Simple question: Should our defense budget be cut?

[BDKJMU]

Yes. We spend more money on the defense of this country than our biggest potential enemies. We are estimated to spend $664 billion on defense this year and roughly, $47 billion on Education. China is looking to spend roughly $78 billion. We spend too much on useless, antiquated programs. Our budget is lopsided. Here are the top 10:

Discretionary spending:
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture

There is roughly a $585 billion gap between the #1 and #2 spots. I'm all for the military, the Dept. of Navy pays my salary, but spending on this front is out of control.

I, for one, hope that Sec. Gates gets his wishes.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_deta ... nding.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02495.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The federal govt is spending 46.7 billion too much on education. Education should be a local and state matter. Local and state govts in 2006 spent an estimated 526+ BILLION on education in 06'. (U.S. Census Bureau, Public Education Finances Report).
http://sourcebook.governing.com/profile ... =all&rgn=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Education spending historically goes up about 2x the rate of inflation + population growth combined. For 2010 this chart shows an estimated 1 TRILLION+ in total local, state, and fed education spending in 2010.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/edu ... rt_20.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The US spends FAR more per pupil than another other major industrialized nation with far inferior results. We're already spending more than enough on education. Sure, cut the military budget a little. AFTER the Dept of Ed has been completely eliminated!

[BDKJMU]

There is waste in the military budget. However, before significant cuts occur there, I'd like to see the Dept. of Education entirely eliminated.

Ditto.

[BDKJMU]

My job is cut come October 1st as of right now...so he can't recommend that...

But I'd really like to see what someone thinks can be cut....I know where cuts can be made, except the congressional districts that would be impacted won't let it happen...

I agree that Congress would never cut defense spending in half.

But, I'd give the military a 360 billion dollar budget and tell them to start scrapping ****. Start closing up military bases around the world, sell them to the countries they're in, cut out programs like the missile defense shield, f-35, etc. Sue Col. Hogan for all the time he's spent on AGS and cs.com on the government's dime.

Sure, I'd agree with cutting the defense budget in 1/2, only AFTER at least 1/2 of the current 15? Fed Depts were cut in half, as they are all loaded with waste, fraud, abuse, and many of them perform functions that should be the purview of local and state govts (Ed, HUD, Labor, etc) and AFTER rescinding that giant, 1 trillion $ boondoggle Health Care turd that the majority of Americans don't want.

[CID1990]

One cautionary mention-

When Congress cuts budgets, they generally don't specify where the cuts should be. Generally speaking, when the Pentagon finds itself having to tighten the proverbial belt, it usually comes in the form of delayed (or abandoned) planned cost of living increases and benefits for service members. It is easier to shave a half a percent off of a planned COLA than it is to scrap an F-35.

Also, a shameless self-endorsement....

The Bureau of Consular Affairs at the State Department is one of the only Federal constituent bureaus that is 100% self funded. Every piece of paper we use, every consulate we remodel or build new comes from consular fees, primarily visa fees paid by non-US citizens.

[Col Hogan]

One cautionary mention-

When Congress cuts budgets, they generally don't specify where the cuts should be. Generally speaking, when the Pentagon finds itself having to tighten the proverbial belt, it usually comes in the form of delayed (or abandoned) planned cost of living increases and benefits for service members. It is easier to shave a half a percent off of a planned COLA than it is to scrap an F-35.

Also, a shameless self-endorsement....

The Bureau of Consular Affairs at the State Department is one of the only Federal constituent bureaus that is 100% self funded. Every piece of paper we use, every consulate we remodel or build new comes from consular fees, primarily visa fees paid by non-US citizens.

Well, la-dee-da...a self-funded agency...

How's it going there in Vee - et - Naam????

[CID1990]

One cautionary mention-

When Congress cuts budgets, they generally don't specify where the cuts should be. Generally speaking, when the Pentagon finds itself having to tighten the proverbial belt, it usually comes in the form of delayed (or abandoned) planned cost of living increases and benefits for service members. It is easier to shave a half a percent off of a planned COLA than it is to scrap an F-35.

Also, a shameless self-endorsement....

The Bureau of Consular Affairs at the State Department is one of the only Federal constituent bureaus that is 100% self funded. Every piece of paper we use, every consulate we remodel or build new comes from consular fees, primarily visa fees paid by non-US citizens.

Well, la-dee-da...a self-funded agency...

How's it going there in Vee - et - Naam????

It is going quite well, thank you!

I love Communist dictatorships. Everything runs on time, new highways appear overnight, everyone is so happy it's like a Currier and Ives lithograph. There's no sickness (due to the socialized healthcare), there's no violent crime (due to the death penalty for carrying a gun or knife over a certain length), and there are no evil rich fat cats running the show (except for the evil rich fat cats running the show). There's no corruption (except for the continual bribes that must be paid to every public official for every kind of service), and there's rice in every cupboard.

I think that I will bid to go to Belarus or Venezuela next.

