Just a visual representation of the military spending of the USA compared to the next 4 highest spending countries. better than statistics as it shows the scale.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/d160c8f740cad88bd41656f4e5b6b3ec.png[/img]
Even if the spending was cut by 2/3rds then the USA would still have the best funded military. You don't need to spend 4 times as much as the other countries put together.
If we cut military spending, we would have no problem with debt. If we didn't launch $5 million dollar missles at Libya all day and night, we would be in good shape. We spend way too much on the military. Even if we cut the spending in half, our military would still be the strongest in the world.
Wait, why Durham NC? I live in Durham, there isn't shit here. Might be because Durham has a high amount of homeless people, i think highest in the state or something.
I found this hilarious though.
[quote]For example, jobs council members suggested speeding up the permitting process for construction projects. But the president noted there's only so much power the executive office has on that sort of thing, since local communities get a say on what gets built in their neighborhoods.[/quote]
I came here for college a year or so ago. Ever since then they have been working on the road ways here, and possibly even before i got here. it constantly impeeds traffic, with the city having a fair amount of one way streets. They never even finish a project to. They worked right outside of my apartment for a week straight, tearing up the asphalt. They left and started working a mile down the road in a congested intersection, and then moved further down the street in another one...never finishing the one by my apartment for another 2 months. so the running joke is they never 'fix' the roads, they just work on them.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30445262]Letting the banks collapse would have been disastrous, I don't see how anyone can say that the world would be better off today if it happened.[/QUOTE]
This is the major issue with people and their thinking. Instead of taking the slippery slope which can be easily retorted, you instead just claim the bottom of the slope. Would you listen to the people who give an explanation as to why that claim is unrealistic? I've concluded either no, or you avoid listening to conflicting opinions. I'd be willing to give an argument as to why your statement is wrong, but I feel as though I'd just be describing what happened.
:foxnews: Sex may be linked as the cause in the rising birth rate! More at 5! :foxnews:
[QUOTE=ThePutty;30438151]Cut military budget in half, use it to pay off debt
Gone in 10 years
Throw in 100 billion for NASA and we've got ourselves progress[/QUOTE]
Nah, it's mostly medicare and social security. We spend too much on social benefits for old people.
through all this budget cut talk there seems to be one thing missing
we need to raise taxes
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;30439088]Can you tell me why we should cut the military? I fully support the opinion, but I want some other ideas to back it up. :)
[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/d160c8f740cad88bd41656f4e5b6b3ec.png[/img]
Enough of a reason right there. It's about 5% of our GDP
So....what's the US' aversion to cutting the military budget exactly?
God, I'm normally middle/left, but after reading what you people write about the military budget with no comprehension of the facts at all, I'm tempted to join the Republican Party.
[QUOTE=ThePutty;30438151]Throw in 100 billion for NASA and we've got ourselves progress[/QUOTE]
To find out that theres an extra star in the sky? Or that the mold on the rock they brought back to Earth was caused by a bit of rotten fruit that fell on it?
No thanks. I'd rather see money being invested in something that can ACTUALLY help us and not be a gamble for 10 or 20 years and then end up in nothing or end in yet another fact that wont help us anywhere.
But then again, as long as they don't waste it all like they do on the military budget, its good enough. I can't believe they spend as much as they just in military and defense research. Its like they need to waste money on something even better then the last doomsday device they built minutes ago.
It's funny how people on FP actually know how to solve the budget crises better than the US government.
[QUOTE=Master117;30459693]It's funny how people on FP actually know how to solve the budget crises better than the US government.[/QUOTE]
it's not that easy.
[QUOTE=cyclocius;30454922]So....what's the US' aversion to cutting the military budget exactly?[/QUOTE]
Talking about cutting the budget is unpatriotic and a sure sign of a Communist.
[QUOTE=Lazor;30451423]through all this budget cut talk there seems to be one thing missing
we need to raise taxes[/QUOTE]
no
we need to cut spending
[editline]15th June 2011[/editline]
feeding a broken system more doesnt help
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30460572]no
we need to cut spending
[editline]15th June 2011[/editline]
feeding a broken system more doesnt help[/QUOTE]
What about fixing it and feeding it at the same time?
I mean, it's not like we have a huge debt to pay off, right guys?
Guys?
[QUOTE=Master117;30459693]It's funny how people on FP actually know how to solve the budget crises better than the US government.[/QUOTE]
I really hope that was an ironic statement because if it was you are right.
[QUOTE=ThePutty;30438151]Cut military budget in half, use it to pay off debt
Gone in 10 years
Throw in 100 billion for NASA and we've got ourselves progress[/QUOTE]
hooray let's cut five hundred [B]thousand[/B] jobs.
i'm all for cutting military spending but cutting it in half will make our unemployment problem [I]so[/I] much worse.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30460572]no
we need to cut spending
[editline]15th June 2011[/editline]
feeding a broken system more doesnt help[/QUOTE]
low taxes is part of the broken system you fuck
I say that politics are like driving. D to go forward, R to go backwards. Of course that's not always the case, but in times like now where the moderate republicans seem to have magically disappeared, it is.
[QUOTE=ThePutty;30438151]Cut military budget in half, use it to pay off debt
Gone in 10 years
Throw in 100 billion for NASA and we've got ourselves progress[/QUOTE]
Because it's that simple.
