3 ms·

This is a bit misleading though as it includes state spending as well. For the purpose of federal debt, we really only have three sources of spending that can m

This is a bit misleading though as it includes state spending as well. For the purpose of federal debt, we really only have three sources of spending that can move the needle: - Health Care 28% - Pensions 24% - Defense 20% Defense seems like an easy cut, but we are not currently in any major conflicts anyway. And our allies might not take to kindly if we start pulling bases from around the world. Pensions are entitlements and we can't really touch those. I think though that we are underrating the effectiveness of efficiency reforms around our healthcare system. For both private patients and taxpayers.

gautamcgoel 4y ago
I agree that our allies would not be happy if we started closing bases, but I think that is a small price to pay for fiscal responsibility.
- legitster 4y ago
  The small price to pay would be millions of deaths and constant economic anxiety for upwards of a billion people around the globe. Alternatively we could raise taxes a little bit.
TexanFeller 4y ago
> we are not currently in any major conflicts anyway Disagree. The war with Russia has been slowly but steadily escalating and more directly involving NATO countries. It's not unthinkable it could turn into WW3.
- legitster 4y ago
  I don't disagree that it might very well escalate. But to the extent that the current conflict has already impacted our budget or the forecasted budget as outlined in the linked article I think is pretty negligible. My point was that we are unlikely to find any "easy" cuts in defense spending - and a major conflict could make us regret it.
- Andaith 4y ago
  Yes it is. Russia is bogged down and unable to make any progress while fighting the poorest country in Europe, who is 1/3rd their size, has been equipped with whatever leftovers NATO was getting rid of anyway, and has conditions on using NATO tech to target Russia proper. There is zero chance of this becoming WW3. Any Russian escalation targeting NATO countries will likely be met with increased border defenses, possibly a no-fly zone, and giving Ukraine another 1% of defense spending collectively across NATO, but this time with all the long range missiles they want, the freedom to target Russia, and whatever aircraft NATO has in the back of the pantry...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > has been equipped with whatever leftovers NATO was getting rid of anyway That’s really inaccurate; a lot of what Ukraine got is modern kit. It’s true that a lot of the really heavy equipment was ex-Soviet gear that was (or is now, if it wasn’t before) being replaced by more modern Western gear, and some of the rest was for speed current operational gear that the operators could do without even if it wasn’t planned for imminent replacement. But even some of the heavy gear (especially more recently) is new and modern, like NASAMS, and that seems to be more than case with announced and upcoming deliveries (heck, for the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb – a funny name for a long-range artillery rocket – they are not merely getting new and modern Western kit, they are going to be the first operator.)
  - TexanFeller 4y ago
    There's a reason actions you suggest like a no fly zone have not and probably will never be taken by NATO. Russia is a nuclear superpower capable of destroying most life on earth.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
This website has military spend at closer to 15% of all federal government expenses. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown... > The government expects to spend $6.011 trillion in 2022. More than 65% of that pays for mandated benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. > Military spending includes the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Veterans Affairs. All of these military costs combined equal $943.9 billion. > Pensions are entitlements and we can't really touch those. They are touched all the time. Implicitly via decreased purchasing power of currency that is not made up for via cost of living adjustments, and explicitly via things like increasing retirement age and changes to benefit formula. Healthcare spending is also frequently adjusted via reduced remuneration and policies for remuneration to providers changing the quantity and quality of services received.

gautamcgoel 4y ago

I agree that our allies would not be happy if we started closing bases, but I think that is a small price to pay for fiscal responsibility.

legitster 4y ago
The small price to pay would be millions of deaths and constant economic anxiety for upwards of a billion people around the globe. Alternatively we could raise taxes a little bit.

TexanFeller 4y ago

> we are not currently in any major conflicts anyway Disagree. The war with Russia has been slowly but steadily escalating and more directly involving NATO countries. It's not unthinkable it could turn into WW3.

legitster 4y ago
I don't disagree that it might very well escalate. But to the extent that the current conflict has already impacted our budget or the forecasted budget as outlined in the linked article I think is pretty negligible. My point was that we are unlikely to find any "easy" cuts in defense spending - and a major conflict could make us regret it.
Andaith 4y ago
Yes it is. Russia is bogged down and unable to make any progress while fighting the poorest country in Europe, who is 1/3rd their size, has been equipped with whatever leftovers NATO was getting rid of anyway, and has conditions on using NATO tech to target Russia proper. There is zero chance of this becoming WW3. Any Russian escalation targeting NATO countries will likely be met with increased border defenses, possibly a no-fly zone, and giving Ukraine another 1% of defense spending collectively across NATO, but this time with all the long range missiles they want, the freedom to target Russia, and whatever aircraft NATO has in the back of the pantry...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > has been equipped with whatever leftovers NATO was getting rid of anyway That’s really inaccurate; a lot of what Ukraine got is modern kit. It’s true that a lot of the really heavy equipment was ex-Soviet gear that was (or is now, if it wasn’t before) being replaced by more modern Western gear, and some of the rest was for speed current operational gear that the operators could do without even if it wasn’t planned for imminent replacement. But even some of the heavy gear (especially more recently) is new and modern, like NASAMS, and that seems to be more than case with announced and upcoming deliveries (heck, for the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb – a funny name for a long-range artillery rocket – they are not merely getting new and modern Western kit, they are going to be the first operator.)
- TexanFeller 4y ago
  There's a reason actions you suggest like a no fly zone have not and probably will never be taken by NATO. Russia is a nuclear superpower capable of destroying most life on earth.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

This website has military spend at closer to 15% of all federal government expenses. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown... > The government expects to spend $6.011 trillion in 2022. More than 65% of that pays for mandated benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. > Military spending includes the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Veterans Affairs. All of these military costs combined equal $943.9 billion. > Pensions are entitlements and we can't really touch those. They are touched all the time. Implicitly via decreased purchasing power of currency that is not made up for via cost of living adjustments, and explicitly via things like increasing retirement age and changes to benefit formula. Healthcare spending is also frequently adjusted via reduced remuneration and policies for remuneration to providers changing the quantity and quality of services received.