Should America spend as much on people and the common good as we spend on Defense?

[kentuck]

It seems to me that should be part of the debate.

Republicans are whining about "socialism" and are accusing Democrats of being "big government socialists", but they have no problem spending $750 billion per year on our defense budget?

Over a ten-year period, that would amount to $7.5 trillion dollars!

What kind of scam is that?

The initial "Build Back Better" plan was asking for $350 billion a year, or $3.5 trillion over a ten-year period, which is less than half of what we are spending on defense.

Shouldn't this be an issue for the Democratic Party?

[CurtEastPoint]

1. D'oh! What a concept. Yes, it should.

[BlueJac]

2. Absolutely!

[marble falls]

3. Why are we spending as much for our defense as the next eight countries together spend?

[FBaggins]

4. There's a big gap in your math

You’re comparing annual defense spending (which includes quite a bit of “people and the common good” ) against a proposed increase in “people and the common good” spending.

We don’t currently spend zero on those things.

[kentuck]

7. And what percentage of the people might that be?

Is it closer to 1% or 50%?

[FBaggins]

12. ?? Not sure what you're asking

But the amount we spend annually on non-military spending is many times higher than military spending. And (more relevantly to the OP) many many times higher than BBB proposals.

[Hortensis]

13. :) Your OP's premise is strange, but fwiw @1% are in uniform

including reserves, @0.4% active duty.

[Hortensis]

10. :) To put it mildly. The category of mandatory spending alone

(government programs like Social Security, Medicare, etc) was budgeted at over $2.7 TRILLION.

Military under the category of discretionary spending was budgeted at $6.49 BILLION.

Then there's all the rest of the spending on our people and the common good in thousands of different ways.

[kentuck]

16. My point is:

That if we need $350 billion per year to re-build our country, why can't we get it? Especially if we are spending $750 billion per year on defense? Do we need to re-build our country or not? For me, it is a simple proposition.

[FBaggins]

18. Simple answer

Because there isn’t a majority in Congress that agrees that we need it.

[Hortensis]

22. :) Nah, your OP premise was blasted. This is just another rhetorical stick.

To approach an answer if you wanted one, though, you might start by wondering why all who say they want $7.5 T in spending for the common good now did not vote Democrat then to make even more happen?

The same answer would also answer the current real-world question of why some pretend not to know that $7.5 T was an opening to negotiation by congressional Democrats who knew they'd only be able to get a fraction. 50-50 Kentucky, NOT 60-40, courtesy of the will of the people.

[betsuni]

47. +1

[FBaggins]

17. People play lots of games with the figures

(“Lies, damn lies, and statistics”)

Some produce FAR higher military spending figures. But they often include games that don’t stand up to scrutiny. A Social Security check going to a veteran? That’s military spending. VA benefits to someone old enough to receive Medicare? That’s military spending.

[kentuck]

19. Except we don't seem to know how to play that "game"?

I think the "Build Back Better" plan could have been sold better.

[mtngirl47]

38. Social Security and Medicare should not be classified as "budget" items

Social Security and Medicare are paid for directly from the paychecks of the American people.

[Klaralven]

5. We do

[burrowowl]

35. Where do charts come from

[Klaralven]

39. Expenditures in the United States federal budget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget

[ShazamIam]

6. We aren't admitting that the so called defense spending was used more for protecting and advancing

private financial wealth of U.S. based corporations and banks, not military defense.

[kentuck]

9. Also, nothing is taken from paychecks for "Defense", as it is for SS and Medicare.

Doesn't that make a difference?

You are correct in that it is "more for protecting and advancing private financial wealth of U.S. based corporations and banks, not military defense".

[TwilightZone]

34. Sure, there is.

"nothing is taken from paychecks for "Defense"

Yes, there is. It's called income tax. Just because it doesn't show up on your paycheck as a specific line item doesn't mean it's not used for that purpose and myriad others.

[Demsrule86]

8. Yes it should be an issue but no it won't work now...get what you can and cut you losses and come

back for more if we win the midterms...if we don't well at least we got something and we moved forward in terms of Democratic policy. What point is there if the GOP takes over and we have accomplished nothing? You will never get everything you want...and please consider we have a 50 50 Senate.

