would you rather have you tax money spent on military spendings or social programs?

Answer 1

I'd rather it went to the military as it's a benefit to the nation as a whole and a reward, albeit a small one, to those who are willing to sacrifice for this great country.

Most social programs benefit certain groups, most of which the government has no business dealing with such as the arts, minority specific programs, etc. To top off the unfair distribution of funds is that the majority of the social programs are nothing more than money pits. They are programs which provide minimal positive benefits at best. Yet, we not only continue to fund them, we add more funding time after time.

Yep, I'd rather have my tax dollars going to the people who willingly make a sacrifice in defence of this great nation than going to those who are not happy just taking from this country but also demanding more.

Answer 2

If you see how the Soviet Union collapsed by spending the bulk of their GNP on defense; it'd be only proper to find a balance.

Spending too much on guns, tanks and bombers never made sense, but spending the bulk of the GNP of social welfare doesn't work as well as most politicians say. If nobody works and want to live off welfare, then where are the politicians going to get the tax money to spend of social welfare without the economy going into a recession (if not bankrupcy)?

I don't think we need a 30 billion dollar stealth bomber that thatn fly thousands of miles under the radar to attack a target, when we already have 20 year old technology that works just as good, but by the same token, we don't need to have our federal taxes squandered on having after school programs when the state budget already approves for that program to be funded by, let's say... a 2 cent tax on cigarettes or from taking 1/3 off the money collected from vanity license plate sales.

They key is responsible management; you have pork barrel spending out of control because politicians want to take as much money out of the barrel for their own disctricts to buy votes; what about that "Highway to nowhere" in Alaska? That money would've been better invested in improving schools or creating social programs to educate people with disabilities and integrate them into the workforce.

I think we can have a balance of expenditure in which we can protect our nation and keep our military trained, equipped and prepared, but at the same time, maintain programs that improve the lives of all; is all a matter of cutting the pork barrel spending, which is really what's hurting us.

Answer 3

Between those 2 options, the military.

Fact is Gov't money spent has a multiplying affect on the economy. Money spent on social programs have a 0 or even slightly negative affect. There is no job creation.

Military spending has a positive affect. Jobs are created and things are produced.

The best use and highest economic multiplying affect of Gov't spending, (not part of your question), is public works on infrastructure. Things like bridges and roads. Money spent on infrastructure has the same job creation factors as the military, but the results stay here. Jobs are created, things are produced and used by the general public.
Unlike a tank left in the desert or a bomb that has exploded.

Answer 4

I would like to see less waste of our tax money for both programs. I believe our nation can afford a strong military while supporting social programs if the government was not so wasteful.

Answer 5

Military

Answer 6

Both.

If there were no military spending we wouldn't even have a country to have social programs in. See Revolutionary War, WWII, Japan, Hitler, USSR, Radical Islam, AQ, hell... even throw Cuba and Chavez in there (haha).

lv_consultant: Americans said the exact same thing after the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, WWI came along and proved them wrong again which was said to be the last great war... not surprisingly, WWII happened but no one learned. The Cold War started and ended and people said the same thing. Terrorist attack and people say the same thing. I'm not trying to argue with you but at the least you should concede that wars keep happening whether we want them or not and that threats change.

Sure it's great to be idealistic and all but that doesn't mean be stupid and forget about keeping the military well equipped and trained.

By the way, tactical nukes have had no use in conventional wars and destroying countries completely using them (or any other weapon) in that manner would only lead to a repeat of what happened to Germany at the end of the first world war. Destroying countries doesn't lead to peace in the long term... unless you use social program funding to rebuild them... in which case I support your social program funding.

Answer 7

Military Spending!!!

Answer 8

military because most social programs dont give back as much as you pay into them and i think welfare is a waste of government money because most people that use it dont need it and leaves not as much money for people who do need it and social security is becoming more and more of a problem so i think it is better to spend more on military because the constitution says that the government is to PROTECT the people not to provide for the people

Answer 9

Military spending- I'd rather my money went to protecting this country, than giving more money to those who many times don't appreciate it anyway and just want more.

Answer 10

Military spending. Without a strong military, any argument about spending would be academic since we would be overrun by our enemies.
And make no mistake, we DO have enemies. Or do you think those planes slamming into our buildings 6 years ago was an accident?