A specific ? for TEA partiers and right wingers

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    While the topic question is not directed at me, I'd like to point out that right-wingers never consider cutting the military, which could easily have its funding cut by 90% with no adverse effects to anything.

90%?  So we don't fix sh**t when it breaks?  We cut pay and benifits to active duty and vets?  Nothing new again, ever.  I can agree the military needs to cut a lot of sh**t out, but 90% is insane.
Components                                       Funding           Change, 2009 to 2010  
Operations and maintenance              $283.3 billion    4.20%
Military Personnel                               $154.2 billion      5.00%
Procurement                                       $140.1 billion   −1.8%
R&D, Testing & Evaluation                   $79.1 billion     1.30%
Military Construction                           $23.9 billion     19.00%
Family Housing                                    $3.1 billion     −20.2%
Total Spending                                    $685.1 billion    3.00%

Good luck digging $600 billion out of there.

     Terminating all overseas operations & associated costs would be a good start to that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

[Associate Justice PiT]

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

If we cut it by 90% we'd be spending less than the PRC, the UK and France.  I agree with your basic point, we shouldn't spend so much on defense.  But your 90% number is totally unrealistic.  Even Barney Frank only wants a 25% cut.

     Your point? I strongly doubt anything bad would happen if there were countries that spent more on their military than us. After all, you don't see people regularly invading China because they aren't the biggest spender there is.

k, I can agree with that......that might save us $100billion.  Just $500billion to go.

     Seriously, a 90% cut would bring us in line with other big military spenders worldwide, which seems more appropriate given that we are not particularly likely to be invaded en masse at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not really seeing the point of the nearly $700 billion budget other than "it's the way it is currently".

And why is their spending so low?  Because we are their major ally, and they depend on us to protect them.  Being the sole (Western) Super Power places a large burden of responsibility on our shoulders to protect others.  This is why I've been such a strong proponent for a "real" EU.  Abolish the old country borders and incorporate the European nations into a single country of unified states.  That way, the EU could build up their own standing army and protect their region of the world, taking some of the military burden off of us, and in turn, trim back our defense spending.  Of course, hitting Congressmen who keep legacy defense projects on the books because it funds their states, especially when the equipment being built is one or two generations obsolete, has to come to an end as well.  That would save you billions right there.

     As it happens, superpower is not necessarily a permanent feature of any country, & one I would strongly advocate working to do away with if it meant other countries would take it upon themselves to supply their own defense.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Your point? I strongly doubt anything bad would happen if there were countries that spent more on their military than us.

"strongly doubt" will do wonders for Poland when there are T-90s in Warsaw.  Yeah, the US probably won't be invaded right away if we cut our military by 90%, but the world would be a totally different place and there would be invasions.  I agree, it's not the US's job to play "world police" and I agree, we should cut our military budget by many many billions, but 90% is, as I said, insane.

     The 90% figure was more an example of something to bring us into a range comparable to that of other big-spending nations than a serious suggestion, though I also think Barney Frank's 25% is somewhat on the small side from the perspective of someone who does not want the United States to be capable of invading other nations. After all, we avoid other governmental ills by denying the government the power to perpetrate them; why shouldn't imperialism be treated the same way?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I insinuated the biggest military spender is the only country that can't be invaded I apologize.  I don't think I said that though.  The PRC spends a LOT on their military (they are a clear number 2)...but not to keep from being invaded (externally).
[/quote]

     You didn't say it, though it was the impression I got since being outspent by a few other countries in that department isn't something that I see as a significant concern & I did not see the need to bring it up.