[JerryLove]

The largest drains of the federal budget are defense, entitlement (social security, medicare, and medicade, etc), and tax incentives.

Now given the fact that social security is taxed seperately; I'm opposed to simply writing off our debt to it as part of the national budget (it may need its own budget cuts however); but beyond that: why are we so focused on the 12% of the economy that is "discretionary spending"? Even if we removed *all* discretionary spending (no more roads BTW), that would not fix the deficit.

I think it's time (well past) to reduce defense spending (we really need *huge* bases in Japan *and* S.Korea? How many aircraft carriers again?), to replace medicare and medicade with a comprehensive and independantly funded national healthcare system (as seen in say: Germany or France), and repeal many of the existing tax incentives / cuts (yes that includes, but is certainly not limited to, Bush-era cuts on the highest 2%... though I'm inclined to pull *all* of bush's cuts).

We do *also* need to look at discretionary spending, and at effeciency improvements; and we absolutely need to spend to create new jobs (because cuts = job loss in at least the short term).

[Pauler]

i am no expert on the subject, but i would not put anything past north korea. i say those bases in s. korea and japan are needed.

[AlphaSigma]

I"m all for defense spending cuts, but good luck trying to find bipartisan support for cutting the defense budget.

[normajean777]

You can't really blame defense for the deficits when the increased spending has come from elsewhere. Looking at table 5.3 on the white house website I find that the Defense budget as a percent of the budget is the lowest in years. So obviously tons of money is spent on defense still, but from my POV, you Americans really value security and superiority over most anything else. North Korea does seem like a legitimate threat, would it really be wise to cut a constant military budget thats been keeping them down for so many years, because spending in every other area has proportionately increased?

[Napoleon17]

I think careful but deep cuts in defense spending would be appropriate. I don't think we need to occupy the world. A few strategic bases from which we could quickly deploy to certain areas is all that is needed. If we could get off the hook when it comes to Medicare / Medicaid that would be great but will never happen. Tax reform would also be nice. Less loopholes and deductions.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The largest drains of the federal budget are defense, entitlement (social security, medicare, and medicade, etc), and tax incentives.

Now given the fact that social security is taxed seperately; I'm opposed to simply writing off our debt to it as part of the national budget (it may need its own budget cuts however); but beyond that: why are we so focused on the 12% of the economy that is "discretionary spending"? Even if we removed *all* discretionary spending (no more roads BTW), that would not fix the deficit.

I think it's time (well past) to reduce defense spending (we really need *huge* bases in Japan *and* S.Korea? How many aircraft carriers again?), to replace medicare and medicade with a comprehensive and independantly funded national healthcare system (as seen in say: Germany or France), and repeal many of the existing tax incentives / cuts (yes that includes, but is certainly not limited to, Bush-era cuts on the highest 2%... though I'm inclined to pull *all* of bush's cuts).

We do *also* need to look at discretionary spending, and at effeciency improvements; and we absolutely need to spend to create new jobs (because cuts = job loss in at least the short term).

May I ask what you mean by this? I understand all of your other points, and argue no comment for now, but how would a national health care system be independently funded? Just wondering that's all.

[jthomas1600]

The thing about military spending is that it largely goes to pay peoples wages. It pays the people who design, manufacture, deliver, maintain, all the hardware and also to pay the soldiers. It's not like we're just burning money so we can just stop. So even if we curtailed our military activities so that we could cut military spending it would need to be done very slowly to avoid massive unemployment. How many people would Lockhead Martin have to lay off if their government contracts got slashed by 35%? There's over 2 million people serving in the military right now. Where are they going to work? Many of them will re-enlist or be replaced by new enlistees when they retire. If we cut the number of servicemen by 20-30% that's a lot of people being added to an already saturated job market. None of this is to say military spending should not be cut. I just think it would need to be done slowly so our economy and work force can absorb it over time.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Pauler

i am no expert on the subject, but i would not put anything past north korea. i say those bases in s. korea and japan are needed.

I don't follow. There are a lot of hostile unpredictable countries in the world. How does N.Korea being one of them mean that the us must spend billions we don't have on bases in Okinawa and S.Korea?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

There's over 2 million people serving in the military right now. Where are they going to work? Many of them will re-enlist or be replaced by new enlistees when they retire. If we cut the number of servicemen by 20-30% that's a lot of people being added to an already saturated job market.

