[oliverlogo]

I don't think the US will ever be defeated militarily. That is, the overthrow of the US gov by a foreign power. It will NEVER happen. The size and geographical location of the country alone prevent this.

That being said, would it not make sense to spend less money on the military and more money on ensuring a sound financial system with balanced budgets? Sure, if you have money left over have a big military but the threat will never be from a physical aggressor. If you fail it will be because depression rips the country apart and the citizens revolt. Not unlike what Karl Marx predicted of capitalism I recently learned but I doubt socialism would take it's place as he also predicted. It would just mean a likely split up of the country which nobody wants to see happen.

What do conservatives think of this? You could probably still have the biggest military in the world with a balanced budget. It just wouldn't be the size of all other military budgets combined.

[MFSSCW2c]

Here's the issue with the military budget. Most of it is about jobs, not defense. If we slash the military budget we take away good jobs from millions of people, whether they are making bullets or making fenders for a vehicle that will never see battle. Also, because it is military related, we keep the jobs in this country; there's no off-shoring our security issues. So, when Congress critters keep failed weapons systems in the military budget, its because of the civilian jobs, not the Nation's security.

The biggest infrastructure project in the US in the 20th century was probably the Interstate Highway System. Ever notice its real name? "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways." The decision to build this system gained approval because of its defense capabilities. It was seen as a defense project, not a commerce project. Standards for design were included to ensure the highway could be bombed and still be useful. There are no single-bridge sections on the Interstate, regardless of the traffic counts.

I mention this because this is a way to deflect military money to infrastructure projects and not cause severe economic disruption.

(The Space Program is another program that deflected military spending.)

[Erossycuc]

I don't think the US will ever be defeated militarily. That is, the overthrow of the US gov by a foreign power. It will NEVER happen. The size and geographical location of the country alone prevent this.

That being said, would it not make sense to spend less money on the military and more money on ensuring a sound financial system with balanced budgets? Sure, if you have money left over have a big military but the threat will never be from a physical aggressor. If you fail it will be because depression rips the country apart and the citizens revolt. Not unlike what Karl Marx predicted of capitalism I recently learned but I doubt socialism would take it's place as he also predicted. It would just mean a likely split up of the country which nobody wants to see happen.

What do conservatives think of this? You could probably still have the biggest military in the world with a balanced budget. It just wouldn't be the size of all other military budgets combined.

Well, if we wanted to be ruthlessly pragmatic about it, we could phase out SS and Medicare, replace them with an NHS, cut military spending in half, and restructure our education system.

We could also lower corporate taxes while creating a new personal tax bracket for very high earners ($5 million plus) and put it at 40%. We could raise the AMT threshold to $1 million in income, raise the % of the AMT to 30% and slowly raise it with income up to a max of 35%. Then, we could end all income tax liability for the first $15,000 you make but decrease standard deductions and close up a lot of deduction loopholes. Limiting the child tax credit to 2 kids would also be good.

Oh, and if we ended all farm subsidies and oil subsidies while creating new ones for alternative energy, that would help. Finally, we could loosen up regulations regarding the construction of new nuclear power plants.

All of that would probably put us in the right economic direction.

[ligeplodore]

Is it wise to defeat the U.S. economically? How much of the rest of the world's economic activity depends on a moderately healthy U.S. economy?

We import $1,900,000,000,000.00 worth of goods a year. That's 12.9% of all the goods traded in the world. How long would the disruption of that economic factor impact the world economy? We export 12.7 % of all the goods traded in the world, again how long for that economic disruption to get absorbed?

Defeating the U.S. economically might be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

[Ceriopal]

Is it wise to defeat the U.S. economically? How much of the rest of the world's economic activity depends on a moderately healthy U.S. economy?

We import $1,900,000,000,000.00 worth of goods a year. That's 12.9% of all the goods traded in the world. How long would the disruption of that economic factor impact the world economy? We export 12.7 % of all the goods traded in the world, again how long for that economic disruption to get absorbed?

Defeating the U.S. economically might be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

speaking as a Canadian , America's largest trading partner , we all wish for a strong , healthy American economy , which is why it is definitely concerning the route your country has taken politically of late .

[hubua990]

speaking as a Canadian , America's largest trading partner , we all wish for a strong , healthy American economy , which is why it is definitely concerning the route your country has taken politically of late .

I was just going to ask if anyone wanted to tell Danny that if the US economy so much as sneezes, Canada's economy falls over and dies.

[SergeyLisin]

I was just going to ask if anyone wanted to tell Danny that if the US economy so much as sneezes, Canada's economy falls over and dies.

