Should the US reduce spending on the military? No, not while we are at war. Bring the troops home from the middle east, that would automatically reduce spending. The US is told that we are not really at war, it's a kinetic movement and that's really expensive. END the kinetic movement mr president.
That will curtail a substantial amount of spending. Let the middle east solve their own problems.
If the kinetic movement is really about saving lives then "up" must mean "down". So disgusted with politico speech and twisting of words. (Depending on the definition of is.) and "Substantially reduce" means? If it means more dead soldiers, I vote NO!
America needs to retrench from its empire in order to heal the wounds of recession. We don’t have the resources any longer to sustain a global empire. We need to step away, draw ourselves up, consolidate our nearby resource, and leave room for the rest of the world, while we retreat to our hemisphere.
The military can save themselves billions in many levels but they don't have any motivation to do so. If they are looking for saving they probably would have already done so but getting change to happen in the military is almost impossible. If change was easy for the military, here are some examples they can take.
They can really save money almost instantly by creating an electronic record system that spans all branches of the military and to use it because right now its fragmented as in some departments are still pushing papers while others have electronic records.
Im my opinion officers are really paid well, and reason we have them is because its tradition. Too many managers for the people they are managing.
By creating the electronic records they can give up massive amounts of real estate which to some extent are vacant just hallways of empty room.
Streamline their school lessons and they cut cost in educating a soldier, airman or sailor.
Thats just the surface. Many more than the time to write.
We do not need to police the world, while our government has made lots of money off wars in the past, this clearly does not seem to be the case now probably due to the insane price we are paying for everything from weapons contractors, since they can seemingly charge whatever they want and our government will pay for it. It is high time that we get our priorities in order and quit being the military industrial complex that the rest of the world hates us for being.
Current levels of military spending are not constitutionally sanctioned. There is a difference between a military (in concept) and the US military that exists. To provide for the common defense could probably be done with far less money, far less tanks, missiles, airplanes, soldiers, and military infrastructure. In general, it is easier and cheaper to defend than attack.
While I agree that we should reduce our nations military exposure... that by no means that I think we should reduce our military. Out of all the nonsensical things our nation spends money on... the military is one of the few things our Constitution says they are supposed to "Provide for the common defense".
How about not subsidizing a Crucifix in a jar of urine and other such things.... then after we have rid ourselves of anything not guaranteed by the Constitution and we still can't balance the books... THEN cut military spending.
BTW... most of the country's that surpass our kids in math and science... spend less per capita than we do.
I agree with Tom Magill on this. The question "Do I think the U.S. should substantially reduce its military expenditures to decrease the deficit and/or allocate money to other priorities." is a loaded question.
What I think is, we should take a serious look at our defense posture and answer some questions like; Are we spending money on the right areas of defense? Given our current economic situation is our defense sepending in alignment? Is our current military infrastructure being supported? (I beleive the answer is our tanks, ships and plans are in a state of decline - despite an ever increasing level of spending) If in fact we are not maintaining our current force, should we reduce to a level we can support or funnel money in order to maintain the readiness readiness?
I was surprised that you gave this very important segment a total of approximately five minutes in your show this morning - especially after you mentioned that you believe there needed to be a national dialogue about it.
How could anyone answer the question without knowing what "substantially" means. Does "substantially" mean 5%, 10%, 20%, etc? "Substantially" means such different things to different people. The wording makes the poll totally dishonest.
The United States should not be involved in more and more foreign adventures. We have three wars too many now and this country can not afford to support them. Libya in particular should have never happened. Afghanistan is another Vietnam where we are supporting/buying a corrupt regime. Our involvement in Iraq (since the second war) has been a tremendous drain on the finances and the military. It is time for this country to decide that we can no longer be the policeman for the world. If it isn't in our immediate national interest we should not get involved.