Elephant-Donkey

Mikethearf won the Face Off.

papabear vs Mikethearf

Face Offs: 6
Wins: 3
Losses: 3
Ties: 0
No City, XX
All Face Offs

Votes

Face Offs: 46
Wins: 23
Losses: 20
Ties: 3
No City, XX
All Face Offs

Votes

Resolution: If Washington really wants to cut back spending, the military budget should be reduced by at least 25% & foreign military bases removed.

papabear said 11/15, 10:55 AM
With the market in recession, everyone is having to buckle down and tighten up their belts. I'm pretty sure most of you would agree that Washington has to do this as well. While our wallets, and quality of life, are disappearing, we cannot afford for government to keep expanding and spending.
The projected military budget for 2009 is in the vicinity of $515,000,000,000. That's five hundred and fifteen billion. This is money that should be going into education, our infrastructure, our future! As it stands, our military budget is greater then almost the entire worlds defense spending COMBINED.
Let us be clear about one thing, there is no argument to be made that if you cut military spending then " America is more vulnerable." We would still have access to all the technologies we currently we have, and we would still be developing groundbreaking technology, we would just have 1/4 less of everything. We are a member of NATO, and with a 25% cut we would still have the worlds LARGEST, most advanced military. While we are always vulnerable to attacks with or without a defense spending cut, America cannot be toppled or defeated.

Mikethearf said 11/15, 05:56 PM
Let me just say, yes! Military spending is always exaggerated more than what it should be (i.e. $300 for a Pentagon toilet seat!). Although I see large spending as necessary for our large nation and international commitments, still, there is always some kind of fat, regardless. Much of it, I might add, is the result of companies that secure contracts for whatever, from toilet seats (paper sold seperately) to big ol' aircraft carriers and such. We should start by really revising the way private enterpise secures these darn contracts to begin with. They charge crazy prices because when they get a contract, they are a monopoly. That should cease and desist, pronto! Also, we must see what should be reduced outright, and what shouldn't. What should be cut to name a few: Much of the so called, entertainment, especially for officers. Sleeper units held as reserves that do much of what they did in the movie 'Delta Farce' prior to deployment. Big ticket items, such as some tanks, that prove ineffective. What shouldn't: Veteran benefits. Family housing and education. Gear for the front line (illequipped is not cool!). Hospitals. The list either way is endless. Fine tune it!

papabear said 11/15, 08:32 PM
The argument you used to counter me was " large spending is necessary for our large nation and international commitments." However I never talked about any type of budget cut other than defense spending. You even added to my list of arguments by saying that military spending is broken.

Mikethearf said 11/17, 04:17 AM
The large spending that I was talking about was 'military spending', nothing else. I do apologie if I figured that you'd assume that what I was referring to. When I mentioned the system being inefficient, what I was trying to do was say the issue of that needs to be addressed. Much like the half million weapons unaccounted for in Iraq, along with vast amounts of cash. Simply put, the defense budget entails not only the military itself, but also the civilian sector. When I say that we must spend a large amount of money on the militay, I am referring to the fact that we inhabit 130 with our armed forces. However, how much each needs as opposed to what they are currently receives is the problem. It is disproportionate and needs to be curtailed. When I said, hospitals, once again, I did not make it clear that I meant, military and VA hospitals. If I was taken the wrong way...sorry! Also. I maintain how the military acquires its stuff from private enterprise needs to be revised and not accepted as it is presently.

papabear said 11/21, 03:08 PM
Your argument is that we need to keep our large spending because our military inhabits 130 countries. You fail to understand that this is fundamentally wrong. There is nothing obligating us to keep a military presence in these countries other then policy makers in Washington and top executives in the executive branch wanting to keep the world in check. While we are a hired security force in countries such as Germany, and our expenses there are paid for; it is not necessary for us to have a global occupation.
This all ties back to my main argument, that the size of government needs to be reduced, the largest part of our government being the military. The global influence of our military will have a drastic blowback affect in the future, and is already damaging USA's credibility. We wonder why Middle Eastern terrorists come to our mainland and fly jets into our buildings after our CIA dismantled their countries government and put dictators into power that would support our policies. We DO NOT need this gross amount of spending to support our occupation of many many countries. It is damaging America abroad and is threatening the safety of Americans here at home.

Mikethearf said 11/21, 11:18 PM
We would not see that much of a decrease in the front line activity and the supplies. That should be sacred until we get the hell out of the hot zones. This is a complex issue and no easy solutions. Rest assured, I am for a reduction in spending. Just how much and where is the question. At any rate, even a 25 % reduction will leave 75 % behind. Still a huge number and much of it no less than necessary. Oversight should also be in place. Especially, now! If we let run away costs take place in certain segments of the military, it would not justify why we don't help the auto or banking industry. They'll point to that and would be nothing less than right. We'll see.

Comments

Add Your Comment

I was in Army supply in '84 and I can tell you that even back then, the waste was horrid. Also, much of the system was based on illlogic, not logic. For example. A true story here! A bunch of armed forces personnel based in Alaska ordered 'Alaskan King Crab'. Their request was granted. No problem for they were based in Alaska, right? Wrong! The stuff, for whatever reason according to logistics, had to be shipped to Washington State first for inspection (they didn't have that capacity in Alaska). Then the proper paperwork had to be filed. The order was given a low priority ship label and sat there for about a month or so. Suddenly, some clerk filled in paperwork and the crabs were shipped back to the unit in Alaska. And guess what?! They didn't even want it in the end. The event they wanted it for was well over with. Also, by the time they got them, the crabs were no longer fresh, just frozen. Apparently, they tasted awful and were dry. That is just one of many times things like that happen. I don't know what that cost John Q. Taxpayer, but I am sure it wasn't pretty! It is that kind of nearsighted waste. There, if we curtail that, I am confident that the money saved would pay for another month in Iraq without raising taxes for it, respectively. Until then...we pay! and pay! and pay! No doubt!!!

Mikethearf | 11/15/08

ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

papabear vs Mikethearf

Resolution: If Washington really wants to cut back spending, the military budget should be reduced by at least 25% & foreign military bases removed.

Mikethearf beat papabear 8 to 4

Comments

Post A Comment

CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES

TOP STORIES on TIME.COM

TIME PHOTO ESSAYS

Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech

Athens in Flames