Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josh_R, Jul 10, 2013.
New Taliban Headquarters. We are generous after all.
And yet we're supposed to oppose cuts to military spending.
That's governments idea of creating jobs.
34 mil. A mere bag of shells.
That could be a kickass Dave & Busters.
It's gonna be labeled a school.
Maybe if we ask nicely, Bechtel and Halliburton will give us the money back for the building.
Why would we listen to the commanders operating there...
The spending is fine. It's what we are spending it on that is the problem. How about they let, I don't know, the military commanders decide what we need instead of the bureaucrats.
That money should be going to body armor and high tech toys for the troops.
The spending isn't fine. Even if they converted 100% of waste/fraud/abuse into gear/tech/equipment, it would still be a waste. I think it's a little crazy that we spend more than the next TEN countries COMBINED.
Don't worry, the government will acknowledge its mistake and spend $200 million to tear down the building and rebuild it in Syria, so it's finished around the time that "conflict" wraps up.
Yes, you are. Here's a fact about government: it is inefficient.
Cutting funding from a specific task the government is performing WILL NOT make it more efficient. It will just make it equally inefficient, but less effective. If the military budget was cut, this camp would've still been built. The only difference would be that soldiers would be less well equipped to handle the enemy. You wouldn't have made the military magically more efficient, by giving them less money.
The fact that government is inefficient is not a good argument for cutting funding to tasks that it must perform, like national defense. It's only a good argument for not requiring it to perform tasks that private individuals could perform better, like charity, economic development, job creation, health care, education, transportation, infrastructure, etc. Everything except national defense and law enforcement, which must be performed by a central government, by the inherently political nature of those tasks.
If you want to reduce the size of government, reduce the list of tasks it's supposed to do, not the funding for tasks you want it to perform.
This propaganda again. We've had this discussion before: as a percentage of GDP, the US military spending is average among the countries of the world. The only reasons why we spend more money than other countries are
1. because we have more, and when you have more you can and should spend a portion of it to protect it. It's the intelligent and selfish thing to do.
2. because your graph isn't counting the real cost of China or Russia's military; most of it is in conscript labor, not direct monetary spending.
American military spending is currently around 4.5% of GDP, with no additional costs in labor or supplies. In contrast, many hostile countries spend more of their wealth, use conscription and have standing, trained reserves that consist of most of their population. China for instance has 600.000.000 people who are ready to serve in the military in case of war. They throw 100% of a large portion of their citizens at the task, while the US throws 4.5% of everyone's total production.
Sorry, but I'd rather pay the 4.5%, than face forced conscription or pay a little less and risk losing it all because I thought that was too much to spend on defense. It's not too much. That figure makes perfect sense, to anyone familiar with the kind of threats that are out there.
Having an efficient government is an unreasonable expectation. Can't happen. No matter who's calling the shots, bureaucrats or soldiers. All you'd do by putting soldiers in charge of bureaucratic tasks is turn them into bureaucrats.
I agree that the individuals who fucked this up should be held accountable, but, beyond that, we should probably just make peace with the fact that these things will happen. There's not much we can do to prevent them. Cutting funding to the whole military is certainly not the answer.
Military commanders aren't any better. They spend large amounts of money on bullshit like bombproof toilet seats and submersible tanks that don't work (unless killing its own crew fits into one's definition of "work").
Make it a Wal-Mart.
That's not even just spin, that's an all out lie. The US government is organized differently than those countries. The US has a federal budget, a separate social security scheme, state budgets and local budgets. The federal budget is just a tiny chunk of the total. Meanwhile, with the other countries, they are looking at most government spending.
As a percentage of total government spending, the military budget isn't 20%. It's currently a little under 10%. That's less than either South Korea or Israel (the two allies we rightfully help defend themselves - South Korea only with troops, Israel with direct aid). As for Japan, it is paying for all maintenance costs of US troops stationed on Japanese soil. Keeping American troops in Japan is cheaper than it would be to keep them on bases on US soil.
I expected better from CATO.