5 ms·

How much should go to military spending?

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
I don't know. Seriously. Would be happy to hear any thoughts. It just seems to me that spending more than half of the budget on military is somewhat wrong.
- zeveb 8y ago
  Really? Given that the United States form a federal republic, and that under their Constitution most authority is retained by the states, and that the military is one of the few things not relegated to the states, it would make sense for the military to be the major federal expenditure.
munk-a 8y ago
Much less? If you're asking the internet for raw numbers on budget allocation it's a bit of a silly question to throw out. I don't, myself, object purely to the proportion... but more to the fact that military spending tends to disappear into defense contractor's pockets and being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more. I also have a moral objection to the nation being such a war monger and would love to see our military spending drop by the effect of needing to blow less things up. So, I'll state clearly and without _any trace of sarcasm_ military spending should be 75rad% of our budget, which is a reduction of 4rad%. Also the 60% number in the grand parent is... I have no idea where that's from, in 2012 DoD spending was ~15% of the budget and it has always, within recent history, been below the amount allocated for social security.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Of course I don't expect a raw number, it was a rhetorical question. I half expected the reply to be zero...
- mullingitover 8y ago
  > I also have a moral objection to the nation being such a war monger and would love to see our military spending drop by the effect of needing to blow less things up. A lot of the military spending goes toward defense on the behalf of Japan and Europe. Those regions haven't devolved into their usual historic conflicts under this arrangement, and there are enormous peace dividends that we reap from that.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    And this spending, in particular the state department spending, is money quite well spent. I think overseas investment for peace and prosperity is a worthy goal, this can include subsidizing foreign militaries, investing in foreign infrastructure, or even just being diplomatic and not starting fights. I also didn't mention this before but I have no objections to the US paying rather insane amounts of money to support wages for military personnel (and I don't object to O5+ pay levels either) but I do object to the US government's mercenary employment. I think our economy is nearing a post-scarcity state and government, especially military, employment is a way to delay the bad effects this can have on our economy. Private military services and DoD equipment acquisition tends to be where most of the US spending ends up going into dark holes for no real reason. I'd love to see this reformed.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > the fact that military spending tends to disappear into defense contractor's pockets I'd like to know where you think it goes after that, because after 14 years in the industry I saw very little of it. > being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more The amount spent on lobbying is pretty small, relatively speaking. It also needs to come out of the company's profits, which aren't all that high since they are generally capped by contracts.
- burfog 8y ago
  The money connection to lobbying is really really indirect. The government pays the company. The company pays the employees. The employees donate to a PAC. (for every big defense contractor there exists a friendly PAC) The PAC does lobbying. Employees aren't required to participate. There is no punishment for an employee who instead donates to an opposing PAC or just spends their extra money on trips to baseball games. It's not half as bad as a public sector union doing lobbying with involuntary dues. If a defense contractor employee can't donate to that PAC, what about every other PAC? It is political expression. Would you ban political expression for all people who in some indirect way get paid by the government?
logfromblammo 8y ago
No more than 3% of GDP, and no more than 15% of all government spending. Also, no less than 1% of GDP. 2% of GDP is a fine target.
otikik 8y ago
"Double of what the second country spends" should be enough.

I don't know. Seriously. Would be happy to hear any thoughts. It just seems to me that spending more than half of the budget on military is somewhat wrong.

zeveb 8y ago
Really? Given that the United States form a federal republic, and that under their Constitution most authority is retained by the states, and that the military is one of the few things not relegated to the states, it would make sense for the military to be the major federal expenditure.

munk-a 8y ago

Much less? If you're asking the internet for raw numbers on budget allocation it's a bit of a silly question to throw out. I don't, myself, object purely to the proportion... but more to the fact that military spending tends to disappear into defense contractor's pockets and being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more. I also have a moral objection to the nation being such a war monger and would love to see our military spending drop by the effect of needing to blow less things up. So, I'll state clearly and without _any trace of sarcasm_ military spending should be 75rad% of our budget, which is a reduction of 4rad%. Also the 60% number in the grand parent is... I have no idea where that's from, in 2012 DoD spending was ~15% of the budget and it has always, within recent history, been below the amount allocated for social security.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
Of course I don't expect a raw number, it was a rhetorical question. I half expected the reply to be zero...
mullingitover 8y ago
> I also have a moral objection to the nation being such a war monger and would love to see our military spending drop by the effect of needing to blow less things up. A lot of the military spending goes toward defense on the behalf of Japan and Europe. Those regions haven't devolved into their usual historic conflicts under this arrangement, and there are enormous peace dividends that we reap from that.
- munk-a 8y ago
  And this spending, in particular the state department spending, is money quite well spent. I think overseas investment for peace and prosperity is a worthy goal, this can include subsidizing foreign militaries, investing in foreign infrastructure, or even just being diplomatic and not starting fights. I also didn't mention this before but I have no objections to the US paying rather insane amounts of money to support wages for military personnel (and I don't object to O5+ pay levels either) but I do object to the US government's mercenary employment. I think our economy is nearing a post-scarcity state and government, especially military, employment is a way to delay the bad effects this can have on our economy. Private military services and DoD equipment acquisition tends to be where most of the US spending ends up going into dark holes for no real reason. I'd love to see this reformed.
vonmoltke 8y ago
> the fact that military spending tends to disappear into defense contractor's pockets I'd like to know where you think it goes after that, because after 14 years in the industry I saw very little of it. > being spent on more lobbying to increase spending on the military more The amount spent on lobbying is pretty small, relatively speaking. It also needs to come out of the company's profits, which aren't all that high since they are generally capped by contracts.
burfog 8y ago
The money connection to lobbying is really really indirect. The government pays the company. The company pays the employees. The employees donate to a PAC. (for every big defense contractor there exists a friendly PAC) The PAC does lobbying. Employees aren't required to participate. There is no punishment for an employee who instead donates to an opposing PAC or just spends their extra money on trips to baseball games. It's not half as bad as a public sector union doing lobbying with involuntary dues. If a defense contractor employee can't donate to that PAC, what about every other PAC? It is political expression. Would you ban political expression for all people who in some indirect way get paid by the government?

logfromblammo 8y ago

No more than 3% of GDP, and no more than 15% of all government spending. Also, no less than 1% of GDP. 2% of GDP is a fine target.

otikik 8y ago

"Double of what the second country spends" should be enough.