I'll actually just cut to the chase- I think people who harp on this kind of thing almost never know what they're talking about.
case in point, McCain. consistently laughable with his earmark lines in '08. does he not know that what are called earmarks/pork account for a tiny fraction of government spending? as in, around 2%
or that its the red states that rake in the federal dough from the blue states* and then have the nerve to whine about "massive government spending," these people who didn't bat an eye while W's administration cut taxes for the extremely rich and launched invasions/occupations in the Middle East and signed Medicare Part D and established the Department of Homeland Security? like I'm supposed to take the conservative movement seriously.
*MN, I remember hearing when I lived there, gets 70 cents back for each dollar it sends to Washington.
I think the government should only exist to protect us. Military spending wouldn't bother me if half the military wasn't overseas somewhere. There are a lot of jobs in war though.
the US already gives significantly less of its GDP than other developed countries, and well below the UN's recommended donation.
me, if I could take over foreign aid I'd increase it five-fold, then get it out of Israel and Colombia and into central Africa, stat.
the alternative to this is a lot of people losing jobs and needing unemployment checks, which would probably amount to more spending than one-time bailouts.
those two are great examples of bad welfare programs! unlike social security or Medicare or Medicaid or TANF or food stamps, which are great.
notice that this only justifies state/local police forces, as US soil hasn't been attacked by another country since 1812 and future existential threats appear highly unlikely, except for terrorists getting nukes but the answer to that is just more police work (in this case internationally coordinated), not grand campaigns against Evil fought conventional warfare-style with tanks and soldiers. but we agree on all that!
nickthenoobboy wrote: Military spending wouldn't bother me if half the military wasn't overseas somewhere. There are a lot of jobs in war though.
amen and amen! US troops in Germany and Japan and South Korea are just stupidly unnecessary. tons of money toward nothing and, even worse, overseas bases send a terrible message to the rest of the world re: our intentions.
My only problem with foreign aid is that it's going to Israel. I made a list based on my own opinion but I see you decided to tear it apart piece by piece even though each part of my list was fairly broad. In my list, I meant foreign aid to encompass all of our "charitable" spending overseas. Occupation of military parties I also consider foreign aid. However, as far as foreign aid goes in a general sense, studies have shown that poor countries that have had a significant increase in the amount of aid given to them have had their economies collapse instead of thrive. Human nature corrupts the idea of foreign assistance so to simply withdraw from this would be optimal for most countries.
Military spending is bloated because we're fighting a two front war. Sure, withdrawal is a great option but imagine however many troops we have overseas suddenly returning to the country. Fortunately, or unfortunately, in the 40's we suffered detrimental losses to troops and thus the numbers returning didn't hurt the economy, but helped as their was a manpower deficit. Now, however, we have unemployment rates reaching numbers we hadn't thought likely and the reintroduction of an entirely new workforce into our economy at this point would be devastating. Why are we still in the Middle East? Obviously, that can't be the only reason but it certainly is a powerful one.
One of the great things about our country is the level of competition we have. Corporate bailouts went to crooks and if they had collapsed sure we'd be be in somewhat of a bind, but its not like when a business fails everything they own is instantly destroyed or something. Its still there waiting for someone more ingenuous to take the reins and drag it from the pits. People would rely heavily on unemployment for a period but if one thing about the government is right, its unemployment. We pay for our own unemployment from taxes taken out of our paycheck, this is why we're entitled to it if we lose our jobs. The government shouldn't have to borrow from it to further bloat with unnecessary expenditures. The other side of unemployment is it spurs spending because people are receiving income as opposed to simply being out of work. Therefore, the business that are producing would show significant increases in monetary gain thereby allowing them to expand and employ additional workforce.
I think a small national defense is necessary for most every country. Since the dawn of civilization an important part of survival is defending your country. Sure, it is unlikely there would be an attack on US soil but is it impossible? Its well and good to say we need to dismantle the military but what would happen if there was an attack? I guess you could continue to preach from whatever soapbox you can find while your getting shot in the belly. I mean, we saw what happened when military spending was significantly reduced. When we went to war we were ill-prepared and a draft was enacted. I don't want to be drafted because the government decides to cut the military budget completely and release a host of voluntary soldiers upon our country and economy.
Basically, you have to have a lot of faith in human nature to believe in what you believe. A LOT. People aren't just going to play nice because its fundamentally sound and viable.