As an outside observer with no particular knowledge of the US budget, I've never understood why the US spends so much of its GDP on defence. All of the great empires of the past have been able to do far more with far less, and when you see how the American foreign policy of interventionism has produced numerous controversies which have only alienated it further from international opinion, it only throws the budget's aims and priorities even more into the spotlight.

 

People should always be encouraged to work, provided they have the capacity and means to do so. There's a difference between that and starving them from any kind of bearable existence because it suits your ideological views. Your insistence to not discuss other areas of US domestic spending adds doubt as to whether you oppose the proportion of GDP that is spent on welfare, or simply oppose welfare full stop. If it's more to with the latter than the former, then you're being ridiculous; the first goal of any government is to protect its people--from starvation and poverty as well as opposing armies and terrorist threats.

 

What is so wrong about the poor being 'less poor' in allegedly one of the richest countries of the world? Why is there this comparison to poverty in the US and poverty in Sudan, as though the two are actually comparable?

What is so wrong about the poor being 'less poor' in allegedly one of the richest countries of the world? Why is there this comparison to poverty in the US and poverty in Sudan, as though the two are actually comparable?

 

Because while some people are worrying about how to feed a family of five dinner for the next couple of days, other people are concerned about "the principle of the matter". Nothing but a lack of perspective.

Some people like who? Who specifically are you talking about there?

 

Because if it's a family in sub-Saharan Africa, I don't see how a foreign invasion of Iraq has solved that problem at all. If it's a family in America, then the system itself is failing--not the principle of welfare--and needs reforming, and in such a case more funding is needed, not less.

As an outside observer with no particular knowledge of the US budget, I've never understood why the US spends so much of its GDP on defence.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

 

It's because the Pentagon is essentially another arm of government. A few other reasons:

 

1.) War is profitable for private businesses, and because we elect individuals rather than parties, it's more expensive to run a campaign in America. This leads to dependence on a lot of funds to continue to win reelection.

2.) The MIC placed its tentacles in every single Congressional District. So if you cut a piece of military spending, you're potentially removing jobs from that part of America. A major part of our economy is built around war.

3.) Once the Cold War ended, its power was so strong that it was unlikely to go anywhere and needed new enemies; dictators in the ME and terrorism continue to give itself fuel.

4.) High level of respect among Americans for military. Not only do Americans not think the military is too powerful, they think it should be more powerful than it already is:

 

 

This means that no matter what people say about defense spending or the deficit, it will in practice be extremely difficult for mere politicians to ever win an argument with generals and admirals.

 

Oh, and Americans do not care about "perspective" or starving people in Africa. Every poll shows Americans' ignorance about our budget, and that the one thing they want to cut more than anything else is foreign aid:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx

 

It's not about perspective, it's about Heritage's desire for lower taxes on rich people. End of story. We'd give more aid to Africa if I had my way (and end agriculture subsidies, which contribute far more to African poverty than anything they do on their own); in fact, I was planning to join the Peace Corps after graduation but was forced out due to budget cuts.

Your insistence to not discuss other areas of US domestic spending adds doubt as to whether you oppose the proportion of GDP that is spent on welfare, or simply oppose welfare full stop.

What I don't understand is why no one can be bothered to create a different thread to discuss the U.S.'s military budget.

 

Imagine you create a thread about chocolate, and how you'd like to debate whether tootsie rolls can be considered chocolate or not. Then, your opponent starts to argue that tootsie rolls are chocolate, and that your position on the inclusion of marshmallows in the list of gummy candies is absolutely wrong, and it makes your argument on chocolate less valid.

 

I'm not discussing the U.S. military budget here because it has very little to do with the Census Bureau's definition of poverty, or the way the U.S. gives aid to people. If you want to discuss the U.S.'s military budget, I suggest you create a different thread instead of mucking this one up.

Taxing and welfare is not the solution here. As I said before, super-corporations need to be forced to use domestic labor. It's ridiculous how they can abuse, bribe, and sue their way out of taxes and use USA's military and finacial protection, yet not use their people.

 

I might sound like a commie, but the goal is the same as any Tea Party member wants: a stronger economic America.

Why should we force corporations to use domestic labor if foreign labor is more viable?

 

As an outside observer with no particular knowledge of the US budget, I've never understood why the US spends so much of its GDP on defence.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

 

It's because the Pentagon is essentially another arm of government. A few other reasons:

 

1.) War is profitable for private businesses, and because we elect individuals rather than parties, it's more expensive to run a campaign in America. This leads to dependence on a lot of funds to continue to win reelection.

2.) The MIC placed its tentacles in every single Congressional District. So if you cut a piece of military spending, you're potentially removing jobs from that part of America. A major part of our economy is built around war.

3.) Once the Cold War ended, its power was so strong that it was unlikely to go anywhere and needed new enemies; dictators in the ME and terrorism continue to give itself fuel.

4.) High level of respect among Americans for military. Not only do Americans not think the military is too powerful, they think it should be more powerful than it already is:

 

 

This means that no matter what people say about defense spending or the deficit, it will in practice be extremely difficult for mere politicians to ever win an argument with generals and admirals.

