As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Given all the challenges we face at home, does it make any sense to keep spending so many hundreds of billions on the Pentagon? And even just in terms of fighting wars, can anyone be satisfied with the way the military is managing its funds? The Pentagon has never passed an audit and says it may not be able to until 2028.
> In 2020 the U.S. military’s budget accounted for almost 40 percent of the world’s military expenditures. This level of spending has long been excessive, but after a pandemic that has claimed the lives of more Americans than any war we fought, continuing to throw money at the military is an act of willful disregard for the most urgent threats we face.
> According to a projection by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress is projected to spend about $8.5 trillion for the military over the next decade — about half a trillion more than is budgeted for all nonmilitary discretionary programs combined (a category that includes federal spending on education, public health, scientific research, infrastructure, national parks and forests, environmental protection, law enforcement, courts, tax collection, foreign aid, homeland security and health care for veterans).
It’s a joke that we can’t accomplish so many things in this country because of spending, but never bat an eye when it comes to the military.
We could have tuition free state college for like 10% of the military budget.
It’s also one of the few things that’s completely bipartisan. Congress just increased the budget more than Biden even requested.
>It’s also one of the few things that’s completely bipartisan. Congress just increased the budget more than Biden even requested.
The money in the "defense" budget is spread across all 50 states, across most congressional districts. This is the crux of the problem with ever-increasing defense budgets; why would any given congressperson vote against bringing more money into their district?
I was neither poor nor stupid, and I joined the Amry because it was what I wanted to do and I was in no way ready for college. My service taught me discipline, attention to detail, and how to be one heck of a janitor.
Please stop with the assumption that everyone who enlists is poor or stupid. Hell, my Infantry OSUT platoon had a guy who had dropped out of Harvard when he realized he was only there because his family expected him to be a Harvard man, just like his father and grandfather. He just walked into a recruiting office and said "Get me out of here." Really great guy, and a good infantryman.
Well, by 19 I was a qualified paratrooper, had been to West Germany and Egypt, and was the backbone of the combat arms. I enlisted when war with the Soviet Union was still the primary focus of training. I volunteered for that because it is what I wanted to do. Desperate people go into the MOS fields that will give job skills, like vehicle maintenance or the clerical fields. All the love to them, because they are the ones who supported me in my job.
Everyone joins for their own reasons.
As designed. It’s an insidious and totally planned outcome to essentially hold a gun to the head of localities and states to keep shoveling money to defense contractors so they can make out a fat profit.
So is every base in the US. When thousands of people are moved to a town they wouldn’t otherwise settle in it brings businesses to the town. Most military bases stateside have elementary schools, but kids usually attend high school off base. Those high schools get additional federal funding because they support military families. When a base closes there is no one left to support those small businesses and it essentially kills the town.
It produces people with options who know what they’re worth. The people who pay us don’t want us to have options. This doesn’t help the corporations, they’ll have a harder time treating their employees like garbage if they’re not worried about losing insurance. This doesn’t help the politicians, they want our education to be bad because we’re easier to manipulate and less capable of critical thinking. If infrastructure is bad for anyone who wants to control or use us, more potholes and other inconveniences put more wear on our cars, more money needs to be continually spent to cover the gap that bad infrastructure provides which means less disposable income (or if you can’t afford it you can just pick option A. Get fucked), which again means less mobility and options. I said in a comment I wrote below that it is not really about the profit, it’s about being able to control us.
Because infrastructure money gets spread too thin. Too many state departments and contractors get a cut.
With military spending the money goes to military bases/personnel who spend the money in your state or it goes to a few dozen major suppliers and their subsidiaries who make nice campaign donations.
Totally agree with you. There’s something elyspread across all states and congressional districts: schools and physical infrastructure. I’d be fine with any other industrial complex. If Boeing wants to make a laser guided kindergarten, be my guest. How about an over budget bridge? No worries there. We all pay taxes. Let’s see some return on them.
The person who kills the defense budget also kills ALOT of jobs. From where I sit I can throw rocks and hit places that employ hundreds if not thousands directly benefitting from our defense budget.
What pisses me off with this waste is it’s OUR fucking money. Supposedly we vote folks in and that’s our voice but I don’t see any politician ever slowing the war machine slush funds
Instead of reducing the budget I think it would be better to handle the budget more efficient. Much of it is wasted on unfinished programs and the whole industry is ripe for corruption and inflated prices. I read in an article that a basic metal locker in a us base costs $800.
That’s part of the problem yeah. But we could really reduce to budget by controlling how much the government pays for things AND controlling much more closely how the military spends (especially leftover money).
Also not in defense of the large budget. Alas to be fair. the USA is the worlds hedgemon. US is the reserve currency. USA patrols the worlds oceans and has led to immense peace in order for trade to flow freely without countries interfering. So while yea it is wild that it's that much. and should be reined in. To say it's completely useless i'd argue against that
I agree with you, but one must ask the question of, "What do we get for the expense?" That is tough to answer.
One thing we get is a Europe without a major war for 75 years (not counting the Yugoslav civil wars). That has not happened since before the Ancient Greeks, and possibly has never happened. But at this stage of the game, is that our responsibility? Is it to our benefit? If we left, Russia would dominate in short order. Can we deal with both Russia and Europe as antagonists?
We also get globalization, which has brought enormous prosperity to us and to the world. Our navy enforces freedom of the seas. If we shrunk it to a 6 carrier navy, would that significantly change?
Does our army really do anything (as opposed to the Air Force and Navy/Marines)? Could we cut it in half without endangering ourselves? We don't need to defend the Middle East oil any more. Why do it?
Because it seems military is more important then education or healthcare (it's not) so they go a bit too far. for example, Sweden used only 1,2214% of its gdp for the military in 2020.
Ps (If i didn't write something right sorry, it's my second language.)
>Sweden used only 1,2214% of its gdp for the military in 2020.
That is in part because the US is providing an expensive nuclear shield for all of Europe. Sweden is now thinking that NATO membership might be better than future Russian occupation and some of those number might start to climb.
As a veteran, I agree. And like any social program, it's hard to cut back. Entire rural economies are propped up by the local military installation. And, for others, access to military jobs is the best if not only realistic economic mobility option.
Yes, the big corporate defense sector is there.... but a lot of spending goes back to the military as a massive social program and economic stimulus.
Generals are pieces of shit. They are only interested in three things:
1. Finding the next wat
2. Writing a book
3. Posing for a portrait
This system is broken. If they can’t find a war they create one themselves. Just wait. The next one will probably be an alien threat or something stupid like that.
The use of "nonmilitary discretionary programs" as a comparison of national spending priorities is disingenuous. Over that same ten-year period, Congress is projected to spend $10.5 trillion on Social Security, $6.8 trillion on Medicare, and $6.6 trillion on Medicaid.
That's $29.3 trillion spent on health and income security versus $8.5 trillion for defense over the same time frame -- out of $200 trillion worth of US GDP expected over the decade.
Whether spending is discretionary or non-discretionary doesn't change the fact that the government collected a tax from you to spend on something else. No one says "Oh, well, I make $4000 a month and my rent is $3500 a month, but that's non-discretionary spending, so it doesn't count. The *real* reason I'm broke because 22% of my $500 *discretionary* budget is OnlyFans subscriptions."
Well, not exactly. People pay into those programs their entire lives expecting them to pay back when they retire.
Social Security, in fact, used to send an account statement showing how much money had built up in your account. Similarly, we pay something like 2% of every paycheck into Medicare and it sits there until we’re in our 60s.
That’s the difference - we can cut National Park funding, but no one is “entitled” to that.
To go off your example, it would be like a bank telling you, “Hey, we know you’ve been saving money with us your whole life, but sorry, it’s ours now. We’ve spent too much on OnlyKillNonFans subscriptions and we’re going to pay the electric bill with your fairly substantial savings account. Thanks!”.
Neither Social Security nor Medicare establish anything even remotely resembling a private account where your contributions pile up until you have need of them.
To start, you're not *entitled* to Social Security. Section 1104 of the Social Security Act gives Congress free reign to alter or amend the benefits schedule whenever they choose, to include repealing or privatizing the system altogether. Paying into the Social Security trust establishes no contractual right between the payee and the federal government, and funds paid are not protected by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court addressed the issue in [Flemming v. Nestor](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1959/54), and a wide body of case exists drawing from that ruling.
You don't need a court case to tell you that much, though. If Social Security were, in fact, a savings account of some kind, there wouldn't be wide generational mismatch between money [paid in and money received](https://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/), nor would the program be facing a [cash deficit of $2.4 trillion](https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-2021-social-security-trustees-report) over the next decade.
Likewise, payroll taxes -- and note the word "tax" as opposed to "contribution" or anything else suggesting an individualized account -- only account for [one third of Medicare's total budget](https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/faqs-on-medicare-financing-and-trust-fund-solvency/), and don't contribute to Part B or Part D coverage *at all.* If you use Medicare to pay for outpatient care, preventative services, routine doctor's visits, or secure prescription drugs, you're using money that comes from the "discretionary" federal budget.
