CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should we invest in the military more?
Should we expend more funds on the military? Currently the budget is at 685.1 billion dollars. Is this enough. One aspect of this is the military in times of peace, i.e. standing armies.
Yes. Billions and billions of dollars never stopped the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What'll need to happen before billions and billions of more dollars are invested to protect the nation? Besides, they are in debt $55T, what's another trillion or two?
no its not more money that would us saved us. its more intelligence that would of saved us. if the CIA and FBI communicated better, 9/11 would of not happened. we have 202,000 marines in are military plus 40,000 reserves. this does not include are GI or air force, or navy, or specialist units, but just marines. that number of marines alone is bigger then the U.Ks whole army alone. we don't need more money in are military. we need to reinvest or money in the military. what i mean is that we dont need $5,000,0000,being spent on refurnishing ww2 ships, or $10,000,000,000 being spent on multiple anti terrorist units that all do the same thing. and we don't need $????? amount being spent on nuclear war heads. if we subtracted money form places that don't need it and put them on things that do need money, such as a better retirement plan for veterans, or maybe in the construction department, so we can build more schools and hospitals in the middle east, it would help with the have the huge deficit that America is in today.
The military spending is not an "investment." It is an expenditure.
You might say that the military is needed for our survival. Well, so is eating. When you dine out, are you investing in that restaurant? No, you are spending your money for goods and services you need, with no expectation of financial return.
The question we need to ask is, "Is our current level of military expenditures productive and appropriate?" My answer is, "No."
The military spending is not an "investment." It is an expenditure.
It is an investment in the protection of the nation. It is necessary for YOUR survival. I'm in Canada, so I don't really give a damn other than that if anything happens to America, Canada is next.
When you dine out, are you investing in that restaurant?
It is not essential that you use that restaurant. You could eat vegetables grown in your own backyard, wouldn't that be more of an investment because you'd be saving a lot more money than if you go out to eat every night?
"Is our current level of military expenditures productive and appropriate?"
Do you think that another 9/11 would have happened if America had less of a military?
If it will protect the masses, surely it can be considered useful.
Military spending is not an investment. Never was or never will be. It is taxation, which is an expenditure of the government. If you assume military spending is an investment by protecting the nation, you are sadly mistaken.
An investment is spending money or capital in order to gain profitable returns such as interest, income, or appreciable value. Investing can be as simple as saving money or deferring consumption. Thus, military spending does not qualify as a investment because there is no profitable return. Military spending is not a profitable return because it is a public good used by taxes. A public good is non-rivalry and Non-excludable, which means the availability of protection is not reduced by supply and nobody can exclude you from protection.
Types of investment would include pension funds, assets such as property, commodities, stocks, bonds, new equipment or foreign assets such as currency or companies.
The only government investment is:
Coins, Jewelry, and Gifts from the U.S. Mint
Copyrights
Currency from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Store
Patents and Trademarks
Savings Bonds
Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds
Lastly, if the U.S. or Canada wants more protection, then the government has to tax more.
By the way, when you dine out, the only person investing in the restaurant is the proprietor or entrepreneur, you are just a consumer.
$600 billion dollars of our money is enough. Of all the military spending, U.S. accounts for almost 50% of the world.
An investment is spending money or capital in order to gain profitable returns such as interest, income, or appreciable value. Investing can be as simple as saving money or deferring consumption. Thus, military spending does not qualify as a investment because there is no profitable return. Military spending is not a profitable return because it is a public good used by taxes.
By keeping a military and keeping the people safe, they are keeping their ability to tax the people. They make more from taxing the people then they spend on the military. If they spent nothing, any country could come and take all of their 'wealth' away.
Lastly, if the U.S. or Canada wants more protection, then the government has to tax more.
But without the protection to begin with, they would be in a very dangerous (another word is on the tip of my tongue, but this'll do) position. If Canada's army was funded better than America's, we could go to war and burn the capital again, like we did in the War of 1812. And then we would tax the American peoples and the now-conquered USA would cease to exist.
By the way, when you dine out, the only person investing in the restaurant is the proprietor or entrepreneur, you are just a consumer.
Why are you telling me this? This was a response to hmicceche's argument.
I view an investment as anything which will allow one to increase their monetary value. By growing food, you are saving money that would have been spent going to a restaurant. Same as how the military keeps the government safe so that they can tax more/continue taxing.
Well, if you view an investment as something as it really isn't, that is great. It is obvious that you don't understand the difference between a public good and a private good. Military=Public Good. Investment=Private Good.
Explain to me how is eating out at a restaurant an investment or "increase in their monetary value' when it reality they are spending money.
First of all, hmicceche started the 'dining out' example. I was attempting to disprove it, same as you. I said that you would save money by growing food, that going to a restaurant was a waste.
