Show of HandsShow of Hands

Skarface November 2nd, 2013 11:08pm

The military budget needs to be greatly reduced.

21 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

skinner Wisconsin
11/03/13 5:32 am

Agreed. Depending on what you mean by greatly. Cole suggested trimming over 50% of the budget I don't agree with that.

rastamonsta
11/02/13 11:48 pm

Of course it can be reduced. It can and NEEDS to be reduced.

BadUsername
11/02/13 5:35 pm

Wow republicans...

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/02/13 4:23 pm

Depends on what the definition of 'greatly' is. I could see a couple hundred billion. But no greater than 50% with our current technology. If we can develop something better, cheaper, and equally or more effective, then we'll talk.

Reply
presleyc5 tejas
11/02/13 4:20 pm

Yeas but we have to smart about it. Often when congress makes cuts to defense, it affects the soldiers and their families much more than the military as an entity. I have first hand experience with this. My ex and I almost lost our home because of it

Reply
Cole12 ...
11/02/13 4:12 pm

As rebel said the other day: "Cut it until it can actually be called defense spending."

Reply
Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:14 pm

Yeah, the only reason why I don't call it offense spending is because I doubt that most people would understand what I'm saying.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:09 pm

Define greatly

Reply
droo Santa Barbara
11/02/13 4:11 pm

great?ly
?gr?tl?
adverb
1.
by a considerable amount; very much.
"I admire him greatly"
synonyms: very much, considerably, substantially, appreciably, significantly, markedly, sizably, seriously, materially, profoundly;

droo Santa Barbara
11/02/13 4:11 pm

Copy and paste faily. But I think that's the def he's thinking of.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:12 pm

Lol. You know what I meant. Greatly is way too vague for me to say yes

droo Santa Barbara
11/02/13 4:12 pm

*fail
Ugh. Auto-correct is not my friend today.

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:15 pm

I didn't have a certain amount in mind. If you think that the budget should be reduced by a lot, say yes.

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:18 pm

We could half our military budget and still have twice the budget that China (the #2 spender) has.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:24 pm

That doesn't necessarily mean we'd have a better military, just a more expensive one. Should we cut? There are areas we can? To what you're thinking? No, at least not in a few years

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/02/13 4:25 pm

Bear in mind, China buys cheaper, crappier equipment and armament than we do, generally speaking.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:27 pm

I'm well aware, that doesn't mean their generals are on oar with their equipment. Or their strategy and tactics. Remember it's china they are huge have plenty of resources and unlike us not inky can afford to lose many men in a war, are willing to.

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:27 pm

Well, I don't foresee the US needing to go to war with anybody in the near future, so we shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions on new stuff anyway.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:28 pm

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:32 pm

Actually, if you want peace, just don't piss anybody off.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:32 pm

And then be naive while they work behind your back. You need a balance between strength and diplomacy

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:34 pm

If we still have the biggest budget in the world by a lot, I doubt that we would be considered weak by anyone.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:35 pm

Just because you spend more doesn't necessarily mean we are better. A debacle in Afghanistan. A debacle once Saddam fell in Iraq. Forgive me, but that isn't strength

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:37 pm

If we have more than double the 2nd country's budget and we still don't have the strongest military in the world, that means that we need to increase the efficiency of our military, not the budget.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:38 pm

I agree, but halving the budget isn't the answer

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:41 pm

Halving the defense budget would nearly eliminate our deficit. We are nearing a time of peace, and our military doesn't need $700B to function in a time of peace.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:44 pm

Rowe need to cut? Yes. Would having the budget do anything but hurt the military? At this point, also yes. If you want a military that can actually fight, we need long term reform, and cutting the budget is but a start. And halving it WILL hurt the military severely

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:45 pm

And I'm sorry, but if you want peace you must prepare for war, you can't just isolate and pretend the world is ignoring you. Some cuts? Fine. Anywhere near 50% especially anytime soon? No. That's going to severely hurt the military, and right at the time we need to adjust to the future of warfare, you want to irresponsibly cut half the budget

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:49 pm

If you read through my comments, you'll notice that I never said that I think that we should half the military budget. Extensive cuts need to be made, but the government shouldn't be halved anytime soon.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 4:51 pm

Sorry I must've looked at pinkys comment then. How much were you thinking though?

Skarface Banned
11/02/13 4:55 pm

I'd have to do more research into how funds are allocated, but we need to get rid of all of our bases in places that are nowhere near combat zones like Germany, South Korea, etc. Then, we need to reduce the extent of things like the NSA,

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/02/13 6:45 pm

@Matt, I'm not suggesting that cutting it that drastically is a great idea. I'm saying that I think a 50% cut is about the most we could manage without suffering immediate and drastic negative consequences.

Mattwall1
11/02/13 6:47 pm

Ah ok. I think the number would be less, but now I see what you were meaning pinky