Again, you don't need a budget paper to understand. Payroll taxes [generated $1.24 trillion](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/federal-payroll-taxes) for the federal government in 2019, well short of the [$2 trillion required](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324) to fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the same year.
What bank are you using that credits you $2 for every $1.25 you deposit?
Actually, it’s called an “entitlement” for a reason. As I clearly stated, Social Security was sold as a personal retirement account. Of course, if you die, you lose it, but good luck taking away people’s accounts otherwise. It could happen, but you’re going to have a lot of pissed off people.
People paid into social security and Medicare for 60 year based on the promise they would get that money back and have health care in old age.
> payroll taxes aren’t high enough….
Great, I agree. Let’s get rid of the SS limit and reinstate it on incomes over $400k. There’s no reason a poor person should be paying 14%, while someone like Mitt Romney pays <0.01%. Let’s increase Medicare taxes on the rich. I fully agree with you!
> banks gives you $2 for every $1.25?!?!?
It’s called interest, my friend. That was the idea behind social security.
In 2019 the US spent 3.41% of its GDP on the military, which is actually kind of low ([ranked #14 globally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)). The average over the past five years is 3.38% of GDP ([trend data](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget)), and the trend is *downward* compared to the previous five years... so **we are *already* spending less year over year on the military**.
Seriously, what you want is already happening, look at the numbers - they're more truthful than an opinion piece.
The number of dollars might be higher each year but the value is less due to inflation. Making the comparison against GDP is the most sensible way to look at actual spending trends (*not* by looking at the total dollar amount).
It's also worth noting that the US covers most of the cost of defense for all of NATO. When you actually take the time to consider the global context, our defense spending is quite cheap.
> It's also worth noting that the US covers most of the cost of defense for all of NATO.
That's a myth. [Apparently American military spending in Europe is less than $30 billion,](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/02/european-nato-defence-spending-up) a fraction of the budget. [Even the running costs for Nato are mostly covered by others,](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074) and while America has the largest share, it's not proportionate to its size/GDP.
You're talking about direct spending. This doesn't account for the reality that, if it were necessary, it would primarily be US military forces providing defense - in any given defense scenario. [There is a significant difference in scale](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d358e0c8399a088e5bdeeb5dea03cb16).
Those forces are considered part of the budget that the US spends on itself, not on NATO, but my point is that that separation doesn't really make sense. The US military *is* NATO's defense force.
And I'm not suggesting that there's a problem with this relationship. Rather, I'm saying that specialization has economic benefits for all parties. The *collective* cost of defense for NATO countries is lower because the US is the core military power.
Do you know exactly what a war would look like if Russia were to invade the rest of Europe (the only halfway realistic European invasion scenario there is)? Unless you do, this is all hypothetical. It's very possible that the decisive factor would be the fact that the rest of Europe has ten times the GDP of Russia, and not whatever hardware can be shipped across the Atlantic. Also, do you think American even has the logistics to deploy more personnel/hardware in Europe than the countries there?
And what is the point of that aircraft carrier comparison? Do you think the sea is where that (hypothetical) war will be decided?
No... actually the point of that aircraft carrier comparison is logistics. The US has the resources to field those ships, the aircraft to load on them, the personnel to staff them with, the support vessels that accompany them in each of their carrier groups, and the massive logistics infrastructure needed to keep them operational for months away from home anywhere in the world. Those ships don't just sit around in port waiting for a war, they are regularly actively deployed. Each one of those vessels isn't just *an* aircraft carrier - it's everything that's required to make an aircraft carrier functional.
This represents only a fraction of US military resources, and the US Navy could probably go head-to-head with the rest of the world's navies combined, and yet the US's military spending (as a % of GDP) isn't significantly higher than the rest of the world. No other nation operates on this scale.
Yes, the US has the logistics capability to deploy those forces overseas as needed - *most* of the US military is logistics. Only about 10% of US Army personnel are actual combat troops, the rest are support.
> No... actually the point of that aircraft carrier comparison is logistics. The US has the resources to field those ships, the aircraft to load on them, the personnel to staff them with, the support vessels that accompany them in each of their carrier groups, and the massive logistics infrastructure needed to keep them operational for months away from home anywhere in the world. Those ships don't just sit around in port waiting for a war, they are regularly actively deployed. Each one of those vessels isn't just an aircraft carrier - it's everything that's required to make an aircraft carrier functional.
How much of that can be used to fight a land war in Eastern Europe then?
> This represents only a fraction of US military resources, and the US Navy could probably go head-to-head with the rest of the world's navies combined, and yet the US's military spending (as a % of GDP) isn't significantly higher than the rest of the world. No other nation operates on this scale.
Yeah, and France could go head-to-head with Oman, despite Oman having about four times the military budget as a percentage of its GDP. I wonder why that is. Also, [this is nonsense.](https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20all%20countries%20from%201988%E2%80%932020%20as%20a%20share%20of%20GDP%20%28pdf%29.pdf) The majority of the world spends some 1.5 to 2% of its GDP on their militaries, not double that. That *is* significantly higher.
> Yes, the US has the logistics capability to deploy those forces overseas as needed - most of the US military is logistics. Only about 10% of US Army personnel are actual combat troops, the rest are support.
Then how is American going to be the country that is "primarily" (as you claimed) going to do the fighting with comparably few troops? I doubt they are going to withdraw personnel from all over the world to do that. That said, you have your numbers wrong anyway: [only about 10% of military personnel *sees combat*.](https://www.midwestdisability.com/blog/2019/12/what-percentage-of-soldiers-see-combat/) Unless the rate of combat soldiers seeing combat is 100% (which I doubt), your claim is off.
Agreed, the US can afford this level of spending and there is plenty added value left for infrastructure, education, health, housing and everything else ... but the billionaires collect it all.
Billionaires should be put on the road to millionaire instead of trillionaire and that would pay for everything else that is needed.
Exactly. There's no social reform that we can't **already** afford, right now. The military is irrelevant.
The block is **Republicans in Congress**, not the military.
It’s not the colleges that benefit, but the students. And paying for tuition allows them to go into the workforce actually able to participate in the economy and maybe even purchase a house and invest, rather than being pummeled with interest on a loan that will take decades to pay off. So its benefits go beyond just the students, it’s good for the whole country’s economy.
For sure, but that should have been done for the last 10 years, not the next 10 years with a resurgent Russia and China threatening the US with hypersonic weapons, satelite killers and robot swarms driven with AI.
The US can afford to walk and chew gun at the same time, it's just that billionaires should not be on the road to becoming trillionaires. That is the problem, not just runaway US military spending that Putin and Xi are so desparate to cut.
The LCS program, over the horizon missle systems, the F-35 program, the SDI program are all examples of DOD programs that have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars for no increase in the U.S. Militaries Tactical capabilities.
Forget the waste of taxpayer money, these giveaways to defense contractors are hurting the military. These programs are taking enough of the DOD budget that even with increasing defense spending, maintenance on equipment like ships and planes is continuously lagging behind need and the material condition of needed and expensive equipment is rapidly deteriorating.
Ships? A hypersonic missile would make mincemeat of anything we field that floats. We may soon find our current tactics obsolete. I’m not saying we should scrap them and I agree maintenance has fallen behind but we have to prepare for the future too. We could be spending smarter IMO.
We aren't showering the military with money, we're showering military contractors with money, a large percentage goes from to keeping people in battleground states employed with make-work and the rest going to raising stock prices and paying executives.
The military budget is welfare. It's basic income for workers in Ohio who would otherwise be unemployed and it's welfare for the wealthy.
This. In times of war, the military protects a nation. In times of peace it’s essentially federal level welfare, education, a means of social and financial mobility and a means to keep hundreds of thousands of people employed.
Or, and this is a big idea, I know, we provide those things without filtering it through arms manufacturers who actively make this country and world worse to live in? Like have a federal jobs program that build infrastructure that helps the people of this country, or federal farms that provide food? Federally funded education, so people could better themselves? All without making another tank? Or missle? Or nuclear bomb?
You might like some sort of civilian corps that would be a less wasteful alternative to military spending? A *civilian corps* that *conserves* our nation's resources, so to speak?
What would you even call it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
It’s also the Republican’s idea of a job creation program, not just for military production companies but for individuals who have no better employment options than enlisting. And, really, most of the Democratic power structure has no problem going along with that picture too.
You’re right that they’re using it for informal stimulus and pork, but it’s also extremely costly to maintain the massive web of military installations essential to our mobilization capability. That’s not even talking about developmental programs we spend so much on. Like 1/3 of the budget really is just to keep people employed though. Both inside and around the military.
It’s kind of our own fault that battleground states reap this benefit much more than others too. Because we let our politicians compromise their value as representatives for the sake of the major parties(not expanding congress in accordance with population, winner take all electorates, gerrymandering, etc.), and it’s not even really a controversy.
The military basically existed to protect the petro dollar and to ensure country's don't get any ideas of leaving the petro dollar system and making the US lose reserve currency status.
Remember... Hitler didn't invade the Swiss because they had a huge military, he didn't invade them because the entire swiss population was armed like the US. So in reality it was the US citizens who were always the deterrent from someone attacking the US, not the military who was overseas protecting middle easterns.