30% of 2,000,000 is 600,000. The Republican's $61,000,000,000 cut is estimated to cost between 700,000 and 800,000 jobs. That's just a consequence of cutting government spending. You also cut government jobs.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

You can't really blame defense for the deficits when the increased spending has come from elsewhere. Looking at table 5.3 on the white house website I find that the Defense budget as a percent of the budget is the lowest in years.

You'll have to be more specific as to what sheet you are looking at.

U.S. Defense Spending and Budget: The Mismatch Between Spending and Resources | The Heritage Foundation

2010 was the highest since WWII... more than double the budget of the late 1990s.

but from my POV, you Americans really value security and superiority over most anything

Like jobs, food, roads, and health?

North Korea does seem like a legitimate threat, would it really be wise to cut a constant military budget thats been keeping them down for so many years, because spending in every other area has proportionately increased?

What threat to the US is North Korea and how, exactly, have US bases in Okinawa and S.Korea affected that threat?

Also: How is this threat different and worse than Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc?

Shall we draft the entire adult population of the US and spend the entore GDP having bases at every potential threat? When we do, shall we raise taxes to 80%, or shall we simply print more money every year? Assuming you don't support that: how is Korea special?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by doulos14

May I ask what you mean by this? I understand all of your other points, and argue no comment for now, but how would a national health care system be independently funded? Just wondering that's all.

The same way that Social Security is indepenatly funded (or would be if congress wasn't "borrowing" from them every year to pay the general fund).

If financed through taxes, you collect taxes *specifically for* healthcare which are placed in a seperate fund and run by a seperate budget from the general economy.

*EDIT* To be clear: I'm not saying that health benifits provided should not be cut, nor that they should... merely that I feel we need to segregate this out from the rest of the cacaphony of government programs so that there can be a single, uniform approach to government healthcare in the US... As I think about it: this might not be bad for defense spending as well.

I feel strongly that seperate funding for a specific benefit would, in this case, be a better solution than the other options.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

The thing about military spending is that it largely goes to pay peoples wages. It pays the people who design, manufacture, deliver, maintain, all the hardware and also to pay the soldiers. It's not like we're just burning money so we can just stop. So even if we curtailed our military activities so that we could cut military spending it would need to be done very slowly to avoid massive unemployment.

That's true of *all* spending.

Medicare goes to pay doctors and nurses and pharmicutical company employees and the people who make MRIs. Infrastructure goes to architects and engineers and construction workers. NEA goes to writers and artists and stage hands and (again) architects and woodworkers and construction workers. etc. etc.

You have three options.
1) Spend money you don't have. Eventually this will collapse the economy in toto.
2) Raise taxes
3) Lower spending.

Which would you like to do?

[jthomas1600]

Slap, Jerry I'm sure you read my post so you understand, I'm not saying the loss of jobs is a reason not to cut military spending. I'm just pointing out that it's something no one talks about and is something that should be factored in when cuts are proposed. Also slap the 30% you pointed to only deals with those active duty. I'm not sure of the numbers or how to get them, but as I pointed out there are companies like Lockheed Martin that subsist largely off government contracts that are mostly military in nature.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Slap, Jerry I'm sure you read my post so you understand, I'm not saying the loss of jobs is a reason not to cut military spending. I'm just pointing out that it's something no one talks about and is something that should be factored in when cuts are proposed.

For me, at least, the confusing part was the use of the word "military" in "The thing about military spending".

To me people (not a statement made with you in mind) seem to selectively remember that money spent is spent *on* something... recalling it on spending they support and forgetting it on spending they oppose.

Even "government waste" is jobs. The money always goes *somewhere*

[Napoleon17]

I know Michelle Bachman is a controversial figure, but what she says in this video is kind of disturbing, if it's true. The fact that the Democrats sneakily split up the 105 billion dollars throughout the bill, among 2900 pages of legislation, and did not live up to their promise to post bills online for 5 days before a vote... this does reek of deception, and if it's true it just blows me away.

This comes out at a time when the Ds and Rs are fighting over whether to cut 57 billion or 5-6 billion dollars. And 105 billion has already vanished? With no debate or discussion? When we are broke? And it also comes out we set a monthly record in February for spending 223 billion dollars more than we took in? What the heck are we doing?

And then we find out that Obama "cut" funds from Medicare, and conveineintly forgot to tell us that they're just going to spend the money on Obamacare! What the heck?

I don't think anyone wants a government shutdown, but I think there's a chance it could be coming. Might not be an ideal situation but at this point, at least we would not be spending 223 billion more than we bring in, adding to the deficit.