Funding entitlements

Duh- cut defense spending. Can you imagine if we funded social security the way we fund defense? Every American over 50 would receive 3 checks per month.

Duh- cut defense spending. Can you imagine if we funded social security the way we fund defense? Every American over 50 would receive 3 checks per month.

That's discretionary, and it would cover it, even if we cut it zero. The financial comitment we've made through entitlements Geo is massive in scale.

For example, in Obama's 2010 budget:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%) (entitlements)
Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%) (defense and everything else)

So many don't understand the importance of defense. Without defense your way of life ceases, period. Millions of Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice for us. Lets not be foolish and take that for granted. Cutting defense is the absolute last thing we should be doing.

The ones that disagree traditionally have not served.

Most Americans believe the U.S. government spends far more on defense than it actually does. Defense spending is near historic lows, however, and the Administration?s proposed five-year budget plan would further reduce defense spending to levels unprecedented during wartime. Between 2010 and 2015, total defense spending is set to fall from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), even though the nation has assigned more missions to the military over the past two decades. This growing disparity between funding and requirements is the primary cause of the increasing strain on the defense budget, but numerous other external and internal factors also are contributing to the problem.

Congress appears poised to repeat past mistakes by voluntarily disarming when operations in Afghanistan and Iraq eventually wind down, starting another period of defense underinvestment and decline. Despite requirement shortfalls dating from the 1990s, the Administration is planning to cut the defense budget, even though the existing budget is inadequate to repair, rehabilitate, and replace equipment worn down in combat, much less diversify the force and build the capabilities required to maintain current margins of U.S. military superiority.
Five times in the past century, the U.S. has fought a major war and then promptly disarmed, with damaging and avoidable consequences. Congress should not repeat the same mistake yet again. Instead, Congress should dare to take a longer perspective by justifying robust defense spending to voters in terms of the national security and economic benefits produced by a sound defense investment and modernization strategy.

Mackenzie Eaglen

We didn't say we wanted to eliminate the US military altogether, we said that we needed to scale back what we spend on defense. :roll: There is a lot of pork and waste there.

A large part of the reason we HAVE such a budget crisis is because noone will accept any cuts. If you want to cut the defense budget, you hate veterans and don't appreciate their sacrifices. If you want to adjust Social Security, you don't like the working man and the AARP lobby goes for blood.

Entitlements are a very good word for them - because there are a lot of people who could easily pay for things and who rail against government spending, but won't turn any pork or benefits down because they feel they are "entitled" to them.

I still like my plan to tax the politicians' campaign contributions as part of balancing our budgets.

AndrewG, your rhetoric is tired and old. One can understand the importance of defense, the difference between fiscally responsible spending for defense and throwing money down the toilet under the guise of fighting a war on terror and keeping us safe,,,
without having served.

Would u care to discuss?

AndrewG, your rhetoric is tired and old. One can understand the importance of defense, the difference between fiscally responsible spending for defense and throwing money down the toilet under the guise of fighting a war on terror and keeping us safe,,,
without having served.

Would u care to discuss?

I'd like to know why Obama isn't doing something about it. Republican presidents alway seem to bump up defense spending.. democrat presidents usually pull it back. Yet under this president we've seen defense and war spending balloon. Have we finally reached a point where everyone in Washington is at the beck and call of the defense lobbyists? Are we ever going to pull our troops back from across the globe?? I sense the answer is that finally we've reached a point where the answer will always be "no".

For 2010:

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) ? Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

That's with the pull back in Iraq!

So many don't understand the importance of defense. Without defense your way of life ceases, period. Millions of Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice for us. Lets not be foolish and take that for granted. Cutting defense is the absolute last thing we should be doing.

The ones that disagree traditionally have not served.

AndrewG, I served 27 yrs. Our enemies live in caves, for God's sake! We don't need more guns, tanks, planes, ships, missiles, bombs... these things are useless against the cavemen. The US spends more on "defense" than the next 15-20 nations combined! While we've frittered away our treasure on unneeded military stuff, other civilized nations have provided better healthcare & education for their citizens.

Bring the troops home from Iraq & Afganistan.

Bring the troops home from Europe & Japan (65 yrs after end of WWII).

Cut the "defense" budget.

The ones that disagree traditionally have not served.