Actually, VN is awesome but as with all 'developing' nations, there are problems. It is heaven for expats, though. Food's great, and prices are like Thailand 40 years ago.

[AZGrizFan]

Our government NEVER cuts anything.

If they got rid of half of the defense budget, they would spend the other half on something else, our budget will never be lower than the previous year.

And No we shouldnt cut the Dept of Defense budget.

Yep. Government spending is a whack-a-mole kind of thing. Plug the hole the Pentagon is leaking money out of, and the leak gets bigger somewhere else like welfare and unemployment claims and food stamps.

I don't blame the Pentagon for all the waste, fraud, and abuse. Much of it comes from the civilian so-called leadership. Col. Hogan was right about military spending being welfare for Congressional districts, sometimes the Pentagon has to buy stuff they don't even want.

Spot on, dawg. And I have to laugh at people who say "CUT DEFENSE SPENDING IN HALF!!!"....the answer isn't to cut defense spending. The answer is (as CID has so eloquently pointed out that even Chizzang agrees with him) to redefine our role as world policeman. That will solve the problem all by itself. Then if we could just get the government to NOT spend that $350 billion somewhere else we'd all be better off but we know that's not possible.

[mainejeff]

I would feel safer if our military were protecting our borders rather than everyone else's..........

[AZGrizFan]

I would feel safer if our military were protecting our borders rather than everyone else's..........

[Skjellyfetti]

Spot on, dawg. And I have to laugh at people who say "CUT DEFENSE SPENDING IN HALF!!!"....the answer isn't to cut defense spending. The answer is (as CID has so eloquently pointed out that even Chizzang agrees with him) to redefine our role as world policeman. That will solve the problem all by itself. Then if we could just get the government to NOT spend that $350 billion somewhere else we'd all be better off but we know that's not possible.

Bullshit, AZ. This is the federal government we're talking about... you love to bitch about their penchant for waste. You think "redefin[ing] our role" will cause the defense budget to naturally shrink on its own? They'll find a use for every penny they're allowed to have and you know this. They'll never say "oh, you gave us too much money for our needs. Here, take the rest." Their budget has to be struck for anything meaningful to happen.

[AZGrizFan]

Spot on, dawg. And I have to laugh at people who say "CUT DEFENSE SPENDING IN HALF!!!"....the answer isn't to cut defense spending. The answer is (as CID has so eloquently pointed out that even Chizzang agrees with him) to redefine our role as world policeman. That will solve the problem all by itself. Then if we could just get the government to NOT spend that $350 billion somewhere else we'd all be better off but we know that's not possible.

Bullshit, AZ. This is the federal government we're talking about... you love to bitch about their penchant for waste. You think "redefin[ing] our role" will cause the defense budget to naturally shrink on its own? They'll find a use for every penny they're allowed to have and you know this. They'll never say "oh, you gave us too much money for our needs. Here, take the rest." Their budget has to be struck for anything meaningful to happen.

You got HALF my point, KY. We can NOT just arbitrarily cut defense spending without FIRST redefining our role in the business of global defense. And I'm ALL for stopping our role as world policeman. But we can't give the defense department HALF the money and keep ALL the responsibility. And I agree wholeheartedly that the truly difficult (and "pie in the sky") part is believing that the Fed would actually shrink the gov't.

[mainejeff]

I would feel safer if our military were protecting our borders rather than everyone else's..........

At least we can agree on something.



By the way.......I'm not talking about just physical borders with Mexico (and Canada). I'm talking about airport security!!! Our military are the ones that should be in airports, checking IDs, etc..........not TSA employees that are more suited for McDonald's (my apologies to fast food workers out there). TSA SHOULD BE DISBANDED and the military should be their replacement. I'll never forget the Muslim woman in full garb checking my ID at the Portland (Maine) Jetport........nothing against her personally but........

[AZGrizFan]

At least we can agree on something.



By the way.......I'm not talking about just physical borders with Mexico (and Canada). I'm talking about airport security!!! Our military are the ones that should be in airports, checking IDs, etc..........not TSA employees that are more suited for McDonald's (my apologies to fast food workers out there). TSA SHOULD BE DISBANDED and the military should be their replacement. I'll never forget the Muslim woman in full garb checking my ID at the Portland (Maine) Jetport........nothing against her personally but........

More common ground.

edit: Would you agree to profiling at the airports?

[mainejeff]

At least we can agree on something.



By the way.......I'm not talking about just physical borders with Mexico (and Canada). I'm talking about airport security!!! Our military are the ones that should be in airports, checking IDs, etc..........not TSA employees that are more suited for McDonald's (my apologies to fast food workers out there). TSA SHOULD BE DISBANDED and the military should be their replacement. I'll never forget the Muslim woman in full garb checking my ID at the Portland (Maine) Jetport........nothing against her personally but........

More common ground.

edit: Would you agree to profiling at the airports?

