The US should've just kept their H-Bombs and use the military force to actualy conqure something instead of just mowing it to the ground and using it's money to rebuild the country as if saying "we're sorry, we really didn't MEAN to send our troops to have a war with you".
The U.S. needs to slash military spending by HALF, TAX THE RICH, and then the economy will be fixed
how would you propose you fund the unemployment benefits for all those unemployed soldiers?
Considering some bombers cost over 1 billion dollars for only one of them, I think that a few billion in cuts wouldn't result in layoffs, just less bombers to pound the **** out of other countries with.
Also, clearly you are a left leaning type (with the whole tax the rich rhetoric), when you slash military spending by half, how would you propose you fund the unemployment benefits for all those unemployed soldiers? You can't just tax the rich even more or they will simply pick up and leave America and take jobs with them. So more unemployed.
How does a huge wave of unemployment fix the economy?
Generally, bureaucrats will argue that pulling too many troops from a war at once will only cause unemployment, this is a similar argument.
When you pull soldiers from the military in huge chunks, there will be large amounts of unemployment. However, everyone else will have more money for themselves that they may invest in the market, which will eventually open up jobs for the soldiers.
When 100 soldiers who are payed 1,000 a month are pulled from the war, the taxpayers as a whole saves 100,000 dollars. This 100,000 dollars can be used in a number of different ways by the tax collectors, many of which strengthen the market.
Also know that the starting recessions unemployment benefits are running out. [The best states have them for what, like 2 years?] So Congress attempting to extend these benefits strains us more.
But I actually agree with what NoName has said. Technically, Paying a soldier [While he's at war], does nothing but cut funds. Pulling him back might leave him jobless, but that strain is then reduced. A soldiers pay versus his joblessness is pretty much on the same plane -- We have to pay for a soldier and assume nothing in return [FINANCIALLY], and we have to pay for the jobless and assume nothing in return.
Now math could help us to figure out which would cost more, but I'm going to just go on a guess here and say the soldier uses more cash than a jobless in the USA.
You can't just tax the rich even more or they will simply pick up and leave America and take jobs with them.
As fundamentally true as this idea might be, our world is not just a set of numbers. If what you say is true, our economy would have collapsed in the 90's. Also, if this is true, where would they go? It costs bank to transition. Moving to Europe would suck, the place is in debt-ruin and the taxes are huge. Basing in China is like giving the government the pistol. Going to South America is risky unless they pick Brazil, ... What I'm saying is that this stuff doesn't happen overnight. Some economists argue that increased benefits might allow American workers to take a lower salary, thereby pulling manufacturing jobs back to the USA.
[It is obvious though that lower taxes, too, bring companies in]
Either way, national defense is and always will be a tax without any benefit, aside from national security. Since I'm pretty sure the possibilities of a global war aren't close to happening and all we gotta do is fight terrorism, we're not getting much from this war and the money could go elsewhere.
Not saying this is the best plan but another thing that can be done is redirect the funds into something else. So as money is pulled and jobs are lost from the military we get an equal in crease of jobs and funds in another area that perhaps could be more beneficial to the country.
I would agree Mage but the way things are going the Dems and Reps wouldnt be able to agree on where to put the funds that cutting the budget would supply. Right now their way too busy trying to take/maintain control of the White House and the Senate.
I think America should not cut spending on military. Our national defense is something that is like really crucial right now especially when all these terrorist networks are being searched for in the middle east. Another reason is we have to keep our edge as the top country in military weapons. Once another country supersedes us in military technology then we're in trouble. But thats just my opinion lol
Another reason is we have to keep our edge as the top country in military weapons. Once another country supersedes us in military technology then we're in trouble.
Military spendings: #1 USA: 698,105,000,000$ #2 China: 114,000,000,000$ Source
[quote]Another reason is we have to keep our edge as the top country in military weapons. Once another country supersedes us in military technology then we're in trouble.
Military spendings: #1 USA: 698,105,000,000$ #2 China: 114,000,000,000$[/quote]
How much of this money is going into MAINTAINING the army and how much is going into research? Just because there is more money being paid, does not mean that military technology will advance if none of it is going in military research.
Another reason is we have to keep our edge as the top country in military weapons. Once another country supersedes us in military technology then we're in trouble. But thats just my opinion lol
your a scared little kitten? all the other countrys are in real trouble because they aint got that big military force? and you do know you got such a big force because other countrys gave you the money to buy all that stuff right? it's time to pay something back
Chinas budget grew constatnly since 2000 from 14.6 billion $ to now 380 billion $. But next year they are going to cut their budget according do Mage's source.
how much of this money is going into MAINTAINING the army and how much is going into research?
Operation and maintenance: 186 billion $ Research 79 billion $ source
