should america increase its military spending
should america spend more money in order to increse military strength
Side Score: 17
Side Score: 21
Really, how about you post some type of argument about why we shouldn't increase spending, as the debate was created on, don't try to turn it into a different argument. I don't care what you think about anything except for what you have to say relative to the debate, your inane comment did nothing to prove any argument or further any type of debate. Is it really worth it to say something like that and come off as a troll.
"don't try to turn it into a different argument."
Why not? I see us bringing troops back to hold precedence over the question of spending.
"I don't care what you think about anything except for what you have to say relative to the debate,"
Anything relating to military action is relevant to the debate, besides I listed criteria to be met before I gave my official answer on the asked question.
"your inane comment did nothing to prove any argument or further any type of debate."
Then why waste time creating a response, therefor giving it value?
"Is it really worth it to say something like that and come off as a troll."
The only bigger idiot then a troll is the one who tries to comunicate with one.
President Obama came into office with a military in serious need of modernization. However, instead of rebuilding our strength, President Obama has put us on course toward a “hollow” force. President Obama has repeatedly sought to slash funds for our fighting men and women, and over the next ten years nearly $1 trillion will be cut from the core defense budget. This budget cutting enterprise is proceeding while American troops are in combat in Afghanistan, returning from their mission in Iraq, and fighting the remnants of al Qaeda worldwide.
The Obama administration’s cuts have left us with a military inventory largely composed of weapons designed forty to fifty years ago. The average age of our tanker aircraft is 47 years, of strategic bombers 34 years. While the weapons in our arsenal remain formidable, they are well along on the path to obsolescence. Along with the aging process, there has been a precipitous decline in sheer numbers. The U.S. Navy has only 284 ships today, the lowest level since 1916. Given current trends, the number will decline, and the additional contemplated cuts will cause it to decline even further. Our naval planners indicate we need 328 ships to fulfill the Navy’s role of global presence and power projection in defense of American security. Our Air Force, which had 82 fighter squadrons at the end of the Cold War, has been reduced to 39 today. President Obama has cut funding for national missile defense.
The Obama administration is seeking to reap a “peace dividend” when we are not at peace and when the dangers to our security are mounting. This flies directly in the face of conclusions from the bipartisan Perry-Hadley Commission set up by Congress in 2010. Even before Congress had adopted its latest round of cuts and even before President Obama had proposed yet deeper cuts, the Commission warned that: “[t]he aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, escalating personnel entitlements, overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on the force means that a train wreck is coming in the areas of personnel, acquisition, and force structure.” There is a price to strength, but a greater price to weakness, because weakness tempts aggression.
An additional factor must be considered. The men and women of America’s military are among the finest who have ever served any nation at any time. They are all volunteers; they have all chosen to dedicate their careers in the service of their country. Many have spent more time in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years than they have spent at home. Thousands of them went overseas and will never come home. They have willingly chosen this path of sacrifice. It is unconscionable that these men and women must fly in airplanes that are old and unreliable, must sail in ships that have cracked hulls, or must ride in vehicles that are urgently in need of replacement — all because their government has had neither the vision to plan for their needs or the simple common sense to manage its own budget.
I truly cannot envision many individuals endorsing the opposing view. Military spending is a great waste of money and an extreme burden on the taxpayer. Hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military, which does little besides make war-loving fools of the American people as they lose war after war and become involved deeper in the affairs of other nations which do not concern us.
Bring the troops home and stop (a) wasting money needlessly on the military, (b) giving money needlessly to foreign governments, and (c) taxing the good people of the United States of America more than they deserve.
shown to lower unemployment and increase economic activity.
I know precisely how to do this! Abolish the minimum wage! It's perfect. Countless more businesses shall be able to hire more people. More people will work. More people working = decreased unemployment rates and increased economic activity, especially considering that decrease in social programs directed at the unemployed. Taxes could be reduced to accommodate for the lesser reliance on socialism (not that it wouldn't be diverted elsewhere), and more people will gain.
We spend more on our military than every other nation on earth combined. We have enough nukes to kill every living thing on earth that doesn't have an exoskeleton ten times over - you would think killing everything once would be enough.
If we took half of that money out of the military and spent it instead on things like high speed railroads, new roads and bridges, etc, we would create 10 times more jobs than we employ in our entire military and again have the greatest infrastructure in the world (we don't anymore, our infrastructure is horrible compared to every other first world country).