3 ms·

I was referring to one project that I know about in New Mexico. $2 billion is definitely not the entire budget for environmental remediation, and it also is fun

I was referring to one project that I know about in New Mexico. $2 billion is definitely not the entire budget for environmental remediation, and it also is funded through DoE etc, not necessarily the military. I think it would be easy to support the assertion that military spending is out of control. Just because it was worse in the 60s doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong now. Our military has very sloppy accounting and has lost a couple trillion dollars, but we keep handing them 3/4 a trillion a year and rising. The amount of potential other projects which would be extremely useful for the populace, and we could find with just last year’s increase of over $50 billion, is staggering. Not to mention, a good portion of this is borrowed money. Military activities continue to create pollution that we’re going to have to clean up in the future. Given the government’s other financial obligations that are going underserved such as infrastructure and health care, it’s obvious fiscal irresponsibility, to say the least. I’m all for being able to defend ourselves. I would feel a lot better if I felt like our resources were being well spent all around.

manfredo 7y ago
How is a form of spending that has had an overall downward trend of 3-4x over the course of the last half century "out of control"? A consistent reduction over time is the complete opposite or what I and probably most readers think of when they think of out of control spending.
- code_duck 7y ago
  I’m not the one who started using the phrase “out-of-control”, so I don’t feel the need to keep defending it (you might be mistaking me for the poster who did use that phrase?). I’m still far from convinced it doesn’t apply, however. Even adjusted for inflation, United States military expenditures have risen by over six times since the 40s. Calling it a “consistent reduction over time” is fairly ludicrous. That the rest of the economy has expanded more isn’t really relevant to my point of view. We spend three times as much is the nearest other country, every year. I don’t really care if it’s “out-of-control”, but I am concerned that it’s clearly excessive. Regardless of what the GDP is, we could be spending the vast resources to the tune of $300 billion and tens of thousands of employees on something else.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    The inflation adjusted GDP has also risen by more than a factor of ten. Inflation adjusted dollars is not an effective comparison. A country's economic output, even when measured in inflation adjusted dollars, is not static. Pointing out a rise in inflation adjusted dollars and failing to put it in context with GDP is very naive. The US Military as a percentage of GDP spending is not especially abnormal when compared to other active militaries.
    - code_duck 7y ago
      I don’t consider it a meaningful comparison. The US has long been far in the lead in economic output as well as military investment. Who are we being compared to? My point is that we spend hundreds of billions wastefully and direct a vast amount of resources in directions that are not beneficial or useful. This has nothing to do with percentages of GDP. It’s also a very high percentage of government expenditures while when the government has been running deficits and been in debt for decades.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        Thinking military spending is wasteful and better spent elsewhere is your own opinion. Claiming that it is out of control, however, is a claim of fact and one that does not hold up to scrutiny. Military spending is very much in control. We have reduced it by a factor of 3-4x. Measuring against inflation adjusted dollars is not effective, since economic output is variable and inflation comparison is subjective. Measuring against the % of GDP answers the questions "what portion of a society's economic output is being directed towards defense?" And in the United States this figure has gone down considerably.
        code_duck 7y ago
        I consider the US economy and military expenditure to be such a special case that I do not consider the GDP to be a useful measure of anything. As such, claiming that we have reduced spending when actually it has increased by nearly half a trillion in real terms is ludicrous. What has actually happened is the rest of the economy has expanded in excess of our military. Does that mean that we need to make our military four times as large? No. That would just be a plain stupid thing to say as it’s clearly unnecessary. You seem to be quoting me as saying that I consider all military spending to be wasteful. No, I consider the wasteful military spending to be wasteful, such as when they spend billions of dollars develop an aircraft that never functiona, needlessly pollute instead of disposing responsibly, which requires billions of dollars of clean up, or lose track of $2 trillion. Would you say those things are not wasteful, or are necessary for national defense? Next, the figures you’re talking about don’t include the cost of wars. Also, you are comparing to the times that we had a serious hostile geo- political rival that was considered to be our equal, and engaged in a military spending contest. Of course relative military spending has decreased since the 1960s - the USSR outspent us at times, now China, our closest rival, is at 25%. A GDP relative decrease does not mean it is not still excessive, and I don’t care whether it is “out of control”. You seem to have some concept that we need to compare to the past to determine whether the present is acceptable. I don’t see why that makes any sense.

