tenth billionth post about cutting the military spending, why

don't neither side ever mention cutting it????

does the military have dirt on politicians?

There are several reasons why we don't cut our defense budget.

Cutting defense spending would increase unemployment. Remember, many people join the army because of the lack of job prospects.

Many politicians would argue that lower our defense budget could potentially leave us not only vulnerable to domestic attacks but perhaps unable to protect our international interests as well.

Additionally, many politician have personal and financial relationships with many military industries that either create and sell weapons utilized in war or contract privatized mercenaries to fight abroad.

So don't expect our military budget to decrease anytime soon, despite the third in command of our forces exclaiming that Al-Queda is on the outs...

the military contractors spread out their production around the countries, covering various.

so when a politician suggests cutting a weapons platform, Lockheed Martin can say to a dozen senators or congressman, "Do you really want to vote against 3,000 jobs in your district?"

why does armchair warrior just start posts and not interact?

please they don't have to fire troops, they sure can not purchase any more billion dollar planes ships etc.. which aren't needed. don't need over seas bases etc..... tons of money to be cut from those places.

sick argument bro. you want to be one of those people who shakes up discussion by asking the "tough questions" but when faced with the reality of the situation has little to suggest ... try reading more than the title of an article to have something substantial to say.

vidro3 said:

the military contractors spread out their production around the countries, covering various.

so when a politician suggests cutting a weapons platform, Lockheed Martin can say to a dozen senators or congressman, "Do you really want to vote against 3,000 jobs in your district?"

whoa that's what happens when i post from my phone. What I meant to say was:

the military contractors spread out their production around the country, covering various congressional districts.

so when a politician suggests cutting a weapons platform, Lockheed Martin can say to a dozen senators or congressman, "Do you really want to vote against 3,000 jobs in your district?"

BrooklynBoyyee said:

sick argument bro. you want to be one of those people who shakes up discussion by asking the "tough questions" but when faced with the reality of the situation has little to suggest ... try reading more than the title of an article to have something substantial to say.

not sure who you are talking to but canceling weapons systems and closing some of the 150 overseas bases we have are valid suggestions.

at the end of the day, probably not gonna happen. we all know this.

from closing bases to weapons that aren't necessary. from the money they save they could even paid the workers at those plants not to work and soldiers not to fight.

sadly I fear the left and right of the country will probably make some excuses to get into Iran or rehype the china threat and throw more money at the threats.

I'm not calling for isolation but for more reasonable spending. think about it who the hell is going to invade america? america has more nukes(besides russia) than the rest of the world combined!! china has less nukes than uk or france or Israel(undeclared nuke power)

while on the home front, they'll won't raise the necessary tax hikes to all institutions and peoples and cut where its needed.

these would be hard choices. but politicians and Americans love kicking the can down the road for the future to pay.

sadly for some of my friends who just graduated they'll be america's lost generation. who can't get real jobs, but alot of part time jobs etc...