The US would like to see budget cuts in the military

[Jagos]

Link (http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/05/14/americans-favor-military-cuts/)

An overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens want deep and immediate cuts in military spending, according to a new poll. The Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based investigative news service, in conjunction with two other groups asked more than 600 Americans from across the country about their perceptions regarding U.S. defense spending. The survey went on to ask whether the respondent favored increasing, holding steady or decreasing military spending.

Seventy-six percent of survey-takers, including 90 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Republicans, say they would cut the Pentagon's budget. That places the majority of respondents at odds with Democratic President Barack Obama's policies and the proposed budgets of the majority Republican Party in Congress. Obama has essentially held defense spending steady at around $550 billion by cutting its recent rate of increase. The Republicans have proposed adding billions of dollars to the president's budget.

I smell an ouster coming on... This Congress is truly losing legitimacy in a really bad way. Obama might gain a second term but I'm pretty sure that keeping the Tea Party in place will really destroy any chance of him actually being effective.

The military has been sitting pretty with their Billion dollar failure plane (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/) but those days may be going the way of the dodo. As expected, people don't like the ever present war state and constantly pushing for wars has gotten to a number of civilians. But how much longer can the politicians try to maintain that we need so much military expenditures when it's effectively done nothing but get contractors rich?

[Japan]

asked more than 600 Americans

Wow, that sure is a lot of Americans.

There have been cuts in defense spending, cutting a bit more would probably be prudent but you shouldn't forget that the defense industry also creates jobs, its not like all that money is going into one guy's pocket. (Only 75% of it.)

[Osterbaum]

You guys sure do spend quite a bit on defense. The map is from Wikipedia, but I checked some of the numbers from other sources and they match the map.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Military_expenditure_by_country_map2.png/800px-Military_expenditure_by_country_map2.png

[Lumenskir]

Wow, that sure is a lot of Americans.
...Honest questions: (1) Do you know what a demographically representative sample is, and (2) Do you think that every American is asked a question when they say "X% of Americans believe Y"?
cutting a bit more would probably be prudent but you shouldn't forget that the defense industry also creates jobs, its not like all that money is going into one guy's pocket.
I think the simplest response to this would be something like "Why not divert that money into other job-creating but not people-killing areas, like health or public engineering or almost anything besides bombs and planes and weapons we don't really need?"

[Osterbaum]

...Honest questions: (1) Do you know what a demographically representative sample is, and (2) Do you think that every American is asked a question when they say "X% of Americans believe Y"?
To be fair, 600 does sound like a small sample.

[Japan]

I do know what a demographically representative sample is. I also know that most interest groups don't actually use those as they wouldn't portray the results they're looking for. 600 just seemed like a really farcical number to me and I thought I'd point out the humorousness of it with a sarcastic remark, sorry if you don't share my appreciation for incidental humor.

Also I'm quite sure they never ask every American these sorts of questions because they never ask me, and I number amongst that populace.

To respond to your third question I think it'd be fine to devote a large portion of defense spending to stuff that didn't directly relate to blowing up brown people. Unfortunately, I don't think we possess the ability to shift gears quite so fluidly as the imagination. It's a matter of shifting public opinion, building and dismantling infrastructures etc. etc.

Its not quite so simple as getting a few hundred rich old white men to check the box marked "flowers and puppies" instead of "kill dem' darkies."

The real issue here is, as is usual, no limits on campaign contribution and the fact that special interest lobbyists get to go apeshit all over Washington without so much as a "by your leave."

Without all these inside deals and backdoor politics you could most likely cut the defense budget in half and get twice as much out of it. There is absolutely no reason for things to cost as much as they do, when you remove the influence of the free market you end up with 300 dollar hammers and whatnot.

On a personal note, being familiar with department of defense software in various formats, the people we should really feel sorry for are the pilots. Holy shit that interface is going to suck balls.

[Mr.Bookworm]

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/05/14/americans-favor-military-cuts/Jagos, protip? A blog is not a reputable source of news, in any context. That's the sort of thing that would make my fifth grade Social Studies teacher laugh at me.

Also, yes, 456 people is not the majority of the US, or a large enough sample size to make any statements about this sort of thing.

[Osterbaum]

A blog is not a reputable source of news, in any context.
Well it can be a good enough source to start a thread, as long as the blog itself links to other sources. Even then I feel it's important to point that out though.

[Fifthfiend]

Jagos, protip? A blog is not a reputable source of news, in any context. That's the sort of thing that would make my fifth grade Social Studies teacher laugh at me.

Also, yes, 456 people is not the majority of the US, or a large enough sample size to make any statements about this sort of thing.

Your fifth grade social studies teacher was born forty years before blogs existed and infinity years before newspapers were reputable or non-laughable.

