Why do Conservatives obsess at inflating the military budget at every opportunity?

[Sonikku]

As near as I can tell, Conservative ideology consists of one who stands for limited government, limited spending and limited bloat. The belief that joe blow American knows how to spend their pay check better than a wasteful, bloated, bogged down government. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. But if that is true, why then is there an obsession with funneling more funds the military's way at every opportunity?

We all know only too well the military makes bad investments and downright squanders hilarious amounts of money. (We've all heard the stories, Air Force having millions of dollars of parts on order already scheduled for decommissioning, the Army spending millions on guns nobody has a use for bought for the sole purpose of using up the remainder of the budget they didn't need, etc.) Our combined military spends more than the next 10 countries combined and even that doesn't seem to ever be enough.

So here is what I don't understand. The military would appear to be the perfect analogy of everything Conservatives loathe. A big, bloated machine taking vast sums of the tax payers money and squandering gigantic portions of it. Yet Conservatives want to spend more on it. Conservatives don't want the government creating the jobs. Yet they point to the job creation of even more military spending as a reason to justify it. Conservatives point to the importance of shrinking our widening deficit while simultaneously trying to rationalize a boost to the budget of the army.

Why?

 

[Craig234]

The real reason: because they tend to be followers of the crooks who lead them, and the crooks who lead them don't tell them to oppose military spending.

The secondary reason: because they equate all military spending with spending needed to protect us from being conquered by Hitler's secret love child tomorrow.

They view cutting any spending as making us vulnerable to being conquered and that anyone in favor of cutting any military spenidng hates America.

You're giving them way too much credit with the rational question about their 'small governmnet' versus military boondoggles. 'Small government' means cut welfare.

Ever notice it's Republicans who skyrocket the deficit starting with Reagan?

 

[colonelciller]

people who would like to increase the military budget like the idea of handouts and welfare.

it's just that they like the idea of handouts and welfare for corporations.

 

[soulcougher73]

Because they are scared the world is always out to get them.

 

[ivwshane]

people who would like to increase the military budget like the idea of handouts and welfare.

it's just that they like the idea of handouts and welfare for corporations.

That's the real reason in my opinion.

It's easy to give handouts and to waste money on military things because if anyone questions it you can say its to protect the country. What politician is going to go up against that?

 

[nehalem256]

I think you question is flawed, because conservatives do not obsess at inflating the military budget at every opportunity.

Look at the recent sequester battle. Half of the sequester cuts were to the military. Which side was throwing the bigger fit about the sequester going through?

 

[nehalem256]

people who would like to increase the military budget like the idea of handouts and welfare.

it's just that they like the idea of handouts and welfare for corporations.

Since when did paying someone to provide you with goods and/or services become welfare?

And your calling military spending to be "handouts" and "welfare" is made more absurd by the fact that a large amount of the spending is on salaries and benfits for servicemen and women.

Calling military spending is amounts to nothing more than an attempt to emotionalize the issue. The fact that you think that because we pay soldiers to get shot at in Afghanistan means we should give money to poor people who do nothing for the country is truly sad.

 

[cwjerome]

Why do Conservatives obsess at inflating the military budget at every opportunity?

:thumbsdown:

The question is dumb and wrong. The OP and following responses are P&N material.

0/10

Actually, your post is more p&n material. If you'd like to discuss why the OP is wrong, then do so with a reasonable argument. Or, if you agree, then feel free to add support with a reasonable argument. Just calling the post dumb doesn't belong in DC. If you think the OP is trolling, then simply report the thread. -DrPizza

 

[colonelciller]

Since when did paying someone to provide you with goods and/or services become welfare?

And your calling military spending to be "handouts" and "welfare" is made more absurd by the fact that a large amount of the spending is on salaries and benfits for servicemen and women.

