I don't get it

I don't get it

I mean, American taxpayer dont even pay that much compared with other countries

no but our country actively uses our money to make our lives worse

A lot of other countries actually use that tax money for things though. Add the cost of health insurance and college to American taxes and you get a much steeper number than countries where tax money covers those.

well we've got a fucking addiction to shiny military shit, reorganize where the money goes

But user, we need a big military, because we're totally at risk of being invaded at any time by every country ever. Just look at the looming superpowers across our northern and southern borders.

Are you autistic?

I hear that the American Military has these big ass warehouses full of supplies that often wind up being unused and are simply replaced every few years, is this true?

For real. I wish we would either take over the world or stop building shit.

Don't you know how many (high paying skilled labor) jobs defense contractors provide?

Nah, just eurotrash.

i wouldn't be surprised tho I would expect we'd sell them to someone for $$$$

>tfw no one will go Eisenhower and just build roads and bridges again

The moment you become complacent is the moment things go sour, sir. The USA's big defense budget is largely a deterrent as well as being used for interventional purposes.

And fuck, it ain't just us. Do you realize how many countries relies on the US for defense? We've got so many tiny shit countries with piss-ass defense budgets who depend on the US for alliance and protection.

Not to mention our military is a huge boon to our economy. Military contracts are a huge fucking business.

Much better idea to slash money from useless social programs that don't work because of unnecessary bureaucracy, just let that money stay with the taxpayer. Like, 30% of everything we make is taxed away and we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

>tfw no one will go Eisenhower and just build roads and bridges again

You do know he built the interstate system for strategic/defense reasons.

>useless social programs that don't work because of unnecessary bureaucracy

OR start working to fix the bureaucracy

or a little of both. there are plenty of problems to go around

That would be nice, but the military presence we have is obligated in some places by treaty, and we provide the muscle for situations where the other countries involved cant/don't want to. It's one of those weird balancing acts.

Hadn't you known how much technology used in everyday life was made possible by the defense sector?

Except that isn't true.

I don't really buy that argument. Yes, the US has a global presence, but our spending isn't primarily on that global presence. It's increasingly R&D, money going directly to private contractors to develop new weapons and vehicles, rather than to interventions. It's not about interventionism, it's a low-key arms race with China and Russia.

"The United States is a truly lucky nation. She is bounded to the north and south by weak neighbors and to the east and west by fish."

-- Otto von Bismarck

Oh hey guys lets talk about cartoo... wait I seem to have wondered into Sup Forums somehow...

I'm pretty sure this is a broken window fallacy.

Jobs for jobs sake is just busywork. Instead of spending on the military spend it on infrastructure and fucking rockets to Mars.

>it's a low-key arms race with China and Russia
>Russia
Is this 1985? They're still relying on...1985 technology.

>Instead of spending on the military spend it on infrastructure and fucking rockets to Mars

How do you think we got the interstate system and the moon landings in the first place? One, because WWII brought about a quantum leap in technology, two because of the strategic rivalry of the Cold War.

I mean, who was flying those spacecraft but trained military test pilots?

Except it absolutely is. Certainly not for the betterment of anyones lives, but for definitely for themselves.

Give some examples, plox.

>spend $1 trillion on military R&D
>some useful stuff comes from it
>claim the military is necessary for technological advancment
>spend $1 trillion on R&D while building a giant dick statue in the middle of the Pacific Ocean
>claim building a giant dick statue is necessary for technological advancement
See the problem? You can achieve technological advancements from any field if you put the money into it. It doesn't have to technology for finding newer and better ways of blowing up other people's R&D projects on the other side of the world.

>OR start working to fix the bureaucracy

Better to limit the bureaucracy at every opportunity by not funding it. If you can't afford to, say, feed people then you surely can't afford a system to feed people and a bureaucratic authority to run it. Better to put money directly in the hands of those who need than to have it managed beforehand.

You can't fix bureaucracy. Fundamentally broken concept. It's a system that only complicates and, even in its least offensive form, is still a waste of money.

That only works because there's a war on, and they're solving a problem. Modern defense contractors are on an endless R&D spree, starting with solutions and looking for problems.

We've already spent billions on the F-35, how useful is that to a single person in the US? And don't say that it makes jobs, if we spent those billions on digging holes, that would make jobs too.

Military R&D is an incredibly diverse field. Only a small portion of it is for the research and development of weapons. It's a department of development centered in absolute practicality and efficiency with real-world applications. Hard to think of a worthier cause that would spawn so many advancements.