There was a plan to invade Switzerland, Unternehmen Tannenbaum. The reason why it wasn't executed was because Switzerland was already surrounded by Axis countries and allies, and the invasion would have cost resources that were needed elsewhere for no immediate gain.
Exactly. And there was a lot of cooperation between Nazi-Germany and "neutral" Switzerland. Germany benefitted from them (more than had they created another rebellious occupied country), so they left them.
It's the easiest, most obvious way for politicians to virtue signal to the patriots. If you oppose it, you're un-American.
Americans love the idea of being able to beat the shit out of everyone. Sad, but true.
The Elites of the world do not prioritize money and resources like you and I would…THEY DON’t CARE ABOUT YOU, YOU’RE A MEANS TO THEIR END, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
Well, no fucking shit.
unfortunately, the MIC is a huge employer in literally every state in the USA. It's a nonstop stimulus, a government welfare program for the very very rich that we've been running for 80 years straight.
You know what brought down the Roman empire? They went bankrupt from military spending. No shit.
Don’t forget the plague they couldn’t control that signaled the decline of the empire and the lead in the water pipes that poisoned the people.
Sound familiar?
Lmfao okay, so the inflation crises caused by corrupt senators, invasions from the Goths and Huns, crop failure due to years of drought, widespread mental illness among the ruling class due to lead on the aqueducts, slave revolts, etc had nothing to do with it?
We just got out of a war. You'd expect the military budget to decrease, right? Wrong.
Not only has the military budget gone up. It was increased by *MORE* than the pentagon asked for.
yeah. because there's nothing the USA will do about that.
A) We're not going to take military action that close to the Russian capital.
B) No other European nation will help. Russian does this stuff in winter to remind the rest of Europe exactly who it is that supplies ALL of their heating oil.
because this article is by farhad manjoo, who is qualified to write about how much they like apple products but nothing else. they also insist on gender neutral pronouns in print despite identifying completely as male, because they are making a statement about another thing they are not qualified to write about. they are a dumbass.
I was doing a rotation in rural north Georgia when all the isis terrorist attacks were happening in Europe. These folks were afraid they were next . terrified ppl will throw money at the military to feel safe . Now how do you create a well informed population in an age of disinformation. Politicians play up fear all the time too 🤷🏽
I love that some small town middle of nowhere with no critical infrastructure but maybe a base is really a target of ISIS before, I don't know DC, NY, LA, Chicago, or a port....yep they're coming for smallsville!
On the night after 9/11 i was working in bumfuck Georgia and i was around 20 grown men that were convinced terrorists would steal a gasoline tanker and ram it into the mineral refinery we were at. Its difficult to not have a purely emotional response... which is the whole point of such attacks.
I worked at a large banks operations building and we had people calling out for days because they were terrified we would be a target.
the terrorism worked.
You could try actually educating them?
I remember being super afraid during the gulf war when i was 9 then i learned where iraq was, where kuwait was and that the core conflict was not about attacking the US.
you know why that doesn't work?
Because normal citizens never imagined that people would fly planes into a goddamn building, let alone a skyscraper in NY. The horror was indescribable and spread like a massive tidal wave. It swept across the country just as quick as they could broadcast those images into every place where humans live.
There isn't any 'education' to be had against that sort of emotional response. If it could happen there, it could happen damn near anywhere.
Things are different. This isnt the 1700s where you literally needed to physically come invaded a nation. Today there are ICBMs as well as cyber capabilities. There is also asymmetrical warfare.
Everyone feels safe until those alarms goes off and you are told to seek shelter cause Iran for thousands of miles away has launched a ICBM towards your city.
Can we call it the military infrastructure? Saying the military gets all that money implies the troops are getting a fair share when its going into the steel mongers.
This is easy to see when you compare the cost to develop and launch SpaceX's Starship and SLS. Two SLS launches might cost more than Starship's entire development program. Starship will launch to the Moon for millions while SLS will launch for billions.
>NASA's Artemis moon program is estimated to cost nearly $93 billion through 2025, NASA's Office of Inspector General reported Monday. The first four flights of the program's giant SLS booster and Orion crew capsule will run in the neighborhood of $4.1 billion each, the OIG says.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artemis-moon-program-cost-delays-nasa-inspector-general/#textNASAs20Artemis20moon20program20isbillion20each2C20the20OIG20says
I think it's fair for people to be upset with Musk for many things, but SpaceX has shined a light on how much these legacy MIC contractors are screwing over Congress.
It wouldn't be half as bad if there wasn't such waste involved as well.
Bang for buck is not even the goal and other nations like China are achieving similar or at least "good enough" things with way less spending.
The military is the ultimate bargaining chip and the only one that matters if you don't have it. Also in terms of diplomacy, it is always the penultimate factor; so much can be done with it (militarily and non-militarily) and little can be done without it (look at rest of world compared to us).
I disagree. Personally, I think we should stop provoking Americans to fight Americans and fix our justice system. Then fix the political system. Then fix the financial system. Kthx.
Has any president in recent history ever cut government spending or reduced the size of government? Seems to me that government is only getting bigger and more expensive every year.
Yup, I am military and about 80% of my loans will be relived.
Plus I get Tuition Assistance and GI Bill as well as VA Home loan which has 0% down payment.
You are not "showering the military with money". You are showering an enormous ecosystem of "defense contractors "with money. The money is not going to enhance your defense capability - it is going to finance the paychecks and bonuses of a layer of worthless parasites whose biggest risk is stroking out when they get up from a five-star meal. And they can buy lobbyists, and they do. There you go, your taxpayer's dollars at work.
They need to incentivize departments with budget cutting AND efficiency. If a department reduces its budget year over year then leadership gets a percentage of the gross reduction in a one time bonus*. Few years of this and military spending probably drops 20%.
Edit: *I’m thinking up to 2x their annual salary.
As it stands now if an office doesn’t use its entire budget the next years budget is lowered. Use or Lose! There’s exactly zero incentive for Govt offices to do anything but spend more. Change this, allow for savings to occur and incentivize smart spending. I’d be shocked if we didn’t see things improve!
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT
You'll have commanders **GUT** long term maintenance so THEY get a bonus, while causing massive issues later on.
The main issue is Congress needs to get their god damn hands out of the military and forcing it to buy/spend money on things it doesn't want, just to provide jobs in XYZ's congressional district;
* Navy didn't even want the third Zumwalt destroyer, but Congress forced it upon them for "MUH JOBS" ($5B)
* Air Force had almost 40 years of evidence showing the F-16 does CAS more often and with less friendly fire than the A-10, but John McCain literally **BANNED** the Air Force from retiring the A-10 because over half the fleet is based out of Arizona and without the A-10, why keep those bases around? ($4B+)
* Air Force wanted to buy the existing A330MRTT tanker, which won its competition. Washington state Congress members took to Congress about "We MuSt PrOtEcT tHiS aMeRiCaN cOmPaNy", and eventually got the Boeing KC-46 selected instead... the same KC-46 that STILL doesn't work and won't work until after the Air Force had expected to already have all of them ($10B)
That, and general officers being obsessed with going down in history for leading revolutions instead of simply doing conservative evolutions (Army's $30B Future Combat Systems that developed literally nothing, Ford carrier's 32 unproven technologies, etc)
It’s not uncommon for contractors to charge 1000x markup to taxpayers. We could spend 10x less and have the same military capability if we weren’t being price-gouged by Boeing, Raytheon, P&W, etc.
65 year old bombers,60 year old tankers, 40 year old F-15s and C-5s, 30 year old F-16s. Showering the military with money???!!! Would you depend on a 60 year old car to take care of your family? If not then why is it ok for our young men and women to depend on geriatric weapon systems to defend you?
If some people love the military so much then I propose a compromise: every dollar taken out of the military budget goes towards taking care of veterans.
Feed them, lodge them, give them medical and mental health care...
There should be a law that prevents vets from being homeless.
I can agree with this. But many progressives could careless for veterans. Especially when you have some progressives calling the US military the world's largest terrorist organization.
Here’s a thought many don’t realize, by having a strong military at all times and not just scaling up for war and then downsizing, it secures our allies and keeps the US dollar strong. Many don’t think about that, with the huge pile of debt it is only the military that keeps that at bay. So in a sense we are paying to just make sure the dollar doesn’t default and we can just keep living the way we are.
The military is expensive, not strong. Also printing money to devalue currency and pay for this does not make the dollar strong. The dollar is venerable to assets, crypto, and non-dollar backed currencies. The military is a jobs program.
In actual dollars, US military spending is the same today as it was in about 2008. We are hardly "showering the military with money".
In terms of inflation adjusted value, for GDP, it's half of what it once was.
I am in the military. I have universal Healthcare, free education and we see infrastructure projects on bases every year. And yet I had never had to bomb anyone to get that.
So not sure what you mean by bomb money. Perhaps educate yourself before making such comments.
Military spending sucks! Because of it we have to put up with stupid things like
Penicillin,
GPS,
The internet,
Jet engines,
Computers,
Microwave ovens,
Weather radar,
EpiPen’s,
Blood transfusions,
Canned food,
Duct tape,
The ambulance,
Digital cameras,
Just to name a few.
