T Nation

Major Cuts Needed to 1.2 Trillion Dollar National Security Budget

Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9584

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.

Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?

Based on this it looks like cuts have already been made so other sides need to compromise to balance it out. Even without cuts its proportionally going down each year.

Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget. [/quote]

Exactly right.

Almost every aspect of government is operating beyond its most reasonable and/or efficient size.

There is a lot defense-budget waste whose eradication would not have an appreciable effect on the actual magnitude of American military might, by the way.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget. [/quote]

Exactly right.

Almost every aspect of government is operating beyond its most reasonable and/or efficient size.

There is a lot defense-budget waste whose eradication would not have an appreciable effect on the actual magnitude of American military might, by the way.[/quote]

While I agree with you in principle…the U.S. military and its contractors are the #1 employer in the country. When we cut the budget, what do you do with all those soldiers and contractors who are suddenly out of work?

Thats a ton of people who will be unemployed.

None of this matters. No one in government will ever come close to making the cuts necessary to stop the downward spiral of debt. Eventually things will get completely out of control and everything will collapse. My friend and I have already decided that we’re going to start a Mad Max biker gang when this happens and go around raiding people’s supplies, absconding with their attractive ladies, and taking any strong looking children to sell as slaves.

Any of you fellow TNationers are welcome to join of course! Best start picking out your tattoos and crazy haircuts now though, as they will be part of our required dress code.

I say 10-20% across the board cuts. Not cuts in growth, but actual cuts. I have always believed the government is good at only 2 things. Defense and Infrastructure. They are wasteful at everything else.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget. [/quote]

Exactly right.

Almost every aspect of government is operating beyond its most reasonable and/or efficient size.

There is a lot defense-budget waste whose eradication would not have an appreciable effect on the actual magnitude of American military might, by the way.[/quote]

While I agree with you in principle…the U.S. military and its contractors are the #1 employer in the country. When we cut the budget, what do you do with all those soldiers and contractors who are suddenly out of work?

Thats a ton of people who will be unemployed.[/quote]

That’s a legitimate concern, but its also a legitimate concern for every other government program that gets cut. The country needs to get weened off the government tit, and it needs to happen everywhere, in a gradual but focused and determined way, because the government just doesn’t have enough money to pay for everything and spending is out of control.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget. [/quote]

Exactly right.

Almost every aspect of government is operating beyond its most reasonable and/or efficient size.

There is a lot defense-budget waste whose eradication would not have an appreciable effect on the actual magnitude of American military might, by the way.[/quote]

While I agree with you in principle…the U.S. military and its contractors are the #1 employer in the country. When we cut the budget, what do you do with all those soldiers and contractors who are suddenly out of work?

Thats a ton of people who will be unemployed.[/quote]

This is true. Balance is key in all things. Also, there is waste born of inefficiency that is not tied to jobs. It should go first–from every government program.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Also, there is waste born of inefficiency that is not tied to jobs. It should go first–from every government program.[/quote]

Only bad part is, government will have to hire 45 people to achieve this.

Government is like a hydra… Chop off a head, two grow in its place

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Also, there is waste born of inefficiency that is not tied to jobs. It should go first–from every government program.[/quote]

Only bad part is, government will have to hire 45 people to achieve this.

Government is like a hydra… Chop off a head, two grow in its place[/quote]
Truth.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Also, there is waste born of inefficiency that is not tied to jobs. It should go first–from every government program.[/quote]

Only bad part is, government will have to hire 45 people to achieve this.

Government is like a hydra… Chop off a head, two grow in its place[/quote]

lol, true. We’ll axe them right after though.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget. [/quote]

Exactly right.

Almost every aspect of government is operating beyond its most reasonable and/or efficient size.

There is a lot defense-budget waste whose eradication would not have an appreciable effect on the actual magnitude of American military might, by the way.[/quote]

While I agree with you in principle…the U.S. military and its contractors are the #1 employer in the country. When we cut the budget, what do you do with all those soldiers and contractors who are suddenly out of work?

Thats a ton of people who will be unemployed.[/quote]
The economy would Grow! It has been estimated that defense expeditures actually costs employment. So the arguement of job loss is a false one.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.

Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]

First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget. [/quote]

Exactly right.

Almost every aspect of government is operating beyond its most reasonable and/or efficient size.

There is a lot defense-budget waste whose eradication would not have an appreciable effect on the actual magnitude of American military might, by the way.[/quote]

While I agree with you in principle…the U.S. military and its contractors are the #1 employer in the country. When we cut the budget, what do you do with all those soldiers and contractors who are suddenly out of work?

Thats a ton of people who will be unemployed.[/quote]
The economy would Grow! It has been estimated that defense expeditures actually costs employment. So the arguement of job loss is a false one.[/quote]

Source?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.

Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]

First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?[/quote]

First, hwy are you posting a video about the military budget, and then rebutting with “but the deficit doesn’t matter”? Secondly, who gives a shit what anyone else spends on defense? Do I care what a dude in AZ pays for his car? Nope.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.

Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]

First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?[/quote]

First, hwy are you posting a video about the military budget, and then rebutting with “but the deficit doesn’t matter”? Secondly, who gives a shit what anyone else spends on defense? Do I care what a dude in AZ pays for his car? Nope. [/quote]

Oh God,as if that is a viable analogy. Get real!

I said the deficit is secondary not that it doesn’t matter.

Why should the U.S. spend that much on “military defense” when in essence it ought to be called what it is “military offense”? It is a boondoggle for the military-industrial complex. I thought you were against government waste?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Defense is around 25% of the budget. Its is one of the places to look for spending cuts, along with every other part of the budget. It all needs to get reigned in to balance the budget. [/quote]

Exactly right.

Almost every aspect of government is operating beyond its most reasonable and/or efficient size.

There is a lot defense-budget waste whose eradication would not have an appreciable effect on the actual magnitude of American military might, by the way.[/quote]

While I agree with you in principle…the U.S. military and its contractors are the #1 employer in the country. When we cut the budget, what do you do with all those soldiers and contractors who are suddenly out of work?

Thats a ton of people who will be unemployed.[/quote]
The economy would Grow! It has been estimated that defense expeditures actually costs employment. So the arguement of job loss is a false one.[/quote]

Source?[/quote]

This is just one of many. I will post more if you’d like but since Rush didn’t say it was true, I don’t expect you to accept the premise.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Lawrence Wlkerson on the military budget.

Do you realize that we could cut the entire security budget and give all the Fortune 500’s money to the government, and it still would not dent the deficit?[/quote]

First the deficit is a secondary issue. Jobs are the number one problem this country faces… Secondly why should the U.S. spend more in defense than the next 13 countries put together?[/quote]

Hmmmm. Maybe to maintain American hegemony, which yields immense benefits not only for the United States but for all democracies? Not only militarily, but politically, diplomatically, and economically? I’m speaking of what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power.” Take a wild guess at who protects every major maritime trade route across the globe.