Honestly, if my unit and all the units I've ever seen are a factor, I doubt those warehouses exist. The standard soldier and unit are severely underfunded and missing many key items. Hey, if you live in garden grove, don't expect your local bases to be able to defend you if there's an actual attack.

Most of the military budget goes to R&D for the big toys like, jets, missles, and other shit.

>be in Arizona
>see youtube ads from Republican "grassroot" groups that literally claim that a democrat candidate pushing for a reduced military budget will bring ISIS to the USA

>if we spent those billions on digging holes, that would make jobs too.

But we don't. We spend it on increasingly more advanced aircrafts that serve necessary, practical purposes, lead to greater technological breakthroughs, and employ highly skilled engineers.

Planes are useful. We should always be looking for ways to improve them. Digging a hole is hardly comparable to complexity and range of uses that aircraft technology stands to offer.

And it has the added benefit of actively improving our airforce (the best in the world) and increasing our national security.

depends where you live in america. californians pay federal and state income tax which is supposed to fund schools and shit but our schools are shit with the third lowest graduation rate. our taxpayer-funded sports stadiums are pretty nice, though.

Ehhh America is weird. While we don't pay as much taxes as other countries all of our infrastructor is built on the dollar of the middle class which is virtually non existent today. It's a pretty messed up system where you have the poor feeding the poor and the rich just laugh at all of them while they buy expensive stuff they dont need.

They're not wrong.

Decreased military budget would make us more vulnerable to foreign threats, yes. This is common sense.

Just like halting research of disease would make us more susceptible to mutations of bacteria and viruses in the future. It's not something you can say 'Well, that's good enough' with. Because the world is a constantly changing place. Threats to security aren't complacent, they're constantly looking for ways to improve, subvert, and infiltrate.

>We've already spent billions on the F-35, how useful is that to a single person in the US?

Once all the technology created for the F-35 filters down to civilian aircraft, you'll be thankful the next time you take the morning flight to LA.

Kek ISIS is a tiny little baby group getting its shit pushed in my rebels. If Bush hadn't shoved us into and Iraqi war we would have already crushed them. They are not a threat at all from a military standpoint. Sure they can individually blow things up but anyone can do that.

>you have the poor feeding the poor and the rich just laugh at all of them while they buy expensive stuff they dont need.

Except the wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes in the USA and give the most to charitable causes in the USA. Most poor people pay no income tax whatsoever.

One of the funniest political cartoons I ever saw was one from the 2004 election with Dick Cheney holding a dog in his lap and saying "If you make the wrong choice in November, terrorists will attack this puppy."

>Kek ISIS is a tiny little baby group getting its shit pushed in my rebels

Tell that to the people suffering in the middle east. ISIS is the greatest current threat to international security and it's stupid to underestimate them.

Lives matter. Trivializing it down to 'individually blow things up' is incredibly naive and disrespectful.

Are you seriously claiming that ISIS will build a fucking supercarrier fleet and invade the USA?

not far from the Checkers speech

Yeah, he should've been holding a gay club.

Kek I see you are an idiot that has never looked at a tax bracket or your parents are well off. Sure the wealthy pay a higher percent but it is a lower percentile increase than the jump from lower to middle income. They only see a 3-5% increase while from a lower to middle income shift, you see a wooping 10% income increase and are trapped in that bracket until you double your income. They have people making 40k a year paying the same amount of taxes as someone making 80k a year.

I think the pose suggest submission to an abusive power.

Lives don't matter though outside of the US. That is the middle east problem not ours. Isis will never get large enough to be an actual threat to any country outside its own and to be frank this kind of thing is very common. The same thing has happened time and time again in Africa.

>One, because WWII brought about a quantum leap in technology

I love this meme.

In truth WW1 set technological progress back 50 years. We'd be colonizing mars a this point if it wasn't for the collective suicide of european hegemony, the useless deaths of millions of the best and brightest of their generation, complete collapse of the country that was leading scientific research in 1910's and a gave a backwards ex-colony that was originally used as a dumping ground for miscontents and poor people the keys to the world and 50 years to play catch up for free.

Best example being einsteins theories on special and relative relativity which were published in 1905 and 1915 respectably but which took 40 years to be put into practical use with massive government backing.

Peace out, if you want to keep spouting memes like a parrot then feel free, I can't stop you, but take a minute to be critical about things once in a while

I'm saying that a major attack on US soil is always a possibility and it's irresponsible to write that off as irrelevant.

It's always in a country's best interest to be well-armed.

We live in a world where countries like Iran has a nuclear program. That whole dismissive 'that would never happen' mentality is ridiculous and unsafe.