Sort of... The current situation is a weird one. Canada has been weathering this recession better than us.

America's a beast when it comes to size and resilience, so as long as we survive, our partners can often do even better.

On the one hand, this gives us a lot of financial leverage in the world. On the other hand, "surviving" can also mean that the average person suffers considerably when it comes to falls in standard of living.

[Ygd2qr8k]

Is it wise to defeat the U.S. economically? How much of the rest of the world's economic activity depends on a moderately healthy U.S. economy?

We import $1,900,000,000,000.00 worth of goods a year. That's 12.9% of all the goods traded in the world. How long would the disruption of that economic factor impact the world economy? We export 12.7 % of all the goods traded in the world, again how long for that economic disruption to get absorbed?

Defeating the U.S. economically might be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

Well, at one time this also true of the UK ( where I live ) when we stopped being the worlds primary economic power life didn't come to an end....you took our place. When you stop someone else will take your place: China would seem the most likely candidate, but who knows ?

[DumbNelmcrece]

Well, at one time this also true of the UK ( where I live ) when we stopped being the worlds primary economic power life didn't come to an end....you took our place. When you stop someone else will take your place: China would seem the most likely candidate, but who knows ?

The problem China faces is winning confidence. Where are the people who are willing to trust that China will honor her obligations? Who in their right mind would willingly hold Chinese currency as their prime repository of wealth? It will take China decades to build that trust.

[Konservir]

Here's the issue with the military budget. Most of it is about jobs, not defense. If we slash the military budget we take away good jobs from millions of people, whether they are making bullets or making fenders for a vehicle that will never see battle. Also, because it is military related, we keep the jobs in this country; there's no off-shoring our security issues. So, when Congress critters keep failed weapons systems in the military budget, its because of the civilian jobs, not the Nation's security.

The biggest infrastructure project in the US in the 20th century was probably the Interstate Highway System. Ever notice its real name? "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways." The decision to build this system gained approval because of its defense capabilities. It was seen as a defense project, not a commerce project. Standards for design were included to ensure the highway could be bombed and still be useful. There are no single-bridge sections on the Interstate, regardless of the traffic counts.

I mention this because this is a way to deflect military money to infrastructure projects and not cause severe economic disruption.

(The Space Program is another program that deflected military spending.)

I'll admit I did make a thread on weather it was possible to waste money on the military for just that reason since a lot of it stays at home. I valid argument for keeping the budget high but jobs can be created elsewhere and education is more important.

I think a military argument could be made to embark on a Manhatten project to develop solar panels capable of powering every home and building i America and a hydrogen based fuel capable of running combustion vehicles so that no home or car would ever need oil again (except for lubrication).

Is it wise to defeat the U.S. economically? How much of the rest of the world's economic activity depends on a moderately healthy U.S. economy?

We import $1,900,000,000,000.00 worth of goods a year. That's 12.9% of all the goods traded in the world. How long would the disruption of that economic factor impact the world economy? We export 12.7 % of all the goods traded in the world, again how long for that economic disruption to get absorbed?

Defeating the U.S. economically might be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

A good argument as well but Iran and China want to do away with the dollar as an oil trading currency which would adversely affect you. I'm sure they'd glady take you down even if it meant harder times for them economically.

speaking as a Canadian , America's largest trading partner , we all wish for a strong , healthy American economy , which is why it is definitely concerning the route your country has taken politically of late .

Ditto. That's the whole reason I'm on here...to steer you guys in the right direction since I have as much to loose as you do.

I was just going to ask if anyone wanted to tell Danny that if the US economy so much as sneezes, Canada's economy falls over and dies.

See above

[Teligacio]

You're here to "steer us in the right direction"?

Could that statement be any more arrogant and condescending? Seriously, Danny, who appointed you to "steer" anyone?

[Finanziamento]

We make military hardware and then blow it up or obsolete it. So, actually making useful "stuff" is not needed to spur the economy. It makes no difference what the "stuff" is, but I suppose it would be nice if we could actually use it afterward.

Here is my favorite: a real triple whammy.

Lets take half the welfare people and hire them on a weekly wage to get the other half on welfare going forward. We'd even pay the clients a wage to participate. Every 6 months we would have a giant celebration banquet, and at the end of the banquet there would be a nice ceremony where one side switched with the other. They'd take turns, until they got real jobs.

[GreefeWrereon]

I was just going to ask if anyone wanted to tell Danny that if the US economy so much as sneezes, Canada's economy falls over and dies.

well I wouldn't exactly go that far because as you can clearly see that in spite of your floundering economy our country is very much alive and kicking . What most American fail to realize is that while we may depend on you a great deal , that road travels both ways .