 

Oh, and Americans do not care about "perspective" or starving people in Africa. Every poll shows Americans' ignorance about our budget, and that the one thing they want to cut more than anything else is foreign aid

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx

 

It's not about perspective, it's about Heritage's desire for lower taxes on rich people. End of story. We'd give more aid to Africa if I had my way (and end agriculture subsidies, which contribute far more to African poverty than anything they do on their own); in fact, I was planning to join the Peace Corps after graduation but was forced out due to budget cuts.

Or, you know, it could because foreign aid is a fallacious means of "charity". And that the other members of NATO don't fulfill their obligations so we must match their inadequacies.

 

In fact the current US Military force is the "weakest" it has been since World War Two. Source

 

Further, wouldn't George W. Bush's AIDS program be better for the continent of Africa than some subsidies here and there? Source

 

Your insistence to not discuss other areas of US domestic spending adds doubt as to whether you oppose the proportion of GDP that is spent on welfare, or simply oppose welfare full stop.

What I don't understand is why no one can be bothered to create a different thread to discuss the U.S.'s military budget.

 

Imagine you create a thread about chocolate, and how you'd like to debate whether tootsie rolls can be considered chocolate or not. Then, your opponent starts to argue that tootsie rolls are chocolate, and that your position on the inclusion of marshmallows in the list of gummy candies is absolutely wrong, and it makes your argument on chocolate less valid.

 

I'm not discussing the U.S. military budget here because it has very little to do with the Census Bureau's definition of poverty, or the way the U.S. gives aid to people. If you want to discuss the U.S.'s military budget, I suggest you create a different thread instead of mucking this one up.

 

You make statements that you are against taking from the rich to help the poor but you support taking from the rich to pay for a military.

 

In my opinion the military itself is a welfare program, thus I personally agree with anyone saying it is relevant to this thread

 

Source:

I don't see how the small business owner in Iowa benefits when the U.S. government robs him of 40% of what his company earns in a year, and redirects it to the unemployed people in California so they have extra money to buy "medical" marijuana for their "disability".

 

 

tl;dr: republicans hate any government spending that isnt for god (you know the republicans goal of making a Christian version of Shariah law for America) and guns (military so we can "liberate" moar countries and doesnt afraid of anything). Of course I agreed with the general thing you started this thread with however you are among the many hypocrites who preach this so I dislike the person saying this not the central point.

 

Libertarianism is better. They agree with the "tea partiers" on economic points but also are for individual freedom like abortion rights, ending drug prohibition, etc.

I must admit, I laughed. Surely you don't think all, or most, Republican policies are for religion and that we allow citizens to bear arms to liberate other countries? If you do, I insist you excuse me from considering your opinion on related policies relevant. I am interested, however, in how the right for me to own a handgun is relevant to people much braver and more virtuous than I serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or how fiscal discipline is related to any Christian text.

Or, you know, it could because foreign aid is a fallacious means of "charity". And that the other members of NATO don't fulfill their obligations so we must match their inadequacies.

 

Or, you know, it could be that Americans think America's budget spends 27% on foreign aid: Source

 

Yes, those damned Europeans! Spending their money on things like college, health care, child care and assistance to the poor! Why can't they be real men and spend money on guns and bullets like us!

 

In fact the current US Military force is the "weakest" it has been since World War Two. Source

 

Lol, what a bs argument. So because fewer percent of the population is participating in the armed forces -- which is because we don't have a draft, we have a growing population, infant mortality is going down thus we have higher longevity, etc -- that means we're spending less on the military than ever before? We're spending more on the military now than at any point in time in pure physical dollars, and we're not fighting wars of self-defense but wars of aggression and imperialism. Spending more than the entire world combined isn't enough for you?

 

Further, wouldn't George W. Bush's AIDS program be better for the continent of Africa than some subsidies here and there? Source

 

That source doesn't say that the program is better than ending farm subsidies. It just says that Bush's AIDS program was better and more funded than Obama's. So either find a new source, or make a different argument...like, "Bush's AIDS program was better for Africa than Obama's." I find this arguable. I do not find it arguable that Bush's foreign aid program was better by the simple fact that Obama removed the Gag Rule, and isn't promoting abstinence. However, both are failures on terms of foreign aid because of local politicians in the Dakotas and Midwest who never want agricultural subsidies cut. These keep food prices artificially low and African farmers cannot compete. But I guess in your zeal for partisanship for quite possibly the worst president in recent memory, you had to find and exploit his one good spot: his AIDS program.

 

edit: LOL! Look what I found this morning on my feed when I woke up: U.S. trucking contracts funded Taliban, source says

 

Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq now?

You make statements that you are against taking from the rich to help the poor but you support taking from the rich to pay for a military.

Source this.

 

 

 

I don't see how the small business owner in Iowa benefits when the U.S. government robs him of 40% of what his company earns in a year, and redirects it to the unemployed people in California so they have extra money to buy "medical" marijuana for their "disability".

