011)
As far as all this blood and money protecting my First Amendment right to speak my mind, I can understand it in the case of World War II, the Civil War, the War of 1812, and the War for Independence. because those wars had to do with preserving the nation. But all the other wars?
First, defense spending includes Foreign aid and veteran services. Second, entitlements must be reformed. You can eliminate defense spending all together, and still not solve the deficit issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asRDOhgN70Q
” . . . defense spending includes foreign aid . . . ” Unless you’re talking about military aid where did you get that information ? US foreign aid accounts for only about 1% of the US budget. Here is the 2011 budget and one can place the cursor of specific portions for further information.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html
Fisher,
I don’t do youtube. Like virtually everyone else posting here, I can read. Please find a more credible source.
With regard to entitlements, that’s shorthand for Social Security and Medicare. Both are funded through payroll taxes and insurance (Plan B). Both programs are self-funded through their own budget line and neither adds to the deficit.
Conservatives have been freaking out Americans for the better part of three quarters of a century trying to privatize these programs or eliminate them all together.
Absent Social Security and Medicare, Grandma gets to move in with you. Which means you would be responsible for her living expenses and medical care. Do you think you can handle that?
Didn’t think so.
I notice you reject any source you don’t like. The US has 59 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. This is the reason that some of us are “freaking out.” What happens to grandma when the money runs out? Print more and destroy everyone’s savings, putting more in poverty? Please explain how 59 Trillion is funded. You can tax the entire world at 100% and still not have enough money.
.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm
Fisher,
Youtube is not a source. It’s a medium.
I reject youtube because the quality of the sound and visuals is inevitably bad, the stuff loads slowly or doesn’t load at all. Also, anyone can put up a youtube thingy. There’s no editor, no jury. I don’t do free floating blogs either for pretty much the same reason.
Social Security is self funded and has nothing to do with either the deficit or the debt.. It has its own set of problems that must be considered separate from all this talk of deficit and debt. Anyone who holds Social Security hostage to increasing taxes on the filthy rich is beneath contempt.
I also don’t pay attention to alarmist language. Or, at this point, Republicans. Except Michael Steele. All the other Republicans I would trust are either old or dead. Some of them very dead
The video is a college professor who sites his sources within the video. The quality is excellent and professionally done. Your rejection of sources is simply rejection of facts. Social security is only going to be funded for another decade, so stop kidding yourself.
I’m against any type of tax raise because I want a total tax overhaul. We have debated that before. I support a total elimination of all credits and deductions (minus business expenses), factoring capital gains the same as income, and a complete revamping of the scale (starting at 2% and ending somewhere around 30%). Not only do I not think it’s right for a person to pay 15% on capital gains income, but also think it’s not right to pay no federal taxes (and some even have a negative liability, meaning they get a check and owe zero taxes).
Also, I’m not a Republican.
I noticed that you completely ignored how to fund 59 Trillion dollars.
Brad Fischer,
This thread is about military spending, not Social Security.
Again, Social Security is self funded and has nothing to do with the federal debt or deficit.
It is a totally separate issue with a very simple solution. And if you’d been following this issue, you’d know what it is.
As far as a total tax overhaul goes, it’s not going to happen. And especially not if it’s what you are proposing.
As far as the 59 Trillion dollars goes, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Fischer,
Finally, after four tries (one of which froze up my computer I hate youtube) I got the stupid thing to play.
The earth shattering news is that the government is taking in less money than it is spending. This is illustrated with a stack of different colored blocks labeled with the different categories of spending vs an orange stack labeled revenue.
The professor (whose name was flashed on the screen so quickly that I didn’t catch it) ends this mini lesson with the question “what is the function of government?”
In this segment, the good professor does not talk about revenue increases but only spending cuts.
Clinton managed to balance the budget and ended his term in office with a surplus which Bush immediately destroyed with excessive tax cuts and two unnecessary wars.
Balance the budget with massive cuts to programs for the poor, the disabled, the elderly? Don’t think so.
the people who didn’t know the day before the 2008 crash hit that it would happen are the ones who now say we are in great trouble if we don’t cut entitlements because they will go bankrupt in 70 years.
And we are suppose to beleive them?
The ones who created the crash sould pay for their greed and stupidity and not the middle class and poor.
Many were warning of the situation leading up to the 2008 crash. Most notably Ron Paul. But of course he’s just a nut job right?
I see the usual lack of thoughtful consideration of history.
There is the trite recitation of current battles fought and the shallow conclusions reached as to their worthiness. That ignores all the battles won by the United States Military that never had to be fought.
Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”
–Ronald Reagan-
“Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.”
–Dwight D. Eisenhower–
“In peace prepare for war, in war prepare for peace. The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected.”
–Sun Tzu-
“Si vis pacem, para bellum.”