Skip to main content

The defense budget for FY2010 is a whopping $533.8 billion. This is without accounting for the price of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which would bring the total to $663.8 billion. The "2009 U.S. defense budget of $660 billion was more than the combined defense expenditures of the next 17 countries. ... And that budget continues to rise steadily, growing at 4.8% for 2010, a year in which the U.S. economy's GDP growth is likely to be less than 2%." As a result, defense spending has accounted 65 percent of the discretionary spending increase since 2001 , making it a major factor in the growth of the U.S. budget deficit since then.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit "begins with the Department of Defense." The same month, Senator-elect Pat Toomey (PA) criticized Congress for voting for "programs the Pentagon doesn't even want" during a debate with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA). The week before, Senator-elect Mark Kirk (IL) said that we need "across-the-board" reductions in defense spending. And three weeks ago, Sen. Bob Corker (TN) said on CNBC that defense cuts have to be "on the table" because there's "a lot of waste there." Perhaps the Republican Senate caucus's most outspoken advocate for defense cuts is Tea Party "darling" and Senator-elect Rand Paul (KY), who told PBS's Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending "has to be on the table." Paul reiterated his call for reducing the military budget this weekend while appearing on ABC's This Week. He tweaked Republicans for "never" saying "they'll cut anything out of military. ... There's still waste in the military budget. You have to make it smaller."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Well ferrellj, don't forget to add medicare, medicaid, prescription drug coverage, handicapped parking (Americans with disabilities act) and social security to your wish list. How many of the older republicans who voted in the last election (notice I didn't say ALL) would want those eliminated in a balanced budget?
A balanced budget amendment, unless its passage had a clause stating it wouldn't take effect for a number of years, would require that we essentially only fund entitlements in the short term. That's based on current revenue. I'm not saying I'm against a balanced budget amendment, but we would have to take very unpopular considerations of complete elimination of discretionary spending and/or raise taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
Well ferrellj, don't forget to add medicare, medicaid, prescription drug coverage, handicapped parking (Americans with disabilities act) and social security to your wish list. How many of the older republicans who voted in the last election (notice I didn't say ALL) would want those eliminated in a balanced budget?


I'm an older American and I know that all of those have to be either eliminated or cut. Would it affect me? Of course, but if we do nothing it will hurt you much more than me.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
My standard answer which is always ignored: Balanced budget amendment, which includes a provision to actually pay down the national debt by some percentage every year


As the budget must include an amount to pay off treasury notes coming due during the year, if the budget were balanced and new bonds limited or eliminated, the debt would be reduced.
The Government (Federal, State, County, and Municipal) must be run like any successful business or household, just consider the profit your emergency fund. You cannot spend more than you make, period. Before anyone tells me it just is NOT that simple, I'll reply in advance YES it is. If my cost of gasoline goes higher than allowed one month, then the cost of something else must be reduced, yes even if it hurts. I can't credit card my way out of it, period, no exception.
Thank you ferrellj, what do people not get about this? Are we so simple minded that it is just amusing to others that say we just don't understand? It seems like simple math to me, big numbers and tough decisions, but yet simple math none the less.

I am told it will cost jobs, hurt families, destroy the economy. I have to decide not to eat out at a restaurant so much in order to pay for higher prices of necessities. This in turn has an effect on the restuarant owner and my would be waitress or waiter. Would the Gov't suggest I just go eat out anyway and charge it, keep the economy going? Won't I have to pay even more for it later, therefore hurting my future abilities even moreso?

It is not a perpetual motion machine. Something has to give. Gov't should use common sense, it's been working for me so far. I used this same practice at every income level of my life so far. Outgo must be less than or equal to income.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×