Yes.......if they can profile people that "look suspicious" or are "sweating" or "nervous looking".......then they can profile physical characteristics! Until elderly white women, or Asian teens, or middle aged black men, or Hispanic 20-somethings start flying airplanes into buildings or attempting to detonate bombs on airplanes.......YOU BETCHA!

[AZGrizFan]

More common ground.

edit: Would you agree to profiling at the airports?

Yes.......if they can profile people that "look suspicious" or are "sweating" or "nervous looking".......then they can profile physical characteristics! Until elderly white women, or Asian teens, or middle aged black men, or Hispanic 20-somethings start flying airplanes into buildings or attempting to detonate bombs on airplanes.......YOU BETCHA!

Then I'm unclear: If you're OK with profiling at airports based on physical characteristics, why are you AGAINST profiling in the case of the AZ immigration law?

edit: because there aren't a lot of Asian teens, middle aged black men or elderly white women sneaking across our Southern border....

[Col Hogan]

Yes.......if they can profile people that "look suspicious" or are "sweating" or "nervous looking".......then they can profile physical characteristics! Until elderly white women, or Asian teens, or middle aged black men, or Hispanic 20-somethings start flying airplanes into buildings or attempting to detonate bombs on airplanes.......YOU BETCHA!

Then I'm unclear: If you're OK with profiling at airports based on physical characteristics, why are you AGAINST profiling in the case of the AZ immigration law?

BA-ZINGA

[mainejeff]

Yes.......if they can profile people that "look suspicious" or are "sweating" or "nervous looking".......then they can profile physical characteristics! Until elderly white women, or Asian teens, or middle aged black men, or Hispanic 20-somethings start flying airplanes into buildings or attempting to detonate bombs on airplanes.......YOU BETCHA!

Then I'm unclear: If you're OK with profiling at airports based on physical characteristics, why are you AGAINST profiling in the case of the AZ immigration law?

edit: because there aren't a lot of Asian teens, middle aged black men or elderly white women sneaking across our Southern border....

Because Hispanics (Mexicans) aren't the only ones sneaking across the border. When someone other than the current ethnic profile starts blowing up buildings with airplanes or attempting to detonate bombs on airplanes........then I'll change my airport profiling stance.

[Skjellyfetti]

Where are the people that voted for the defense budget to be expanded? I'd love to hear their reasoning.

[AZGrizFan]

Then I'm unclear: If you're OK with profiling at airports based on physical characteristics, why are you AGAINST profiling in the case of the AZ immigration law?

edit: because there aren't a lot of Asian teens, middle aged black men or elderly white women sneaking across our Southern border....

Because Hispanics (Mexicans) aren't the only ones sneaking across the border. When someone other than the current ethnic profile starts blowing up buildings with airplanes or attempting to detonate bombs on airplanes........then I'll change my airport profiling stance.

While I agree with the concept of your denial, there are enough "exceptions" to shoot it very full of holes.

Timothy McVeigh
Ted Kaczynski
Richard Reid (English & Jamaican)
...to name a few.

And take a look at this data:

http://immigration.procon.org/view.reso ... eID=000845" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Approximately 8.7 million of the 11.6 million illegal aliens (75%) are of hispanic origins (Mexico, El Salvador, Guatamala, Hoduras, Brazil, Ecuador). That's good enough for me.

[AZGrizFan]

Where are the people that voted for the defense budget to be expanded? I'd love to hear their reasoning.

I didn't vote because the poll is nonsensical.

[Col Hogan]

Where are the people that voted for the defense budget to be expanded? I'd love to hear their reasoning.

I didn't vote because the poll is nonsensical.

Same here...

[CitadelGrad]

The TSA is certainly incompetent and should be replaced, but doing it with soldiers isn't the answer. It just isn't the mission or the proper role of the US military. Internal security is a police function. Defending borders is a military mission.

[bobbythekidd]

I didn't vote because the poll is nonsensical.

Same here...

+1

[AZGrizFan]

Because Hispanics (Mexicans) aren't the only ones sneaking across the border. When someone other than the current ethnic profile starts blowing up buildings with airplanes or attempting to detonate bombs on airplanes........then I'll change my airport profiling stance.

While I agree with the concept of your denial, there are enough "exceptions" to shoot it very full of holes.

Timothy McVeigh
Ted Kaczynski
Richard Reid (English & Jamaican)
...to name a few.

And take a look at this data:

http://immigration.procon.org/view.reso ... eID=000845" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Approximately 8.7 million of the 11.6 million illegal aliens (75%) are of hispanic origins (Mexico, El Salvador, Guatamala, Hoduras, Brazil, Ecuador). That's good enough for me.

mj, I'm going to assume by your silence that you realize you've painted yourself into a logical corner and you concede to my brilliance on this point. Profiling is good. The AZ immigration bill is good. More common ground.

Good night.

[93henfan]

Where are the people that voted for the defense budget to be expanded? I'd love to hear their reasoning.

Right here. My reasoning was that I wanted to piss you off.