[kentuck]

11. I am only suggesting there might be a stronger way to make your argument.

As any good salesman will tell you, "It is not the product you are selling, it is the salesman."

[Demsrule86]

20. Maybe...honestly I don't think it matters at this point...we can use an arugment like that

during the midterms. But I would be careful not to make it an either/or argument and be accused of being soft on defense...China has a new doomsday weapon, and I think Russia may invade Ukraine. We need to pass the defense bill, pass a version of Build back and then see if a deal can be made on voting rights which may not be possible. And can I say, let's stop giving away the DNC head job for political reasons? I like Jaime Harris but I do not think he can run the DNC properly... a great guy but lacks experience.

[Bettie]

42. Apparently, it will never work

it has been "not the right time to take care of non-rich human beings" for decades.

I suspect there will never be a right time for that until the not-rich outnumber the rich in congress, which will never happen under our current system.

We may never get everything, but something once in a while would be nice. BBB isn't going anywhere, Manchin got what he wanted so now he's a no on, well, everything.

[Ferrets are Cool]

14. I assume this is a rhetorical question since the answer is "more" on its people and less on

fucking Defense. I was on the beach at Gulf Shores, Alabama last week and witnessed a grand waste of our tax dollars in progress. The Blue Angels were out practicing and burning countless $$ in propaganda money.

[hunter]

15. I think defense should be paid entirely with wealth and property taxes...

... everything else with progressive income taxes, specific sales taxes, and registration fees.

If the defense budget was taken directly from the bank accounts of wealthy people we wouldn't be building useless things like aircraft carriers and manned fighter aircraft, and we'd be avoiding a lot of useless wars.

[Demsrule86]

21. And hell will freeze over before that happens...can we not be practical about this...in order to do

a damn thing aobut this, we need more Democrats.

[hunter]

24. My politics are always practical and solidly Democratic.

I've never voted for a Republican.

I voted for Jimmy Carter for my first presidential election and worked as a volunteer in his campaign.

When I talk to my elected representatives it's usually not about any thought experiments I've posted here on DU.

If people don't vote Democratic because some eccentric guy on DU said something that offended them then they were probably not going to vote Democratic in the first place.

When I have a really wild idea I sometimes preface it with "When I'm Emperor of Earth..."

If anyone actually thinks I'm the Emperor of the Earth and could possibly enforce a universal speed limit of 35 miles per hour, for example, or a complete restructuring of the tax system, that's not my problem.

It certainly doesn't reflect the official platform of the Democratic Party.

[Srkdqltr]

23. What's the point of defending if there is nothing good to defend?

[bucolic_frolic]

25. It's an investment scheme every bit as much as tax cuts for the wealthy or big oil

Republicans need to pad their portfolios, and please keep the divvies rolling in in ever greater amounts.

Defense contracting has made fortunes over the decades and centuries. It makes for fabulous retirement funds and trust fund babies.

[Busterscruggs]

26. Honest question

Do we really need a military at all? We could downsize it year over year by selling off material and bringing it down to a more manageable size by attrition. That money saved could be reinvested into UBI and other quality social programs

[paleotn]

28. That sounds like 1920's / 1930's isolationism when our military was the size of Portugal's.

Big, but largely antiquated navy and no army to speak of. That didn't work out well. We had to build it nearly from scratch at gargantuan cost and dubious quality until at least 1943 / 1944. Fact is, the world is just as dangerous as it's ever been. Something we tend to forget in Pax Americana. Had the American Peace not occurred, we might all think very differently than we do now, if we were allowed to think at all.

[Bettie]

43. So, why do we need more than

the next 9 or 10 countries COMBINED?

Maybe the next 5 would be a good step-down?

[cstanleytech]

31. Yes, we need one. Should we be spending as much as the combined 10 biggest spenders spend? Hell no!!

[Busterscruggs]

45. What numbers

Would be reasonable for a standing army?

[cstanleytech]

50. 30% of what we currently spend at most.