[Osterbaum]

Fifth is just defending blogs because he has one too! We're on to you, you're part of the machine!

[BitVyper]

Your fifth grade social studies teacher was born forty years before blogs existed and infinity years before newspapers were reputable or non-laughable.

Check your twitter messages or get on AIM.

[CABAL49]

Is AIM still a thing? People still do that?

[BitVyper]

Is AIM still a thing? People still do that?

I use Trillian

Its not quite so simple as getting a few hundred rich old white men to check the box marked "flowers and puppies" instead of "kill dem' darkies."

The real issue here is, as is usual, no limits on campaign contribution and the fact that special interest lobbyists get to go apeshit all over Washington without so much as a "by your leave."

So it's basically exactly that simple.

[Japan]

So it's basically exactly that simple.

No, getting rich old white men to turn down loads of money is a lot more complex than getting them to stop endorsing the genocide of the perpetually tan.

[shiney]

Split hairs aside, it literally is as simple to get them to change their minds. It's the process involved to achieve that which is infinitely more difficulty.

[Kim]

I wouldn't say it's complex. Just hard.

[Japan]

but its like they have money and thats what makes them rich, so you'd think they don't need anymore, but if they didn't take money they'd never have had money in the first place. So like, if they stop taking money, do they stop being rich?

THE FUCK?!

I don't know about you guys, but that is some complexity that straight up blows my noodle.

[Flarecobra]

I honestly think they won't be able to really cut the cost of the military until they do a physical downsizing of the US's military size.

[Sifright]

I honestly think they won't be able to really cut the cost of the military until they do a physical downsizing of the US's military size.

It's pretty simple just scrap a bunch of the next generation projects for fighter jets and bombers, those programs cost tens of billions. You can be damn sure those tens of billions dont generate the same number of jobs as could be gained by spending the money else where.

[Jagos]

Case in point the F-35 is over budget, over technical, and downright a waste of time and resources.

If you put $1 trillion dollars to education instead of warfare, how many people would you help? How many schools? How many teachers would have new resources to do their jobs?

[Marc v4.0]

Case in point the F-35 is over budget, over technical, and downright a waste of time and resources.

If you put $1 trillion dollars to education instead of warfare, how many people would you help? How many schools? How many teachers would have new resources to do their jobs?

So you're saying you want the terrorists to win?

Liberal hippy.

[Japan]

You know with all that we know about statistical analysis and probability, and with all the out of work college graduates laying about you'd think someone could come up with an absolute number that would constitute the bare minimum for national security.

Like, if you spend at least this much then the Chinese won't invade, anything less and you'd better start learning Mandarin.

[Kim]

I don't think China would invade the US regardless. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think they're really equipped for a war of conquest to the degree of taking over America. I know they've got hella citizens, but it seems like the sort of thing that would stretch the administration too thin and fall apart rather quickly.

[Sifright]

I don't think China would invade the US regardless. I could totally be wrong, but I don't think they're really equipped for a war of conquest to the degree of taking over America. I know they've got hella citizens, but it seems like the sort of thing that would stretch the administration too thin and fall apart rather quickly.

man why would they bother, This financial collapse business has been great for china they snapping up ownership deeds for all kinds of rare earth material mines *and non rare* They won't invade places like America because it would be economic suicide.

For instance China now owns something like 90% of all the active uranium mines.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You know with all that we know about statistical analysis and probability, and with all the out of work college graduates laying about you'd think someone could come up with an absolute number that would constitute the bare minimum for national security.

Like, if you spend at least this much then the Chinese won't invade, anything less and you'd better start learning Mandarin.

I reckon $0 is a pretty good start.
Like I talked to the Chinaman under my bed and he says they're pretty good at the moment and don't really have any financial incentive to invade you dudes. His tongue was forked though so take that as you will.

[Overcast]

I hear that is a fairly popular body modification in China, nothing to worry about.

As an image from the inside the military is downsizing in the personnel department which is dual sided in that it reduces the amount they have to pay now, but due to the individuals they are cutting increases the amount of retirees they will have on record for a while. But while that is variable in how it is affecting military spending they are still researching and buying new expensive technology of varying degrees of reliability, still being screwed over by every asshole who has the good luck of winning a military purchase contract, and still having trouble balancing how old something has to be before it is more costly to repair it than it is to buy a newer better one.

Combine this with a bureaucratic system that is both rigid and inflexible but simultaneously schizophrenic with the amount of leadership that makes budget decisions for each individual place and other than outright cutting funds few things can be implemented in the military to fix our running issues with drastic spending that won't take years to be fully operational. And even then it won't be very functional I imagine.

All in all even in the military I imagine we could use a budget cut, but good luck hoping that money ends up going to something that is worth a damn considering modern politics.