Monday, February 2, 2015
Obama's Budget Seeks $534 Billion for Pentagon
This article discusses one aspect of Obama's budget proposal. Despite the fact that Obama ended a costly war, the military budget is still extremely large. They claim that any less spending would be a danger to the nation with the threat of ISIL. What do you think? Is it more damaging to cut military spending and risk a weak defense force or to cut spending elsewhere to fund the military?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the military should receive funds that would allow them to efficiently protect the country. It would be wrong to cut spending in other areas of the government so that the military can purchase "ambitious next-generation capabilities and big ticket items."
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure if all the extra "big-ticket" items are actually necessary, and I don't think mandatory across-the-board cuts are a good idea. I agree with the statement in the article that says such mandatory spending cuts would be dangerous, as they would result in a smaller army.
ReplyDelete"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace." -George Washington
ReplyDeleteConsidering over 10,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan in 2015-16, the perception that the "war is over" is misguided. For decades there has been constant conflict in the Middle East and our government has spent trillions of dollars in an effort to combat multiple terrorists groups, across the entire region. In 2011 U.S. troops left Iraq, yet troops were once again deployed to the country this past summer. Slashing the military budget simply because our presence in Afghanistan has been reduced to an occupation, as opposed to a large-scale conflict, would not only be a poor decision, but a dangerous one as well. By no means is a request of $534 billion a slashing of the budget, I am speaking to the opposition to taxpayer-funded "big-ticket items" that I believe are necessary to our nation's security. That being said, with the rising threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, we may see that military budget climb drastically before it is enacted. As far as Antonella's question of whether "it is more damaging to cut military spending and risk a weak defense force or to cut spending elsewhere to fund the military," it is important to note that in this proposed 2016 budget, military funding is already being cut, down roughly $100 billion from Obama's proposed 2015 budget.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe United States already spends much more on its military than most other countries. Additionally, it is one of the most powerful countries in the world. Many of our allies spend less and are still quite powerful. While some of them may not have military forces spread out around the world, They can at least help take care of some of those "potential threats". It would not make us weaker just to reduce military spending.
ReplyDeleteI am not suggesting that money shouldn't go into the Middle East. (THAT would be unreasonable.) However, are the "ambitious next-generation capabilities and big-ticket items" necessary? It might be better to put these advancements on hold until a few of the problems in the Middle East are stabilized.
Malachi, the reason they are trying to get these next generation capabilities and big ticket items is so we can solve more of these middle eastern problems. We cant spend LESS on the military and expect MORE results. Like it or not America is the main player on the world stage, and we need to have a strong military to stabilize the rest of the world as well as prevent threats from reaching our lands in the first place. Why fight a war here when we can fight it over there?
ReplyDeleteThis is frustrating. I hate that America is expected to get involved in every foreign affair in order to help out. The result is that we have to have very large defense budgets such as the one proposed by Obama. But the situation with ISIS is different, as they have specifically shown that they intend to harm Americans and the United States as a country. It is painful for me to say that defense spending should remain at its current levels, but with ISIS being a legitimate threat, it seems that the extra money Obama is requesting is necessary to keep this country safe and secure.
ReplyDeleteWhile I hate to say it, I completely agree with the the Pentagon's defense budge statement that “The geopolitical events of the past year only reinforce the need to resource DoD at the president’s requested funding level as opposed to current law." The Islamic State is very aggressive in the Middle East, and other world powers are throwing weight around farther east. Having a large military with capabilities provided by the "big ticket items" can have a very real deterring effect. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if the whole world would lay down arms and agree to funnel all money into education and infrastructure, but I realize that is not the reality. We need to be ready to deal with all situations, especially in regards to events related to ISIL.
ReplyDeleteI really think that we are spending too much on the military. While I do recognize our role on the world stage, I don't think that necessitates the sort of military spending we are currently seeing. I mean, we already spend more than any other country in the world, do we really need to spend any more? I am not opposed to efforts to address the situation in the Middle East but, as Malachi pointed out, these "ambitious next-generation capabilities and big-ticket items" really aren't that necessary at the moment. I mean, I don't think there is any doubt that we hold a technological advantage over ISIS and other terrorist organizations. So why do we need to be spending so much on advances when it really wouldn't help out that much in resolving the situation in the Middle East? I think we need to reflect on exactly why we are spending so much on the military and if the money spent on it is being used efficiently.
ReplyDeleteI hate to admit it but the threats thrown at the US by ISIL and other countries in the Middle East are not to be taken lightly which reinforces the need for the high budget. And like the article said, "defense officials want to erase the idea that the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will automatically lead to smaller Pentagon budgets." With this said, if there is an end to these wars, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Pentagon budget will be or even should be lowered. The US needs to keep a strong hold on being a high power in the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that military spending is too high. I get that the U.S. has the strongest military in the world and that many people feel compelled to help others in need, i don't disagree with that. I just think that a better balance is required to not spend as much as we are, we shouldn't feel compelled to help with every national crisis at the expense of our own country; a better budget balance would allow us to continue to help while at the same time maintaining the integrity of our own nation. But i also agree with the fact that ISIS is a threat that is too dangerous to overlook to any degree and that this new budget policy is necessary in order to reassure the world that we support the idea of taking down ISIS.
ReplyDeleteMakes me sick how much we spend on the military. The U.S. is extremely powerful but there is no reason to keep spending money on its' military. I agree with Nate it is frustrating to always be the referee with other countries but then again who would be? This issue has me so split up especially with how much of a threat ISIS is. I agree we do need to stand strong to show them that they can't mess around with us. We must be able to take them down and have them fear us.
ReplyDelete