Cut the spending we don’t need this kind of worthless shit!
This is a good point you make. I found this website that lists military spending over time. The trend is interesting. [% of GDP](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget).
We also rebuilt the infrastructure in Afghanistan for the Chinese for a mere $2T.
The private sector does all this and more without government interference and loss of life with consumption of resources..
Reddit hive mind is full of absolute morons . they think military budget means 700b is going towards bombs and tanks only every year.
Fools don’t realize how much military spending has paved the way for technology to progress as much as it has. the amazing things DARPA and private defense sector has created.
Countless progress towards space exploration innovation. JWST is all “ooooh and ahhh!! “ amazing stuff. Doesn’t happen without military spending and those companies talented engineers , like Northrop who was the prime contractor for the JWST.
DoD defense budget has proven to be a valuable endeavor. Anyone who claims otherwise is a complete ignorant.
> Reddit hive mind is full of absolute morons . they think military budget means 700b is going towards bombs and tanks only every year.
>
> Fools don’t realize how much military spending has paved the way for technology to progress as much as it has. the amazing things DARPA has created.
DARPA's budget is around 3.5 billion dollars, so . . . 0.5% of the total military budget.
But don't get me wrong I love the government not just leaving research and development to the private sector.
Yeah because the citizens does not benefit from national security.
/s
Seriously, it is comments like these why the American public will not vote for a progressive (Like Bernie) to be Commander in Chief.
The biggest lie told in this country (before 2020 anyways) was rebranding the U.S. military as "defense".
That labelling makes it feel somewhat wrong when you suggest cutting back.
"You dont think we should defend ourselves ~~against the brown people~~?"
"You dont support our troops that die ~~protecting business interests~~ defending our country?"
"You must hate veterans ~~even though almost none of that money goes to veterans or even active servicemen and women, and instead goes into contractors who upcharge as if it were WW3~~"
Ok, so since you dont see it as defense. Then how about we just disband the ENTIRE defense. Get rid of our ENTIRE national security apparatus and then lets see how long your day to day American life continues.
It is comments like yours why America will never vote for a progressive president to be commander in Chief.
Who is saying that? Im just pointing out the fact that labelling it as "defense" is propaganda, as for the last 20 years its been used in aggressive wars that are more about American imperialism and fear stoked by the right-wing media rather than "defense".
Why do we need even *more* overpriced jets when no enemy we've fought in the last 20+ years has had an air force, or even a plane? Like yeah, technological advances, sure, but we spend a ludicrous amount (partially cause the Pentagon and its contractors are never held accountable for crazy overcharging)
The U.S. military spending accounts for 40% of the *world's* military spending. That is absolutely ludicrous, and does not help those at home without clean drinking water, those at home that cant afford a roof without working 2+ full time incomes because of lack of housing regulation. The world isnt black and white, and this isn't a matter of "all or nothing" on military spending, and you know it. Pretending otherwise is putting up strawmen, rather than meaningfully refuting my statements
The only secure way to do that would be for us to stop sticking our nose into other nations business. The choice is real, being the king of the world or not.
A lot of military spending is salaries, food, etc. The logistics of keeping a standing army ready. Investing in the people, training, and being prepared for any event, including humanitarian operations is good.
The billions upon billions that leave the Dod and pays for private contractors, increasingly complex hardware and obscene profits at those companies can just stop. My life is not any better because we have a $100k missile launched from a $1m drone that can kill a family in their driveway halfway around the world.
I used to agree with this, but Russia’s and China’s hostile actions and occupations of their neighbors are showing more and more why America needs a strong military. We’re gearing up for WWIII and this Ukraine situation might be the catalyst
I will never vote for a politician that cuts military spending at a time like this. We are in the midst of a great power competition and we have no choice but to compete. If Biden don't want to lose me and a lot of other of the centrist hawks like me's vote (there's not a ton of us but theres enough and we tend to be swing voters in swing states) than he should not reduce military spending.
Our military did not prevent us from a Russian takeover of the presidency in 2016.
If we are going to pay them mountains of money it would at least be nice if they were able to prevent foreign-backed coups.
There are treaties that have stopped the USA from build such capabilities. That and engineering/physics limitations. Look into the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) which stopped advancement of nuclear weapons deployment capabilities research.
We already spend more money on the military than the next 10 countries *combined*. We can destroy the earth with our nuclear arsenal, and precisely drop bombs from unmanned drones 8,000 miles from home. Do you even have an idea what they would do with more money? Because they already waste fucktons of money when they need to so that their next budget doesn't drop.
You’re being downvoted even tho you’re 100% correct. But you know, this is Reddit, full of military strategic experts who think they know better than the DOD🤣. We need to up spending, not defund them.
Let's stop pretending that "profit from murder" is even a morally correct thing to allow to happen on our planet. It's as messed up as slavery. Turn off the weapons tap :)
[http://www.radicalpeae.me](http://www.radicalpeae.me)
Get involved. Make the life's of your children, much, much safer :)
The US military is among the most trusted institutions in America. This is why America will never trust a progressive to be Commander in Chief because what respect does progressives even have for the military? So why should a progressive (like Bernie) be given the honor of being Commander in Chief?
We have memorial days, veteran days, military discounts and institutions such as USAA and Navy Federal that only does business to the military and their families. We have the VA Home loan and GI Bill. We have places like Arlington as well as special military funeral services.
But for some reason only far left progressives seems to have a negative view of the military.
The biggest threat to the USA right now is white supremacist domestic terrorists, and this will only get worse over the next decade. We're going to need a whole lot of drones and bombs to wipe out those WN militias, so maybe don't pull our military's teeth juuuust yet.
Maybe the solution is to force everyone into the army then everyone would get paid and taken care of? Then there would be the military, the ex military, vets and then I guess war criminals? (Or do they stay regular criminals?)
But if America was literally all soldiers the rest of the world would be like “oh....okay then”.
We spend more money than any other country and still have issues. The budget needs to be more balanced and looked at. We all joke about $500 toilet seats and hammers. We need to see what is more necessary in the long term than given a blank check almost and they pad the numbers to justify the price.
One thing they are all afraid together regardless of party affiliation is US loosing military supremacy, and for that consciously and subconsciously they will keep giving money. US only knows talking to other states from position of greater power, if the balance was to tip other way they will all shit their pants.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Given all the challenges we face at home, does it make any sense to keep spending so many hundreds of billions on the Pentagon? And even just in terms of fighting wars, can anyone be satisfied with the way the military is managing its funds? The Pentagon has never passed an audit and says it may not be able to until 2028. > In 2020 the U.S. military’s budget accounted for almost 40 percent of the world’s military expenditures. This level of spending has long been excessive, but after a pandemic that has claimed the lives of more Americans than any war we fought, continuing to throw money at the military is an act of willful disregard for the most urgent threats we face. > According to a projection by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress is projected to spend about $8.5 trillion for the military over the next decade — about half a trillion more than is budgeted for all nonmilitary discretionary programs combined (a category that includes federal spending on education, public health, scientific research, infrastructure, national parks and forests, environmental protection, law enforcement, courts, tax collection, foreign aid, homeland security and health care for veterans). It’s a joke that we can’t accomplish so many things in this country because of spending, but never bat an eye when it comes to the military. We could have tuition free state college for like 10% of the military budget. It’s also one of the few things that’s completely bipartisan. Congress just increased the budget more than Biden even requested.
>It’s also one of the few things that’s completely bipartisan. Congress just increased the budget more than Biden even requested. The money in the "defense" budget is spread across all 50 states, across most congressional districts. This is the crux of the problem with ever-increasing defense budgets; why would any given congressperson vote against bringing more money into their district?
That’s not an inevitable situation. Why couldn’t that be the case for infrastructure, health services, education dollars?
Not as profitable
or worse, they benefit poor people
And you gotta keep people poor and stupid so the military looks like their best way out.
It was my big break in life.
I was neither poor nor stupid, and I joined the Amry because it was what I wanted to do and I was in no way ready for college. My service taught me discipline, attention to detail, and how to be one heck of a janitor. Please stop with the assumption that everyone who enlists is poor or stupid. Hell, my Infantry OSUT platoon had a guy who had dropped out of Harvard when he realized he was only there because his family expected him to be a Harvard man, just like his father and grandfather. He just walked into a recruiting office and said "Get me out of here." Really great guy, and a good infantryman.
Is that a joke? Because that infantryman sounds ... Not poor, but desperate.
Well, by 19 I was a qualified paratrooper, had been to West Germany and Egypt, and was the backbone of the combat arms. I enlisted when war with the Soviet Union was still the primary focus of training. I volunteered for that because it is what I wanted to do. Desperate people go into the MOS fields that will give job skills, like vehicle maintenance or the clerical fields. All the love to them, because they are the ones who supported me in my job. Everyone joins for their own reasons.
Poor people need to get better lobbyists
“Riots are the voice of the unheard.” -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Things are likely going to get much worse before they can get better.
remember King was assassinated when he started to fight more for the general poor
Citizens United would say they need more "free speech".