You always prepare for the worst. Always. Hope for sunshine but carry an umbrella.

>advanced aircrafts that serve necessary, practical purposes

Lmfao. VTOL is necessary and practical? Boiling down air superiority, bombing, stealth, and close air support into a single frame is necessary and practical?

The F-35 is a hilarious moneysink that defies both engineering practicality and military wisdom. It's a blank check written to Lockheed Martin, and it's funded by mothballing practical, reliable existing craft.

Did you know that there's a "minor glitch" with the F-35 ejection seat that causes it to snap the pilot's neck? 10 years into development, and it's still unflyable because of the ridiculous promises made by the MIC, and the ridiculous demands of the military.

In the US, you actually pay less the more you earn up to a point. It's a weird inverse bell curve thing.

Don't be dense, a large scale battle will never break out between any military ever again. China's biggest exporter is America. America's biggest exporter is Russia. Britain trades with everyone. You are buying into fear propaganda.

>Lives don't matter though outside of the US

All lives matter. Problems in the middle east, if left unchecked, will inevitably end up here. The Nazi party began with a failed coup in a beer hall.

>tfw Saddam Hussein being alive means ISIS and Al Queda wouldn't dominate Iraq

Even if he gassed Kurds a secular dictatorship is better than these fanatics.

>I'm saying that a major attack on US soil is always a possibility and it's irresponsible to write that off as irrelevant.
So yes, you are indeed claiming that ISIS will build a fucking supercarrier fleet and invade the continental United States of America. Good to know.

The USA was built on complaining about taxes

Alright, then why spend that money through the military? Why not give the money that's being spent on civilian applications to civilian institutions? American universities and corporations already lead the world imagine what they could do with even a fraction of that sweet sweet death ray money.

No they won't. It's a 3rd world rebellion group whos leaders lack the resources and ability to unite and take over and ever launch any kind of military attack. Not to mention most armies are 10x more powerful than they were during WWII and Isis is still operating barely outside of that.

That's not necessarily the only reason the military is useful. Threats and posturing achieve things that pure diplomacy doesn't. If you have the biggest, strongest dad in the room, you don't have to use it.

>Don't be dense, a large scale battle will never break out between any military ever again.

That is shortsighted arrogance. Things change. The world changes. A week ago if someone told me that Britain would leave the European Union I would've said that was bullshit. Major political shifts happen all the time and they can happen very fast.

Preparedness is not fear. It's preparedness. It's a willingness to weather the storm no matter how bad it may get.

military/defense budget

nuff said

put the US military on the shelf for a couple years and you could easily have the money to fix education, infrastructure, and health care

>they're constantly looking for ways to improve, subvert, and infiltrate.

Not a direct attack, but more like more organized terrorist cells so that the USA experiences stuff like the Orlando shootings at a more organized level.

Note, I'm not saying the Orlando fag killer was ISIS organized. He was just a lone wolf that decided to give ISIS credit for his attack.

Until the oil runs out, in which case the country that has held off pumping it's reserves dry will be in the best position and may avoid war. The rest of the world will nuke itself and global civilization as we know it will end, never to return to the current scale.

Humanity's only real long term hope for survival as a species is to establish a permanent industrial foothold in space NOW while cheaply accessible oil is still a thing. If we don't do it now then we will never do it, because future generations will use the excuse "well if your grandparents couldn't do it before the bombs fell and when there was fucking pure liquid energy bubbling up from the ground then how the hell are we supposed to do it?".

>It's a 3rd world rebellion group whos leaders lack the resources and ability to unite and take over and ever launch any kind of military attack.

Not now, no. Which is why it's important to intervene now and make certain that they never acquire those resources.

>Not a [conventional] attack
I'm glad we agree that we should cut spending on the military then.

And paying the military complex does not involve bureaucracy?
Have you ever looked into how research is funded?

Why don't we keep military spending the same but focus those resources on R&D that better prepares our military to handle unconventional attacks?

Oh please, stop bleating your obnoxious sayings. You're more invested in your terrible metaphors than actually knowing what you're talking about. We don't need nuclear subs to obliterate technicals being driven by illiterate, starving Allah fanboys. The MIC is more bloated than Ben Affleck, and you know it.

Kek no, you let it self implode. Again ISIS isn't some big world shaking group. Groups like this have rose up throughout history time and time again and they self implode.

Wasn't really the guy you were in discussion with, but I just wanted to nip the idea of ISIS attacking us in a conventional way in the bud.

I agree that it'd do the US good to reduce our military budget.

