It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Less military = higher standard of living (reducing size and scope of goverment)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
The logic so far is the following.. I will use USA statistics but would apply world wide (there are 116 other recommendations of how to reduce gov spendings other then military )




Costs vs. Benefits. Economists will generally agree that government spending becomes a burden at some point, either because government becomes too large or because outlays are misallocated. In such cases, the cost of government exceeds the benefit.





reducing the size of government would lead to higher incomes and improve America's competitiveness.


www.heritage.org...



According to OECD data, the size of government in the United States was approximately 40 percent of GDP in 2012. While Di Matteo’s estimate of the tipping point is based on international data, it suggests that President Obama should reduce government to boost the U.S. economy. Smaller size of government than what currently exists in the United States would translate into higher annual economic growth.


www.aei.org...

cutting down on military

1.


Active-duty soldiers receive compensation for their service in several ways: basic pay, health care, retirement, and additional non-pay benefits, such as education. In the past several decades, the cost for military personnel has grown drastically. From 2001 to 2012, the costs are estimated to have risen by 42 %


2.


Logistics: To operate a weapon system, the DOD must pay for the full life-cycle cost of the equipment, which includes the development and procurement of the system, as well as the far more costly maintenance and sustainment of the weapon system. In fact, the DOD spends about $90 billion on maintenance and sustainment of weapon systems.


3.


Reducing civilian overhead.. Since 2001, the total number of civilian employees in the DOD has grown 14 percent. During the same period, the total Active Military was reduced by 5 percent. Today, 36 percent of the DOD workforce is composed of civilians, totaling 782,000 people.


4.


Cut Funding for Non-Combat Related Research The Defense Department has the largest research and development budget of the federal government, equaling just under $70 billion a year. While the vast majority of this amount goes toward developing advanced military systems or technologies that have battlefield applications, each year, the DOD spends money on various projects that have no reason to be


5.


The DOD currently has an extensive and separate retail network to serve those in the military and their dependents. There are four different retail systems operated by the DOD. One of them, the commissaries, is a network of grocery stores, available to all branches of the military.


6.


Close Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools The Pentagon’s DDESS currently operates 63 schools on military bases in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Cuba. The majority of these, 58 schools, are in South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, and North Carolina. These schools were necessary following World War II


7.


The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the nuclear reactors and weapons that are operated by the Defense Department. Each year, the DOE is allotted about $16 billion to $17 billion to fund defense-related activities.


budgetbook.heritage.org...


peace

edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Well you weren't wrong at first...


This tells a different story, From the same source you used first.




This is all from 2014, but something tells me it's not getting any better.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

(off topic reply so please ignore this ) but looking at the picture this was the next article

Does the Catholic church provide half of social services in the U.S.?
(Again I used USA but this is almost every country mixing religion and politics yaycks)
www.politifact.com...




edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Prisoner's dilemna. If you don't know what that is look it up.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

yes
my point writing this tread
Win win let's cooperate make the pie bigger

no point in being enemies ..

edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Layaly

Except while it's beneficial to all to be peaceful, you can't guarantee the others will, so you can't be peaceful either.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is the next point

yes you can be peaceful and yes you can aim for good diplomacy .. It's is only a question of who is willing and who not

Like this Russia USA bickering can you imagine the potential if these two countries come together ? anyone who doesn't want to achieve and strive for that is basically only missing out and who misses out because of it.. back to the people

We all stay prisoners in this game with no guarantees or take a leap at the end of a day it's the only way out

And how long it's too long
edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Layaly

From the graphic in the post under your OP, if we even just cut "income security" which is a fancy way of saying - taking money from those who make it to give to those who don't - we'd save over national defense. Also, consider that because most of the NATO countries already have done what you suggest, a lot of our defense spending covers a significant portion of their butts too, we spend more there than we really should.

For the last 7 years, going on 8 now, we have had a president who thinks as you do. Look at what it's gotten the world. Our national debt has ballooned as we have sunk ever more into the entitlements domestically and cut defense spending. We now have a military smaller than prior to WWII, but we still try to cover the world. We have also steadily disengaged ourselves from the world, and it has descended into chaos.

A third thing to consider is the hidden costs of managing those entitlement programs. We don't just cut checks to people, we manage their lives and essentially their checkbooks and every program has a fully-formed government bureaucracy that is fully staffed with employees to manage it. We don't just pay for heat or rent or income ... we pay for the people who manage the heat or rent or income, and we pay for their retirement pensions and all the stuff that goes with it, and we pay them at higher than private sector compensation, too. Oh, to make it worse, they are often over-staffed and the offices are inefficiently run because they have endless supplies of taxpayer money.

