General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica says: Cut 'Defense'
Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:56 PM - Edit history (7)
Wed Mar 9, 2011 2:47pm EST
(Reuters) - A majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/09/us-usa-budget-poll-idUSTRE7286DW20110309
May 10, 2012 Updated: 8:43 pm, September 5, 2012
Key findings:
Americans want to cut the defense budget deeply to help deal with the deficit, more than they want to cut other programs or raise taxes.
There is broad consensus on this goal, including large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, young, old, males and females.
Around three-quarters of Americans think spending should be cut for air power, ground forces, and naval forces.
Nuclear arms were given the biggest proportional hit, while ground forces took the biggest dollar hit; special forces had the most support.
More than eighty percent of Americans are convinced there is a lot of waste in the national defense budget.
While politicians, insiders and experts may be divided over how much the government should spend on the nations defense, theres a surprising consensus among the public about what should be done: They want to cut spending far more deeply than either the Obama administration or the Republicans.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/05/10/8856/public-overwhelmingly-supports-large-defense-spending-cuts
In February, CBS/New York Times interviewers asked a national sample which of the following programs would you be willing to change in order to cut spending? Thirteen percent picked Social Security, 15 percent picked Medicare, and 52 percent picked the military.
A simultaneous National Journal survey offered respondents five areasSocial Security, Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid, and defenseand asked whether, in each case, spending should be cut back a lot, some, or not at all to help reduce the deficit. Defense was the only target on which an affirmative majority agreed, with 60 percent endorsing cuts and only 35 percent opposing them.
In April, an academic consortium headed by the Program for Public Consultation asked U.S. adults whether, in view of the federal deficit, Congress should raise some taxes, reduce national defense spending, or reduce non-defense spending. Respondents were invited to choose any combination of these options. Twenty-seven percent endorsed tax hikes. Fifty percent endorsed cuts in non-defense spending. Sixty-two percent endorsed defense cuts.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/08/obama_s_ad_against_military_spending_have_polls_shifted_on_the_defense_budget_.html
http://www.progressivesforobama.org
Polling data shows that Americans want to cut the Big War budget AT LEAST as much as is in the sequester (10%). AT LEAST that much. And only the most selfish want to cut grannies safety net.
So let's cut it!
PS - If you find yourself trolling the internet lobbying for Big War, you may want to check in with a conservative think tank - they'll pay you good money to do that!
Protalker
(418 posts)It is about time the we start to get the peace benefits tha t getting out of 2 wars which were not paid for and start rebuilding our country instead of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)(and not send them into pointless wars in the first place).
If we cut our military budget in half we would still have the worlds best (i.e. most expensive) military.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)We are going to have to cut defense to save other programs. Someone said to me (on here) that cutting defense will cost jobs. Well yes it will. So would cutting other programs too. Cutting the other programs will cause unemployment and people losing benefits. How's that for a double whammy..
bowens43
(16,064 posts)I think that 50% would be a good starting point.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Mr. Boehner says Republicans are fairly unified now behind letting the sequester do its work: "I got Lindsey Graham, the biggest noisemaker on the sequester, and Buck McKeon"the defense hawk who chairs the House Armed Services Committee"on our side. I got it in my back pocket." The speaker is counting on the president's liberal base putting pressure on him when cherished domestic programs face the sequester's sharp knife. Republican willingness to support the sequester, Mr. Boehner says, is "as much leverage as we're going to get."
The sequester would cut the non-war defense budget to $491 billion in 2013 from $554 billion in 2012, a more than 9% cut. Not a cut below a baseline, but an actual dollar-figure cut.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/what-s-the-plan-speaker-boehner.html
No Compromise
(373 posts)they consistently ignore the will of the American people as if they don't have to worry about elections at all for some reason
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)raccoon
(31,112 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)In fact, the war budget has doubled since 2000, we really can afford to cut it by 50%.