Macbeth wrote:
Cutting the U.S. budget by 1 trillion (our budget is 3.4 trillion at this point) and getting rid of 10% of the Federal workforce would disrupt the already fragile U.S. economy. The world economy is on a touch and go basis right now. The U.S. is too slowly recovering, Europe is teetering, and the Chinese are overheating. Reducing our budget by a third in one year will crash everything. It's too quick a change and too much of a change period. It would destroy the world economy again.
It has to be done at some point. The current level of spending is unsustainable. Does it matter whether it happens now or in five years? Kind of, because in five years the economy might be humming again and the urgency will be lost. It will not crash the economy, it will actually improve the economy. The government can not create jobs, because the government, by law, can not create anything of value. So when a politician creates an agency in order to create jobs, all he's doing is pulling money out of the economy at large and redirecting it. Due to the inefficiency of the government and the overpowered federal unions, it's not even a 1:1 exchange (one government job created at the expense of one civilian job), but more like 1.5 civilian jobs destroyed for every one government job.
Macbeth wrote:
U.S. military hegemony has been one of the greatest things to happen to humanity. The world economy has grown greatly since then. Trade and cultural barriers have been torn down across the globe. Two or multiple poles of power constantly competing against each other because the U.S. pulled back from its responsibility of keeping global stability would be a massive step backwards. Trade wars that occur in the market place would turn into trade wars between states. Resource rich politically undeveloped places would suddenly become much more important not only regionally but also on a national scale. Foreign trade and investment would dry up overnight. Underdeveloped places with little resources would be devastated. etc. That's a massive step backwards from free trade guarantee by military force.
When I think of genuine social progress the U.S. has made over the entire course of its existence it has always come from the Federal government. If it weren't for the Fed god knows what the South would look like... But if you want your arbitrary power in the hands of local leaders that's cool and all
The world economy would've grown even faster in a less stable world. Stability leads to complacency and stagnation, it's the fatal flaw in all conservative economic positions. You lessen the peaks and valleys, but you flatten out the curve as a whole. See: European economies.
Regardless, it's not our job to fight other peoples wars. It's not our job to police the world. You like a strong military and a lot of that has to do with the zero respect you have for those in uniform. You're more than willing to vote for others to die because you're a coward that will never be in personal danger.
Watching Bill O'Reilly is not doing you any favors. You have the views of a neo-con and you're far too young for that.