What if the US suddenly picked butter over guns?

[msmith537]

@ralph124c

The Cold war is OVER. China is not an enemy-it wants to make money selling cheap products to us. The ME will ALWAYS be unstable. If we had spend a fraction of what we are spening on 'defense" (on synthetic gasoline plants) we would not have to import any oil. The world price of oil would drop, and the ME would fade in importace.
It is our irrational energy policy that fuels the world’s conflicts.
And, suppose we decide to ‘sit out’ the latest african massacres? I don’t see where military intervention solves anything.

I’m not so sure that money will solve our dependency on foreign oil…unless you have cars that run on burning money.

[ASAKMOTSD]

@Bobotheoptimist

Never forget that we have a semi-hostile nation crouched on our border just waiting for us to relax even momentarily.

Butter won’t stop them, eager to flee their frozen wasteland, they’ll march south and crush us all!

Just hand 'em a beer, eh? No worries.
Hosers…

[Der_Trihs]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I agree with everything except for “enfeebling the national government so that it is powerless to do anything”, because that isn’t rational.

The right wing isn’t rational.

What I’d hope to see is a general resurgence of the country. There’d be more money flowing into the more productive parts of the economy. We could afford to fix our crumbling infrastructure. We could afford to build non-oil sources of energy.

Certainly it would be better than our huge, expensive military, which does us about as much good as piling up hundreds of millions of dollars in piles and burning them.

[Shagnasty]

The U.S. needs to maintain the most technologically advanced and capable military in the world. The world has proven to be a highly dangerous and unstable place over history and the downside of being caught off-guard can be fatal to the point of complete annihilation of nations, regions, or even the world. The U.S. military in general does an outstanding job once you get past the idea that they are not nation builders and were never intended to be. It takes too long to rebuild a completely dominant military so that priority just have to weave into our national identity and already has for the most part.

I have heard the humorous idea proposed that the U.S. should have both a Department of Defense and a Department of Offense. It wouldn’t work in the real world but it makes an interesting way of looking at things. Pearl Harbor would unleash the fury of the Department of Defense as would Gulf War I and maybe even Afghanistan. However, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War II would be more in the arena of the Department of Offense and these haven’t gone as well. It is a blurry line but food for thought. The U.S. military does an outstanding job of delivering a very rapid and debilitating blow for the U.S. itself or its allies during imminent, aggressive threats. That is the most important thing it can do to ensure both domestic and international stability jeopardized by aggressive military threats.

[Musicat]

@Bearflag70

What would we do with all that money we save?

Unh…now here’s a radical idea. Give it back to the taxpayers we stole it from and let them decide what to do with it?

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Taxpayers can’t even be trusted to vote correctly, much less keep their own money. Really now.

[Musicat]

@Patty O'Furniture

Taxpayers can’t even be trusted to vote correctly, much less keep their own money. Really now.

:smack: What was I thinking?

[Der_Trihs]

@Shagnasty

The U.S. military does an outstanding job of delivering a very rapid and debilitating blow for the U.S. itself or its allies during imminent, aggressive threats. That is the most important thing it can do to ensure both domestic and international stability jeopardized by aggressive military threats.

The problem with that argument is that WE are a threat to stability, and WE are an aggressive military threat.

@Musicat

Unh…now here’s a radical idea. Give it back to the taxpayers we stole it from and let them decide what to do with it?

Taxation isn’t theft.

[gonzomax]

40 % of the taxes collected go to “defense”. That is huge.

[Tristan]

@gonzomax

40 % of the taxes collected go to “defense”. That is huge.

Cite?

[Mosier]

@Tristan

Cite?

I think he meant 40% of discretionary spending, which can be found on any cite that breaks down American military expendatures.

[Stealth_Potato]

@BrainGlutton

Can’t we compromise and use butter as gun oil?

I think this would pretty quickly result in a lot of completely inoperable but delicious-smelling guns.

[Sevastopol]

@Shagnasty

…
I have heard the humorous idea proposed that the U.S. should have both a Department of Defense and a Department of Offense. It wouldn’t work in the real world but it makes an interesting way of looking at things. Pearl Harbor would unleash the fury of the Department of Defense as would Gulf War I and maybe even Afghanistan. However, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War II would be more in the arena of the Department of Offense and these haven’t gone as well. It is a blurry line but food for thought.

What an ingenious suggestion! Wherein is it impractical? Imagine: A formal division of those military actions that are honorable and those that are shameful.

[Crocodiles_And_Boulevards]

I would like to see huge prestige projects go into the works! We can get 100% or close to employment this way, AND we can finally have really cool, giant, ornate buildings to point to whenever we start feeling culturally inferior to really old foreign cultures.

I mean, we visit China to see the Great Wall or the Summer Palace, but when tourists come here they get stuck with downtown LA or Manhattan? Psh! Let’s build something COOL!

[Argent_Towers]

@mlees

List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel - Wikipedia Notice on this last one, Iran is listed as having 11.3 “paramilitary” troops. What the heck are those?

11 giant wrestlers with mustaches and turbans, and a midget?

(It actually says they have 11,390,000 paramilitary troops.)

[jjimm]

I just read the thread title as:

What if the US sold pickle butter gum

I was thinking “that sounds weird, but it might be quite tasty”.

And now back to your scheduled belligerence/peacenicking.

[gonzomax]

@Tristan

Cite?

The Federal Pie Chart I saw 40 yesterday. Heres one at 36. It is huge. Comparing it to the wealth of the nation is just a trick to minimize it. But when you view it as a portion of taxes collected ,it shows that it is a conscious choice and other programs suffer.

[gonzomax]

military spending us It is too damn much. It you build it ,you want to use it.

[mlees]

@Argent Towers

11 giant wrestlers with mustaches and turbans, and a midget?

(It actually says they have 11,390,000 paramilitary troops.)

Your right. I rushed my post. Thanks!

[mlees]

@gonzomax

The Federal Pie Chart I saw 40 yesterday. Heres one at 36. It is huge. Comparing it to the wealth of the nation is just a trick to minimize it. But when you view it as a portion of taxes collected ,it shows that it is a conscious choice and other programs suffer.

Here’s a different look at the overall number:

2008 United States federal budget

According to this cite, the total Federal budget (2008) is 2.9 trillion dollars. (mimick Dr. Evil pinky-at-corner-of-mouth)

Discretionary spending is 1.1 trillion.

Department of Defense (481.1 billion) and GWoT (145.2) is 626.6 Billion.

Combined DoD/GWoT = approx. 21% of total Federal budget, 57% of discretionary spending.

GWoT spending kinda boosts those numbers up a bit.

From my other post:

@wikipedia

There are two types of government spending — discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of all Federal spending, includes money for things like the Army, FBI, the Coast Guard, and highway projects. Congress explicitly determines how much to spend (or not spend) on these programs on an annual basis. Mandatory spending accounts for two-thirds of all government spending. This kind of spending is authorized by permanent laws. It includes “entitlements” like Social Security, Medicare, and Food Stamps — programs through which individuals receive benefits based on their age, income, or other criteria. Spending levels in these areas are dictated by the number of people who sign up for these benefits, rather than by Congress.