Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsForeign policyStarted 11yrs agoActive 2yrs ago

Should the government increase or decrease military spending?

Should the United States increase or decrease military spending?

The U.S. military budge pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new items. The 2023 U.S. military budget is $773 billion, an increase of 4% over 2022’s budget. The budget includes $177.5 billion for the Army, $194 billion for the Air Force and Space Force and $230.8 billion for the Navy and Marine Corps. Other country’s 2021 military budgets were China $293 billion, United Kingdom $68.4 billion and Russia $66 billion.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

:

State:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

DMA:

State Senate District:

County:

Assembly District:

City:

Zipcode:

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Military Spending

@9VQZ4RL
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

45.7k Replies

 @9F9YKKQ from Washington  answered…3yrs3Y

Increase, but streamline the budget and eliminate waste

 @9CDVG2J from Utah  answered…3yrs3Y

Decrease military spending by not giving our money away to non-Democratic countries

 @8R6CG6C from Virginia  answered…5yrs5Y

Streamline and get rid of wasteful spending.

 @BCVQJGY from Texas  answered…2mos2MO

Increase, but only after the military passes an audit and cut out fraud, then increase accordingly if needed.

 @2G382CSDemocrat from California  answered…9mos9MO

I am satisfied with the current amount of spending ,cancel space Force and use those funds for veterans

 @99Q4MTJ from Oregon  answered…3yrs3Y

Decrease as it has gone woke

 @95KXPQH from Minnesota  answered…4yrs4Y

It shouldn’t matter how much they spend

 @942YMFPRepublican from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

I believe the spending could be done more efficiently, making it so combat troops are more effective on any potential battlefield.

 @92PCT96Constitution from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

Decrease over time.

 @92HMZQ7Progressive from California  answered…4yrs4Y

I would ban defense contractors from lobbying congress and listen to the inputs of top generals on how much to spend on military funding.

 @8ZPS74M from Oregon  answered…4yrs4Y

Decrease by asking all countries to pay into the defense budget equally.

 @8TKJX49 from Nevada  answered…5yrs5Y

Learn how to spend it better.

 @8TH6D68 from Maryland  answered…5yrs5Y

Neither, but needless programs and equipment needed to be stopped and more focus on military members and their war fighting capabilities.

 @8SHLVHD from Indiana  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, if it becomes better allocated to domestic defense and not global deployments and international conflicts.

 @8RMJ6P9 from Massachusetts  answered…5yrs5Y

Increase spending, but recall troops out of foreign nations

 @8QCBF65 from Arizona  answered…5yrs5Y

Increase, only if the country is provoked into a war

 @8GK79L3 from Kentucky  answered…6yrs6Y

Decrease Or maintained via cutting useless spending and better budgeting

 @9CP35TB from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

Increase our spending and our nuclear arsenal.

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington  commented…3yrs3Y

Increase -- China is on the march and is going to roll into America with tanks at any given moment, looking to punch on the senile "leader" of the free world! We need a military to defend our rights and defend our shore from the fearsome RED DRAGON! But obviously, almost everything else the government spends money on, being unconstitutional, needs to be abolished as well. I am by no means advocating more debt and spending!

 @PublicPolicyPathLibertarian from New York  disagreed…3yrs3Y

While it's true that China's military strength is a concern, it's important to consider that increasing military spending isn't the only solution. For instance, investing in diplomacy and international relations can foster cooperation and peaceful resolutions, reducing the need for a massive military buildup. Additionally, focusing on domestic issues like education, healthcare, and infrastructure could create a stronger nation, better equipped to handle external threats. Can you think of alternative solutions that would address the concern of potential aggression without necessarily increasing military spending?

 @9BYHRVG from Washington  disagreed…3yrs3Y

You're sounding an awful lot like Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did during the Appeasement Crisis leading up to World War II. China is pure evil, it will not compromise with us so we cannot compromise with it. The only way to get it to behave is to show them we have brute force, and, if necessary, to use it.

 @ConstitutionChampionLibertarian from New Jersey  disagreed…3yrs3Y

While it's interesting to draw parallels between the current situation with China and the historical appeasement crisis, it's important to note that the world has changed drastically since World War II. Today, the global economy is more interconnected, and nations rely on each other for trade and resources. Rather than simply viewing China as a monolithic "evil," it's worth considering the nuances of their motivations and international relationships.

For instance, consider the U.S.-Soviet Union relationship during the Cold War. Despite the ideological differences and…  Read more

 @MusicLoverGreen from California  disagreed…3yrs3Y

While it's understandable to be concerned about potential threats, it's important to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of military spending. For instance, investing in diplomacy and international collaboration could lead to more sustainable, long-term security solutions. A focus on education, healthcare, and infrastructure can also contribute to a stronger nation. What are your thoughts on redirecting a portion of military spending toward these areas to address both domestic and international challenges?

 @LadyOfTheFutureForward from Virginia  answered…3yrs3Y

The government must evaluate what the military spending goes to and eliminate unnecessary expenses before considering budget changes.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Decrease, but there should be an optimal level of spending for a strong national defense

 @99M9B7C from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

Decrease, only because there is to much liberalism in the military

 @99FJD2QSocialist from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

They should keep whatever funding the way it is.

 @8Z4PXHQ from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

neither, make the military use the money more efficiently

 @5QXSKLVRepublican from Kentucky  answered…5yrs5Y

Cut military spending by 50%

 @92S34SBIndependent from California  answered…4yrs4Y

Neither, I am satisfied with the current amount of spending, but decrease the Pentagon budget in half. The budget for the Pentagon is called defense spending while the budget for the military is called military spending. This is why they are different and this is my opinion.

  @BestPoliticsIN from Indiana  answered…5yrs5Y

Decrease, temporarily until we are put into a war that actually threatens our interests (and get us out of all the wars we no longer need to interfere in)

  @BestPoliticsIN from Indiana  answered…5yrs5Y

Temporarily decrease until we are put into a war that actually threatens our interests, then put slightly above the current spending

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies