Poll: Cutting US Defense Spending; What Does the Public Think?

[bleeding heart]

And most Americans would prefer to see some more of the money spent on the evil "social spending" than on the military.

I personally don't find this surprising, but I'm betting that some people do.

Many Americans, like many people eslewhere, are fed up with throwing away money needlessly on an essentially imperialist-style military.

3. Setting an Overall Level for the National Defense Budget

Presented the base national defense budget for 2012 and given the opportunity to set a level for 2013, three quarters reduced it, including two thirds of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats. On average defense spending was lowered 23%. A majority lowered it at least 11%.

http://www.public-consultation.org/pdf/DefenseBudget_May12_rpt.pdf

Edited August 15, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

Each B2 Stealth bomber has a price tag of about one billion each.

I am sure for the amount of money spent on these things that every person in the USA could have state paid health care and education for the rest of their lives.

Defense spending and military spending are two different things in the USA. What really is taking place is offense spending, not hard to see why.

Defending a base over seas in another country is not defending the USA here at home.

[Shady]

I am sure for the amount of money spent on these things that every person in the USA could have state paid health care and education for the rest of their lives.

I doubt it, considering that Medicare and Medicaid take up a larger percentage of the federal budget each year than defense. You must have done some creative accounting!

[bleeding heart]

I doubt it, considering that Medicare and Medicaid take up a larger percentage of the federal budget each year than defense. You must have done some creative accounting!

At any rate, the public consensus seems to be that more money should be placed into these programs and others, at the expense of military spending.

Not that public consensus is considered vitally important, mind you.

[Guest American Woman]

I always think it's cute when foreigners post about what the American public thinks.

[Smallc]

[Shady]

I always think it's cute when foreigners post about what the American public thinks.

Me too AW. Do you think they're Yankee Doodle Wannabes, like me?

[BubberMiley]

I always think it's cute when foreigners post about what the American public thinks.

Yes, it's surprising that they can read too, isn't it?

[The_Squid]

Me too AW. Do you think they're Yankee Doodle Wannabes, like me?

American politics is all that you post about hypocrite.

[Guest Derek L]

And most Americans would prefer to see some more of the money spent on the evil "social spending" than on the military.

I personally don't find this surprising, but I'm betting that some people do.

Many Americans, like many people eslewhere, are fed up with throwing away money needlessly on an essentially imperialist-style military.

http://www.public-consultation.org/pdf/DefenseBudget_May12_rpt.pdf

Unfortunately, where a lot of US defence spending goes, just like our own, is into personal costs and infrastructure, which incidentally is spread out across every state, in many Congressional district, from mega bases like Norfolk, Eglin and Ft Hood all the way down the scale to the little National Guard armouries in “small town America”…………..The Base Realignment and Closure Committee or BRAC is truly a four letter word and every time it’s spoken is a contentious issue amongst both parties……….

One can easily say close base “X” is such and such country (Germany/Italy/South Korea/Japan/ME) and spare all the little armouries and duplicate (and triplicate) bases within the Continental United States, but if one looks objectively at it, the defence policy of the United States, be it pre-emption or a forward defence of United States interests, is better served by overseas bases.

If they want a pre-eminent military still, all the while reducing the overall defence budget, they should “target” (pun intended) the low hanging, expensive fruit………….Cut the size of the regular force, manpower intensive Army by 1/3rd all the while realigning said cut formations into the various National Guard units and Reserves, close 10-15% of the bases within the United States proper, reduce forward deployed forces by 50% all the while keeping said reduced forces equipment forward deployed and retire immediately (without replacement) the Minuteman II land-based ICBM portion of the nuclear triad……cutting the land based ICBM force to nil, well maintaining the sub launched and manned bomber portion would save over 30 billion within the coming decade alone………..

Aside from the ICBM’s and forward deployed forces, Canada should do likewise.

[bleeding heart]

I always think it's cute when foreigners post about what the American public thinks.

American poll results, AW. Your issue is with Americans, not with a Canadian who posts those results.

Patriotic hyper-sensitivity, now...not quite so cute.

(But I knew you couldn't ignore me for much longer....I predicted it, if you'll remember.

I'm too sweet to be on ignore forever. )

Edited August 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Me too AW. Do you think they're Yankee Doodle Wannabes, like me?

Hmmm. I don't think so.

Edited August 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

I doubt it, considering that Medicare and Medicaid take up a larger percentage of the federal budget each year than defense. You must have done some creative accounting!

Please feel free to ignore the facts when making your asinine/ignorant statements.

USA Military spending has almost doubled since 2001 ...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/11/157596/military-spending-doubled-since-2001/?mobile=nc

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/factsheet2010

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/military-spending

America's own budget crisis is prompting tough discussions about its defence spending, which, at nearly $700 billion, is bigger than that of the next 17 countries combined.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Emergency war funding was not part of the budget. Pretty convenient.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1868367,00.html

The news that President Bush's war on terrorism soon will have cost the U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion — and counting — is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times. A trio of recent reports — none by the Bush Administration — suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991's Persian Gulf War (90% of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on terrorism looks set to surpass the costs the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, topped only by World War II's price tag of $3.5 trillion.

