Well, lets get, as Reeder put it, some perspective
Defense 376
Non defense 429
Total Discretionary 791
Social Sec. 452
Medicare 228
Medicaid 151
Other 271
Total Mandatory 1106
These are in billions with a capital B
Defense spending makes up 20% of the American budget but funding for human services (Social/Medicare/Medicaid) makes up more than twice that (43.5%).
Cut defense funding by 50% (~188 Billion) and apply it to Social/Medicare/Medicaid you would raise that funding to 53% of total budget, however you would only be raising the amount applied to those areas by 25%.
As others have pointed out actual spending on personnel and maintenance makes up 244 billion dollars or 80% of actual defense spending. The remaining 132 billion goes into research, procurement etc.
You could, I suppose, portion out 188 billion dollars to every man, woman and child. Pointless though as they would take home a whopping $720.00, or $60 a month.
As others we have pointed out payroll and maintenance (i.e. buying things to repair vehicles/bases/homes etc.) make up 80% of the defense budget. That leaves 20% of 376 or 75.2 Billion on R&D (ever hear of TCP/IP?), procurement (ever hear of buying computers), construction (ever hear of concrete?) and housing (ever hear…never mind.)
Eventually it all makes its way back into the economy.
What, do you think that non-payroll funds spent in the military are just shoveled into the ocean? What happens when the Army needs to purchase supplies from civilian contractors? What happens to funds paid for R & D? Some of those funds go directly to salaries of the suppliers, some goes to the suppliers of the suppliers, etc. Are you trying to claim that this doesn’t count as part of the economy?
BTW, if you can spare a moment from launching your other two or three non-debates of the day, perhaps you could help turn this into one by discussing by how much you think the military budget should be cut, and what should be done with the presumably liberated funds.
Now, I would agree that military spending is less productive than other types of spending. In fact, it’s probably less productive than just never taxing the money in the first place and letting the taxpayers keep it and spend it as they see fit. But you’re wrong twice over:
The money DOES get recycled into the economy, where it is retaxed and employs people. It’s not as if that $380 billion just vanishes. Even if you took the $380 billion and set fire to it you wouldn’t really lose $380 billion, at least not on a national level.
There is a rather obvious return you’re forgetting: the world’s best armed forces. You might disagree with the way it’s being used, but there is obviously a utility in having an effective army. If there was no utility, the United States wouldn’t have one. So, clearly, there is a return on having a powerful armed force, be it ensuring security, protecting allies, killing terrorists, or getting oil from the Middle East.
It’s funny how people who criticize this or that spending talk about how there’s no return on it by questioning the SECONDARY returns, and just totally forget the PRIMARY returns. The purpose of spending money on the armed forces isn’t to create jobs or give money to contractors. The PURPOSE, the primary return, is to have a capable armed forces. You cannot argue that the United States armed forces is not highly capable. So, that’s a rather significant return, isn’t it? Maybe you don’t personally agree that the United States shoulod have as powerful an armed forces as it does. Maybe you think the USA should have no army at all. Those are interesting debates. But they’re certainly getting what they’re paying for, so there’s a return on the investment. It’s indisputable.
It’s like the space program; some people argue the Apollo program was useless because they question the secondary benefits. That may be, but the PRIMARY benefit was to put a man on the moon, not to invent the space pen, and you can’t argue that was a success, unless you’re one of those idiots who thinks it never happened. Or you get people who say sports are useless because we get nothing for all the money we spend on them. Well, I happen to agree that there’s virtually no secondary economic benefit to the money I fork over to see the Blue Jays. But the PRIMARY benefit is still there - I get to have fun at a ball game.
Why do people forget all about the primary returns?
Ya know, if we means-tested Social Security/Medicare eligibility, we would likely free up (currently) close to the same amount of funds to feed the hungry that would follow from a complete elimination of the military budget. In the future, as the baby boomers retire, the amount of money freed up would likely surpass the military budget.
I think Vic Ferrari was being a bit facisous (SIC?) when he said ‘boondoggle computer network.’ My best guess (correct me if I’m wrong) was he was indicating ARAPA-NET, a massive computer controlled communications system made to create and enable a retalitory strategic nuclear response to a Soviet attack, even if the US got hit and hit hard. Somehow (I forget exactly how) it merged with another set of commo-computer networks and now is part of the Internet, as is.
Suasponte: We agree 100%. I’ve been yapping about means-testing social security for a long time.
It’ll never happen. You’re right that the current system is unjust, but the problem is that seniors are immensely powerful. They have lots of free time for campaigning, they are organized by the AARP, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, and they have money.
Social security should be scrapped. Medicare should be scrapped. Both programs could be covered by extending welfare and medicaid benefits to poor aged people, and just removing the requirement for work from people over 65.
But we’re going the other way. Now there’s going to be a universal prescription drug benefit for old people. So now poor working families will get taxed more so that their rich grandparents can get their drugs for free. How ridiculous is that?
Just wait until the boomers retire. We’ll all be paying through the nose to pay for free dentures and fully-funded vacations to Florida.
alterego: Actually, Reeder should’ve said “many of the lower ranks in our military who have families qualify for food stamps.” IIRC, the federal government has recently instituted a program which avoids that issue by upping the military sponsor’s allowances; however, that’s really the same deal.
Well, the U.S. economy produces about $10.4 trillion worth of goods and services (that’s $10,400,000,000,000.00) a year. With the per capita annual GDP at $37,600, that means that an average American would have to work for over 276 million years–beginning at some time in the late Paleozoic Era and continuing until the present day–in order to equal the annual production of the U.S. economy!
Which basically proves that there are a lot of people in the United States.
You just told me I’m relating an urban myth. I want a cite from you that it is so. What I said that I see it as being really the same thing, regardless of the title or the manner of implementation of the program.
No cite, but how about the common sense statement that I, as a Staff Sergeant, continue to make the same salary whether stationed to Minot ND or Hickam AFB, Hawaii? Cost of living, mis amigo.
