NYT Blog: Keep Your Government Hands Off My Government Programs!

[Madison Redskin]

Defense spending isn't "off the table". But it absolutely isn't the whole problem, either.

I absolutely agree and, as I noted in another thread, Obama punted the issue of cuts to entitlement spending to the GOP. I generally agree with your proposals regarding Social Security and I realize that cuts to Medicare/Medicaid will likely be necessary as well.

[Thiebear]

Im shocked at how flat defense spening is considering the debt went up like a rocket and 3 wars.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/22/news...cans/index.htm

[Madison Redskin]

Were you being sarcastic? Based on that graph, defense spending has nearly doubled since 2000.

[mardi gras skin]

Im shocked at how flat defense spening is considering the debt went up like a rocket and 3 wars.

As a percentage of GDP its even more startling. We're spending about two thirds less than we did during the Korean War:

Were you being sarcastic? Based on that graph, defense spending has nearly doubled since 2000.

And relative to GDP, we're almost back down to 2000 levels. Defense spending isn't our problem.

[Thiebear]

Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. New gear needed for Desert warfare (don't remember the outrage)?
and it went from 450 to 700. The debt went up 9 trillion dollars?
Remove Afghanistand and Iraq and we should be good? Seem about time now as we've done what we were supposed to...

Our boys and girls have been doing quintuple tours over the last 20 years, how can you not equip them?
Not saying teachers aren't as good, but it costs more to keep Johnny in Iraq fully loaded and a support chain.
The Wheelchair for the veteran shot 11x is just as important as the electric ones for the fat tea party demonstrators.

[mardi gras skin]

oops. Double post.

[Madison Redskin]

And relative to GDP, we're almost back down to 2000 levels. Defense spending isn't our problem.

We spend nearly as much on defense as we do on Medicare/Medicaid. We will end up spending $3,000,000,000,000.00 (let alone the tens of thousands who have been killed and wounded) to fight the war in Iraq. But defense spending isn't a problem? Why is spending $3,000,000,000,000.00 on the Iraq War a problem, but a proposal to spend a tiny fraction of that amount on feeding malnourished kids a problem?

[Thiebear]

ahhh we want to starve children nice.

[mardi gras skin]

We spend nearly as much on defense as we do on Medicare/Medicaid.

Whether or not this means anything to you, the trend lines say defense isn't the problem. We have rapidly growing committments to Medicare/Medicaid relative to anticipated GDP and we have flat to falling Defense spending relative to GDP.

You can cut Defense spending in half and we will still have a budget problem because, unlike defense, Medicare/Medicaid spending is outpacing the growth of our economy.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Unless I'm mistake, I believe spending on Iraq and Afghanistan was not in the defense budget during the Bush years. It was its own category.

[Larry]

You can cut Defense spending in half and we will still have a budget problem because, unlike defense, Medicare/Medicaid spending is outpacing the growth of our economy.

And you can cut Medicare in half and we still have a budget problem, because denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Defense isn't the whole problem. But it is part of it.

[mardi gras skin]

Unless I'm mistake, I believe spending on Iraq and Afghanistan was not in the defense budget during the Bush years. It was its own category.

The wars are included in the chart I posted.

---------- Post added February-22nd-2011 at 10:46 AM ----------

And you can cut Medicare in half and we still have a budget problem, because denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Cut Medicare/Medicaid in half and KEEP it at that percentage of GDP (the way defense has held steady or fallen in relation to GDP) and we won't have a budget problem.

[Larry]

Cut Medicare/Medicaid in half and KEEP it at that percentage of GDP (the way defense has held steady or fallen in relation to GDP) and we won't have a budget problem.

Right, because everybody knows that when people live twice as long, then they should live on half the income, because GDP is what's important.

And because everybody knows, whenever GDP goes up, then it costs more to defend the country. Automatically.

[mardi gras skin]

Right, because everybody knows that when people live twice as long, then they should live on half the income, because GDP is what's important.

Everybody knows that, when people live twice as long, we either need to pay less or (more logically) increase the age payouts begin. Because, yes, GDP is what's important.

And because everybody knows, whenever GDP goes up, then it costs more to defend the country. Automatically.

Clearly defense spending has not kept up with GDP. So no, everybody doesn't know that.

[Larry]

Clearly defense spending has not kept up with GDP. So no, everybody doesn't know that.

But clearly, some people think that "defense spending as a percentage of GDP" is a significant number. Therefore some people think that.