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

 @98Z2KYXfrom New York  answered…3yrs3Y

Decrease, until we reduce our national deficit

 @96P5F7Z from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

Neither but utilize the spending more effectively.

 @96NDH72 from Kentucky  answered…4yrs4Y

stop sending money tp other countries and protect our own home joe biden

 @96NBGS6 from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

we should work on decreasing it but keep it at a amount to maintain a strong military

 @92HFKP9 from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

It's not a matter of should, the Government has to increase military spending to protect the people. The US has arguably one of the strongest military in the world, many in our world rely on our military for their very livelihood. Lives are the priority.

 @8ZM96C4 from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

decrease and reallocate funds to raise the wages of servicemen and women

 @8Z349SJ from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Decrease, and more importantly is that The United States needs to bring our troops home. As a nation we should be neutral and not trying to become the worlds policeman.

 @8Z2Q3YJ from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

I believe that military spending should only be increased during foreign affairs or during a global crisis.

 @8YZYGFF from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

In times of conflict the increase of the military should be guaranteed but in times of peace they will be prioritized slightly less

 @8YS3SCD from Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

We need an intense review on fraudulent activity in military spending to ensure the funds are properly used.

 @8Y9466W from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

Decrease, but not to an unreasonable level

 @8XNMCF6 from Oregon  answered…5yrs5Y

Decrease, the government should have a third party advisory board that limits useless military spending.

 @8WRFYF2 from Missouri  answered…5yrs5Y

Before a decision is made, it is time for a detailed audit.

 @8WN5P9W from Tennessee  answered…5yrs5Y

We should be able to pull funds for the military when needed but not now if not needed.

 @8WGLY3Cfrom Guam  answered…5yrs5Y

Neither, current spending is sufficient but Govt. must try to decrease the spending by ensuring safety through diplomacy and strengthening internal policies to solidify security from within.

 @8VC92MX from Virginia  answered…5yrs5Y

Lets not increase, lets redirect it.

 @8RTC76WIndependent from North Dakota  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and and regulate the contracts with the government to prevent outrageous spending on overpriced items.

 @99GFLCK from Alabama  answered…3yrs3Y

Decrease while still prioritizing employee/soldier care

 @986Q44SPeace and Freedomfrom Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

increase the funding by a little percent

 @986PGJF from Virginia  answered…4yrs4Y

I am uncertain of how well the military is doing with the current amount of spending. If the military is in excellent condition then I think there shouldn't be an increase in spending. I think having a strong military is indispensable so if there needed to be a reduction in spending, it shouldn't be reduced much.

 @984Q2TLDemocrat from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

The Government should focus less on buying more weapons and focus more on housing homeless veterans.

 @96T386TIndependent from California  answered…4yrs4Y

Increase, but only if 80% of the increase goes towards offering more incentives and care for our serving men and women. Also only increase spending if the government passes strict regulations that controls inflated prices on bills or military equipment

 @947YKQP from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

Keep it the same, but decreased inefficiencies and middlemen.

 @8VJNHKR from Oklahoma  answered…5yrs5Y

what ever is the right choise

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