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.

 

Weapons or welfare?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Following the request to up the US credit limit recently I started thinking of the future and how this might affect the US economy. It is clear that spending must be cut in some as yet unspecified areas if the US is to be able to honour its debts, but which areas is the big question.

The US has a massive defence budget and to my eyes this would seem to be the prime candidate for some trimming yet I see social programs being cut in the US.

My question is a simple one, what would you be prepared to do to balance the national budget:

a) Cut defence spending
b) Cut social welfare programs
c) a combination of the two
d) pay more tax
e) none of the above, youre an idiot.




posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
My vote goes with

B



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
So you'd cut social welfare programs rather than defence. That's cool but i was hoping to get some reason behind the choice rather than a simple letter answer.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
If all other conditions are considered equal, then I say cut the social programs.

International politics is power politics. Thus, the US needs an overbearing military to be independant o other nations and to have as much influence and ability to coherse other nations as it needs.

Additionally, social programs can be handled non-federally, whereas military matters an't be left up to donations.

But, like all things, there can be more of a balance. For example, why spend so much on the military and armour, if no matter what you can't stop people on the technical and ifrastructural level of iraqi insurrectionists from blowing up bradley AFCs?? The US dominance has more to do with the airforce, navy, and nuke cache than the infantry and the like. It was 'safe', to an extent, to cancel the Crusader project, but it would be a mistake to let our aircraft and carriers rot and become obsolete.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
It would have to be "B".

Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of the United States be obligated to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Welfare and Social Programs "hog" 60% of the US Budget.

Why shouldn't they be cut? They should be "stream-lined rather".

I think the budget should be cut by 30% from Welfare and Social Programs; and these programs should be brought-up to twice their current efficiency.

In that way we get the exact same producct now for half the price.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join