Calling military spending is amounts to nothing more than an attempt to emotionalize the issue. The fact that you think that because we pay soldiers to get shot at in Afghanistan means we should give money to poor people who do nothing for the country is truly sad.

payments to soldiers is obviously not handouts nor welfare. perhaps I should have included a breakdown for the intellectually challenged.

as far as the corporations manufacturing hardware that we wouldn't need if we weren't perpetually creating skirmishes and war all over the globe without stop since WWII... no-bid contracts totalling billions upon billions upon billions upon billions etc etc etc... of dollars to make shit we only need because of our own war mongering...

yeah that's welfare and handouts to corporations. I'm not the first to say it but I'm definitely one of the less eloquent on this topic. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (and perpetual handouts and welfare for the corporations involved in the Military Industrial complex).

Perfectly understandable.

 

[colonelciller]

Why do Conservatives obsess at inflating the military budget at every opportunity?

:thumbsdown:

The question is dumb and wrong. The OP and following responses are P&N material.

0/10

very true. both "parties" (democrats and republicans) are highly invested in continually inflating the military budget (corporate welfare project) at every single opportunity. nothing new here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do Conservatives obsess at inflating the military budget at every opportunity?

:thumbsdown:

The question is dumb and wrong. The OP and following responses are P&N material.

0/10

How do you support that claim with thought and reasoning instead of flat declaration of fact when it looks to be opinion?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think conservatives are quite intelligent and rational to want a strong military. I believe conservatives are in control in many countries and conservatives here know exactly what kind of people our enemies are, conservatives just like them. I think we owe some debt of appreciation for their insuring that American conservatives are more powerful and better armed than conservatives elsewhere because they know better than anybody else the monsters that haunt them. The need to control others creates a fear of being controlled. They think it's us or them.

 

[nehalem256]

payments to soldiers is obviously not handouts nor welfare. perhaps I should have included a breakdown for the intellectually challenged.

as far as the corporations manufacturing hardware that we wouldn't need if we weren't perpetually creating skirmishes and war all over the globe without stop since WWII... no-bid contracts totalling billions upon billions upon billions upon billions etc etc etc... of dollars to make shit we only need because of our own war mongering...

yeah that's welfare and handouts to corporations. I'm not the first to say it but I'm definitely one of the less eloquent on this topic. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (and perpetual handouts and welfare for the corporations involved in the Military Industrial complex).

Perfectly understandable.

If you pay some to perform a service for you its not welfare. Pretty simple concept.

It is perfectly easy to make an argument for less military spending without needing to resort to calling it corporate "welfare".

 

[Fern]

How do you support that claim with thought and reasoning instead of flat declaration of fact when it looks to be opinion?

I'm not him but I'll answer: We've cut $800 billion from the military budget (before sequester) over the last 3-4 yrs (2 cuts of approx $400 B).

So, yes, the OP's premise is badly flawed.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not him but I'll answer: We've cut $800 billion from the military budget (before sequester) over the last 3-4 yrs (2 cuts of approx $400 B).

So, yes, the OP's premise is badly flawed.

Fern

Who is we?

 

[Craig234]

Article with lots of good info on the "staggering" defense spending:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

 

[Greenman]

I think conservatives are quite intelligent and rational to want a strong military. I believe conservatives are in control in many countries and conservatives here know exactly what kind of people our enemies are, conservatives just like them. I think we owe some debt of appreciation for their insuring that American conservatives are more powerful and better armed than conservatives elsewhere because they know better than anybody else the monsters that haunt them. The need to control others creates a fear of being controlled. They think it's us or them.

And the Discussion Club begins it's decent into finger pointing and denigration.

 

[bononos]

I'm not him but I'll answer: We've cut $800 billion from the military budget (before sequester) over the last 3-4 yrs (2 cuts of approx $400 B).

So, yes, the OP's premise is badly flawed.
Fern

2 cuts of $400B would mean the military budget would be close to 0 since the peak of US military spending on the war on terror was close to ~$800+B.
As you can see from the chart (Craig234 posted) above, the military budget was in the $300-400B range apart from the Vietnam/Reagan/WOT spending. GWB basically doubled military spending during his watch.

