Ask the military; stop funding the feel-good bureaucratic projects they don't want. However, cutting its size or reducing funding to other things that they need or can use is completely out of the question, especially when the jihadists are infesting more and more places and Iran and North Korea have nukes.
English
-
We don't need this much to fight dudes living in caves like we are now.
-
You should really look at it compared to GDP, not the total.
-
That's based on percentages, though. It has nothing to do with military strength.
-
But compared to the GDP is the important part.
-
Still, not really. I will explain this with two hypothetical countries. Country 1 has a population of 10,000 and spends 75% of its GDP on the military. Country 2 has a population of 2,000,000 (and has a much larger economy), but only spends 40% of its GDP on the military. Now say the two come to a conflict. Despite Country 1 having a much higher percentage, it would most likely lose because numbers wise, its total 75% GDP spent on military is still smaller than the 40% Country 2 spends.
-
Well yeah, I understand that, but are we not debating cutting the bugett because it i too large, when it isn't all that large compared to other countries, and the amount of threats the US has to defend itself and the western world against.
-
That's the whole point. The budget is more than enough to fight any threat, excessive, in fact. Excessive to the point where we ought to cut it down and spend it on important things.
-
I'm not sure that the budget is excessive, I think how the budget is spent is off. If we have have to cut benefits for actives and for retired, then something is wrong. Now, I don't have the DOD's books, but if they used the budget better and where able to not cut benefits AND THEN had a lot left over, THEN I'd agree.
-
Like those 300 tanks the military said they don't need, yet republicans in congress went ahead with it anyway.
-
Gotta keep those kickbacks to the manufacturer's flowing.