Before the Iraq War, most people agreed that 20% of the nation's budget went to the military?

Question

Do you think that number is too low, too high, or just right?

Answer 1

Considering the fact that the world won't fight with us, it's necessary for us to devote more to keep the world safe.

Which, of course, is what we do.

I would say 30% is enough.

Answer 2

Who were those "most people" and by "the nation's budget" do they mean the Federal budget or the US GNP? And is the "just right" number what we really do spend, or what we should spend?
Military spending was about 10% of GNP in peacetime under Eisenhower and Kennedy. It was a bit over 5% under Reagan, and is, last I heard, well under 4% today. As a percentage of the Federal budget, with the Feds getting better than 20% of GNP to play with, we're MAYBE 20% today in wartime. And, of course, that includes "legacy costs" like pensions for retired career men and disability payments for previous wars. A couple of years ago a general was quoted as saying that the US spent more on--as I recall--"tinsel and wrapping" than on tanks and planes. If you take that to mean that a higher percentage of GNP is spent on Christmas presents than on weapons procurement, I suspect he was right. (Did YOU spend a week's pay on Christmas?)

As for what we should spend, it's a matter of what you want the military to do. Right now we are not paying enough to support the missions we've undertaken, and we either need to write off some of the missions or pony up more money--probably both. Life, as they say, is full of choices.

Answer 3

The last copy of the budget I saw had it at 15% (2005).
Considering that many servicemen and their families are drawing government assistance to feed their children the budget allocation may be low. But over 51% is relegated to the 'social' programs. That is too high. Examine the break down of mandatory and discressionary funds in the document below it adds to the base 38% social spending. Page 8 has a chart of the major divisions of the budget.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf

Answer 4

The figures don't appear to of changed very much from 1997 (before Iraq) and 2005 (during Iraq) - except for inflation and the cost of health care for veterans and retirees going up. Health care costs seems to be a problem across the country as each generation ages. So your figures appear low.....

We can pay or cut the military budget as our veterans age. Then the costs will be picked up by Medicare and Social Security but their respectives budgets will have to increase to cover thpse expenses. Or we could place the military's health care under a different budget catogory and lower those number but raise them else where. Sort of like creative bookkeeping.....

Health Care Now 10 Percent Of US Military Budget - At least 75 percent of the benefits will go to veterans and retirees.


1997
“National Defense” category of federal spending in 1997, for example, amounted to 51% of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year.
2003
The total budget request for discretionary spending was $767 billion, of which 51.6% was the military budget — $396 billion.
The next two largest items were education and health, getting $52bn and $49bn dollars, (6.8% and 6.4% of discretionary budget) respectively.
2004
The total budget request for discretionary spending was $782 billion, 51% of which was the military budget — $399 billion.
The next two largest items were education and health, getting $55bn and $49bn (7% and 6.3% of discretionary budget) respectively.
2005
The total budget request for discretionary spending was $820 billion, 51% of which was the military budget — $421 billion.
The next two largest items were education and health, getting $60bn and $51bn (7% and 6.2% of discretionary budget) respectively.