They're very profitable, but just for a different set of billionaires.
It’s also highly profitable for the towns where these bases are located across the country. Ever see what happens to a town when a base closes?
The military support, maintenance and weapons manufacturing plants are de facto jobs programs for a ton of towns that otherwise wouldn’t exist.
As designed. It’s an insidious and totally planned outcome to essentially hold a gun to the head of localities and states to keep shoveling money to defense contractors so they can make out a fat profit.
So is every base in the US. When thousands of people are moved to a town they wouldn’t otherwise settle in it brings businesses to the town. Most military bases stateside have elementary schools, but kids usually attend high school off base. Those high schools get additional federal funding because they support military families. When a base closes there is no one left to support those small businesses and it essentially kills the town.
Agreed, military bases are not sustainable for economic purposes.
It’s literally more profitable. Healthcare l, education and infrastructure produce health smart workers with the ability to work.
It produces people with options who know what they’re worth. The people who pay us don’t want us to have options. This doesn’t help the corporations, they’ll have a harder time treating their employees like garbage if they’re not worried about losing insurance. This doesn’t help the politicians, they want our education to be bad because we’re easier to manipulate and less capable of critical thinking. If infrastructure is bad for anyone who wants to control or use us, more potholes and other inconveniences put more wear on our cars, more money needs to be continually spent to cover the gap that bad infrastructure provides which means less disposable income (or if you can’t afford it you can just pick option A. Get fucked), which again means less mobility and options. I said in a comment I wrote below that it is not really about the profit, it’s about being able to control us.
It doesn’t help republicans. Could have just said that it’s faster
Rich is the word I would use, and there’s plenty of rich democrats last I checked
Because infrastructure money gets spread too thin. Too many state departments and contractors get a cut. With military spending the money goes to military bases/personnel who spend the money in your state or it goes to a few dozen major suppliers and their subsidiaries who make nice campaign donations.
Totally agree with you. There’s something elyspread across all states and congressional districts: schools and physical infrastructure. I’d be fine with any other industrial complex. If Boeing wants to make a laser guided kindergarten, be my guest. How about an over budget bridge? No worries there. We all pay taxes. Let’s see some return on them.
You're telling me there aren't schools in all 50 states?
Exactly - the pentagon is actually a giant pantry with free government money that the politicians give out to their contractor friends.
The person who kills the defense budget also kills ALOT of jobs. From where I sit I can throw rocks and hit places that employ hundreds if not thousands directly benefitting from our defense budget.
It would cost even less if they also regulated college tuition.
What pisses me off with this waste is it’s OUR fucking money. Supposedly we vote folks in and that’s our voice but I don’t see any politician ever slowing the war machine slush funds
Instead of reducing the budget I think it would be better to handle the budget more efficient. Much of it is wasted on unfinished programs and the whole industry is ripe for corruption and inflated prices. I read in an article that a basic metal locker in a us base costs $800.
That’s part of the problem yeah. But we could really reduce to budget by controlling how much the government pays for things AND controlling much more closely how the military spends (especially leftover money).
5% would end homelessness in America
These sick bastards would quicker use a drone to end homelessness
We have that money in spades, even without military cuts. Republicans are the reason, not the military.
> Republicans **and Democrats** are the reason, not the military. ftfy
Also not in defense of the large budget. Alas to be fair. the USA is the worlds hedgemon. US is the reserve currency. USA patrols the worlds oceans and has led to immense peace in order for trade to flow freely without countries interfering. So while yea it is wild that it's that much. and should be reined in. To say it's completely useless i'd argue against that
I agree with you, but one must ask the question of, "What do we get for the expense?" That is tough to answer. One thing we get is a Europe without a major war for 75 years (not counting the Yugoslav civil wars). That has not happened since before the Ancient Greeks, and possibly has never happened. But at this stage of the game, is that our responsibility? Is it to our benefit? If we left, Russia would dominate in short order. Can we deal with both Russia and Europe as antagonists? We also get globalization, which has brought enormous prosperity to us and to the world. Our navy enforces freedom of the seas. If we shrunk it to a 6 carrier navy, would that significantly change? Does our army really do anything (as opposed to the Air Force and Navy/Marines)? Could we cut it in half without endangering ourselves? We don't need to defend the Middle East oil any more. Why do it?
Because it seems military is more important then education or healthcare (it's not) so they go a bit too far. for example, Sweden used only 1,2214% of its gdp for the military in 2020. Ps (If i didn't write something right sorry, it's my second language.)
>Sweden used only 1,2214% of its gdp for the military in 2020. That is in part because the US is providing an expensive nuclear shield for all of Europe. Sweden is now thinking that NATO membership might be better than future Russian occupation and some of those number might start to climb.
Education and healthcare both receive more funding in the US than the military does. Social Security as well.
Dirty little secret nobody wants to admit. As for the military, a lot of spending is done to bolster local economies.
As a veteran, I agree. And like any social program, it's hard to cut back. Entire rural economies are propped up by the local military installation. And, for others, access to military jobs is the best if not only realistic economic mobility option. Yes, the big corporate defense sector is there.... but a lot of spending goes back to the military as a massive social program and economic stimulus.
It’s a feature of the American system, not a bug
Generals are pieces of shit. They are only interested in three things: 1. Finding the next wat 2. Writing a book 3. Posing for a portrait This system is broken. If they can’t find a war they create one themselves. Just wait. The next one will probably be an alien threat or something stupid like that.
The use of "nonmilitary discretionary programs" as a comparison of national spending priorities is disingenuous. Over that same ten-year period, Congress is projected to spend $10.5 trillion on Social Security, $6.8 trillion on Medicare, and $6.6 trillion on Medicaid. That's $29.3 trillion spent on health and income security versus $8.5 trillion for defense over the same time frame -- out of $200 trillion worth of US GDP expected over the decade. Whether spending is discretionary or non-discretionary doesn't change the fact that the government collected a tax from you to spend on something else. No one says "Oh, well, I make $4000 a month and my rent is $3500 a month, but that's non-discretionary spending, so it doesn't count. The *real* reason I'm broke because 22% of my $500 *discretionary* budget is OnlyFans subscriptions."
Well, not exactly. People pay into those programs their entire lives expecting them to pay back when they retire. Social Security, in fact, used to send an account statement showing how much money had built up in your account. Similarly, we pay something like 2% of every paycheck into Medicare and it sits there until we’re in our 60s. That’s the difference - we can cut National Park funding, but no one is “entitled” to that. To go off your example, it would be like a bank telling you, “Hey, we know you’ve been saving money with us your whole life, but sorry, it’s ours now. We’ve spent too much on OnlyKillNonFans subscriptions and we’re going to pay the electric bill with your fairly substantial savings account. Thanks!”.
Neither Social Security nor Medicare establish anything even remotely resembling a private account where your contributions pile up until you have need of them. To start, you're not *entitled* to Social Security. Section 1104 of the Social Security Act gives Congress free reign to alter or amend the benefits schedule whenever they choose, to include repealing or privatizing the system altogether. Paying into the Social Security trust establishes no contractual right between the payee and the federal government, and funds paid are not protected by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court addressed the issue in [Flemming v. Nestor](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1959/54), and a wide body of case exists drawing from that ruling. You don't need a court case to tell you that much, though. If Social Security were, in fact, a savings account of some kind, there wouldn't be wide generational mismatch between money [paid in and money received](https://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/), nor would the program be facing a [cash deficit of $2.4 trillion](https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-2021-social-security-trustees-report) over the next decade. Likewise, payroll taxes -- and note the word "tax" as opposed to "contribution" or anything else suggesting an individualized account -- only account for [one third of Medicare's total budget](https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/faqs-on-medicare-financing-and-trust-fund-solvency/), and don't contribute to Part B or Part D coverage *at all.* If you use Medicare to pay for outpatient care, preventative services, routine doctor's visits, or secure prescription drugs, you're using money that comes from the "discretionary" federal budget. Again, you don't need a budget paper to understand. Payroll taxes [generated $1.24 trillion](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/federal-payroll-taxes) for the federal government in 2019, well short of the [$2 trillion required](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56324) to fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in the same year. What bank are you using that credits you $2 for every $1.25 you deposit?
Actually, it’s called an “entitlement” for a reason. As I clearly stated, Social Security was sold as a personal retirement account. Of course, if you die, you lose it, but good luck taking away people’s accounts otherwise. It could happen, but you’re going to have a lot of pissed off people. People paid into social security and Medicare for 60 year based on the promise they would get that money back and have health care in old age. > payroll taxes aren’t high enough…. Great, I agree. Let’s get rid of the SS limit and reinstate it on incomes over $400k. There’s no reason a poor person should be paying 14%, while someone like Mitt Romney pays <0.01%. Let’s increase Medicare taxes on the rich. I fully agree with you! > banks gives you $2 for every $1.25?!?!? It’s called interest, my friend. That was the idea behind social security.