So it's not just the bare percentage of the budget that goes to pay into the coffers for the stated purpose. What percentage goes to pay for program management? I'll bet that isn't factored in at all and that's a hidden leviathan no one ever thinks about, but it's significant.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Layaly

Why don't they come together?

Because what might be good for one isn't always what is good for another.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

edit I understand what you are saying I am talking purely about military spending
It is not beneficial to have a goverment spending zero and there are areas to suggest to cut down on



We now have a military smaller than prior to WWII, but we still try to cover the world. We have also steadily disengaged ourselves from the world, and it has descended into chaos.


let the world be in chaos
why should a USA tax payer pay for it .. look out for your own is one way to fix .. if you are concerned for the world you can combine available resources to aim for peace

the second point
why not aim at a goal that is best for both of you if it involves the two of you
What is good for you as an individual and has no affect on the other is of no relevance

it reminds me of divorce settlements .. even if you hate each other as individual you should do what is best for the kids





edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The income security issue

I will try to understand it
the topic is how to reduce it all so how can it be fixed


I always wondered why don't they at least assign voluntary jobs to people on welfare ..
edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)


I will keep editing this sorry
edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Layaly

The world is in chaos right now. Turkey and Russia posturing militarily at each. All of the South China Sea posturing militarily at each other. Renewed tensions across the globe.

Are you suggesting this is a good state of affairs right now? Streams of people pouring across the globe?

Peace and stability bring wide prosperity and that brings improved standard of living. Like it or not we as a country are not as economically independent as we should be, so when the world burns, we suffer too.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I am asking if people can imagine the potential of two superpowers coming together combining resources Economy and defence instead of going against each other's interest

The situation is as is
But the question is if you erase the past .. from this point forward would you be willing to

but only the people and the leaders of those two countries can make that step forward

that goes for each western culture country
If USA can work with Saudi Arabia why not Russia thats just one example

edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454



This is what they want us to believe.

Just a single bomb costs more than a full family's year in Social Security benefits. 18% my A**.
Where is the black budget in that? Israel?
Where are the interests repayed to the fed? Oh is that in "Interests?"
Where are the CORPORATE SUBSIDIES? "Hidding" in "Income Security" or just not there? You guess.

Maybe the cost of Medicare would be lowered if they focused on the CAUSES instead of relying on Big Pharma to heal us! The FDA should do it's job for the people instead taking bribes.

Too many wars, too many lies...



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: Wardaddy454



Just a single bomb costs more than a full family's year in Social Security benefits. 18% my A**.
Where is the black budget in that? Israel?
Where are the interests repayed to the fed? Oh is that in "Interests?"
Where are the CORPORATE SUBSIDIES? "Hidding" in "Income Security" or just not there? You guess.

Too many wars, too many lies...


Well that's categorically false, and my numbers might be a little old, because a general purpose 500lb bomb costs around $300. But that's just being nitpicky.

Obviously a guided bomb will cost more, But you get what you pay for, which is hitting the target with one bomb instead of carpet bombing the whole place.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Well you weren't wrong at first...


This tells a different story, From the same source you used first.




This is all from 2014, but something tells me it's not getting any better.


Now, that chart is a little deceiving. The money in the Social Security fund is seperate, paid by employers and employees. So is the medicare. Just because the government borrowed out all that money to fund things it probably did not need is not an excuse to use it as a liability on the people.

The medical costs are out of control, there are too many people utilizing the medicare. There is something wrong in our food system and chemicals in our household environment. The military expenditures for soldiers pay is nothing, they are spending way to much on technology which goes to big contractors.

If you examine the expenditures, you will find that people in the medical trades and in technology are making a hell of a lot of money. Most of the money is going back into supporting jobs in the middle and upper middle class and of course insurance companies. May be we should work on society to quit wasting the government's money and creating new ways to tap into it. Remember, retirees have to pay for Part B and also have deductibles and are spending money on supplementary insurance and Pharma drugs. We need our people to be healthier to keep costs down to the government.



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




We need our people to be healthier to keep costs down to the government


build more conmunity gardens people on welfare should be asked to take care of them it's another idea maybe.. It won't heal people I understand but it might help mentally .. assist homeless ..

Thank you for the replies .. talking won't help I understand but it's good to see what people think

edit on 27-11-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2

log in

join