Gary Johnson: Cut defense spending by 43%

[brandonb]

I'd vote for him.

But the media will only talk about the AIPAC puppets instead. Romney, Bachmann, etc.

http://race42012.com/2009/10/19/romney%E2%80%99s-remarks-to-aipac-iranunalloyed-evil/
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/30/bachmann-jewish-rumor/

 

[TechBoyJK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
---
As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[22]
- 85,600 Iraq,
- 103,700 Afghanistan
- 52,440 Germany
- 35,688 Japan (USFJ)
- 28,500 Republic of Korea (USFK),
- 9,660 Italy
- 9,015 United Kingdom
--

Most of them should be brought home and the overseas bases closed. Stop paying Haliburton $100 a gallon for gas and $50 per meal served, stop paying the leases for the bases we don't need, cut the size of our armed forces so we can be more selective about who is in them.

Shit.. couldn't we even 'sell' the bases we have to the local governments?

 

[DaveSimmons]

^ no, we currently lease them from the locals, we don't own them.

We might try trading the buildings and equipment to break the lease early instead of paying Haliburton millions to ship desks and file cabinets back to the US.

 

[TechBoyJK]

well.. save the money then

 

[Engineer]

I'd cut it deeper. By 50%(350 billion) then cut entitlements by 35%(~900 billion).

Not bad but would you cut the taxes associated with entitlements also or would they, in your opinion, need to stay the same to keep the programs solvent even with a 35% reduction?

 

[momeNt]

Also aren't the troops not even allowed to wear uniforms in Germany anymore after two soldiers were shot in the streets?

So really there are 2 war-zones, and the rest are just vacation spots?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If the deficit simply exists to employ manufacturer and military industry employed, might as well rip off that band-aid now and let the pus out of the wound.

That's fine but realize that they will be on the dole taking checks for nothing, that bankruptcies will follow and the loss of purchasing power. The simplistic calculations of cost savings are therefore grossly inaccurate. I'm not advocating anything other than people pause and consider what will happen. America has no interest in job creation so these people are out of luck.

 

[JS80]

So I guess your mantra is "No new taxes and cut only what I want cut."

The guy is advocating for a 43% cuts to across the board if you read the article. He only goes into defense spending because it is easy to see how to cut defense spending whereas cutting medicare for example requires a lot more effort (a la public option modeled after another country's system).

I honestly would be for that as long as we went to a public option for healthcare.

Cutting only defense would be a losing proposition. It has to be part of cutting entitlement. Otherwise you cut defense and then you don't get cuts in entitlement - G-d forbid maybe we'll even see increases in entitlement with a the newly freed money.

 

[Craig234]

Also aren't the troops not even allowed to wear uniforms in Germany anymore after two soldiers were shot in the streets?

So really there are 2 war-zones, and the rest are just vacation spots?

You have no idea. We have from over 700 to over 1000 bases globally.

The military has literal resorts around the world - beautiful land, ~234 golf courses, etc.

 

[woolfe9999]

No, the debt exists because we are spending $2.5 trillion this year on "human resources" or 65% of all spending. Back in the 60s when we had a nearly balanced budget human resource spending was 30-40% of the budget.

So in the last 40 years we have doubled the amount of money that we give away for nothing.



National Defense spending is $768 billion or 21% of the budget or 5% of GDP. In the 60s it was 40% of the budget and 8-10% of GDP. Current defense spending is lower than it was at any time in our history, except the 90s.

Higher than your usual nonsense quotient.

Defense spending is only "lower than it was at any time in history" if you measure it as a percentage of the budget or GDP. In real dollars and in real dollars per capita it is higher now than it has ever been. Nice try though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

We in fact spend more now on defense than we ever have, not less. The fact that other spending programs have grown more rapidly is another issue, and one almost entirely attribute to medicare and medicaid being passed under Johnson, and healthcare costs having skyrocketed since then.

Also, Medicare isn't really "giving away money for nothing" since there's a pay-in for the program. Similarly SS. Actual "welfare" where we do give away money for nothing is a relatively small part of our budget.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

If the deficit simply exists to employ manufacturer and military industry employed, might as well rip off that band-aid now and let the pus out of the wound.

This.

 

[ProfJohn]

Defense spending is only "lower than it was at any time in history" if you measure it as a percentage of the budget or GDP. In real dollars and in real dollars per capita it is higher now than it has ever been. Nice try though.

That is a dumb ass statement.

EVERYTHING is higher than it has ever been.

There is this thing called inflation, read up about it... I don goofed up... misread the chart. However, the last line is 100% correct.

The only way to really judge any kind of spending is in terms of GDP or percent of budget.

 

[woolfe9999]

That is a dumb ass statement.

EVERYTHING is higher than it has ever been.

There is this thing called inflation, read up about it...

The only way to really judge any kind of spending is in terms of GDP, constant dollars or percent of budget.

Are you serious? Do you know what I meant by "real dollars" in my post and what the 2 links I provided are measuring? Look again.

 

[ElFenix]

That is a dumb ass statement.

EVERYTHING is higher than it has ever been.

There is this thing called inflation, read up about it...

The only way to really judge any kind of spending is in terms of GDP, constant dollars or percent of budget.

yeah you got your ass handed to you on this one

(though per capita real dollar spending was lower in 2010 than 1986, slightly. 30% population growth and 28% defense spending growth)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A related question I've touched on for those in support of reductions. What is your plan for finding like paying jobs, if you have one?