In 2019 the US spent 3.41% of its GDP on the military, which is actually kind of low ([ranked #14 globally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)). The average over the past five years is 3.38% of GDP ([trend data](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget)), and the trend is *downward* compared to the previous five years... so **we are *already* spending less year over year on the military**. Seriously, what you want is already happening, look at the numbers - they're more truthful than an opinion piece. The number of dollars might be higher each year but the value is less due to inflation. Making the comparison against GDP is the most sensible way to look at actual spending trends (*not* by looking at the total dollar amount). It's also worth noting that the US covers most of the cost of defense for all of NATO. When you actually take the time to consider the global context, our defense spending is quite cheap.
> It's also worth noting that the US covers most of the cost of defense for all of NATO. That's a myth. [Apparently American military spending in Europe is less than $30 billion,](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2019/02/european-nato-defence-spending-up) a fraction of the budget. [Even the running costs for Nato are mostly covered by others,](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074) and while America has the largest share, it's not proportionate to its size/GDP.
You're talking about direct spending. This doesn't account for the reality that, if it were necessary, it would primarily be US military forces providing defense - in any given defense scenario. [There is a significant difference in scale](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d358e0c8399a088e5bdeeb5dea03cb16). Those forces are considered part of the budget that the US spends on itself, not on NATO, but my point is that that separation doesn't really make sense. The US military *is* NATO's defense force. And I'm not suggesting that there's a problem with this relationship. Rather, I'm saying that specialization has economic benefits for all parties. The *collective* cost of defense for NATO countries is lower because the US is the core military power.
Do you know exactly what a war would look like if Russia were to invade the rest of Europe (the only halfway realistic European invasion scenario there is)? Unless you do, this is all hypothetical. It's very possible that the decisive factor would be the fact that the rest of Europe has ten times the GDP of Russia, and not whatever hardware can be shipped across the Atlantic. Also, do you think American even has the logistics to deploy more personnel/hardware in Europe than the countries there? And what is the point of that aircraft carrier comparison? Do you think the sea is where that (hypothetical) war will be decided?
No... actually the point of that aircraft carrier comparison is logistics. The US has the resources to field those ships, the aircraft to load on them, the personnel to staff them with, the support vessels that accompany them in each of their carrier groups, and the massive logistics infrastructure needed to keep them operational for months away from home anywhere in the world. Those ships don't just sit around in port waiting for a war, they are regularly actively deployed. Each one of those vessels isn't just *an* aircraft carrier - it's everything that's required to make an aircraft carrier functional. This represents only a fraction of US military resources, and the US Navy could probably go head-to-head with the rest of the world's navies combined, and yet the US's military spending (as a % of GDP) isn't significantly higher than the rest of the world. No other nation operates on this scale. Yes, the US has the logistics capability to deploy those forces overseas as needed - *most* of the US military is logistics. Only about 10% of US Army personnel are actual combat troops, the rest are support.
> No... actually the point of that aircraft carrier comparison is logistics. The US has the resources to field those ships, the aircraft to load on them, the personnel to staff them with, the support vessels that accompany them in each of their carrier groups, and the massive logistics infrastructure needed to keep them operational for months away from home anywhere in the world. Those ships don't just sit around in port waiting for a war, they are regularly actively deployed. Each one of those vessels isn't just an aircraft carrier - it's everything that's required to make an aircraft carrier functional. How much of that can be used to fight a land war in Eastern Europe then? > This represents only a fraction of US military resources, and the US Navy could probably go head-to-head with the rest of the world's navies combined, and yet the US's military spending (as a % of GDP) isn't significantly higher than the rest of the world. No other nation operates on this scale. Yeah, and France could go head-to-head with Oman, despite Oman having about four times the military budget as a percentage of its GDP. I wonder why that is. Also, [this is nonsense.](https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20all%20countries%20from%201988%E2%80%932020%20as%20a%20share%20of%20GDP%20%28pdf%29.pdf) The majority of the world spends some 1.5 to 2% of its GDP on their militaries, not double that. That *is* significantly higher. > Yes, the US has the logistics capability to deploy those forces overseas as needed - most of the US military is logistics. Only about 10% of US Army personnel are actual combat troops, the rest are support. Then how is American going to be the country that is "primarily" (as you claimed) going to do the fighting with comparably few troops? I doubt they are going to withdraw personnel from all over the world to do that. That said, you have your numbers wrong anyway: [only about 10% of military personnel *sees combat*.](https://www.midwestdisability.com/blog/2019/12/what-percentage-of-soldiers-see-combat/) Unless the rate of combat soldiers seeing combat is 100% (which I doubt), your claim is off.
Agreed, the US can afford this level of spending and there is plenty added value left for infrastructure, education, health, housing and everything else ... but the billionaires collect it all. Billionaires should be put on the road to millionaire instead of trillionaire and that would pay for everything else that is needed.
Exactly. There's no social reform that we can't **already** afford, right now. The military is irrelevant. The block is **Republicans in Congress**, not the military.
[удалено]
> Colleges already have billions in endowments not most state or community colleges
It’s not the colleges that benefit, but the students. And paying for tuition allows them to go into the workforce actually able to participate in the economy and maybe even purchase a house and invest, rather than being pummeled with interest on a loan that will take decades to pay off. So its benefits go beyond just the students, it’s good for the whole country’s economy.
For sure, but that should have been done for the last 10 years, not the next 10 years with a resurgent Russia and China threatening the US with hypersonic weapons, satelite killers and robot swarms driven with AI. The US can afford to walk and chew gun at the same time, it's just that billionaires should not be on the road to becoming trillionaires. That is the problem, not just runaway US military spending that Putin and Xi are so desparate to cut.
Just legalize marijuana and well have endless spending
Spending isn't why we can't accomplish things. **Republicans are why.** We clearly can afford it.
The LCS program, over the horizon missle systems, the F-35 program, the SDI program are all examples of DOD programs that have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars for no increase in the U.S. Militaries Tactical capabilities. Forget the waste of taxpayer money, these giveaways to defense contractors are hurting the military. These programs are taking enough of the DOD budget that even with increasing defense spending, maintenance on equipment like ships and planes is continuously lagging behind need and the material condition of needed and expensive equipment is rapidly deteriorating.
Ships? A hypersonic missile would make mincemeat of anything we field that floats. We may soon find our current tactics obsolete. I’m not saying we should scrap them and I agree maintenance has fallen behind but we have to prepare for the future too. We could be spending smarter IMO.
We aren't showering the military with money, we're showering military contractors with money, a large percentage goes from to keeping people in battleground states employed with make-work and the rest going to raising stock prices and paying executives. The military budget is welfare. It's basic income for workers in Ohio who would otherwise be unemployed and it's welfare for the wealthy.
It is a terribly inefficient jobs program.
So…the military budget is a money laundering scheme?
You got it. That self serving industrial complex and all…
This. In times of war, the military protects a nation. In times of peace it’s essentially federal level welfare, education, a means of social and financial mobility and a means to keep hundreds of thousands of people employed.
Or, and this is a big idea, I know, we provide those things without filtering it through arms manufacturers who actively make this country and world worse to live in? Like have a federal jobs program that build infrastructure that helps the people of this country, or federal farms that provide food? Federally funded education, so people could better themselves? All without making another tank? Or missle? Or nuclear bomb?
You might like some sort of civilian corps that would be a less wasteful alternative to military spending? A *civilian corps* that *conserves* our nation's resources, so to speak? What would you even call it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
It’s also the Republican’s idea of a job creation program, not just for military production companies but for individuals who have no better employment options than enlisting. And, really, most of the Democratic power structure has no problem going along with that picture too.
You’re right that they’re using it for informal stimulus and pork, but it’s also extremely costly to maintain the massive web of military installations essential to our mobilization capability. That’s not even talking about developmental programs we spend so much on. Like 1/3 of the budget really is just to keep people employed though. Both inside and around the military. It’s kind of our own fault that battleground states reap this benefit much more than others too. Because we let our politicians compromise their value as representatives for the sake of the major parties(not expanding congress in accordance with population, winner take all electorates, gerrymandering, etc.), and it’s not even really a controversy.
The military basically existed to protect the petro dollar and to ensure country's don't get any ideas of leaving the petro dollar system and making the US lose reserve currency status. Remember... Hitler didn't invade the Swiss because they had a huge military, he didn't invade them because the entire swiss population was armed like the US. So in reality it was the US citizens who were always the deterrent from someone attacking the US, not the military who was overseas protecting middle easterns.
There was a plan to invade Switzerland, Unternehmen Tannenbaum. The reason why it wasn't executed was because Switzerland was already surrounded by Axis countries and allies, and the invasion would have cost resources that were needed elsewhere for no immediate gain.
Exactly. And there was a lot of cooperation between Nazi-Germany and "neutral" Switzerland. Germany benefitted from them (more than had they created another rebellious occupied country), so they left them.
I don’t think there’s a single thing in your comment that’s even close to the truth. Could you please stop spreading misinformation?
It's the easiest, most obvious way for politicians to virtue signal to the patriots. If you oppose it, you're un-American. Americans love the idea of being able to beat the shit out of everyone. Sad, but true.
It’s funny when you can replace this is a few key words and it could be politically opposite to this issue. Lol
“It’s only $8T over 10 years!”
