POLL: How Much Should We Cut Defense?

[grahamhgreen]

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Cut it by 10% (ENTIRE defense budget of Russia, or the amount of the sequester)
	1 (4%)
	Cut it by 15% (ENTIRE defense budget of China)
	1 (4%)
	Cut it by 20% (ENTIRE defense budget of the UK, France, and Japan combined)
	2 (7%)
	Cut it by 25% (Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabi, S Korea, India, Australia & Brazil combined)
	4 (14%)
	Cut it by 50% (China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, Germany combined)
	20 (71%)
	1%
	0 (0%)
	2%
	0 (0%)
	5%
	0 (0%)
	10%
	0 (0%)
	Other (write in below)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Indydem]

1. This is falling into republican logic.

We don't have a spending problem. The budget isn't growing very fast at all.

We have a jobs problem.

Get people back to work. Revenue goes up. Problem solved!

[Sherman A1]

4. Not necessarily in this case

we have for far too long spent far too much on the MIC.

[exboyfil]

6. We have a spending problem if we are spending money on the wrong thing

I would prefer to see the 25% spent on infrastructure and green energy so we have something at the end.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Right now? Very little to not at all. If the spending could be diverted to better uses? Down to 400b

Right now we have an economy wide spending problem, there isn't near enough.

If you can't transfer the spending elsewhere then the questions may as well be how high should unemployment go and how much do you want economic activity to fall?

[truebluegreen]

34. Take the money from "Defense" (why don't we just call it "War"?)

and spend it on Nice Things for the American public. Massive infrastructure, massive CLEAN energy projects, research on how to cope with global warming, etc. Make a jobs program that actually provides BENEFITS for the people (us) who fund it, instead of for the MIC and the corporations who feed off it.

[grahamhgreen]

41. Wow! That is some serious right wing think tank spin! Thank you! You were joking?

[Sherman A1]

2. I would cut it by 50% but with the provisions

of it being phased in as the money and jobs are moved into other sectors such as renewable energy, education and public works.

[BWC]

7. Government has no business investing into renewables research.

Give that money back to taxpayers, probably some education as well education spending has skyrocketed with no real return.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Why wouldn't government invest in renewables?

Invested in the railroad, nuclear energy, microwaves, highways, computers, internet, invests in oil and gas?

What are talking about? Some bullshit market fundamentalism?

[bluesbassman]

15. So who do you think will invest in renewable research if not the government?

And you do understand that if any "free market" company invests in that research, they get to write off the expense and so the taxpayer ends up funding the research anyway right?

[BWC]

20. Well that's not the markets fault

We give all sort of favorable tax breaks to certain things we "like"

[Sherman A1]

22. Why not?

Renewables would allow us to increase our energy and national security thereby freeing us from the need to be involved in the Mid East to insure a supply of oil. Even placing the benefit to the environment aside (which we shouldn't as a decrease in the use of carbon based fuels will have far reaching benefits for our environment and our health).

[truebluegreen]

35. Enjoy your stay. nt

[Ikonoklast]

37. Renewable Energy research is a matter of both National Defense, and National Security.

Unless you are fine with never-ending resource wars, funded by YOU, the taxpayer, and benefitting Big Oil and the 1%.

The military has been reduced to being the hired muscle of Big Oil.


"Give that money back to taxpayers...."

You are laughable.

[grahamhgreen]

43. It's not research. Renewables are cheaper than coal. We need a Renewable Energy Administration

along the lines of the TVA or the Hoover dam.

[BWC]

3. Wrong way to look at it

It doesn't really matter that we spend so much more than anyone else as we have so many more responsibilities than anyone else.

About $200 billion a year is R&D and procurement. About $400 billion is troop pay and troop support or "end strength". How much should we cut out of those numbers?

[99Forever]

10. Actually it does matter.

Very much so.

It's called wasting resources that are desperately needed for FAR more important things than making deadly toys for the generals to play with and sending our young off to build empire.

[BWC]

12. It makes sense is what I'm saying..

Basically Europe relies on us for defense so does many parts of Asia etc. We're not "building empire" we're protecting our strategic interests

[99Forever]

16. Hogwash.

We're "protecting" the 1%'s interests, not ours.

Who the fuck do you think you are fooling?

[BWC]

18. So you don't want our country defended?

If europe is attacked that;s no problem for us?

[JaneyVee]

23. Defend our country from whom? Our freedom & sovereignty aren't at risk.

[99Forever]

44. Europe..

... isn't part of "our country."

You should take some geography courses.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Europe and many parts of Asia can send their airmen, sailors, and soldier and spend their money

to protect strategic interests and if they don't said interests can go to hell.

[Sherman A1]

26. Europe can put on their big boy pants

and take care of themselves. Just who is going to attack them?

[TheKentuckian]

40. If they are "OUR" interests then proceeds should be nationalized.

It should be OUR oil and minerals. Not Samsung's, not BP's, not OPEC's, not Germany's, not China's. OUR'S aka the national assets of the people of the United States of America. Not even "American based" companies, the people of the United States who foot the bills and lose the blood.

Want Pax Americana, you'd best pay your protection fees and be ready to return favors when called in down to room and board when our citizens grace your shores.

See there is this issue of damn near 7 billion free riders, not even our countrymen but our economic competitors who don't have worry and great concentration of the benefit for those growing wealthy and/or powerful off the exchange.

