# US Military Spending vs The World



## hedning (Sep 11, 2014)

Interesting figures and I can see your point. But how is this giant machine supposed to be disassembled? I just can't see what all dropouts will do instead, will result in chaos in the surrounding/supplying industry as well. The hole is to deep to fill.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The problem isn't that we spend so much, it's that the rest of the free world spends to little. We are being taken advantage of. The rest of the free world can spend their money on other things because they know we will step up to the plate to stop aggressors. If someone attacked England we would be there. If someone attacked France we would be there. I'm not so sure anyone would come to our aid. It ticks me off being taken advantage of. I'm not so sure I would not be in favor of dissolving NATO. It would scare the crap out of some countries and maybe they would get off their lazy a$$ and arm themselves.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I see your point, Plainsman, but for better or worse, our entire economy depends on military R & D and production! So what would happen if your wish to somehow vastly reduce military spending came to pass? Do you not think that there might be millions if not billions spent on lobbying by arms companies that might love the Mideast seething cauldron and actually WANT WAR? There, I said it........now the CIA or whomever will target my computer for having the audacity to even think there might be thousands of lobbyists in Washington actually PUSHING for war!! 
The millions of AK's around the world is constantly vilified by the press these days ( everyone lows AK's cause all kinds of death and mayhem!) but how about the millions of AR's and our own arms of every description that are sold world wide!?! And eventually usually used against us too.
No easy solutions.......


----------



## the professor (Oct 13, 2006)

It's time to Rage Against The Machine. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

HH and Prof, no disagreement here. I want the deadbeats to spend more for world security so we can spend less. At least their fair share. I see the rest of the free world low life freeloaders. I am about on the brink of thinking we should negotiate with Putin and say leave us alone and you can have all the rest. Unfortunately the Russians word is worth nothing. Unfortunately today our word is worth nothing.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

And yet if any politician cuts military spending they get torched by the right for being "weak on defense!" Most notably last year when Obama made dramatic cuts military personnel.

The military has become almost an entitlement like program. Meaning, it keeps getting added on to (many for good reasons....VA) and if anyone dares cut it (or oppose it), they get burned at the stake. Also to cut it means to get rid of jobs (both military and support jobs).....in the current trend of the government being held responsible for unemployment (and job creation) feeds into the problem. Until we start realizing that government should not be the unemployment agency (or, in large account, be held responsible for joblessness) then this, and other entitlement programs, will very rarely (if ever) make meaningful cuts that reflect the actual need for the program.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Obama has weakened us and I would increase spending for about six years. I would however make sure that companies that build things like the Trident submarine didn't get billion dollar cost overruns. We are getting ripped off by many of the companies that build our military equipment. 
I remember the stories about $400 toilet seats and $300 hammers that the Pentagon was buying. There was a big stink about that. It always amazed me that people complained without thinking. There is no way to know or say this is wrong, but I strongly suspect they were laundering money for clandestine operations. It's sort of like ever country spies on every other country, but they are all angry if they find out. So we need plausible deniability. Hence $300 hammers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Neo CON


That's a far left term. Anti Israel is usually far left also. Protecting the border is good. The intent of our National Guard was for those things. It was never intended for them to be in foreign countries fighting. So many things that were intended are being dumped on.

As far as foreign aid I would stop it all. I'm sick of baby sitting the world. Let them take care of themselves or like the weak zebra the lions can eat them. The don't appreciate us anyway. We have been giving for years and now all the jerks expect it. I would cut it completely. Then those who wish to be actual allies I may or may not give some aid. Those that really are allies don't need aid. They are well enough off as it is. They are just taking advantage of us.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

When you are hated by so many you have to arm up. What really stinks is we are expected to drop smart munitions while our allies get to drop far less bombs and they get to use dumb and retarded bombs.

Our allies do need to pony up and spend less on entitlement program.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> All well and good except YOU say NOT supporting Israel


This is where you lose credibility. I talk about the border and you talk about Israel in response. No matter the subject, for you, it all leads back to hating Israel. I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm just saying you're so bias you can't see straight. It's like a psychologist giving a guy a Rorschach test. No matter what the ink looks like the guy thinks it's a nude woman. The doctor asks the guy why he thinks he is sexually obsessed. The guy says me, your the one drawing all the dirty pictures. No matter what the ink looks like Dougie it's Israels fault.


----------

