6 ms·

1. Nobody 2. Because it allows us to project force globally which is what actually allows us to be the one true global super power.

mtgx 10y ago
Assuming 2 is true, shouldn't Americans then be more concerned with spending those hundreds of billions of dollars a year more efficiently, so USA's power could be 2x, 4x (just by cutting the waste/corruption alone), or even 10x bigger (by using the money buy smarter/more effective technology than say...more tanks, or F-35's)?! People who keep supporting more military spending aren't patriots. Quite the opposite. Those that want their army to run well and effectively are the true patriots.
- lintiness 10y ago
  sure, let's spend our tax dollars more efficiently. point me to the government bureau that magically manages its finances "efficiently".
  - galdosdi 10y ago
    I can think of one. The SSA spends just a fraction of a percentage point of its disbursements on administrative costs. There's probably others. Like private industry, government is huge, contains many agencies at many levels, and some of them are well run and some of them are poorly run and some of them are somewhere in between.
    - lintiness 10y ago
      .39% of "assets" (debt issued by other parts of government). vanguard charges about a quarter this (with vehicles delivering substantially better risk adjusted returns). their "plan" is also slated to go bankrupt without adjustment.
      - galdosdi 10y ago
        It's true that their costs are greater than vanguard which is literally the cheapest private mutual fund company around. Try comparing it to an industry average; 0.39% is quite fair then. The "plan going bankrupt" has nothing to do with the administration of benefits, however. It's not happening because the bureaucracy is screwing up and wasting too much money -- even if they worked for free, you'd only gain 0.39% more per year. It's congress that is underfunding (or overprovisioning, or some combination of the two) -- could be fixed in two seconds with a bill cutting benefits and/or increasing taxes without any real change for SSA. Also, when it "goes bankrupt" as people misleadingly call it, they'll still be able to pay about 4/5 of the benefits currently promised. In effect, congress by doing nothing has already implicitly reduced future benefits to 4/5 of the current statutory amounts. If you just assume you'll get 4/5 of what is being promised, then it's in no way bankrupt and is self sustaining forever. 4/5 is not chump change. I've started to realize this whole "social security is a failure" talk may be FUD being spread to get people to accept further raiding of social security because "whatever, it's already broken"
    - kbutler 10y ago
      The "efficiency" of the SSA is simply because of the vast flow of money the SSA distributes. Similarly, the IRS is hugely "profitable", because its administrative costs are a tiny fraction of the money it brings in.
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    Exactly, the rest of the world is super good at efficiently spending tax dollars... USA excluded.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Laughable comment. You think India gov't spending is efficient? Vietnam?
      - monkmartinez 10y ago
        That was the point I didn't think I needed a sarcasm tag. Government inefficiency is a universal "known", like fire is hot, right?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dforrestwilson1 10y ago
  Former military and former intelligence contractor here. No quarrel with what you are saying. The answer to "why not" is lobbying, constituents, and corruption. Military spending influences the economy in literally every state. That's why they don't close bases. That's why the legislature optimizes for maximum spend rather than ROI.
  - sremani 10y ago
    He is basically challenging the idea US being a maritime power projecting its power across the globe. I am more interested your answer to that line of questioning rather than institutional quid pro quo to get favors and support from senators.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      As the UK declined as the maritime power, the US filled the gap. This is on a line of history going back to the Dutch and the Spanish.
- chiph 10y ago
  Former military here. The #1 way to reduce waste would be to change the accounting rules. As it is, if you don't spend your full budget for the year, next year's budget will be cut by that amount. And you aren't allowed to keep a "rainy day fund". This causes problems when you have expensive equipment that only fails occasionally. You have to budget for a possible replacement, but if you make it through the year without a failure, you've got all this money that you have to suddenly find a use for.
toddmorey 10y ago
The sad thing is, all want I for my kids is great health and great education, and those are the two areas where the US performs the most poorly. That's such a spectacular failing of the basic social contract. I've never once hoped for them to be citizens of a "the one true global super power". I've always wondered how much of the world superpower is sold to us as "to keep us safe" when the honest reality is "too feed our national ego". I do believe that the world is a safer place than it was 30 years ago. But I can't think of a conflict since WWII where U.S. efforts in the region seemed to be the stabilizing factor.
- refurb 10y ago
  You may want to ask the Eastern European countries who were under the yoke of the Soviets for 45 years whether or not that spending was worth it. Or for that matter, the Western European countries as well.