Who is this "us"? I don't care for my "deal" very much. I am unclear on my advantages and benefits over my first world counterpart elsewhere from this arrangement. Pass.

[librechik]

5. turn all the weapons into plowshares

war is obsolete.

And it's the Christian thing to do.

[ileus]

9. 50% would be pretty easy IMHO.

As long as we keep a well armed general population.

[billbailey19448jj]

11. We should cut the budget by AT LEAST 10%, 25% would be more like it

That way, we could reduce poverty substantially, help improve relations with other nations, and provide cheap healthcare for all Americans.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. We'd have to cut it by 85% just to get down to the level of China.

Man, imagine all that money reinvested in public works, infrastructure, and the like.

[JaneyVee]

24. The unemployment rate would be 0.03%

[Turbineguy]

19. We can't cut defense spending

too many depend on the unreality of it all. What we should do is send all the nay-sayers for training at the Pentagon. When they come out they'll say "$756.63 for a Big Mac and Fries? What a bargain! I'll take 2!"

[Glassunion]

21. We should increase it until we spend at least 51% of the entire world's military spending. That way

we can fight the whole world at once!!!

[abelenkpe]

25. begin by cutting it 10 percent

and take many of the contractors we currently employ to rebuild infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq (my sister works for such a firm) and reassign them to work here in the US rebuilding our own infrastructure.

Then we can have further cuts phased in over ten years bringing our military spending down by much more.

[OmahaBlueDog]

27. I'm not going to state a specific %. Instead...

I'll say that we have to completely reform the military in terms of organization, spending, and weapons procurement. We need to ask questions like:

a) if the Navy has planes, and the Air Force has planes, and the Marines have planes, can we consolidate facilities for pilot training? jet mechanic training? air traffic controller training?

b) are we buying weapons that make sense, or weapons that are making a bunch of contractors wealthy?

c) do our current roster of military bases -- both here and abroad -- make sense in the 21st century?

d) should out NATO allies be contributing more of their budgets and manpower for the defense of Western and Southern Europe?

e) should we consider getting rid of the current Army/Navy/Air Force structure, and have one unified military with one unified command structure?

f) shouldn't we ensure that we've figured out how to pay for a war (including its long-term costs involved with supporting veterans) before we send troops into harm's way?

g) how can we stop making defense contract awards an earmarking contest? it seems that the current system favors comples, expensive weapons systems that have many components that can be build in as many congressional districts as possible.

h) many of the nations on that pie graph (Russia, China) use conscripted troops for private soldiers. Should we consider returning to a draft -- especially if that draft had far fewer wealthy-friendly deferrments than the Vietnam era draft?

i) how can we become independent of imports of necessary resources so we don't have to wage war to protect those resources in foreign lands?

j) are we investing in the right kinds of intelligence resources to prevent war and provide early warning of attack?

k) if we can't afford to provide a safety-net to our citizens (the safety-net that is often dismissed as "hand-outs, welfare, or entitlements), how can we afford to continue in our role as world policeman?Perhaps that role should be re-examined.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. When's the last time our bloated military won a war?

Oh, yes. They did manage to bring mighty Grenada to it's knees.

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. Gulf War I

We made short work of the Iraqui army in Kuwait. George H.W. Bush then declined to march into an undefended Bagdhad.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. A guy named Pyrrhus suffered a similar "victory" about 2000 years ago.

[OccupyManny]

29. Cut almost all of it

We only need a Coast Guard. That's it.

[Skip Intro]

30. We should spend whatever it takes to achieve legit and justifiable goals.

First and foremost, of course, would be an overwhelming ability to defend our nation.

That includes not just maintaining enough hardware and troops to defend ourselves against enemy attack, but enough to go to r and d to stay on the cutting edge of new technologies so that we can continue to maintain that defense ability.

Ability to defend our legitimate and justifiable interests around the world, and help our allies militarily if need be, must also be assured.

Choosing a random percent by which to cut is blind folly.

[NewJeffCT]

32. Do we really need 75,000 troops in Europe?

or even more than that in Asia?

How about we take half of those numbers and return them to bases here in the US. We reduce our expense of posting troops overseas, and the money these troops spend goes into local economies instead of overseas economies.

[workinclasszero]

33. 50% should be the minimum cut

All those useless bases we have around the world need to be shutdown like yesterday.

No more unfunded wars EVER AGAIN! If some chickenhawk republican wants to pull the trigger, the SOB should have to make the rich pay for it at least!

Afghanistan and Iraq, over and done tomorrow!

F**K Syria and the whole rest of the world as far as I'm concerned. We have had waaaaaaaaaay more than our share of military adventures!

The EMPIRE is DEAD!

Brings ALL the troops home and then cut them down to a force necessary to protect this country, period!

Then end the useless and supremely idiotic war on pot to put all those ex soldiers to work. This economy would friggen explode with jobs and their would be plenty of money for SS, Medicaid etc.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Don't cut too much too soon!

Else who's gonna fly the Apache Helicopters or man the Abrams Tanks the people who want guns outlawed so gleefully say will be sent after people who refuse to give up their guns?

Better grab the guns before gutting the military, I say.

[rug]

38. 99%

[doc03]

39. I said 20% although I think it could be easily cut 50%. But 50%

would kill a lot of much needed jobs. They may be able to cut 20% just by closing foreign bases.

[Care Acutely]

42. 50% over 20 years.