And NASA is the least important part of the U.S. government right now.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;30462057]hooray let's cut five hundred [B]thousand[/B] jobs.
i'm all for cutting military spending but cutting it in half will make our unemployment problem [I]so[/I] much worse.[/QUOTE]
Ahh, that's just one of the problems with the military–industrial complex. The Defense Department is like the Keep Employment Numbers Up in the Defense Industry Department.
[QUOTE=cyclocius;30454922]So....what's the US' aversion to cutting the military budget exactly?[/QUOTE]
gotta keep us safe from 'dem turrists you hear me :911:
[QUOTE=JDK721;30463584]gotta keep us safe from 'dem turrists you hear me :911:[/QUOTE]
More like acting as the military for most of Europe.
Without U.S. forces in Europe many countries would have little or no military and would not be able to defend themselves.
[QUOTE=Lazor;30462080]low taxes is part of the broken system you fuck[/QUOTE]
there is a republican strategy called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast]starving the beast[/url]
I think the beast is emancipated.
I blame Woodrow Wilson for all our military problems. He's the one that essentially started the whole "Oh hey X is in trouble let's go help X"
Sure, he was completely right in that case, and was a complete genius, but that was the origin of "WE'RE 'MURRICA, SAVIORS OF THE WORLD"
[QUOTE=Lazor;30462080]low taxes is part of the broken system you fuck[/QUOTE]
Although tax is rather low in the United States, rising it wont exactly fix the problem with the debt. When people have less money to spend, they'll typically buy less. Less money spent stops the circulation of the economy, and that would actually fuck it up worse than it currently is.
Taxes do need to be increased, but over a long period of time to allow the economy to survive it. The United States just came out of an economic downturn and the people need money to do their part for the economy.
Also I hope people realise that the United States cannot simply just reduce its military budget by half, careful consideration needs to be taken into what exactly gets cut. What does Facepunch suggest that the Military cuts to bring down its budget?
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;30463770]I blame Woodrow Wilson for all our military problems. He's the one that essentially started the whole "Oh hey X is in trouble let's go help X"
Sure, he was completely right in that case, and was a complete genius, but that was the origin of "WE'RE 'MURRICA, SAVIORS OF THE WORLD"[/QUOTE]
That would be more attributed to Keynes because he played a bit role in the US economic policy. A lot of people like Keynesian economics, but whether you like it or not, a big problem with it is that is describes any possible issue as an economic good. War, disease, disaster, essentially anything negative can be considered good for the economy. The argument has some truth to it of course, because any problem is going to create jobs to fix it, but the issue with the argument is that is that the alternative is never presented to contrast which makes it a logical fallacy. Take the Katrina and New Orleans, the Keynesian argument would be that although it is bad, it is good because there were many jobs needed to deal with the problem. But you have to contrast the temporary growth created against the growth that could have that was occurring without the disaster and you also have to contrast it against the wealth lost. Without factoring in the amount of wealth lost, you can never argue that anything that could stimulate the economy would has positive value. This fallacy also is used to argue subsidizing green energy in that they argue it would provide jobs. The issue with this statement is that it does not at all factor the amount of jobs lost from competing companies and it assumes that wealth will be created which cannot be supported, so the essentially the argument boils down to "it will create jobs". If the whole idea behind these programs is to create jobs that have a slim chance of creating wealth, why should we hire a mass amount of people to dig a hole and then refill it? A mass amount of jobs would be created, and the same outcome of no wealth being created would be maintained.
To expand a bit about subsides, government subsides are generally put into programs that nobody wants to invest in. The reason why nobody wants to invest in those programs is because there is little to no reason to believe that the program will succeed. The reason why close to nobody is investing in many of these subsidized programs is because nobody but the government believes they will create wealth. There is of course a chance that the there will be a program that will surprise everyone and will create a lot of wealth, but the chance of that happening is very small and is similar to playing the lottery.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;30467008]Although tax is rather low in the United States, rising it wont exactly fix the problem with the debt. When people have less money to spend, they'll typically buy less. Less money spent stops the circulation of the economy, and that would actually fuck it up worse than it currently is.
Taxes do need to be increased, but over a long period of time to allow the economy to survive it. The United States just came out of an economic downturn and the people need money to do their part for the economy.
Also I hope people realise that the United States cannot simply just reduce its military budget by half, careful consideration needs to be taken into what exactly gets cut. What does Facepunch suggest that the Military cuts to bring down its budget?[/QUOTE]
Did you know one of the biggest corporations in the united states(probably in the world actually) paid nothing in taxes last year?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;30478508]Did you know one of the biggest corporations in the united states(probably in the world actually) paid nothing in taxes last year?[/QUOTE]
So what implication is being made there? That increasing taxes would cause large companies who aren't paying taxes to pay taxes? Based off your statement, it would be more accurate to say that tax increases would not affect big corporations at all and it would only affect medium to small corporations/businesses. I don't think at all the solution is tax increases, but rather to completely reform the tax system.
The assumption many people make is that an increase in taxes bring an increase in revenue. This seems logical, but happens not to be true. I'd suggest that the claim is false in that it asserts that tax rates do not affect behavior. [url=http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/]Here is a decent article that discusses it a bit[/url].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