- meddlepal 10y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is here... our healthcare and education is excellent. It's expensive, but it's excellent.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    If you have money.
  - toddmorey 10y ago
    "America's wealthiest and best-educated young adults still lag behind their peers in other countries in the literacy, numeracy, and computer-age problem-solving skills needed to compete in the global labor market." http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/18/us-millennials-come-up-short-in-global.html http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/18/us-millennials-... "The U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes." http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/20... "American Schools vs. the World: Expensive, Unequal, Bad at Math" http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/america...
turar 10y ago
"When Japan surrendered, the US was faced with a choice: Either disarm, as we had done in the past, and enjoy the prosperity that comes from releasing so much wealth and energy to the private sector, or maintain ourselves on a full military basis, which would mean tight control not only of our allies and such conquered provinces such as West Germany, Italy, and Japan but over economic–which is to say political–lives of American people. As Charles E. Wilson, a businessman and politician of the day, said as early as 1944, “Instead of looking to disarmament and unpreparedness as a safeguard against a war, a thoroughly discredited doctrine, let us try the opposite: full preparedness according to a continuing plan.” The accidental president, Harry Truman, bought this notion. Although Truman campaigned in 1948 as an heir to Roosevelt’s New Deal, he had a “continuing plan”. Henry Wallace was onto it, as early as: “Yesterday, March 12, 1947, marked a turning point in American history … Yesterday, President Truman proposed, in effect, America police Russia’s every border. There is no regime too reactionary for us provided it stands in Russia’s expansionist path. There is no country too remote to serve as the scene of contest which may widen until it become a world war.” But how to impose this? The Republican leadership did not like the state to be the master of the country’s economic life while, of the Democrats, only a few geopoliticians, like Dean Acheson, found thrilling the prospect of a military state, to be justified in the name of a holy war against something called communism in general and Russia in particular. The fact that the Soviet Union was no military or economic threat to us was immaterial. It must be made to appear threatening so the continuing plan could be set in motion in order to create the National Security State in which we have been living for the last forty years. What is the National Security State? Well, it began, officially, with the National Security Act of 1947; it was implemented in January 1950 when the National Security Council produced a blueprint for a new kind of country, unlike anything the United States had ever known before. This document, known as the NSC-68 for short, and declassified only in 1975, committed–and still, fitfully, commits–us to the following program: First, never negotiate, ever, with Russia. This could not continue forever; but the obligatory bad faith of US-USSR meetings still serves the continuing plan. Second, develop the hydrogen bomb so that when the Russians finally develop an atomic bomb we will still not have to deal with the enemy without which the National Security State cannot exist. Third, rapidly build up conventional forces. Fourth, put through a large increase in taxes to pay for all this. Fifth, mobilize the entire American society to fight the terrible specter of communism. Sixth, set up a strong alliance system, directed by the United States (this became NATO). Seventh, make the people of Russia our allies, through propaganda and CIA derring-do, in this holy adventure–hence the justification for all sorts of secret services that are in no way responsible to the Congress that funds them, and so in violation of the old Constitution. Needless to say, the blueprint, the continuing plan, was not only openly discussed at the time. But, one by one, the major political players of the two parties came around. Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Republican, told Truman that if he really wanted all those weapons and all those high taxes to pay for them, he had better “scare hell out of the American people.” Truman obliged, with a series of speeches beginning October 23, 1947, about the Red Menace endangering France and Italy; he also instituted loyalty oaths for federal employees; and his attorney general (December 4, 1947) published a list of dissident organizations. The climate of fear has been maintained, more or less zealously, by Truman’s successors, with the brief exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who in a belated fit of conscience at the end of his presidency warned us against the military-industrial complex that had, by then, established permanent control over the state." - Gore Vidal, "National Security State" The entire essay, along with many of Vidal's other writings is highly recommended. https://www.amazon.com/United-States-1952-1992-Gore-Vidal/dp/0679414894/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471633447&sr=1-1&keywords=gore+vidal+united+states https://www.amazon.com/United-States-1952-1992-Gore-Vidal/dp...