Very often the ones who haven't served are the biggest war mongers.

Dick Cheney never served--he said he had "other priorities."
Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich didn't serve
While John Kerry was in Viet Nam, George Bush was in the Alabama National Guard (maybe).
Dan Quayle got his daddy to get him into the Nat'l Guard (in those days the Nat'l Guard didn't go to Viet Nam).
Most of the Neo-cons who were so hep on going to war in Iraq never served

Mitt Romney, was asked in why none of his five sons volunteered for the war that Romney supports, he said "My sons are adults. They?ve chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ? And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I?d be a great president."

Rudy Giuliani received a student deferment while at Manhattan College and another while at NYU Law

A complete list of these chicken-hawks is at The CHICKENHAWKS

I thought personal attacks weren't allowed. Has this been lifted?



Fiscally responsible spending is quite subjective wouldn't you agree? I am against wasteful spending in any form but if a choice had to be made between handouts or military spending i would choose military any day of the week.

Guise of a war on terror? Please explain? Al Qaeda is fictional?

AndrewG, your rhetoric is tired and old. One can understand the importance of defense, the difference between fiscally responsible spending for defense and throwing money down the toilet under the guise of fighting a war on terror and keeping us safe,,,
without having served.

Would u care to discuss?

I don't see any personal attack. If you do feel free to report me. I'm held to the same standards of posting as anyone else.

And when you're done come back to the discussion.

Guise of a war on terror, yes. After 9-11, our elected officials got a free pass to act as nuts as they wanted. And anyone who questioned their decisions risked being seen as unpatriotic.

I'm not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm also talking about 4oz shampoo bottles on the flight, forcing mothers to drink breast milk and scrambling fighter jets when someone drinks too many bloody marys on the red eye.

As a citizen who deeply appreciates every soldier defending us I Want them to have the best of the best and plenty of it so all the liberals at home can sit on their high horse and complain. The first grifter and the democrat congress are spending this country to oblivion and it ain't on defense. The only lame comments I hear are from brain-washed democrats. The keep people down on the plantation with "entitlements".

Guise of a war on terror, yes. After 9-11, our elected officials got a free pass to act as nuts as they wanted. And anyone who questioned their decisions risked being seen as unpatriotic.

I'm not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm also talking about 4oz shampoo bottles on the flight, forcing mothers to drink breast milk and scrambling fighter jets when someone drinks too many bloody marys on the red eye.

Yeah, when you fly you're supposed to wear your American flag pin, hum God Bless America, smile at security in eager anticipation of the honor of receiving a full-cavity search, and sneer smugly at those who didn't get around to dutifully buying 1 quart Ziploc bags to house their toiletries.

Guise of a war on terror, yes. After 9-11, our elected officials got a free pass to act as nuts as they wanted. And anyone who questioned their decisions risked being seen as unpatriotic.

I'm not just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm also talking about 4oz shampoo bottles on the flight, forcing mothers to drink breast milk and scrambling fighter jets when someone drinks too many bloody marys on the red eye.

Why hasn't any of this changed in the last four years?

Shopper, are you expecting me to exclude Obama from my point that our elected officials have all acted nuts after 9-11 under the guise of winning the war on terror?

He should slash defense spending. We'd still have more stuff than anyone else several times over and would still have no chance fighting winning "wars" by bombing people into the stoneage who already live in the stoneage.

Our wars in both Iraq & Afghanistan are based on the mistaken premise that we can kill all the bad guys, leaving only good guys alive.

Shopper, are you expecting me to exclude Obama from my point that our elected officials have all acted nuts after 9-11 under the guise of winning the war on terror?

He should slash defense spending. We'd still have more stuff than anyone else several times over and would still have no chance fighting winning "wars" by bombing people into the stoneage who already live in the stoneage.

Even if we had a president that had the balls to do that, which we don't, we'd still be spending more than we take in. What next?

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Tax the political contributions (thx Scooterbug). I'm sure there are other opportunities to drive revenues.

P.S. I'm not opposed to cutting spending elsewhere. My central point was that cutting defense should also be on the table (and high up the list).

One way to cut defense spending would be to actually make the contractors build stuff for the price they bid - not 200% more. :roll:

Another would be to not pay them on time for projects behind schedule.