 

[ProfJohn]

Are you serious? Do you know what I meant by "real dollars" in my post and what the 2 links I provided are measuring? Look again.

ALL spending is higher using 'real dollars.' To claim that spending is at an all time high based on that is meaningless. ALL spending is at an all time high. You haven't proven anything other than the fact that we always spend more and more money.

Right from the budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

It doesn't break down each spending category in constant dollars, but there is total spending in constant inflation adjusted dollars.
1960 $628 billion
1970 $982 billion
1980 $1,368 billion
1990 $1,831 billion
2000 $2,040 billion
2010 $3,066 billion

In 'real dollars' spending has gone up by 50% in the last decade so it would only make sense that defense spending has gone up as well...

Again you haven't proven anything other than the fact that spending always goes up in 'real dollar' terms.

But as a percentage of government spending or a percentage of GDP defense spending is lower today than during the 1980s or ANY time before that.

 

[woolfe9999]

A related question I've touched on for those in support of reductions. What is your plan for finding like paying jobs, if you have one?

What is the plan to replace any and all jobs lost from reductions in government spending? Presumably, the private sector has to pick up the slack and find jobs for these people. The small government crowd is going to get their wish since the deficit is forcing this on us. The untested theory is that the private sector expands as government shrinks. Let's see how that works out for us.

 

[woolfe9999]

ALL spending is higher using 'real dollars.' To claim that spending is at an all time high based on that is meaningless. ALL spending is at an all time high. You haven't proven anything other than the fact that we always spend more and more money.

Right from the budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

It doesn't break down each spending category in constant dollars, but there is total spending in constant inflation adjusted dollars.
1960 $628 billion
1970 $982 billion
1980 $1,368 billion
1990 $1,831 billion
2000 $2,040 billion
2010 $3,066 billion

In 'real dollars' spending has gone up by 50% in the last decade so it would only make sense that defense spending has gone up as well...

Again you haven't proven anything other than the fact that spending always goes up in 'real dollar' terms.

But as a percentage of government spending or a percentage of GDP defense spending is lower today than during the 1980s or ANY time before that.

I never said that "all spending" hasn't increased. In fact, I acknowledged that it had and gave an explanation for why non defense spending has increased (Medicare/Medicaid plus skyrocketing healthcare costs), which you have ignored.

To be clear, what YOU said is this:

Current defense spending is lower than it was at any time in our history, except the 90s.

Confronted with the charts I linked, you now admit:

In 'real dollars' spending has gone up by 50% in the last decade so it would only make sense that defense spending has gone up as well...

In debate lexicon, that is known as goalpost shifting.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

What is the plan to replace any and all jobs lost from reductions in government spending? Presumably, the private sector has to pick up the slack and find jobs for these people. The small government crowd is going to get their wish since the deficit is forcing this on us. The untested theory is that the private sector expands as government shrinks. Let's see how that works out for us.

And apparently Democrats think we can build an economy on ever increasing debt. The big government crowd is going to get their wish, and instead of an economy slowly drifting back to equilibrium it's going to crash spectacularly when the government bubble, which replaced the housing bubble, which replaced the tech bubble pops.

There's a hole!
There's a hole!
There's a hole in the bottom of the lake.

 

[woolfe9999]

And apparently Democrats think we can build an economy on ever increasing debt. The big government crowd is going to get their wish, and instead of an economy slowly drifting back to equilibrium it's going to crash spectacularly when the government bubble, which replaced the housing bubble, which replaced the tech bubble pops.

There's a hole!
There's a hole!
There's a hole in the bottom of the lake.

We'll see. I think there are a lot of variables involved, including how quickly spending is cut. You can deflate a balloon instead of bursting it. I would not myself try to prognosticate but YMMV.

 

[ProfJohn]

In debate lexicon, that is known as goalpost shifting.

- wolf

You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that in terms of government spending and in terms of GDP output defense spending is lower today than it was at any time in our history except the 90s.

In the 60s defense spending was 10% of GDP. That would be the equivalent of spending $1.5 trillion a year in today's terms. And we are spending HALF that amount.

 

[ProfJohn]

We should cut defense by slowing its growth.

And by closing some of the overseas bases as well. I guess that we could close half our overseas locations and not notice much difference.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What is the plan to replace any and all jobs lost from reductions in government spending? Presumably, the private sector has to pick up the slack and find jobs for these people. The small government crowd is going to get their wish since the deficit is forcing this on us. The untested theory is that the private sector expands as government shrinks. Let's see how that works out for us.

I'm more "smart" than small government, and while I've heard what you are saying but in fairness the opposite side of the political coin seems ready enough to throw people to the wolves (pardon the pun ) while defending government subsidization of the auto industry. As for myself I see problems with the status quo and the dismissal of so many from employment. What I do not believe is that the private sector can absorb this many people.

 

[xj0hnx]

We should cut defense by slowing its growth.

LOL, sounds like a democrat. You don't cut it by slowing it growth, you cut it by cutting it.

And by closing some of the overseas bases as well. I guess that we could close half our overseas locations and not notice much difference.

We waste a LOT of money on defense spending. It's pretty ridiculous actually.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Defense spending is only "lower than it was at any time in history" if you measure it as a percentage of the budget or GDP. In real dollars and in real dollars per capita it is higher now than it has ever been. Nice try though.


- wolf

That strikes me as a very important measurement/statistic.

E.g., when we speak of ever increasing health care costs it is almost always framed in terms of GDP%.

Given the 2 wars I'm surprised to hear that military costs are now at their lowest in terms of GDP%.

Fern