mtgx 10y ago

Assuming 2 is true, shouldn't Americans then be more concerned with spending those hundreds of billions of dollars a year more efficiently, so USA's power could be 2x, 4x (just by cutting the waste/corruption alone), or even 10x bigger (by using the money buy smarter/more effective technology than say...more tanks, or F-35's)?! People who keep supporting more military spending aren't patriots. Quite the opposite. Those that want their army to run well and effectively are the true patriots.

lintiness 10y ago
sure, let's spend our tax dollars more efficiently. point me to the government bureau that magically manages its finances "efficiently".
- galdosdi 10y ago
  I can think of one. The SSA spends just a fraction of a percentage point of its disbursements on administrative costs. There's probably others. Like private industry, government is huge, contains many agencies at many levels, and some of them are well run and some of them are poorly run and some of them are somewhere in between.
  - lintiness 10y ago
    .39% of "assets" (debt issued by other parts of government). vanguard charges about a quarter this (with vehicles delivering substantially better risk adjusted returns). their "plan" is also slated to go bankrupt without adjustment.
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      It's true that their costs are greater than vanguard which is literally the cheapest private mutual fund company around. Try comparing it to an industry average; 0.39% is quite fair then. The "plan going bankrupt" has nothing to do with the administration of benefits, however. It's not happening because the bureaucracy is screwing up and wasting too much money -- even if they worked for free, you'd only gain 0.39% more per year. It's congress that is underfunding (or overprovisioning, or some combination of the two) -- could be fixed in two seconds with a bill cutting benefits and/or increasing taxes without any real change for SSA. Also, when it "goes bankrupt" as people misleadingly call it, they'll still be able to pay about 4/5 of the benefits currently promised. In effect, congress by doing nothing has already implicitly reduced future benefits to 4/5 of the current statutory amounts. If you just assume you'll get 4/5 of what is being promised, then it's in no way bankrupt and is self sustaining forever. 4/5 is not chump change. I've started to realize this whole "social security is a failure" talk may be FUD being spread to get people to accept further raiding of social security because "whatever, it's already broken"
  - kbutler 10y ago
    The "efficiency" of the SSA is simply because of the vast flow of money the SSA distributes. Similarly, the IRS is hugely "profitable", because its administrative costs are a tiny fraction of the money it brings in.
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  Exactly, the rest of the world is super good at efficiently spending tax dollars... USA excluded.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Laughable comment. You think India gov't spending is efficient? Vietnam?
    - monkmartinez 10y ago
      That was the point I didn't think I needed a sarcasm tag. Government inefficiency is a universal "known", like fire is hot, right?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dforrestwilson1 10y ago
Former military and former intelligence contractor here. No quarrel with what you are saying. The answer to "why not" is lobbying, constituents, and corruption. Military spending influences the economy in literally every state. That's why they don't close bases. That's why the legislature optimizes for maximum spend rather than ROI.
- sremani 10y ago
  He is basically challenging the idea US being a maritime power projecting its power across the globe. I am more interested your answer to that line of questioning rather than institutional quid pro quo to get favors and support from senators.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    As the UK declined as the maritime power, the US filled the gap. This is on a line of history going back to the Dutch and the Spanish.
chiph 10y ago
Former military here. The #1 way to reduce waste would be to change the accounting rules. As it is, if you don't spend your full budget for the year, next year's budget will be cut by that amount. And you aren't allowed to keep a "rainy day fund". This causes problems when you have expensive equipment that only fails occasionally. You have to budget for a possible replacement, but if you make it through the year without a failure, you've got all this money that you have to suddenly find a use for.

toddmorey 10y ago

The sad thing is, all want I for my kids is great health and great education, and those are the two areas where the US performs the most poorly. That's such a spectacular failing of the basic social contract. I've never once hoped for them to be citizens of a "the one true global super power". I've always wondered how much of the world superpower is sold to us as "to keep us safe" when the honest reality is "too feed our national ego". I do believe that the world is a safer place than it was 30 years ago. But I can't think of a conflict since WWII where U.S. efforts in the region seemed to be the stabilizing factor.

