KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The chart in the OP shows funding as a constant percentage of GDP (4%). NATO requires member states to put at least 2% of GDP into defense.
From the almighty Wiki:
the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[34][35]), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on military during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.
.......................
In 2005, the United States spent 4.06% of its GDP on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[40]information 2006 This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999–2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[41] Countries such as Canada and Germany spend only 1.4% of GDP on their military.
So...a little perspective on that graph.
Do we need to increase defense spending? Of course not--it should be cut, particularly after 2014. Nor do we need to provide public funding for broadcasting, either. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of things that our government funds that it shouldn't...or shouldn't fund at the levels it does.
Zero out defense spending and we'll still have ~$1T deficits annually. We've got budgetary problems across the board...far more than a 0.5% GDP increase in defense spending (which, again, shouldn't happen).
To refer to the commentary part of the OP as uninformed does woeful disservice to the term.
If NATO requires 2% be spent on defense, how do Canada and Germany spend less?
Because we let them, and take up the slack...hence our higher spending as a percentage of GDP. When Gates essentially said, "this shit has got to stop; we can't afford to keep letting you ride our coat tails" he got castigated for it.
I know the current defense spending numbers do not include any further spending authorizations related to Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder if the numbers during the Vietnam War mentioned in your quote include these spend dollars, or just the defense budget. In other words, is it an apples to apples comparison? I'm too lazy to look it up for comparison.
Actually, the current numbers DO include "OCO" funding as part of the baseline defense budget. That is one thing that Obama implemented that I agree with--it makes DoD (as opposed to "defense related") expenditures more accurate. Pretty sure all other wars/police actions/whatever before were also accounted as part of the DoD baseline, adjusted for supplemental appropriations.
RAIMIUS wrote:
Is the US military too large? Well, for what we are asked to do, I'd say probably not that much.
Now, whether you think the current national defense strategy is wise is a good debate! If we JUST wanted to defend our borders, we could cut the military by a lot. If we only wanted to defend our borders and conduct bare minimum participation in our alliances, we could still cut significantly.
MacBeth, which military benefits do you think should be cut and why?
Spearhead wrote:
Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. We all know full well there are some loony toon neocons who would love nothing more than to have 50,000 troop garrisons in each of those countries if it were physically possible. What is scary is that there are people who think we can do this forever.
These two statements are tightly bound. What Spearhead fails to grasp is that the National Security Strategy (issued in 2010, signed by Obama) signs the US up for all kinds of shit. Pretty sure Barry wouldn't be classified as a "neocon" by most people. It is that NSS (and the ones before it) that drive the scope of nearly all discretionary spending, particularly defense and diplomatic funding. The narrower the definition/scope of US national interests, the smaller the required military and diplomatic force to protect/further those interests. And thus less associated spending.
Rand Paul had a great opinion piece on CNN today, talking about how he disagreed with Romney's foreign policy speech, even though he supported him on just about every other issue. I think Paul was spot on, personally.