[QysnZWB4]

Is it wise to defeat the U.S. economically?.......

Defeating the U.S. economically might be cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

Lots of wars were started when it was very unwise for the aggressor to start a war.

The Nazi’s invading Russia is the most recent large scale example. ( Not trying to invoke the Goodwin rule, just making the point that sometimes the invading country is not always acting rationally.)

[hubua990]

The United States does spend too much on its military. You are correct.

Issue #1: NATO and the Cold War. The US was the bulwark against Soviet aggression during the height of the cold war. The Cold War was won with economics. Now there is no Soviet Union. The game has changed but not the spending.

Issue #2: The role of US, militarily. Is the US the “policeman” of the world? No, it’s not and no nation should be (IMHO). Most people on the left and right would agree that Americans want to spread democracy throughout the world. It’s a nice thought, but nations need to find their own way. Likewise, nations shouldn’t look to the US as the only way to their freedom.

Issue #3: Status Quo. Or in military parlance SNAFU. In short, that’s the way it has been since WWII. This sadly is probably the real reason. The money has always been there.

Issue #2.1: If not the US, then who? The other nations with military aspirations are not democracies. What would a world be like with China as the only military superpower? (Or Russia or Iran, etc.) Some of the money is spent out of fear of who would replace Pax Americana. (Fear not arrogance.)

In the end, America should stop spending so much on its military. Democracies of the world should realize both their responsibility and ability to advance the cause of freedom collectively.
IMHO. Democracies should all be willing to support democracy. In that way hell will freeze over.

[bestcigsnick]

SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

As to the points on military spending: I have often wondered what would happen if we (the World) spent some large fraction, say half or more, of our military budgets on R & D for peace and well-being. I understand we can't build a peace bomb, but can we build a peace college, or develop affordable water plants, develop rural energy supplies, or learn more about non-violent protests.

[Intory]

It's a good idea Dick, but the problem is there are too many people out there that are bent on violent dominance of their neighbors for us to let down our guard. I do agree that military spending could and should be reduced, but it must be done in a way that doesn't put our people at risk.

[T1ivuQGS]

It's a good idea Dick, but the problem is there are too many people out there that are bent on violent dominance of their neighbors for us to let down our guard. I do agree that military spending could and should be reduced, but it must be done in a way that doesn't put our people at risk.

Consider the history of conflicts during the last 50 years. Our military is geared up to fight a war that will never be, and are totally unprepared to fight the wars that already are.

[Wsjltrhe]

You're here to "steer us in the right direction"?

Could that statement be any more arrogant and condescending? Seriously, Danny, who appointed you to "steer" anyone?

Who the fuck are you not to? This is a goddam discussion board, we're supposed to put up ideas and discuss them.

Some boards even appoint moderators to make sure people do that, and prevent others from making personal attacks

It's a good idea Dick, but the problem is there are too many people out there that are bent on violent dominance of their neighbors for us to let down our guard. I do agree that military spending could and should be reduced, but it must be done in a way that doesn't put our people at risk.

From who? We continue to maintain infantry and build jets to make war on the Soviet Union while a bunch of hill bandits fights us to a standstill and costs us trilllions. Ten years ago, after a long history of being almost immune from the terrorism that plagued the rest of the world we suffered the worst terrorist attack ever known. Since then we've seemed to make lot of progress, BACKWARDS. Our Armed Forces are now by far the most advanced and powerful the world has ever seen, in 1989.

The Soviets bankrupted themselves in an arms race and now we seem determined to do the same, with nobody even racing us anymore.

You want to spend money? Try raising the D+ average the American Institute of Civil Engineers gave our infrastructure two years ago. Where I live 43,000 people were just out of power for three days over TWO INCHES of snow. I remember reading that ALL utilities were supposed to be buried EVERYWHERE in the US by 2000, we seem a little late on that. And it's a good thing no Interstate bridges are made in more than one section, what with two of them collapsing over the past decade.

[chelviweeme]

SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

As to the points on military spending: I have often wondered what would happen if we (the World) spent some large fraction, say half or more, of our military budgets on R & D for peace and well-being. I understand we can't build a peace bomb, but can we build a peace college, or develop affordable water plants, develop rural energy supplies, or learn more about non-violent protests.

I'd argue that a lot of defense spending has helped the private sector (GPS for example, oh an the Internet you are using.).

Spending money on the military isn't always about spending money to kill people. Sometimes you want to save your own guys. I won't go into the minutia of that.

You misspelled peace bomb...it's spelled peace bong. And for your point, I like things like the X Prize. I really do like the private sector rewarding innovation.