Deviation Actions

BlameThe1st's avatar

Statist And Anarchist #045: Military Spending

Over the Fourth of July weekend this past summer, my father and I passed a homeless vet on the side of the road begging for money, which my father more than graciously provided. How ironic was it that my fellow Americans that day were celebrating (or rather, claimed to be celebrating) the brave men and women who fought to “protect our freedom” when most of those same soldiers have been left begging for scraps?

Even worse, there are 847,822 veterans waiting for much-needed medical care, and of those veterans, a third of them have already died! How can we, a nation that boasts the biggest military on earth, claim to “support our troops” when most of them have been left to die waiting for healthcare?

With that being said, if you are a Republican, and you insist on increasing military spending, you cannot call yourselves “fiscal conservatives.” You’re not "fiscally-conservative." You don’t care about downsizing big government. You don’t care about cutting government waste. You don’t care about balancing the budget. You don’t care about decreasing our national debt or deficit. You do not stand for "fiscal responsibility." You’re for the exact opposite: you’re all “big tax and spenders” like the Democrats—if not worse!

As a nation, we spend more on the military than the next 17 countries combined—most of whom are our allies! And yet, despite this, not a single Republican has put forth a budget that would cut military spending. (I’m especially looking at you, Rand Paul!)

And don’t tell me that we spend this much to “protect our freedom”—unless you count blowing up hospitals as “protecting our freedom”! To date, we have $181 million worth of tanks that are collecting dust in the desert. Congress could have saved taxpayers $3 billion had they put an end to repairing and manufacturing tanks, yet they insisted on spending money on tanks that the army neither wanted nor needed. And what happens to military equipment such as armored vehicles that the military no longer uses? They’re given to police departments as hand-me-down toys. (So much for being against tyrannical government!)

So if you’re claim to be a “fiscally-conservative” Republican, and yet your proposed budget does not cut our over-bloated military by one single dime, you have no right to call yourself one. In the immortal words of Harry Browne, “Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like Democrats.”
Image details
Image size
1000x1101px 168.86 KB
© 2015 - 2021 BlameThe1st
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
undermythumb69's avatar

Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, & Trump all war criminals/murderers.

ReXspec's avatar… <--- I would also like to point at this link in regards to your chart regarding military spending.

Much of your information is attained from left-leaning sites, which begs the question of where your political leanings are precisely (a question that I have asked before, but you still haven't responded to).  : /
littlegaming122's avatar
nightchildmoonchild's avatar
...(head in my hands) Argh, this should be common sense, it really, really should.
ReXspec's avatar
Ah, the good ol' Communist News Network.

Seriously though... you do realize the Taliban was operating in Kunduz, right?  The group "Doctors Without Borders" willfully operated within a combat zone, knowing full well that the Taliban would take advantage of the Hospital's position.  (sources:… , "The Aftermath of the Airstrike on Doctors Without Borders". The Atlantic. , "Medical charity urges independent inquiry after Afghan hospital blown apart". CNN. Retrieved 4 October 2015. )

It even says so in the CNN article you linked.

Sorry blame, but the fault here is not with the U.S. military or the Afghan National Army:  They did precisely what they were trained to do.  The fault here lies with the Taliban insurgents who chose to use that Hospital as a place of Asylum and the D.W.B. administrators who thought it would be a good idea to place a Hospital in a hot zone.

When you have an enemy that is willing to use innocent lives as shields, things are going to get ugly.  Truth be told, the Taliban often anticipates the negative press the U.S. military faces from this incidents such as these and use that press to help hamper the efforts of the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

The Vietcong did the same thing during the Vietnam war.
Graeystone's avatar
Put the requirements for Officers back to the 'merit system' instead of 'affirmative action'. Get rid of 2/3s of the generals.(Over 1000 US Generals way too many!). Stop treating the military as a stinking 'social experiment'.
ReXspec's avatar
I do agree that specific officers and units need a bit of "house cleaning" when it comes to competency, but the fault is not with the bureaucrats in the D.o.D.

Refer to my post above this one.
littlegaming122's avatar
for the last time i- actually I quit pokemon.
ReXspec's avatar
You must be a 4channer.
littlegaming122's avatar
ReXspec's avatar
In short?  Severe autism.

That's what that is.
littlegaming122's avatar
I was just trying to be funny dude :/ don't be such a downer
littlegaming122's avatar
You are very rude. I don't appreciate this, I was just trying to be humorous.
ReXspec's avatar
Maybe I'm crazy for expecting some sort of serious conversation on politics, but the last thing I expected on a post like mine was a non-sequitr like your comment.
View all replies
littlegaming122's avatar

Dollar for dollar, yes, the US spent in 2014 the about the same as 9 other countries in militarily spending.
But if you look at military spending as a percent of GDP, you get another story. In 2014, military spending was
3.5% of GDP. The Russians spent 4.5%, the UAE spent 5.1%  and the Saudi's spent a whopping 10.4% of their GDP
(These #s come from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.,  if you look at the #s from
 International Institute for Strategic Studies ,the percent for spending goes down to 3.0% of GDP.)
US military spending is actually down since 2010 (4.7% of GDP)

When you have the 2nd biggest economy in the world, you can spend lower percent of GDP but still out spend every one.
This isn't meant to defend wasteful spending  in the military, just to provide a clearer picture.


Side note: you can be fiscally conservative,  and not change current military spending. It would involved eliminating  the welfare state.
kyrtuck's avatar
Oh dammit yes!

I remember getting asked for money from a veteran.  Who was insistant on not being classified a beggar.
BlameThe1st's avatar
It's more than a national shame that our veterans are left to suffer like this, considering everything they have done.
ONI-Defense's avatar
Cutting the extravagant waste in the US military and downsizing the overinflated military bureaucracy would make it a more effective force. And that's talking about the military in its current form. Even more money can be saved by leaving all of these defense pacts we have with other nations and focusing on just the defense of the United States. No more of this world policing we've been doing for decades.  
anupespe's avatar
This makes sense.
VS-Devao-Irsez's avatar
If the U.S. would cease giving aid to those foreign countries, especially the ones in Europe, then they would have to start taking care of themselves and start building up their own military.

However doing that to Europe would more than likely result in them becoming reliant entirely on NATO, and that branch of Military Indutrial Complex has now devolved into becoming little more than a large militarized wing of the E.U.

Anybody remember what happened early last year with the situation in The Ukraine? Well from what I recall if my memory serves me correctly, NATO had been basically acting as an arm fof the E.U. and for other western interests including the M.I.C of the U.S. This resulted in the near start of a war with Russia, all over what is widely believed to be a feeble attempt to make The Ukraine an E.U. member for the alleged purpose of gaining access to their rich natural resources so that Russia supposedly wouldn't have a foreign monopoly over the European petroleum market.
SingABrightSong's avatar
The reason that "America spends more money on its military than the next 17 countries combined" is that foreign militaries are woefully undersized. European countries cut back their militaries to spend money on socialism, leaving the American military to defend their borders and patrol their oceans. Now, I'm all for the US cutting back on its military spending, but that will only be feasible if all the other countries increase their spending to reasonable levels.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In