[Shady]

Please feel free to ignore the facts when making your asinine/ignorant statements.

USA Military spending has almost doubled since 2001 ...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/11/157596/military-spending-doubled-since-2001/?mobile=nc

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/factsheet2010

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/military-spending

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Emergency war funding was not part of the budget. Pretty convenient.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1868367,00.html

Defense spending is dwarfed by health care spending. So again. your premise is completely flawed. It was a nice try though

[BubberMiley]

Defense spending is dwarfed by health care spending. So again. your premise is completely flawed. It was a nice try though

Defense spending last year was $680 billion; health care was $990 billion: that is hardly "dwarfed" by comparison. I certainly wouldn't write off $680 billion as insignificant. So again. your premise is completely flawed. Nice try though.

[punked]

Defense spending last year was $680 billion; health care was $990 billion: that is hardly "dwarfed" by comparison. I certainly wouldn't write off $680 billion as insignificant. So again. your premise is completely flawed. Nice try though.

I think you forgot. Most drones operated by the US in a military capacity including strikes actually come out of the CIA budget. So your military spending number would be off because it doesn't not include spending by organizations that are none military who are doing military jobs. I think if some one did an independent analysis they would find those numbers are much closer to equal.

Health care numbers are easy those are transparent. Military numbers are not so easy there is what we know then their are plenty of projects buried into many other places in the federal budget.

Edited August 16, 2012 by punked

[j44]

Defense spending is dwarfed by health care spending. So again. your premise is completely flawed. It was a nice try though

Yeah, 'dwarfed' is a bit much, Shady.

I think you forgot. Most drones operated by the US in a military capacity including strikes actually come out of the CIA budget. So your military spending number would be off because it doesn't not include spending by organizations that are none military who are doing military jobs. I think if some one did an independent analysis they would find those numbers are much closer to equal.

Health care numbers are easy those are transparent. Military numbers are not so easy there is what we know then their are plenty of projects buried into many other places in the federal budget.

I'm pretty sure everything to do with nukes (development, storage, maintenance) is in the Energy Department's budget.

Edited August 16, 2012 by j44

[punked]

Yeah, 'dwarfed' is a bit much, Shady.

I'm pretty sure everything to do with nukes (development, storage, maintenance) is in the Energy Department's budget.

You would be right. In fact I believe the department of Energy owns all Nevada Test and Training Range to this day where many nukes were tested.

It is a shell game but if we were being honest and we added the numbers actually spent on militarization from the US government it would be about the same as health care. Maybe a little more maybe a little less but pretty close I think.

Edited August 16, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

Defense spending is dwarfed by health care spending. So again. your premise is completely flawed. It was a nice try though

How is it flawed? Oh PLEASE educate me on that Shady. Mr. Complete Nonsense.

Have you taken into account other expenditures that are related to the military or are you simply just looking at the budget totals? Do you take into account emergency war funding that Bush went to the congress several times totaling over a trillion dollars?

Do you know what it costs to use entities like Academi (akak Xe, aka Blackwater) ... those are part of the costs as well.

Of course you would ignore those facts.

[Shady]

Defense spending last year was $680 billion; health care was $990 billion: that is hardly "dwarfed" by comparison. I certainly wouldn't write off $680 billion as insignificant. So again. your premise is completely flawed. Nice try though.

I would consider that dwarfed. But it's even worse for you over the next several years. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP gets smaller and smaller. While health care spending gets larger and larger, eventually taking up almost the entire federal budget. Your premise is utterly false.

[BubberMiley]

Of course you would ignore those facts.

He even ignores responses once he's kicked to the kerb.

[Helenga]

Doesn't seem to you that America has been developing somewahat irregularly? It appears we are warping into military sphere. Military corporations intensely interested in new war conflicts and bigger military export have been transforming our economy and our life making it less humanistic and more aggressive. Their profits are huge. Still they have a watering mouth for more and more federal funding!

What about other spheres of life where problems have been only accumulating? Why are those challenges being ignored by the government? I'm a surgeon working for 15 years already. There are lots of successes in this sphere. But we owe financial donations mostly to private sector. I suspect it added to most disappointing fact that 20% of American populace has no medical insurance at all! Mind this figure is constantly on the rise! Chaotic financing and insufficient federal funding is no good for American medical sphere I believe. My husband is an ecologist and he asserts there're same problems with ecology sphere too.

You see both ecology and medical sphere relate to future while wars should belong to the past. And our political leaders at times remind me some naughty kids still captivated by war games unfortunately.....

[Guest Manny]

Wabout when the Chinese come and carpet bomb NA, until it is a sheet of pure glass? The power game is too far along now, 500 years in or more, to be able to simply ignore the situation. Pandora's box open. Sorry.

It's military supremacy that determines who the top dog is. Nothing trumps more than the ability to kill.

[j44]

It's military supremacy that determines who the top dog is. Nothing trumps more than the ability to kill.

At times, economic might can.

[Guest Manny]

At times, economic might can.

Or does it actually come FROM it. In the system we have, economic might extends directly from ones ability to reign warfare upon others. That is why it has to be sustained to the highest level. Because when the war machine collapses, the game, she is over.