Does the U.S spend too much on "Defense"?

[Xanikk999]

I certainly think they do. Dont whine at me for using wikipedia as a source, i have no reason to doubt the sources cited in this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is[9]:
Components↓ Funding↓ Change, 2009 to 2010↓
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%

685.1 BILLION DOLLARS, and nearly half of that is just to maintain our military forces.
In a nation where our economy is troubled why are we spending so much money to fight insurgents in afghanistan using guerrilla tactics. If it were up to me i would pull out of afghanistan and iraq and worry about our domestic issues.

First on the list would be the economy and doing something about the unemployment rate. There is such much we could do with just a fraction of that money wether it be tax cuts or investing in our own economy it just seems like we are throwing it away to fight insurgents who we dont need to bother.

If Afghanistan wants to live under Taliban rule i say let them or just let the afghan government handle it. We could use that money to better our national security to prevent another terrorist attack rather then use it to try to suppress the taliban who will probably just rise up again when we leave.

 

[Miles Teg]

Yes, it does. Few people deny that. They just get evasive when you ask them what general areas they'd like to cut.

 

[Xanikk999]

Yes, it does. Few people deny that. They just get evasive when you ask them what general areas they'd like to cut.

If it were up to me i would just immediatly pull out of the middle east. We are not going to change thier opinion of us any time soon.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes (with a condition). The condition is that we modify our foreign policy for a more isolationist position. We need to rely on NATO more for defense, and not conduct ANY offensive wars. Not a single one.

I can't speak much for the other services, but I do know we have too many aircraft carriers. We should cut them in half to 6. And like I said above, that would require not getting involved in things like Afghanistan. Actually if we could cut out all possible wars, we could possibly go down to 4, but that is risky with China building up their navy.

 

[Miles Teg]

If it were up to me i would just immediatly pull out of the middle east. We are not going to change thier opinion of us any time soon.

Interesting. Now, what does pulling out of the Middle East mean? Are you going to leave any combat troops? What about the carrier fleet(s) we in the Gulf & Mediterranean in case of emergencies? And humanitarian aid? What's your plan for the money if Iran and Israel start throwing nukes back and forth

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes we do.

 

[bhsup]

No. In fact, we need to quit canceling advanced weapons platforms if we want to be ready for the ChiCom invasion that's coming in a few decades.

 

[Disgustipated]

Interesting. Now, what does pulling out of the Middle East mean? Are you going to leave any combat troops? What about the carrier fleet(s) we in the Gulf & Mediterranean in case of emergencies? And humanitarian aid? What's your plan for the money if Iran and Israel start throwing nukes back and forth

I advocate complete withdraw (I'm a bit libertarian on this issue). I vote to abandon Israel. It was a mistake to begin with. We should pack them up and move them to the U.S. and/or Europe. Iraq was obviously a mistake, and we should withdraw civilians from that area as well. They need to fend for themselves.

The 6th fleet in the Med would be partially manned by a carrier (by one of the 6 carriers I mentioned). We wouldn't have enough for continual presence like we have now.

 

[Xanikk999]

Interesting. Now, what does pulling out of the Middle East mean? Are you going to leave any combat troops? What about the carrier fleet(s) we in the Gulf & Mediterranean in case of emergencies? And humanitarian aid? What's your plan for the money if Iran and Israel start throwing nukes back and forth

Why should the U.S be responsible for the bulk of humanitarian spending in the world.

Its hilarious my countrymen are so charitable and want to donate to help impoverished people around the world but will cry bloody murder to a tax increase to pay for domestic services for the needy.

 

[SG-17]

No. We need to invest more in mobile anti-missile laser platforms and upgraded F-22s. As well as applying EMP shielding to our infrastructure.

 

[cardgame]

QUADRILLIONS FOR DEFENSE

NOT ONE CENT FOR TRIBUTE

TRIBUTE TO THOSE WELFARE PEOPLE THAT IS

yes, we do spend too much.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The top 15 military spenders spend on average around 2.7% of GDP on military expenditures. If the US cut military spending down to that percentage, it would still be well over three times the total spending of China, who spends the second most in pure numbers. I'd like to see US spending cut to 2%.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I certainly think they do. Dont whine at me for using wikipedia as a source, i have no reason to doubt the sources cited in this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States



685.1 BILLION DOLLARS, and nearly half of that is just to maintain our military forces.
In a nation where our economy is troubled why are we spending so much money to fight insurgents in afghanistan using guerrilla tactics. If it were up to me i would pull out of afghanistan and iraq and worry about our domestic issues.

First on the list would be the economy and doing something about the unemployment rate. There is such much we could do with just a fraction of that money wether it be tax cuts or investing in our own economy it just seems like we are throwing it away to fight insurgents who we dont need to bother.

If Afghanistan wants to live under Taliban rule i say let them or just let the afghan government handle it. We could use that money to better our national security to prevent another terrorist attack rather then use it to try to suppress the taliban who will probably just rise up again when we leave.

Afghanistan doesn't want to live under Taliban rule, they didn't have a choice.

Leaving Afghanistan would be a disaster right now. As for Iraq, we already are, and I don't know that its time yet but we need to leave soon.

As for spending too much, sure we do! But, we annually spend more on Medicare and Medicaid than Nat'l defense! How about we just kill medicare and medicaid first?

 

[JollyRoger]

As for spending too much, sure we do! But, we annually spend more on Medicare and Medicaid than Nat'l defense! How about we just kill medicare and medicaid first?

Net of the payroll dediuctions specifically for medicare & medicaid, the spending isn't above what we pay for "defense"

 

[Dachs]

thread needs a pole

my personal answer to the question is "no"

 

[GhostWriter16]

Net of the payroll dediuctions specifically for medicare & medicaid, the spending isn't above what we pay for "defense"

Actually, you are right for 2009, but it used to be. But, its close, and defense is necessary, social programs are a luxury at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

 

[Xanikk999]

Afghanistan doesn't want to live under Taliban rule, they didn't have a choice.

Leaving Afghanistan would be a disaster right now. As for Iraq, we already are, and I don't know that its time yet but we need to leave soon.

As for spending too much, sure we do! But, we annually spend more on Medicare and Medicaid than Nat'l defense! How about we just kill medicare and medicaid first?

If we raised taxes for the highest income earners in the country that would'nt be a problem but oh no we cant do that, it would be such an injustice in the eyes of republicans. They want to blame the democrats for excess spending but whats their plan for trimming the budget? Extend tax cuts to the wealthy and trim public spending (Not military spending mind you!). That doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Integral]

Historical graph:

May be of interest...

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, you are right for 2009, but it used to be. But, its close, and defense is necessary, social programs are a luxury at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

That is pure spending, but if you want to get rid of it, you will also lose the payroll tax revenue dedicated to the programs - so yoiu need to net that revenue out to see how little in budget savings you would get for cutting the programs.

I would rather my tax money go for social programs for Americans than social programs for Iraqis.

 

[warpus]

It's a shame to see America spend so much money on their military while so much of that money could be better used on social programs, infrastructure, schools, etc.

The military complex has really pulled one over everyone's eyes... It's a hungry money machine..

@Integral does your graph include all iraq & afghanistan spending?