think we could cut the military and better spend the money else wear. Who cares about schools in Iraq we need to help our school here. Who cares about the South Korean border we have our own to protect. Feel free to disagree with me. Best answer gets 10 points.
2006-12-01 08:19:04 · 19 answers · asked by Ryan M 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's a great idea except for the whole Constitution and all. The federal government is charged specifically with regulating interstate commerce and providing for the common defense. The Framers didn't say anything about schools, welfare, food stamps, or anything like that.
2006-12-01 08:23:08 · answer #1 · answered by Tom Jr 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What does it matter if we spend all our money on social programs if there are no people alive to take advantage of those benefits?
9/11 should have shown us that when people say they want to kill us, they mean it. Cutting the military will only result in more dead Americans. So again I ask you; what good are social programs if there are people dying in the streets? Would you rather be poor and alive, or rich and dead?
There is also the fact that all social programs are inherently bad for society and immoral. However, your question was strictly in relation to military spending vs social spending, so I'll save that discussion for another time.
2006-12-01 08:29:19 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This may be a false dilemna.
We should be smarter about how we spend money on military and on social programs. We need both.
Inefficient social programs should be cut or revised to reduce abuse. Ill-conceived military operations should not be perpetuated or, ideally, not approved or pursued in the first place. Shifting of funds from one lost cause to another doesn't help anyone.
2006-12-01 09:30:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, with the state of the world now, I would have to say no. The military is going to become more relevant in the foreseeable future, not less. Mostly due to the instability in certain areas of the world and a generally negative disposition toward the U.S.
And, it's going to become more expensive. Technology & manpower is just like that. It almost never gets cheaper.
I do, however, see your point about social programs. Perhaps the politicians could spend a little less on 'pork' projects and more on things that matter to citizens in general.
Please feel free to write your elected representatives about it. Most of them have web-sites. And, please vote!
2006-12-01 08:23:52 · answer #4 · answered by bionicbookworm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heck yes we should cut military funding. Most of that money doesn't go anywhere near our troops anyway but instead to line the pockets of irresponsible and bloated defense contractors (and not just Halliburton either).
I noticed that most of the rightwingers in here just equate social funding with welfare but it's so much bigger than welfare. (Thanks Reagan).
The failing of the New Orleans levees is a prime example of how decrepit our infrastructure is. Bridges, tunnels, dams and roads all over America are decaying at a disgraceful rate due to underfunding for their maintenance. Our schools suck and are in dire need of overhauling but we can't afford to do it.
I personally don't care about schools in Iraq or anywhere else in the world for that matter until America's needs are taken care of first.
The military can still meet our national security needs adequately and efficiently without additional, or even with reduced, funding. Our infrastructure clearly needs more.
The answer couldn't be more obvious to me: more butter, less guns.
2006-12-01 08:35:51 · answer #5 · answered by In 2 Deep 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because believe it or no longer you are able to not infinitely boost authorities intake and watch its multiplying miracle in all that is glory. If shall we feasibly spend our thanks to prosperity then there are a selection of counntries which will be better wealthy than us now which include Greece and Portugal. WW2 had many better elements than the debt element at play. We were over complete employment with many intake constraints to help the conflict. The U.S. change into also properly placed after relative to the international as a information superhighway creditor with a sparkling shiny production center from the conflict.
2016-10-08 01:41:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without the military to protect us there wouldn't be a need for social programs. No society have a program for.
As it stands the illegals are sucking our social programs dry, I am not in favor of giving them any more money, regardless of my feelings about military spending.
2006-12-01 08:31:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No we need to have a strong military. People won't like it but to ensure the future of our country they are going to have stop whining about what they pay in taxes. If you want to live in this country and take advantage of all the freedoms it affords you, you should have no problem doing that. We need the strong military to defend our country and we need a strong school system so those children grow into well educated adults. If the children are our future we are selling them short.
2006-12-01 08:23:55 · answer #8 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sounds good, cut spending on people that are productive and working to give to those who choose to do nothing. (sacrasm)
I do agree that our government needs to revisit their foriegn aid spending though. The billions of dollars that is used to "buy" support is wasted money, better used to build our own infrastructure such as education and job training.
2006-12-01 08:34:48 · answer #9 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Military spening can only be cutafter we leave Iraq, but i do believe that once that ahappens, money that had gone to the military can go to social programs
2006-12-01 08:25:02 · answer #10 · answered by smartass 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