 

[bononos]

payments to soldiers is obviously not handouts nor welfare. perhaps I should have included a breakdown for the intellectually challenged.

as far as the corporations manufacturing hardware that we wouldn't need if we weren't perpetually creating skirmishes and war all over the globe without stop since WWII... no-bid contracts totalling billions upon billions upon billions upon billions etc etc etc... of dollars to make shit we only need because of our own war mongering...

yeah that's welfare and handouts to corporations. I'm not the first to say it but I'm definitely one of the less eloquent on this topic. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (and perpetual handouts and welfare for the corporations involved in the Military Industrial complex).

Perfectly understandable.

You're right about the military being welfare for the million plus rank and file who would otherwise have to fend for themselves in the real world and get a non-security related job in the private sector.

Large military spending is the US twist on expansionary fiscal policy and exorbitant govt subsidy to the industrial sector, despite the rhetoric from the usual circles about adhering to free market capitalism. But its taboo from both sides of the aisle to mention this deception.

This is realted to another thread that died probably due to the same taboo subject of American history.
A veteran's Memorial Day perspective on war and the role of our military

 

[ivwshane]

Since when did paying someone to provide you with goods and/or services become welfare?

And your calling military spending to be "handouts" and "welfare" is made more absurd by the fact that a large amount of the spending is on salaries and benfits for servicemen and women.

Calling military spending is amounts to nothing more than an attempt to emotionalize the issue. The fact that you think that because we pay soldiers to get shot at in Afghanistan means we should give money to poor people who do nothing for the country is truly sad.

So building engines, tanks, and planes that the military says it has no need for and congress still pushes these handouts to their districts is called what exactly?

 

[EagleKeeper]

So building engines, tanks, and planes that the military says it has no need for and congress still pushes these handouts to their districts is called what exactly?

So why blame the military for obeying their civilian leadership.

It is Congress that is forcing the waste, not the military requesting it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This entire thread is a disappointment. Lots of strawmen and snark, little real data and reasoning.

If it doesn't clean itself up soon, I'm locking it.

 

[Exterous]

So why blame the military for obeying their civilian leadership.

It is Congress that is forcing the waste, not the military requesting it.

Indeed - just look at the number of US Army tanks sitting in the desert doing nothing while senators and congressmen (including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) ) force the Army to accept more tanks its doesn't want.

 

[nehalem256]

So building engines, tanks, and planes that the military says it has no need for and congress still pushes these handouts to their districts is called what exactly?

I believe that is usually called pork spending.

Which is certainly a fairly good explanation for why cutting military spending is hard. A congressman gets to bring home pork for his district and anyone who points out the pork spending "hates America". Seems easier than building a "bridge to nowhere" as it were.

 

[brandonb]

For the most part, I don't believe most conservatives are on board for bloating the military. Most conservatives I know (which is a very small sample size for example) want us to save money first, and if we are spending anything at a federal level, it would be for military only. But I don't know of many conservatives who want to grow the military. Some conservatives (and those in power) might want to increase military, but mainly because they are power hungry war mongers who want to pick on other nations. I believe most true conservatives would rather be isolationists and have no problem cutting military budget.

At a previous job of mine, there was a coworker who was in the 82nd air born (he was in the service in the mid 90's). He said at one point during the fiscal year. They'd have to go out and blow up all their munitions in order to give reports that they were using their gear to remain at the same budget for the next year. He said the entire company or platoon or whatever they were part of would go out, and just chuck grenades over a wall all day long to use them up. It wasn't training, it wasn't practice, it was just blowing up grenades to lower their inventory level. That was it! If they didn't use up their munitions the budget would decrease, and they'd lose funding.

We have that same issue we have at any city hall, county, state, and federally though out the nation. It's just waste, and when its not your money you're spending, it's easy to make these decisions. The military is not an exception here. We need audits and checks and balances across the board. Military included.