refurb 10y ago
You may want to ask the Eastern European countries who were under the yoke of the Soviets for 45 years whether or not that spending was worth it. Or for that matter, the Western European countries as well.
meddlepal 10y ago
I'm not sure what your point is here... our healthcare and education is excellent. It's expensive, but it's excellent.
- serge2k 10y ago
  If you have money.
- toddmorey 10y ago
  "America's wealthiest and best-educated young adults still lag behind their peers in other countries in the literacy, numeracy, and computer-age problem-solving skills needed to compete in the global labor market." http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/18/us-millennials-come-up-short-in-global.html http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/02/18/us-millennials-... "The U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes." http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/20... "American Schools vs. the World: Expensive, Unequal, Bad at Math" http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/america...

turar 10y ago

"When Japan surrendered, the US was faced with a choice: Either disarm, as we had done in the past, and enjoy the prosperity that comes from releasing so much wealth and energy to the private sector, or maintain ourselves on a full military basis, which would mean tight control not only of our allies and such conquered provinces such as West Germany, Italy, and Japan but over economic–which is to say political–lives of American people. As Charles E. Wilson, a businessman and politician of the day, said as early as 1944, “Instead of looking to disarmament and unpreparedness as a safeguard against a war, a thoroughly discredited doctrine, let us try the opposite: full preparedness according to a continuing plan.” The accidental president, Harry Truman, bought this notion. Although Truman campaigned in 1948 as an heir to Roosevelt’s New Deal, he had a “continuing plan”. Henry Wallace was onto it, as early as: “Yesterday, March 12, 1947, marked a turning point in American history … Yesterday, President Truman proposed, in effect, America police Russia’s every border. There is no regime too reactionary for us provided it stands in Russia’s expansionist path. There is no country too remote to serve as the scene of contest which may widen until it become a world war.” But how to impose this? The Republican leadership did not like the state to be the master of the country’s economic life while, of the Democrats, only a few geopoliticians, like Dean Acheson, found thrilling the prospect of a military state, to be justified in the name of a holy war against something called communism in general and Russia in particular. The fact that the Soviet Union was no military or economic threat to us was immaterial. It must be made to appear threatening so the continuing plan could be set in motion in order to create the National Security State in which we have been living for the last forty years. What is the National Security State? Well, it began, officially, with the National Security Act of 1947; it was implemented in January 1950 when the National Security Council produced a blueprint for a new kind of country, unlike anything the United States had ever known before. This document, known as the NSC-68 for short, and declassified only in 1975, committed–and still, fitfully, commits–us to the following program: First, never negotiate, ever, with Russia. This could not continue forever; but the obligatory bad faith of US-USSR meetings still serves the continuing plan. Second, develop the hydrogen bomb so that when the Russians finally develop an atomic bomb we will still not have to deal with the enemy without which the National Security State cannot exist. Third, rapidly build up conventional forces. Fourth, put through a large increase in taxes to pay for all this. Fifth, mobilize the entire American society to fight the terrible specter of communism. Sixth, set up a strong alliance system, directed by the United States (this became NATO). Seventh, make the people of Russia our allies, through propaganda and CIA derring-do, in this holy adventure–hence the justification for all sorts of secret services that are in no way responsible to the Congress that funds them, and so in violation of the old Constitution. Needless to say, the blueprint, the continuing plan, was not only openly discussed at the time. But, one by one, the major political players of the two parties came around. Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Republican, told Truman that if he really wanted all those weapons and all those high taxes to pay for them, he had better “scare hell out of the American people.” Truman obliged, with a series of speeches beginning October 23, 1947, about the Red Menace endangering France and Italy; he also instituted loyalty oaths for federal employees; and his attorney general (December 4, 1947) published a list of dissident organizations. The climate of fear has been maintained, more or less zealously, by Truman’s successors, with the brief exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who in a belated fit of conscience at the end of his presidency warned us against the military-industrial complex that had, by then, established permanent control over the state." - Gore Vidal, "National Security State" The entire essay, along with many of Vidal's other writings is highly recommended. https://www.amazon.com/United-States-1952-1992-Gore-Vidal/dp/0679414894/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471633447&sr=1-1&keywords=gore+vidal+united+states https://www.amazon.com/United-States-1952-1992-Gore-Vidal/dp...