Here is the definition of investment, from the Microsoft Encarta dictionary:
money invested: an amount of money invested in something for the purpose of making a profit
While they are not making a profit directly from the military, they ARE making a profit by keeping the country relatively stable. Plus, if the army were to conquer a country, America would increase in size, renown, population, natural resources, etc. which, over time, would equal more than that which was spent on the army in the first place.
First, the dining example was stupid. I admit and arguments got crisscrossed. Yes, growing food does save money, yet still not an investment unless selling for a profit; otherwise for personal use, it is not.
Second, I know the definition of investment because I studied government and economics.
Third, you said it yourself that an investment is profit from Microsoft.
Fourth, defense is not making profit by keeping political stability, but to defend off foreigner invaders.
Fifth, conquering a country is not the purpose of a military. Conquering a country is imperialism and colonialism.
The military is there, in part, to conquer nations. Colonialism is the colonizing of a country, as England did to America. Imperialism is a political ideology - the belief in empire-building. Conquest, on the other hand, is done by the military. What do you think that most of Europe did with their militaries 500 years ago? What do you think Napolean did with his armies? What do you think that the Ottoman Empire did for 600 years? They conquered countries. They became very wealthy - but it was only with the military that they gained that wealth.
Yes, I understand what Napoleon and Ottoman Empire did. It was to conquer countries by stripping of their wealth into theirs. They took resources and used the indigenous people as slaves. They raised armies not because of investment or profit, they built their armies because of the pursuit of money and wealth. Yes, wealth was the motivator. This is called Wealth Regressive Redistribution, which is taking money from the poor to the rich. It is not investment. Wealth and investment are different.
If government were to become privatized, which it never could because of the U.S. Constitution, then the military would invest in this or that because it is then in the business for profit.
Is it not considered an investment if they are putting money into was source, in exchange that source works to increase the money.
For example, if you buy a two slaves (don't go all politically correct on me), one male and one female, and you encourage them to copulate. They produce more children - would the cost of the two original slaves be considered an investment because after 20 years, they'll have another dozen slaves.
Same with a country. You 'buy' (or rather, raise) an army. That army is sent somewhere to gain resources. You sell the resources and get more money that was originally put into the military.
By selling resources, the military isn't involved except for clearing the path by killing innocent people for their country's gain.
Does your definition of economic growth and prosperity stem ubiquitously from military? Is military the center of your idea of an economy? Maybe in Junta government or authoritarian government but not in a republic and capitalist economy.
Basically, if only the entire U.S. economy "invested" in the military where the GDP of the U.S. is 14 trillion dollars, and this doesn't include the actual wealth of the nation, so if we "invested" every single penny into the military, then we could invade, and colonize every country and own the entire world without having to trade or have foreign enemies.
That is not at all what I said. The debate is about the military. If the debate title was 'Should we invest in agriculture more,' or 'should we invest in technology more,' I would have given similar arguments.
The military is there to protect American investments, and in some cases to get money for the government (i.e. conquest).
Eating is an investment in not starving to death. And I expect to make lots of money from simply eating and living. Cause that's what investments do. Right?
Expenditures, on the other hand, are purchasing goods and services wanted or needed (even for survival) without expectation of making a profit --- unless, of course, someone completely ignorant of the economic concepts of investment and expenditure insists that buying guns and tanks and planes in going to make us lots of money.
Investing in the restaurant
No, eating at the restaurant is not essential, unless you want to use it as a metaphor for spending too much money purchasing armaments from the war industry. Of course, one can always make a Stealth bomber in one's backyard, as long as you don't mind it mucking up the garden.
Is growing vegetables in your own garden an investment? No, its a more productive and appropriate expenditure to secure food to eat as compared to a restaurant.
"Do you think that another 9/11 would have happened if America had less of a military?"
Do you think the military is guarding our borders? No, they are not. They are off in Iraq and Afghanistan. Listen. Why do you think Al-Qaeda wants to blow up planes before they land in the US, for example, the underpants bomber incident? Its because they know our civilian border control agents would catch them. Border control is run by civilians, not the military.
We can "protect the masses" more cheaply and more wisely. Do you really need to me list the wasteful and unnecessary spending on military programs and hardware that is occurring? Given your level of understanding even the most basic concepts of economics and US homeland security, I'm not sure explaining more to you would be a good expenditure of my time.
Take the militaries of China, the UK, France, and Russia (the four biggest militaries besides the US). Combine them all together. Then double that. That's about the size of the US military.
Finally, someone who argues that military spending is not particularly good thing especially bases sprinkled around the globe. It is a sign of military imperialism.
america has over 750 unecesary military bases around the world. it spends 10 times more than china. most of the money is being used towards evil, such as blowing up random people. the money can and should be better used elsewhere such as healthcare, and welfare. id rather see some "lazy bum" get a free meal, than a defenseless afgan getting blown up on his way to work.