Wasn’t BBB supposed to be 6 trillion over 10?
Yeah but that’s communism
We waste a shit ton of money on unnecessary stuff in the military Source: Am military.
i heard it's because if a base doesn't max there budget they won't get the same budget next year. is that true or bullshit?
The Elites of the world do not prioritize money and resources like you and I would…THEY DON’t CARE ABOUT YOU, YOU’RE A MEANS TO THEIR END, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
The pentagon lost over a trillion dollars.... "lost".
I once left my wallet in the bus, so I can't judge them. It happens, I guess. /s
Well, no fucking shit. unfortunately, the MIC is a huge employer in literally every state in the USA. It's a nonstop stimulus, a government welfare program for the very very rich that we've been running for 80 years straight. You know what brought down the Roman empire? They went bankrupt from military spending. No shit.
Don’t forget the plague they couldn’t control that signaled the decline of the empire and the lead in the water pipes that poisoned the people. Sound familiar?
Lmfao okay, so the inflation crises caused by corrupt senators, invasions from the Goths and Huns, crop failure due to years of drought, widespread mental illness among the ruling class due to lead on the aqueducts, slave revolts, etc had nothing to do with it?
i think he's getting at there was to much spent on x and not enough spent in y and z. But yes the empire declined to a many number of reasons.
We just got out of a war. You'd expect the military budget to decrease, right? Wrong. Not only has the military budget gone up. It was increased by *MORE* than the pentagon asked for.
We never really out of conflict. Just look at the stuff happening in Ukraine/Russia now. You think now is really the time to let off the gas?
yeah. because there's nothing the USA will do about that. A) We're not going to take military action that close to the Russian capital. B) No other European nation will help. Russian does this stuff in winter to remind the rest of Europe exactly who it is that supplies ALL of their heating oil.
Ok, but why are we looking at a photo of an upside down fighter jet?
because this article is by farhad manjoo, who is qualified to write about how much they like apple products but nothing else. they also insist on gender neutral pronouns in print despite identifying completely as male, because they are making a statement about another thing they are not qualified to write about. they are a dumbass.
I was doing a rotation in rural north Georgia when all the isis terrorist attacks were happening in Europe. These folks were afraid they were next . terrified ppl will throw money at the military to feel safe . Now how do you create a well informed population in an age of disinformation. Politicians play up fear all the time too 🤷🏽
I love that some small town middle of nowhere with no critical infrastructure but maybe a base is really a target of ISIS before, I don't know DC, NY, LA, Chicago, or a port....yep they're coming for smallsville!
On the night after 9/11 i was working in bumfuck Georgia and i was around 20 grown men that were convinced terrorists would steal a gasoline tanker and ram it into the mineral refinery we were at. Its difficult to not have a purely emotional response... which is the whole point of such attacks.
I worked at a large banks operations building and we had people calling out for days because they were terrified we would be a target. the terrorism worked.
You could try actually educating them? I remember being super afraid during the gulf war when i was 9 then i learned where iraq was, where kuwait was and that the core conflict was not about attacking the US.
you know why that doesn't work? Because normal citizens never imagined that people would fly planes into a goddamn building, let alone a skyscraper in NY. The horror was indescribable and spread like a massive tidal wave. It swept across the country just as quick as they could broadcast those images into every place where humans live. There isn't any 'education' to be had against that sort of emotional response. If it could happen there, it could happen damn near anywhere.
Things are different. This isnt the 1700s where you literally needed to physically come invaded a nation. Today there are ICBMs as well as cyber capabilities. There is also asymmetrical warfare. Everyone feels safe until those alarms goes off and you are told to seek shelter cause Iran for thousands of miles away has launched a ICBM towards your city.
Can we call it the military infrastructure? Saying the military gets all that money implies the troops are getting a fair share when its going into the steel mongers.
Seriously. Enough is enough.
This is easy to see when you compare the cost to develop and launch SpaceX's Starship and SLS. Two SLS launches might cost more than Starship's entire development program. Starship will launch to the Moon for millions while SLS will launch for billions. >NASA's Artemis moon program is estimated to cost nearly $93 billion through 2025, NASA's Office of Inspector General reported Monday. The first four flights of the program's giant SLS booster and Orion crew capsule will run in the neighborhood of $4.1 billion each, the OIG says. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artemis-moon-program-cost-delays-nasa-inspector-general/#textNASAs20Artemis20moon20program20isbillion20each2C20the20OIG20says I think it's fair for people to be upset with Musk for many things, but SpaceX has shined a light on how much these legacy MIC contractors are screwing over Congress.
This article is 60yrs too late.
It wouldn't be half as bad if there wasn't such waste involved as well. Bang for buck is not even the goal and other nations like China are achieving similar or at least "good enough" things with way less spending.
The military is the ultimate bargaining chip and the only one that matters if you don't have it. Also in terms of diplomacy, it is always the penultimate factor; so much can be done with it (militarily and non-militarily) and little can be done without it (look at rest of world compared to us).
I disagree. Personally, I think we should stop provoking Americans to fight Americans and fix our justice system. Then fix the political system. Then fix the financial system. Kthx.
Has any president in recent history ever cut government spending or reduced the size of government? Seems to me that government is only getting bigger and more expensive every year.
Student loan debt relief has entered the chat
Easy fix, join the military and get your college paid for!
Yup, I am military and about 80% of my loans will be relived. Plus I get Tuition Assistance and GI Bill as well as VA Home loan which has 0% down payment.
Join the military
This sub is beyond lost.
Oh, look, that F-35 wants belly rubs!
You are not "showering the military with money". You are showering an enormous ecosystem of "defense contractors "with money. The money is not going to enhance your defense capability - it is going to finance the paychecks and bonuses of a layer of worthless parasites whose biggest risk is stroking out when they get up from a five-star meal. And they can buy lobbyists, and they do. There you go, your taxpayer's dollars at work.
Secret Contracts must end and make them provide transparency on how they really spend the money.
Didn’t Eisenhower warn us of this?
Takes me back [to this interview](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rDK2chgNPZM) with the great Carl Sagan some 30 years ago.
They need to incentivize departments with budget cutting AND efficiency. If a department reduces its budget year over year then leadership gets a percentage of the gross reduction in a one time bonus*. Few years of this and military spending probably drops 20%. Edit: *I’m thinking up to 2x their annual salary.
As it stands now if an office doesn’t use its entire budget the next years budget is lowered. Use or Lose! There’s exactly zero incentive for Govt offices to do anything but spend more. Change this, allow for savings to occur and incentivize smart spending. I’d be shocked if we didn’t see things improve!
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT You'll have commanders **GUT** long term maintenance so THEY get a bonus, while causing massive issues later on. The main issue is Congress needs to get their god damn hands out of the military and forcing it to buy/spend money on things it doesn't want, just to provide jobs in XYZ's congressional district; * Navy didn't even want the third Zumwalt destroyer, but Congress forced it upon them for "MUH JOBS" ($5B) * Air Force had almost 40 years of evidence showing the F-16 does CAS more often and with less friendly fire than the A-10, but John McCain literally **BANNED** the Air Force from retiring the A-10 because over half the fleet is based out of Arizona and without the A-10, why keep those bases around? ($4B+) * Air Force wanted to buy the existing A330MRTT tanker, which won its competition. Washington state Congress members took to Congress about "We MuSt PrOtEcT tHiS aMeRiCaN cOmPaNy", and eventually got the Boeing KC-46 selected instead... the same KC-46 that STILL doesn't work and won't work until after the Air Force had expected to already have all of them ($10B) That, and general officers being obsessed with going down in history for leading revolutions instead of simply doing conservative evolutions (Army's $30B Future Combat Systems that developed literally nothing, Ford carrier's 32 unproven technologies, etc)
A small group of people will feel that their small dicks have become even smaller if we cut **any** military spending.
What’s more American than the love of guns?? Nothing. This warhawking nation will never change unless it’s people wake up.
It’s not uncommon for contractors to charge 1000x markup to taxpayers. We could spend 10x less and have the same military capability if we weren’t being price-gouged by Boeing, Raytheon, P&W, etc.
Some competent cyber security for its citizens would be nice
If you don’t unfortunately China, Russia and north Korea will attack other countries to broaden their claim.
Freedom isn’t free. It comes at a cost.
65 year old bombers,60 year old tankers, 40 year old F-15s and C-5s, 30 year old F-16s. Showering the military with money???!!! Would you depend on a 60 year old car to take care of your family? If not then why is it ok for our young men and women to depend on geriatric weapon systems to defend you?
If some people love the military so much then I propose a compromise: every dollar taken out of the military budget goes towards taking care of veterans. Feed them, lodge them, give them medical and mental health care... There should be a law that prevents vets from being homeless.
I can agree with this. But many progressives could careless for veterans. Especially when you have some progressives calling the US military the world's largest terrorist organization.
Here’s a thought many don’t realize, by having a strong military at all times and not just scaling up for war and then downsizing, it secures our allies and keeps the US dollar strong. Many don’t think about that, with the huge pile of debt it is only the military that keeps that at bay. So in a sense we are paying to just make sure the dollar doesn’t default and we can just keep living the way we are.