>Americans unironically believe that reducing their military budget will lead to Isis invading the usa

Some of us are just super paranoid retards brainwashed by propaganda. That one idiot said our only hope was to flee to space.

>Non-Americans unironically reducing all arguments for maintaining the current military budget into a strawman.

actually had no idea. i've got a blind spot between FDR and the 60s, I just know the crazy conversations pretty much turned on him by 64

To be fair, they also think stricter background checks or banning a single gun style would have stopped the guy who had done nothing illegal in his life from murdering gays with a semi-automatic weapon.

In general, a lot of united statians are very very dumb. Particularly those in power.

Kek fuck off you Repub you are who hes talking about. No one needs a weapon that can fire more than 6 shots before you reload. End of fucking story.

Ike was not ever popular with the right wing of the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater called him "a dime store New Dealer".

No more than anyone needs a car that goes at 200 MPH.

No civilian needs a car that can go 120mph. End of fucking story.

Goldwater is exactly who i'm talking about.

hey so how come gun licences aren't a thing?

And you think I'd disagree with that? This idea that Americans need everything in excess cause of MUH FREEDOM is retarded. Also most cars cant get over that speed regardless of what is on the dash.

not that guy, but car analogies are always retarded. car crashes are accidents.

>Groups like this have rose up throughout history time and time again and they self implode.

Name some that have self-imploded without owing that destruction to resistance or interventionism. Your relying purely on the problem taking care of itself. Okay? Fine. If the problem takes care of itself? Great. Then what if it doesn't? What's your backup plan then? Do you have one? Or are you just deadset on your original judgment being correct? No matter what you must always recognize the possibility that you are wrong. That's not being paranoid, that's being smart.

>We don't need nuclear subs to obliterate technicals being driven by illiterate, starving Allah fanboys

Not at the moment, no. But preparedness for any potential security risk is nothing but smart.

Indeed the USS Ronald Reagan is very impressive and no doubt scares the shit out of the Chinese but didn't do those guys in Florida much good

>hey so how come gun licences aren't a thing?

Because gun ownership is a basic human right and all attempts to infringe upon that right should be resisted, potentially with force.

The fuck do you think DARPA is?

The "back up plan" is that if they ever became an actual threat and creating a standing army and started invading civilized countries you deal with it then but the chance of that is like 3% especially with a religious cult known for infighting who most of their own general populace completely disagrees with.

Gee I wonder what gave rise to ISIS.

Ehhhh, nevermind. Momentary pause, let's just invade again like we did the first time. Third times the charm.

It's really weird seeing an user on here that understands politics

Oh well, at least that's 50 less Democrat voters next fall.

Funny you should mention the Chinese, who stole the plans for the F-35 and built their own, meaning the USA now has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new plane. If the USA had just opted for a cheaper design or just sticking with the old ones we'd be in exactly the same position but with millions of dollars to spend on actually useful things.

The only people who benefit from the USA taking up HALF OF THE HUMANITIES MILITARY EXPENDITURES, FUCKING HALF, are the execs of the military industrial complex.

>The "back up plan" is that if they ever became an actual threat and creating a standing army and started invading civilized countries you deal with it then

Crossing that bridge only when you come to it usually leads to falling in a river. We can't act on the spur of the moment or on impulse. We need preparation.

>but the chance of that is like 3%

I consider a 3% chance of a genocidal, militaristic religious group with a standing army to be significant enough to warrant preparation.

>Pistols are limited to six rounds before reload.
>Guy who shot the gays just brings extra magazines
Hell, the weapon he used could load a lot less bullets per magazine than the amount he killed. He had committed no crimes before, so no background checks would have stopped him either. If there were no guns, he would have brought two pressure cookers.

The issue was that nobody was there to stop him. Whether that means that all gun free zones need armed security or that concealed carry should be more prevalent is another thing. It does, however, mean that no limitations would have stopped this.

Kek you are seriously saying you don't think his kill count would be lower if he had to reload and use a pistol? Have you ever fired a real gun? Cause you sound like some fucking idiot that has only ever played COD.

>Do you realize how many countries relies on the US for defense?
Then maybe they should PAY for it. Just like with the billion dollar industries that don't pay taxes but need our super carriers to contain the disasters caused by their overseas crimes.

there was an armed guard at the club

it's seriously insane just HOW MUCH MONEY is spent on military

You're right, if we can't stop every single violent crime ever, there's no point in restricting access to deadly weapons in any way.

>Then maybe they should PAY for it.

Wasn't Trump suggesting something of that nature?

Depending on your definition and location, there are.
Though you don't NEED a license to own an overpowered sportscar. You need one to drive it around legally.