• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Conservatives: Should our defense budget be on the chopping block?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Wreckem said:
WTF is your point? Yes Congress can change stuff at anytime. They will also be voted out if they do so.

Its another red herring argument. The fact of the matter is starting in 1983 the Govt started spending Social Security surpluses, mainly for massive increases to defense spending(sound familar?). They continued to use Social Security Surpluses for another 28 years until it no longer ran a surplus.
Click to expand...

SSA says otherwise:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

"Shortly after passage of the 1972 legislation, it became apparent that Social Security faced a funding shortfall, both in the short-term and in the long-term. The short-term problem was caused by the bad economy, and the long-term problem by the demographics associated with the baby boom. By their 1975 report the Trustees said the Trust Funds would be exhausted by 1979. "

And

"In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term financing crisis. "

Almost since it's beginning, SS has been unsustainable, and had to be restructured several times. Ida Mae Fuller was the first person to collect monthly SS benefits. SSA's website states:
"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."

How is that even remotely sustainable?!?! We can't all expect 10,000% returns, can we?!?!
 
Mursilis said:
No, it was still going to crash - it was paying most people far more in benefits than they ever paid in contributions. That's unsustainable.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-lifetime.pdf
Click to expand...

SS and Medicare are TWO entirely different things.

If the SS Trust Fund were liquid cash it would pay its current obligations without change for several more decades. With slight changes it would be sustainable beyond anyone currently born life time.
 
Mursilis said:
SSA says otherwise:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

"Shortly after passage of the 1972 legislation, it became apparent that Social Security faced a funding shortfall, both in the short-term and in the long-term. The short-term problem was caused by the bad economy, and the long-term problem by the demographics associated with the baby boom. By their 1975 report the Trustees said the Trust Funds would be exhausted by 1979. "

And

"In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term financing crisis. "

Almost since it's beginning, SS has been unsustainable, and had to be restructured several times. Ida Mae Fuller was the first person to collect monthly SS benefits. SSA's website states:
"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."

How is that even remotely sustainable?!?! We can't all expect 10,000% returns, can we?!?!
Click to expand...

Keep side stepping the issue that the government has spent $2.5trillion of SS monies and replaced them with $2.5trillion in treasury bonds. That is the problem with SS.
 
Yes. The military is the first thing that should be cut. Anything about $80Bn (pensions and veterans excluded) is ridiculous. Ideally it would be zero.
 
Last edited:
OneOfTheseDays said:
Yes or no.

You claim to be fiscally conservative and run your mouth about how PBS and NASA are bankrupting this country, while ignoring the single biggest culprit and contributor to our deficit...our military defense budget.
Click to expand...


Once the troops are home from Afghanistan, most definately. I feel it is criminal to cut the budget of the military while people are fighting and dying, though.
 
cybrsage said:
Once the troops are home from Afghanistan, most definately. I feel it is criminal to cut the budget of the military while people are fighting and dying, though.
Click to expand...

Is it not criminal to leave them in the desert to fight and die in the first place? They do not belong there!
 
Yes it should be cut and most over seas bases should be closed. This country can no longer afford to be the lone world police and pay for the wests defense. That is only a start they must find a way to get Medicare under control. I am sure that will include raising Medicare taxes and doing reasonable things like negotiating to get the prices of drugs down.

It just frustrates me to no end that neither party is serious about defense cuts and getting medicare under control. I can only hope the public can eventually force both sides to atleast defense cuts.
 
Last edited:
OneOfTheseDays said:
Yes or no.

You claim to be fiscally conservative and run your mouth about how PBS and NASA are bankrupting this country, while ignoring the single biggest culprit and contributor to our deficit...our military defense budget.
Click to expand...

No. The biggest culprit to our deficit is entitlement spending. Not defense.
 
Jaskalas said:
Is it not criminal to leave them in the desert to fight and die in the first place? They do not belong there!
Click to expand...

No, I think most peopel expect to have military people fight in wars. Why is it odd to you that the military would fight in wars?
 
should the budget be review yes.

Should we close down all the bases and bring people home:

No.

People that argue for that are short sighted and ignorant.
 
Wreckem said:
SS and Medicare are TWO entirely different things.

If the SS Trust Fund were liquid cash it would pay its current obligations without change for several more decades. With slight changes it would be sustainable beyond anyone currently born life time.
Click to expand...

There is no SS trust fund. Current retirees are directly paid by SS taxes on current workers. Once the baby boomers retire, general fund tax revenue will have to be used to cover the difference (or benefits will have to be cut).
 
Anarchist420 said:
Yes. The military is the first thing that should be cut. Anything about $80Bn (pensions and veterans excluded) is ridiculous. Ideally it would be zero.
Click to expand...

Ideally we would be holding hands and singing songs of peace and harmony. So how did you arrive at the 80 billion figure? I'm keen to know.
 
We should have an offshore navy, a home based airforce, and a homebased marine/army force. WTF do we need troops all over the planet for?

Defense budget should be spent on defense. Let NATO do the rest.
 
spidey07 said:
Umm, the single biggest by a long shot are entitlement programs.

But sure, we can try to realize efficiencies and cost saving measures in the defense budget provided we maintain the strongest and best trained/equipped military in the world.
Click to expand...
This. Absolutely.
 
I think many conservatives acknowledge defense should be cut. But of course we want other programs cut as well, and we want the defense cuts to be reasonable and prudent. Of course, agreeing upon "reasonable" and "prudent" is the difficult part.

Seems to me the libertarians want disengage from most/all our foreign entanglements and return to a stance similar to that we had prior to WWII. While I admit to finding a certain attraction in that idea, I also feel it impractical and likely to result in big problems. Like WWII was a big problem. Our interdependence, like that upon foreign oil, suggest we can not simply ignore developments occurring elsewhere. I'm reminded of problems in Arab countries and am concerned problems there could interrupt oil shipments bringing the world's economy to ruins in a very short time frame.

But we're already going to get substantial cuts, if only because of our disengagement in Iraq.

Edit: Just Panetta's announcement on Afghanistan, I suspect that by 2013 we'll be reducing defense expenditures there too

Fern
 
Last edited:
cwjerome said:
Disastrous... for us and the world. Not that much.

The biggest challenge for the military is pay, medical, and retirement. Those 3 are soaking up a huge % and only getting worse. If you want to tackle the meat of the defense budget you need to deal with those. I do support cutting the payroll, freezing pay for a few years, and reforming the current pension system... not an overly popular position to be in for a military guy, but it's needed. I'm not even sure what do do about the skyrocketing medical costs, but something needs to be done.
Click to expand...

AHAHAHA!

We spend 40% of the entire world's military budget while being surrounding by oceans and 2 peaceful countries and having 4% of the population.

China spends 9% and has 1/6 of the population. DISASTROUS for us to cut it by 50% I tell ya! Those ocean monsters will get us!
 
shadow9d9 said:
AHAHAHA!

We spend 40% of the entire world's military budget while being surrounding by oceans and 2 peaceful countries and having 4% of the population.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's an awesome responsibility isn't it?

China spends 9% and has 1/6 of the population. DISASTROUS for us to cut it by 50% I tell ya! Those ocean monsters will get us!
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand who we are, our role in the world, and why that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top