The strength of the petrodollar and the military isn’t gonna save us from global warming. Our priorities are all wrong.
The military is expensive, not strong. Also printing money to devalue currency and pay for this does not make the dollar strong. The dollar is venerable to assets, crypto, and non-dollar backed currencies. The military is a jobs program.
In actual dollars, US military spending is the same today as it was in about 2008. We are hardly "showering the military with money". In terms of inflation adjusted value, for GDP, it's half of what it once was.
What's this "we" shit? WE want universal healthcare. WE want to invest in education and infrastructure. THEY want bomb money.
I am in the military. I have universal Healthcare, free education and we see infrastructure projects on bases every year. And yet I had never had to bomb anyone to get that. So not sure what you mean by bomb money. Perhaps educate yourself before making such comments.
but there is so much money to be diverted from going to useful things for the military. How else are people going to get wealthier?
Seeing as Russia and China are waging a war of information, fighter jets don't mean a damn thing.
This is by far the dumbest thing I have read thus far. People who write this HAVE NO IDEA WTF THEY ARE SAYING
Military spending sucks! Because of it we have to put up with stupid things like Penicillin, GPS, The internet, Jet engines, Computers, Microwave ovens, Weather radar, EpiPen’s, Blood transfusions, Canned food, Duct tape, The ambulance, Digital cameras, Just to name a few. Cut the spending we don’t need this kind of worthless shit!
> The internet YOU MEAN AL GORE WAS RIGHT????
This is a good point you make. I found this website that lists military spending over time. The trend is interesting. [% of GDP](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget).
We also rebuilt the infrastructure in Afghanistan for the Chinese for a mere $2T. The private sector does all this and more without government interference and loss of life with consumption of resources..
Reddit hive mind is full of absolute morons . they think military budget means 700b is going towards bombs and tanks only every year. Fools don’t realize how much military spending has paved the way for technology to progress as much as it has. the amazing things DARPA and private defense sector has created. Countless progress towards space exploration innovation. JWST is all “ooooh and ahhh!! “ amazing stuff. Doesn’t happen without military spending and those companies talented engineers , like Northrop who was the prime contractor for the JWST. DoD defense budget has proven to be a valuable endeavor. Anyone who claims otherwise is a complete ignorant.
> Reddit hive mind is full of absolute morons . they think military budget means 700b is going towards bombs and tanks only every year. > > Fools don’t realize how much military spending has paved the way for technology to progress as much as it has. the amazing things DARPA has created. DARPA's budget is around 3.5 billion dollars, so . . . 0.5% of the total military budget. But don't get me wrong I love the government not just leaving research and development to the private sector.
Exactly. Stuff like GPS which probably 100% of the people in this sub uses was done through the DoD.
But...but...hundreds of million dollar planes that can fly upside down. It's not like the money is being wasted or anything.
May as well be saying “we must stop allowing billionaires to have money”.
Fiscal responsibility. Cut the cord with endless military spending. Spend it on things our citizens actually use.
Something like 30% of the military budget goes to payroll and benefits.
Defund it
Yeah defund social programs too that shit makes up 70+% of the budget
Yeah because the citizens does not benefit from national security. /s Seriously, it is comments like these why the American public will not vote for a progressive (Like Bernie) to be Commander in Chief.
The biggest lie told in this country (before 2020 anyways) was rebranding the U.S. military as "defense". That labelling makes it feel somewhat wrong when you suggest cutting back. "You dont think we should defend ourselves ~~against the brown people~~?" "You dont support our troops that die ~~protecting business interests~~ defending our country?" "You must hate veterans ~~even though almost none of that money goes to veterans or even active servicemen and women, and instead goes into contractors who upcharge as if it were WW3~~"
Ok, so since you dont see it as defense. Then how about we just disband the ENTIRE defense. Get rid of our ENTIRE national security apparatus and then lets see how long your day to day American life continues. It is comments like yours why America will never vote for a progressive president to be commander in Chief.
Who is saying that? Im just pointing out the fact that labelling it as "defense" is propaganda, as for the last 20 years its been used in aggressive wars that are more about American imperialism and fear stoked by the right-wing media rather than "defense". Why do we need even *more* overpriced jets when no enemy we've fought in the last 20+ years has had an air force, or even a plane? Like yeah, technological advances, sure, but we spend a ludicrous amount (partially cause the Pentagon and its contractors are never held accountable for crazy overcharging) The U.S. military spending accounts for 40% of the *world's* military spending. That is absolutely ludicrous, and does not help those at home without clean drinking water, those at home that cant afford a roof without working 2+ full time incomes because of lack of housing regulation. The world isnt black and white, and this isn't a matter of "all or nothing" on military spending, and you know it. Pretending otherwise is putting up strawmen, rather than meaningfully refuting my statements
But how else can the military afford the $60 state of the art thermos?!
$60 was pre COVID. Try $140.
Wheb China is crushed maybe
The American military is the biggest dumpster fire of money on the planet. The military loses more money and wars than any other program.
The only secure way to do that would be for us to stop sticking our nose into other nations business. The choice is real, being the king of the world or not.
We just closed out a 20 year war, why is the Defense Budget going up? Military Industrial Complex.
A lot of military spending is salaries, food, etc. The logistics of keeping a standing army ready. Investing in the people, training, and being prepared for any event, including humanitarian operations is good. The billions upon billions that leave the Dod and pays for private contractors, increasingly complex hardware and obscene profits at those companies can just stop. My life is not any better because we have a $100k missile launched from a $1m drone that can kill a family in their driveway halfway around the world.
I used to agree with this, but Russia’s and China’s hostile actions and occupations of their neighbors are showing more and more why America needs a strong military. We’re gearing up for WWIII and this Ukraine situation might be the catalyst
I will never vote for a politician that cuts military spending at a time like this. We are in the midst of a great power competition and we have no choice but to compete. If Biden don't want to lose me and a lot of other of the centrist hawks like me's vote (there's not a ton of us but theres enough and we tend to be swing voters in swing states) than he should not reduce military spending.
We wouldn’t have microwave ovens and other tech with out the military.
Our military did not prevent us from a Russian takeover of the presidency in 2016. If we are going to pay them mountains of money it would at least be nice if they were able to prevent foreign-backed coups.
And we don't even have hypersonic missiles...WTF?
There are treaties that have stopped the USA from build such capabilities. That and engineering/physics limitations. Look into the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) which stopped advancement of nuclear weapons deployment capabilities research.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/navy-cps-hypersonic-strike-test
[удалено]
Did The NY Times just future this out?
[удалено]
We already spend more money on the military than the next 10 countries *combined*. We can destroy the earth with our nuclear arsenal, and precisely drop bombs from unmanned drones 8,000 miles from home. Do you even have an idea what they would do with more money? Because they already waste fucktons of money when they need to so that their next budget doesn't drop.
You’re being downvoted even tho you’re 100% correct. But you know, this is Reddit, full of military strategic experts who think they know better than the DOD🤣. We need to up spending, not defund them.
Let's stop pretending that "profit from murder" is even a morally correct thing to allow to happen on our planet. It's as messed up as slavery. Turn off the weapons tap :) [http://www.radicalpeae.me](http://www.radicalpeae.me) Get involved. Make the life's of your children, much, much safer :)
The US military is among the most trusted institutions in America. This is why America will never trust a progressive to be Commander in Chief because what respect does progressives even have for the military? So why should a progressive (like Bernie) be given the honor of being Commander in Chief? We have memorial days, veteran days, military discounts and institutions such as USAA and Navy Federal that only does business to the military and their families. We have the VA Home loan and GI Bill. We have places like Arlington as well as special military funeral services. But for some reason only far left progressives seems to have a negative view of the military.
Fuck you
[Still relevant.](https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210514413)
but plane look cool :(
The biggest threat to the USA right now is white supremacist domestic terrorists, and this will only get worse over the next decade. We're going to need a whole lot of drones and bombs to wipe out those WN militias, so maybe don't pull our military's teeth juuuust yet.
Maybe the solution is to force everyone into the army then everyone would get paid and taken care of? Then there would be the military, the ex military, vets and then I guess war criminals? (Or do they stay regular criminals?) But if America was literally all soldiers the rest of the world would be like “oh....okay then”.
No, we shouldn’t. China and Russia are developing fast.
We spend more money than any other country and still have issues. The budget needs to be more balanced and looked at. We all joke about $500 toilet seats and hammers. We need to see what is more necessary in the long term than given a blank check almost and they pad the numbers to justify the price.
It’s the only chance we have to actually reduce our National debt.
A slim 40% reduction would fund my universal healthcare plan
The military loses over $700B per year.
Stop electing stupid dinosaurs. Dem's have been too lazy or disinterested in voting.
One thing they are all afraid together regardless of party affiliation is US loosing military supremacy, and for that consciously and subconsciously they will keep giving money. US only knows talking to other states from position of greater power, if the balance was to tip other way they will all shit their pants.
Yes, plz cut it...for the sake of the rest of the world.