Defence Spending
 

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...-our-deficits/

I thought this was worth a post here.

Of course the head of the US military argues that defence spending is having no bearing on the American economy and is by no means playing any role in Americas deficits.

That of course contradicts with the facts, which when put into a nice pie chart look like this...

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...06/dbudget.jpg

Lets not forget this is the discretionary spending, and doesn't include the military budget from entitlements spending, which is even larger in comparison.

In terms of award spending, the lion's share of spending goes to Social Security, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Veteran Affairs (retirement) and Dept. of Agriculture:

http://www.usaspending.gov/explore?carryfilters=on

In terms of contractors receiving tax dollars:

Top 10 Contractors FY 2011 YTD
1. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION $21,805,098,477
2. THE BOEING COMPANY $10,908,010,724
3. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION $6,393,138,760
4. RAYTHEON COMPANY $5,993,032,698
5. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION $5,284,466,434
6. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION $4,385,253,427
7. BECHTEL GROUP, INC. $3,176,427,577
8. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. $2,860,550,923
9. BAE SYSTEMS PLC $2,567,332,971
10. SAIC, INC. $2,323,592,554

But keep in mind that these companies hire American employees, and so the money awarded above helps the economy in a positive manner. I know because I know the salaries of Customers, vendors and colleagues that work for these companies. They are paid well and subsequently stimulate the economy when they spend their discretionary money.

Does it matter if the defence contractors hire Americans? Would the money not be better off spent on helping Americans rather than sent through a private company which takes a huge chunk that doesn't make it back to the aforementioned Americans?

How many schools could they help with just half the money they spent on bombs? How different would the health care system be if that money was spent there? It would still go right back to Americans, it just wouldn't be going to fund foreign wars.

That's a damn lie and you know it! 58% goes to food! Why else are we called 'fat Americans'?

Sternn, in the U.S.A., 0% of our spending goes for Defence, and that's an indisputable fact.

Some percentage IS spent on DEFENSE, but I think you ought to spell DEFENSE correctly (as it is spelled in the country whose budget you are opining about) before you are allowed to criticize it.

Also, your Think Progress pie chart is a summation of only a portion of total U.S. spending. I've almost quoted it myself in debates in the past, but realized it painted an unrealistic and inaccurate picture. That actual percentage of total military spending as a percentage of the complete U.S. budget is much, much lower than that.

"There are three kinds of untruths - lies, damn lies and statistics." - attributed to Mark Twain

*edit* - Also, I am hopeful that some Defense spending is cut as part of the massive overhaul of U.S. spending that needs to be done in the near future if our debt is to be controlled and paid off over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._-_FY_2007.png

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-in-debt_n.htm

Even if the US government was able to spend nothing, $0 next year in the budget, they would still owe $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations - $527,000 per household all because of entitlements currently in the budget, over half of which are for the military.

Although I acknowledge your idealism Captain, let us be realistic:

Let us say that we stop spending on the military.
What would be the consequences?

When the U.S.S.R. dissolved, the splintered military entities almost lost track of nuclear material. I am not certain that all of it can even be accounted for. And then there are the shoulder launched heat seeking missiles. And this was just lowering the spending, not stopping it. Then there is the question of a defenseless nation being invaded by other nations that did not stop spending on their military.


See the problem?

Thats not a horror of cutting the budget, thats what happens when a world power dissovles into smaller countries. Although that is scary to think about, if something happened to the US quickly, a lot of arms could be just left all over the place for anyone to take.

I also think the US is a little too busy being the world police right now to consider downsizing the military or heaven forbid ever spew the word "demilitarization".

As John Stewart pointed out Friday, America is now bombing five countries in the Middle East and supplying half a dozen more countries with money, troops for training, and aid to keep those going as well (Columbia, israel, etc.)

America's largest export is the military, thanks to the industrial military complex which now basically rules America. It's not even Americas military anymore, its contractors that surpass actual troops everywhere so tax dollars are funding wars which private companies are making trillions on.

Also, HP, I was genuinely bothered by your USSR straw man argument. Of all people I would think you are better than that. To argue reducing the US military size would inevitably lead to nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, thats just pandering to an idea that will of course never, ever happen.

Compared to how much material the Soviets put out during the Cold War, America doesn't export that much to other countries. The Chines supply a hell of a lot more weapons/weapons systems than we do.

Also, I agree with HP on the topic of nuclear weapons. My cousin was in the Air Force for 8 years and from talking with him many silo complexes are already underdefended, if we were to take away money and troops from these complexes, we'd be in a lot of trouble

That the Soviets supplied a lot of military equipment to other countries in the Cold War is one of the biggest American myths regarding them.

Yes I'm sure they didn't supply AK-47s, AKMs, Tanks, Aircraft and Helicopters to other countries is bullshit. Don't start with me on Soviet weapons systems.

They didn't. They didn't help China, barely helped Vietnam, the invasion of Afghanistan was a Soviet attack, not foreign aid, they only helped Cuba economically after their revolution, they didn't help Salvador, didn't help Honduras, didn't help Peru, didn't help Nicaragua...
Do you get my point?

Only place I can think of where they sent substantial military supplies is Spain.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that they've licensed out dozen of different weapons systems. Until the Chinese-Soviet rift in the 60's, they supplied the Chinese with Tanks, Guns, Jet Engines, Helicopters. Same goes for all the Warsaw Pact countries for crissakes.

The Warsaw Pact is a much smaller NATO, and the US military industrial complex clearly goes way beyond mutual defense. That's Stenn's whole point.

Well there's fuck all anybody in our position can do about it. So while the world goes to pot, I'mma sit on the balcony with my girlfriend, a nice, fat spliff and a sixpack of cold sagres.