Anything over that for Defense spending when not at war is imo embezzlement.

[EX500rider]

33. "Do we really need a military at all?"

So just trust the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans, Iran etc to leave us alone?
How well do you think that would work?

[patphil]

27. Yes, it should be an issue.

[cstanleytech]

29. I would offer the opinion that the common good spending for the people should be considered just as

essential to our countries Defense and that the spending on it should be vastly improved.
Why? Because it keeps our country strong by having a well cared for population and a population that largely approves of it's government is a hell of a lot harder to defeat and or infiltrate.

[twodogsbarking]

30. Cost of wars not included in military budget.

Add a few trillion to the last ten years' spending.
We could spend half what we do and still be outspending every other
country on the planet.
The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined.

Wave your flag.

[paleotn]

32. Much of the 750B is carryover affect....

from the Iraq / Afghanistan debacles. In carryover affect, what I mean is budgets take on a life of their own and it's tough to cut them unless something big happens, like the collapse of the Soviet Union driving the Peace Dividend in the early 90's. Most of the big increase in 2001 forward was due to W's failed wars, coupled with spending inertia, ie. carryover. Could we cut it to Peace Dividend levels of the 90's? Possibly, but keep in mind, the world is still a dangerous place with Russia and China endlessly making trouble, so Peace Dividend may be too low. A happy, safe medium perhaps?

[RobertDevereaux]

36. Take away your guns?

We ought to take away EVERY GODDAMNED WEAPON ON OUR BLESSED PLANET!

[Dial H For Hero]

46. At gunpoint, one presumes...

[RobertDevereaux]

51. I'd prefer AT GUM-POINT, if only Wrigley's would put enough power into the chew!

[George II]

37. The $350 billion in the BBB is an addition to the budget, not the budget overall other than defense.

The FY2022 budget is $3.5 trillion. It includes more than just Defense and the BBB.

If the BBB is passed, the budget would become $3.8 trillion.

The Defense portion of that budget would be less than 20% of the overall budget. Plus, the defense budget isn't just weapons, bombs, and ammunition. It includes a lot more than that. Only 20% is for procurement, more that 20% is for pay, retirement benefits, and healthcare of military personnel (including administrative and civilian workers)

Much of the rest of the remaining 60% of the budget includes what you refer to as "people and the common good."

So no, it's not a "scam" nor do I see it as an issue for the Democratic Party.

[Ford_Prefect]

40. The last Democratic President who took on the Pentagon budget was Jimmy Carter.

The Pentagon responded by undermining Carter's plans to emphasize diplomacy rather than gunships and invasion as foreign policy. In the end it was the State Department and CIA cold warriors along with the Pentagon hardliners combining to help enable Reagan's Arms for Hostages plot which did for Carter's second term. This paved the way for the Neo-Cons and the MIC to arrange Gulf War 1 and later 2.

I agree it needs to be addressed but not with this current congress. Can you imagine the hue and cry by the RW crowd along with the entire Chicken-Hawk faction in Both Parties?

A very important feature of the "defense" budget rarely discussed is the degree of money laundering towards financing Congressional and Senate seats.

[TeamProg]

41. Great point. One main problem is that our reps in Congress don't see us as a lobby.

We pay their saleries, medical insur. and retirement.

But WE are not a lobby paying them extra money as defense contractors, big phara, big oil, prison and poice unions do.

[ancianita]

44. What's to defend if America doesn't?

Corporate operations? Commerce? Isn't Defense part of the common good, too? Are our spending issues really either-or? Aren't our issues about investment priorities, and not spending? Money spent on corporations has been called 'investment', messaging that humans don't need as much spending as 'job creators.' But it's really the opposite.

Humans in all these sectors pay the majority of tax money; further investment of tax money on those humans -- say, education, with a $7:$1 ROI -- gets a higher rate of return than subsidizing any corporation because humans are a nation's greatest asset.

[Dave says]

48. Hell f'ing yes!

[Zeitghost]

49. We do

By a considerable amount.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

52. This should be THE ISSUE for democrats

and they should hammer it again again again.