Most military spending goes into the US economy as well, though. Soldiers are paid, tanks are built on US assembly lines, etc. Which I expect is one of the reasons for our current overspending, lots of voters jobs depend on money from the DoD.
We need to really look at ourselves in the mirror and see if us maintaining expensive facilities all over the globe is something that we should do. Those should be used for diplomacy and not necessarily just the military. Didn’t we use culture and jazz music to show the good side of us worldwide? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about behaving like Americans should in foreign countries to show people in other countries how we act when we’re not at home?
I think there’s going to be a HUGE row over this exact matter. I’d love to see no military, but I realize that it’s not realistic to just get rid of it overnight (although free market thought would dictate that we wouldn’t be raw meat left to the wolves, no?).
One side seems to see the military (as it currently is) as a luxury. The other side sees is as necessary as air.
Not the same thing. First, besides what gonzomax pointed out, Medicare/Medicaid contributes to the economy in more than just money spent. Healthier people work better and harder than sick ones, and government medical care is less expensive. And Social Security is necessary to keep people from falling into scrounging-in-garbage-for-food levels of poverty. Our outsized military is mostly waste - no one is going to invade an ICBM armed country - and a terrible contributor to the economy even in the sense of “at least the money is spent here” way.
Yeah, but the difference is that if you made a major cut in medicare, the health of Americans would suffer, whereas it’s not so clear that a major cut in our defense budget would cause our national security to suffer. The point is, with defense we may be spending more than we need to achieve the goal.
It seems to me that spending money on practically anything generates jobs, in the sense that you have to pay people to do the work. Just because the military is currently paying a lot of people to do jobs doesn’t mean they’re all being paid to do the right jobs (in terms of what benefits our country).
All medicare money stays here. Halliburton and the other was companies move their headquarters abroad to avoid taxes. The spend billions in Iraq which has a secondary impact here. Someone builds the bombs ,it is true. But they are procuring more and more abroad to cut costs and increase profits. They get huge tax breaks which enrich only them. All the material. metals and plastics.etc is wasted. Gone from the economy and blown up. Then they are killing people and sometimes getting killed. Did I mention how often they get caught stealing from us and lying. It is pathetic.
I’m not sure about that. It might gain the respect of some others for such an action, but besides that, I think a lot of US prestige and influence is cultural and economic, not military. The US is the largest population by far in the Anglosphere, as such it will always have the biggest influence there, and thus also globally. And the US has not been threatening any Anglosphere countries for at least a century, so it’s not fear of military there.
This is a very common belief, but IMHO, it’s simply not true. In my experience, people in the service are more hawkish - on the average - than people who are not.
All three nations have ICBMs. When it comes right down to it, they can project all the power you’d ever need.
But that said, what does have a 2-carrier fleet have to do with necessarily spending more money? China may not have a carrier fleet, but they have land access to plenty of enemies to use their army against.
Russia is NOT your friend and does not consider itself to be your friend.
Though it is now operating from an extreme right/nationalist viewpoint rather the a communist one it still considers the U.S. and its N.A.T.O. allies the biggest obstacle to its expansionist/imperialist ambitions.
I am frankly amazed that somehow you believe differently.
Yeah, Russia is not our ally, but at least we don’t have them as a direct enemy anymore, either. They’re more like a “person of interest” that we have to keep a sharp eye on.
I think some of you may be overlooking some of the costs involved with maintaining our military superiority (whether or not we need to keep that superiority is another argument). It isn’t just “buying stuff” or Halliburton contracts.
There is a ton of money that goes into R&D for the advancement of military vehicles and weapons systems. The reason of course is that if we don’t continue to push the envelope of these technologies and stay a step ahead of everyone else, that dominance factor we’re discussing shrinks to unacceptable levels.
I hate, hate, hate these comparisons between military spending and federal outlays for education.
The federal government doesn’t fund education. Local governments do. Your income tax bill doesn’t support your local schools, your property tax bill does. If they really wanted to compare the military budget with the education budget they’d have to include state and local funding for education along with federal funding. For fairness, they could add in state and local funding for the military (ie the national guards). Then we’d get a true comparison of how much we spend on both.
That video is deliberately misleading.
The Russians are incapable of being anyone’s “friends.” At the very most, they can be the enemy of your enemy; never anything more. Historically they are expansionist and have had an affinity for repressive government. Anyone who trusts the Russians is making a very bad mistake.
Every one of those arguments applies for military spending. How many people has the GI bill put through college? How many people do companies like Honeywell, Raytheon, and Boeing employ?
Do you think we buy our ICBMs, our jets, our air craft carriers, our soldiers, et al from China or something?
Besides, our military is the economic grease in the world. International shipping of goods and petroleum would be a completely different story without our navy.
It’s true it’s not a direct comparison of how much our country spends on education vs. how much we spend on the military.
But it is a comparison of how much the federal government is spending to improve education vs. how much it’s spending on the military. So for someone like me who feels that too many of our school systems are underfunded, it makes me think “Man, we could fix that problem by diverting some federal money that’s currently going to the military, while still keeping our military far stronger than anyone else’s.” I think that’s a decent point, and one the video makes fairly well.
The lion’s share of boot-on-the-ground force might be born by South Korea or Taiwan, but it is the strategic backing of the US that deters attack. Without that, the worst that would happen to North Korea or China is that their attacks wouldn’t succeed. US backing makes it virtually certain to fail and insanely risky to even try. Regarding Israel, the US currently pays Egypt billions of dollars a year in “aid” which is basically a bribe not to reneg on the peace agreement with Israel. Again, it is US strategic backing that prevents any “worth a try” thoughts on those considering direct military moves. The US Navy almost certainly guarantees that the Strait of Hormuz stays open to international shipping. And again, the point isn’t that regional powers couldn’t win a confrontation, it’s that the guarantee of overwhelming US military superiority prevents armed conflict to begin with.
I never said that Russia is our friend. She’s not. But there’s a difference between a friend and an ally, and also a difference between a potential enemy and an actual current enemy.
And even granting that the US military is the primary force keeping problematic nations from acting up, we could match every single one of those problematic nations dollar for dollar, and still spend considerably less than we do now. That would be enough for us to mirror deployments of personnel and material everywhere in the world to be ready at the drop of a hat for whatever they might try, and then if any of them were foolish enough to try anything, we could re-deploy forces from everywhere else to bring to bear, as well. Even in a worst-case scenario where they all colluded to start trouble at once, we’d still be evenly matched, and we’d also still be able to quickly run back up to a military footing like we did at the start of WW II.
Compare it to other countries. You can not bitch about that part.
- Halliburtion is primarily an oil and natual gas company.
- Halliburton’s main headquarters are in Houston.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s less beneficial for the economy than civilian spending, nor that all those soldiers aren’t doing productive work.
Yeah, right. The world survived without us playing Empire; it’ll survive when we collapse.
Before we played Empire, it was the British playing Empire. Yes, the world will “survive” in the long term; but 30-40 years of armed chaos until the losers are all dead and the survivors have established a new metastable order is doing it the hard way.
:dubious: Don’t talk that way about our emergency food supply!