 

 

tl;dr: republicans hate any government spending that isnt for god (you know the republicans goal of making a Christian version of Shariah law for America) and guns (military so we can "liberate" moar countries and doesnt afraid of anything). Of course I agreed with the general thing you started this thread with however you are among the many hypocrites who preach this so I dislike the person saying this not the central point.

 

Libertarianism is better. They agree with the "tea partiers" on economic points but also are for individual freedom like abortion rights, ending drug prohibition, etc.

You're taking that out of context. I wanted magekillr to explain why welfare benefits the rich more than it benefits the welfare recipients.

Or, you know, it could because foreign aid is a fallacious means of "charity". And that the other members of NATO don't fulfill their obligations so we must match their inadequacies.

 

Or, you know, it could be that Americans think America's budget spends 27% on foreign aid: Source

 

Yes, those damned Europeans! Spending their money on things like college, health care, child care and assistance to the poor! Why can't they be real men and spend money on guns and bullets like us!

 

In fact the current US Military force is the "weakest" it has been since World War Two. Source

 

Lol, what a bs argument. So because fewer percent of the population is participating in the armed forces -- which is because we don't have a draft, we have a growing population, infant mortality is going down thus we have higher longevity, etc -- that means we're spending less on the military than ever before? We're spending more on the military now than at any point in time in pure physical dollars, and we're not fighting wars of self-defense but wars of aggression and imperialism. Spending more than the entire world combined isn't enough for you?

 

Further, wouldn't George W. Bush's AIDS program be better for the continent of Africa than some subsidies here and there? Source

 

That source doesn't say that the program is better than ending farm subsidies. It just says that Bush's AIDS program was better and more funded than Obama's. So either find a new source, or make a different argument...like, "Bush's AIDS program was better for Africa than Obama's." I find this arguable. I do not find it arguable that Bush's foreign aid program was better by the simple fact that Obama removed the Gag Rule, and isn't promoting abstinence. However, both are failures on terms of foreign aid because of local politicians in the Dakotas and Midwest who never want agricultural subsidies cut. These keep food prices artificially low and African farmers cannot compete. But I guess in your zeal for partisanship for quite possibly the worst president in recent memory, you had to find and exploit his one good spot: his AIDS program.

 

edit: LOL! Look what I found this morning on my feed when I woke up: U.S. trucking contracts funded Taliban, source says

 

Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq now?

My apologies, I posted that while incredibly drunk and I don't even know what I'm talking about part of the time l0l.

 

I agree that we can easily cut down on defense spending, for example by closing foreign bases, but significant cuts are not wise nor pragmatic. I posted on another topic the breakdown of our defense spending and there's maybe 15% maximum, which includes R&D which arguably increases GDP multiple times over what we spend on it. But aid will not solve any problems in Africa.

 

You're right in pointing out that there are additional factors that cause our military strength as percent of population to be low, but then you go on about "pure physical dollars" which are likewise a result of inflation. Also, wars of imperialism? Please.

 

Don't know what caused me to post that link about the AIDS program, to be honest, but I agree with you that we should stop subsidies. My "zeal for partisanship"? Laughable.

 

Again, I apologize for not making any sense.

"medical" marijuana for their "disability".

 

 

I know this is pretty off topic, but marijuana has been proven to be medically helpful for something in the ballpark of 200 different conditions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

 

(I know it's wikipedia, but wikipedia itself contains the sources)

He's not denying that, I think. The system is just being abused according to him.

He's not denying that, I think. The system is just being abused according to him.

Yeah, pretty much.

It's not really rocket science to understand why people experiencing low quality of life consume more hallucinogenics. It's not right, but I don't think this was ever really up for debate.

 

However, I'm convinced that most people do not spend their welfare money on such things. What makes me so sure are cases in the UK where the Winter Fuel Allowance awarded to the elderly to help with heating costs over the cold winter are sometimes insufficient to cover the bills, meaning that too often, they have to cut back on food in order to subsidise the expense. The result of course, is that they're not eating well and end up becoming ill anyway. There are examples like this all over the welfare system, however, it doesn't remove the fundamental point: they don't have enough money to sustain themselves--they either freeze or starve to death--and it's not always the case that they fit into the convenient category of 'Can't be arsed working' that certain right-wing groups would have us all believe. For every welfare payment, there is a good reason for it being awarded, and even if some unfortunately abuse it, others undoubtedly still need it.

 

Punish the cheating of the welfare system, not the claiming of welfare in itself.

Some people like who? Who specifically are you talking about there?

 

Because if it's a family in sub-Saharan Africa, I don't see how a foreign invasion of Iraq has solved that problem at all. If it's a family in America, then the system itself is failing--not the principle of welfare--and needs reforming, and in such a case more funding is needed, not less.

 

Didn't see this, sorry. It's usually families in America who are lucky enough to live the good life saying, "Well at least you're not in Africa, that should be enough for you," which is great influence as to why there is such a huge class gap.