totally insane national security spending levels

[Anarchist420]

if military/overseas ops/NSA/TSA/NSA/DoHS/ATF/FBI spending were reduced to 15% of what it is now (the TSA, NSA, DoHS, could be outright abolished, the FBI reduced to 10% of what it is now, all U.S.G. presence ended outside the u.s., and about half the bases here closed with recruiting and weapons R&D reduced to almost zero) and if social security/medicare were made discretionary then there would be no deficit (with tax reduction too).

that said, i dont know why how we are safer if we have national security spending more than 15% of what it is now for three reasons:
1. it is safer to have a balanced budget rather than deficits because deficits risk hyperinflation and hyperinflation causes everything to collapse.
2. it is not guaranteed that the america will be invaded.
3. even if america is invaded, excessive military spending doesnt reduce the probability of defeat anymore than decentralized democratic militia do

i hate the welfare State and especially the bureaucracy as much as anyone else does, but those wouldnt even immediately have to be cut to balance the budget. however, i dont know why the Neo-Republicans dont support the welfare State if they desire domestic tranquility above all else as the welfare State is far more pacifying than the military spending.

 

[glenn1]

I guess this is our weekly A420 stream of consciousness thread.

Yes, the military/security spending of the U.S. could/should be scaled down. And the "welfare state" needs reform more than ending. Replacing the imaginary "personal SS accounts" with real accounts actually owned by beneficiaries and funded directly with U.S. Government debt instruments would be a good start.

 

[Attic]

Our wars are not for land gains, but for economic gains. Hard to predict economic impact of stopping our interference in other nations when its the sole reason we are there in the first place.

Regardless, I too would like to see cuts to those areas of spending first, but rather put it to other areas like public works rather than cut outright.

We need deficits. Otherwise all the money ends up in the hands of those who can charge interest (banks). There will never be a real balanced budget for any period of time. We'll never be below 17.5 trillion of national debt again (at least in current dollar form). Part of our monetary system demands new debt, where that new debt goes is important, if not done right all it does is devalue current dollars instead of increasing production and quality of life.

I think we all have to stand amazed at the amount of money our government spends each year, and how little they get for it. Lets spend the 3.5-4 trillion (more going forward) a year and put it in the right place, that could explode quality of life here.

Anyways, as always, blame lobbysists and crony capitalism for what we have. R and D are not the directors, they are the pawns.

 

[smackababy]

1. USD is pretty safe from hyperinflation. Too many other currencies are pegged to it.
2. While, that is true, it is far more likely American would be invaded without a strong military deterrent.
3. The problem with the idea of a decentralized militia is they offer zero effectiveness in our age of warfare. It is no longer troops show up at the border and march forward. Now, it is ICBMs and carpet bombs. That requires constant funding and maintenance, not able to be provided unless subsidized by the country. The idea that we can just do away with branches of government because you don't understand what they actually do, is pretty silly, even for you A420.