manfredo 7y ago

How is a form of spending that has had an overall downward trend of 3-4x over the course of the last half century "out of control"? A consistent reduction over time is the complete opposite or what I and probably most readers think of when they think of out of control spending.

code_duck 7y ago
I’m not the one who started using the phrase “out-of-control”, so I don’t feel the need to keep defending it (you might be mistaking me for the poster who did use that phrase?). I’m still far from convinced it doesn’t apply, however. Even adjusted for inflation, United States military expenditures have risen by over six times since the 40s. Calling it a “consistent reduction over time” is fairly ludicrous. That the rest of the economy has expanded more isn’t really relevant to my point of view. We spend three times as much is the nearest other country, every year. I don’t really care if it’s “out-of-control”, but I am concerned that it’s clearly excessive. Regardless of what the GDP is, we could be spending the vast resources to the tune of $300 billion and tens of thousands of employees on something else.
- manfredo 7y ago
  The inflation adjusted GDP has also risen by more than a factor of ten. Inflation adjusted dollars is not an effective comparison. A country's economic output, even when measured in inflation adjusted dollars, is not static. Pointing out a rise in inflation adjusted dollars and failing to put it in context with GDP is very naive. The US Military as a percentage of GDP spending is not especially abnormal when compared to other active militaries.
  - code_duck 7y ago
    I don’t consider it a meaningful comparison. The US has long been far in the lead in economic output as well as military investment. Who are we being compared to? My point is that we spend hundreds of billions wastefully and direct a vast amount of resources in directions that are not beneficial or useful. This has nothing to do with percentages of GDP. It’s also a very high percentage of government expenditures while when the government has been running deficits and been in debt for decades.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Thinking military spending is wasteful and better spent elsewhere is your own opinion. Claiming that it is out of control, however, is a claim of fact and one that does not hold up to scrutiny. Military spending is very much in control. We have reduced it by a factor of 3-4x. Measuring against inflation adjusted dollars is not effective, since economic output is variable and inflation comparison is subjective. Measuring against the % of GDP answers the questions "what portion of a society's economic output is being directed towards defense?" And in the United States this figure has gone down considerably.
      - code_duck 7y ago
        I consider the US economy and military expenditure to be such a special case that I do not consider the GDP to be a useful measure of anything. As such, claiming that we have reduced spending when actually it has increased by nearly half a trillion in real terms is ludicrous. What has actually happened is the rest of the economy has expanded in excess of our military. Does that mean that we need to make our military four times as large? No. That would just be a plain stupid thing to say as it’s clearly unnecessary. You seem to be quoting me as saying that I consider all military spending to be wasteful. No, I consider the wasteful military spending to be wasteful, such as when they spend billions of dollars develop an aircraft that never functiona, needlessly pollute instead of disposing responsibly, which requires billions of dollars of clean up, or lose track of $2 trillion. Would you say those things are not wasteful, or are necessary for national defense? Next, the figures you’re talking about don’t include the cost of wars. Also, you are comparing to the times that we had a serious hostile geo- political rival that was considered to be our equal, and engaged in a military spending contest. Of course relative military spending has decreased since the 1960s - the USSR outspent us at times, now China, our closest rival, is at 25%. A GDP relative decrease does not mean it is not still excessive, and I don’t care whether it is “out of control”. You seem to have some concept that we need to compare to the past to determine whether the present is acceptable. I don’t see why that makes any sense.