Thread: Military Spending

While I originally envisioned limiting the discussion to military spending in the US, I see no reason other people from other countries can't talk about whether they approve of their government's use of their taxes.

While I certainly believe in a strong military as it is vital to the state, I don't see the need for such a gargantuan military budget the US boasts. So, the question I pose to all of you who argue that they don't like seeing the government spend their money... What about the hundreds of billions of dollars sunk into the military?

An excellent question.

I've often wondered this: for those who don't want the government to spend money on social programs like health care because they don't trust them to spend the money wisely, why on earth would you trust the government when it comes to actually KILLING people?

Like John Stewart, I can't figure out why you would trust the government with tanks and nuclear bombs, but not to pass out cheese to poor people.

Originally Posted by JimR

An excellent question.

I've often wondered this: for those who don't want the government to spend money on social programs like health care because they don't trust them to spend the money wisely, why on earth would you trust the government when it comes to actually KILLING people?

Like John Stewart, I can't figure out why you would trust the government with tanks and nuclear bombs, but not to pass out cheese to poor people.

I love false logic arguments. Here we are presented with only two options both false.

1) "don't want the government to spend money on social programs like health care because they don't trust them to spend the money wisely."

False. I don't want the government to spend money on social programs because it's not the governments job to spend money on social programs.

2) "trust the government when it comes to actually KILLING people."

False. I do trust the members of the armed forces to defend us from our enemies. Their job is not "killing people." Their job is defense. If I point a gun at an armed soldier, or even a police officer, and threaten to shoot them and they shoot and kill me, who really killed me, me or them?

the job of the government is whatever tasks the society decides to entrust them with. the constitution doesn't say it's their job to allocate electromagnetic frequencies either, but somehow they have assumed those as a property so it's become their job to manage it.
as american citizens have wanted social programs the government has started to provide those.
to me this seems perfectly fair. i have to live with the government in my lifetime so i'd rather it reflect more or less the values of my peers, not of several generations behind (or forward for that matter).

Originally Posted by gugi

the job of the government is whatever tasks the society decides to entrust them with. the constitution doesn't say it's their job to allocate electromagnetic frequencies either, but somehow they have assumed those as a property so it's become their job to manage it.
as american citizens have wanted social programs the government has started to provide those.
to me this seems perfectly fair. i have to live with the government in my lifetime so i'd rather it reflect more or less the values of my peers, not of several generations behind (or forward for that matter).

No, the job of the government is whatever the Constitution enumerates it to be. Just because the people want it doesn't mean the people just get it. There has to be a process first. There are two ways written into the Constitution to amend it. Anything done outside of that process, and contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, is unconstitutional and illegal.

A "living" constitution that can mean anything, at anytime, depending on the whim of the current administration or the people, is a flimsy constitution that really means nothing at all.

Originally Posted by honedright

No, the job of the government is whatever the Constitution enumerates it to be. Just because the people want it doesn't mean the people just get it. There has to be a process first. There are two ways written into the Constitution to amend it. Anything done outside of that process, and contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, is unconstitutional and illegal.

A "living" constitution that can mean anything, at anytime, depending on the whim of the current administration or the people, is a flimsy constitution that really means nothing at all.

Ah ha! This is the difference between a Democracy and a Democratic Republic. This my friends is why the Founding Fathers set up a Democratic Republic (the first one in the world) and not a strict democracy. The strict democracy is what had France in flames.

Originally Posted by honedright

I love false logic arguments. Here we are presented with only two options both false.

1) "don't want the government to spend money on social programs like health care because they don't trust them to spend the money wisely."

False. I don't want the government to spend money on social programs because it's not the governments job to spend money on social programs.

2) "trust the government when it comes to actually KILLING people."

False. I do trust the members of the armed forces to defend us from our enemies. Their job is not "killing people." Their job is defense. If I point a gun at an armed soldier, or even a police officer, and threaten to shoot them and they shoot and kill me, who really killed me, me or them?

What is the government's job? Some people might think part of that might be to protect the common good, and that might, MIGHT, include making sure that the people who make the government have enough to eat and the necessary health care to live well. Otherwise, defense is pretty meaningless, as we'd only be defending people's freedom to live lives nasty, brutish and short.

It's for the common good, you might say. Seeing as how we have left our savage days behind, civilization might be a good idea one of these days....

And as for #2...so all wars are all in self defense? Really? Interesting...But, of course, patently false.

Originally Posted by JimR

Seeing as how we have left our savage days behind, civilization might be a good idea one of these days....

Jim, respectfully, we (the U.S.) have not left those days behind. The methods of savagery may have changed, but the principle remains. Instead of outright killing, we have the current US financial and economic system, with its social and political results.

Elsewhere (Africa anyone?), savagery is still common practice. Might DOES make right.


As far as U.S. military spending goes, I'd rather see a well-armed populace and a smaller professional military. However, in this age of highly advanced killing technology, the weapons available to the average person and the reliance on government for basic human needs make non-institutional armed resistance against tyranny or outside invasion a moot point.

Originally Posted by JimR

An excellent question.

I've often wondered this: for those who don't want the government to spend money on social programs like health care because they don't trust them to spend the money wisely, why on earth would you trust the government when it comes to actually KILLING people?

Like John Stewart, I can't figure out why you would trust the government with tanks and nuclear bombs, but not to pass out cheese to poor people.

That is of course absurd! John Stewart is an idiot! The US spends 54% of the total budget on social programs. I personally think we need to close the bases in France,Italy,Spain, and Germany and let their economies sink or swim on their long believed ideals that peace can be attained through negotiations and good will........oh! that's right we tried that before.......twice! The very people that say the we need a world community to handle our difficulties can not come up with the scratch to support the UN let alone a world military. While I do agree with some balance in all this, the old argument of guns or bread is dated because we can do both. We need a strong defense and just because we spend more all the rest of the countries in the world combine is not relevant to the argument at hand. They have no defense.

Later,
Richard

Originally Posted by riooso

They have no defense.

i don't think this is a charity. us is building bases in various places in the world and gets involved in wars not to help others, but because it is advantageous to US.
every country decides for themselves how much they spend on various things and face the consequences.

In addition to the total budget it's perhaps more interesting to compare the spending per capita. For example the top spender, Israel, spends 50% more than US and France spends 20% less. Take a look at the countries which spend more or less the same as US, most of them are funding it with their natural resources.