Split off topic: Military Spending vs more Humanitarian means of spending
 

Fireworks vs Food?
In the age where a large part of our budget consists of money to build and blow up other countries, why is it such a "dont ask dont tell" issue when someone brings up cutting the budget on the military?
It was brought up the $400 toilet seat, and also with the argument "if we dont spend it, the budget will decrease." Why do we need to even have this argument? Why cant we cut the budget when we don't really need the money, and if we find ourselves in another war, increase the budget during that time? Or even, instead of increasing the budget to buy more worthless items, that we dont need just to keep the budget high, we reallocate money that would have been used on helping the soldiers coming home via the VA and other programs? Both sides use the "Fight them on their turf, not ours" reasoning behind going to other countries, but why fight them at all? Why not play the role that Russia and China play, which is sit back and let them sort themselves out, and try not to piss anyone off? I cant help but sit back and look at the last 12 years, and feel like our country is a screaming child and Russia and China are the adults sitting back watching us make our own mistakes so we actually learn something. Except for the fact that we have ADD and never learn.
So I am left with the question, What happens when the mom and pop decide to punish the child for their actions? They hold an enormous amount of our debt, and therefore can at the push of a button destroy our economy.
This should not be a partisan issue, lets pull the military back from all occupation and rebuild our economy to what it once was, and GROW THE FUCK UP.
Thoughts?

Re: Split off topic: Military Spending vs more Humanitarian means of spending
 

One thing we actually agree on! I don't want us being the police force of the world, that is what the UN is for. The country is in such poor shape right now that we should stop foreign wars and activities besides having some bases around mainly for PR reasons. One thing to remember is that the figures you see spent on wars are inflated because a large chunk of those costs would still be there if we weren't at war. You still need the military and they would be training costs incurred anyway.

This site is pretty eye opening
http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

I also think all foreign aid should be stopped. Granted it has been cut a fair amount, but it is still ~$45 Billion dollars that are being given away each year.

Re: Split off topic: Military Spending vs more Humanitarian means of spending
 

That is the purpose of most of these threads, Jet, Im tired of how polarized we are on these subjects, that i have chosen to stop picking fights on things i know we disagree on, but rather find common ground where we can share some sort of idea, while sometimes disagree on how to get there, as long as we can start on common ground and work together things remain civil.
I only wish congress would work the same way.

Im kinda borderline on the foreign aid thing. It comes down to the greater good thing though. I think Famine and starvation are better reasons to help with foreign aid than oil and uprisings. There are so many different situations and so much that we dont know that i dont want to make a blanket statement like what you said.

Re: Split off topic: Military Spending vs more Humanitarian means of spending
 

I agree we send a lot of money/resources elsewhere, and ought to consider how that could be better utilized fixing ourselves.

Although I don't agree with a drastic approach of ending everything we do overseas. Just put some sort of cap on it, and don't go outside our means to the point that it hurts us.