Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:121-127|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Justification for Large Military

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 5:48:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:20:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Military spending by its nature is non-productive. The key is to figure out how to minimize the cost. The 600 billion number looks excessive, but historically is actually a small cost in comparison to GDP. Globally, the costs are even smaller.

600 billion doesn't look near as excessive as the 700 billion we spent in 2012.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 5:56:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:20:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Military spending by its nature is non-productive. The key is to figure out how to minimize the cost. The 600 billion number looks excessive, but historically is actually a small cost in comparison to GDP. Globally, the costs are even smaller.


We don't measure it as a percentage of GDP, but of revenue. Considering the federal government doesn't collect $16 trillion in revenue, the GDP doesn't actually matter as far as that goes.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:09:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 5:56:34 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:20:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Military spending by its nature is non-productive. The key is to figure out how to minimize the cost. The 600 billion number looks excessive, but historically is actually a small cost in comparison to GDP. Globally, the costs are even smaller.


We don't measure it as a percentage of GDP, but of revenue. Considering the federal government doesn't collect $16 trillion in revenue, the GDP doesn't actually matter as far as that goes.

Most governments that aren't communist (Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia aren't even in the top 50 for military spending) also only gain gov't revenue, and do not posses the whole GDP. (This includes China, China does not collect 100% citizen revenue). So your point is void, we are on level playing field with all but four nations, four insignificant nations (excluding Vietnam, Vietnam is somewhat important)
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:11:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:09:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 5:56:34 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:20:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Military spending by its nature is non-productive. The key is to figure out how to minimize the cost. The 600 billion number looks excessive, but historically is actually a small cost in comparison to GDP. Globally, the costs are even smaller.


We don't measure it as a percentage of GDP, but of revenue. Considering the federal government doesn't collect $16 trillion in revenue, the GDP doesn't actually matter as far as that goes.

Most governments that aren't communist (Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia aren't even in the top 50 for military spending) also only gain gov't revenue, and do not posses the whole GDP. (This includes China, China does not collect 100% citizen revenue). So your point is void, we are on level playing field with all but four nations, four insignificant nations (excluding Vietnam, Vietnam is somewhat important)

How is my point void? You just said everything that I said. O_o
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:17:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:11:02 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:09:01 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 5:56:34 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:20:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Military spending by its nature is non-productive. The key is to figure out how to minimize the cost. The 600 billion number looks excessive, but historically is actually a small cost in comparison to GDP. Globally, the costs are even smaller.


We don't measure it as a percentage of GDP, but of revenue. Considering the federal government doesn't collect $16 trillion in revenue, the GDP doesn't actually matter as far as that goes.

Most governments that aren't communist (Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia aren't even in the top 50 for military spending) also only gain gov't revenue, and do not posses the whole GDP. (This includes China, China does not collect 100% citizen revenue). So your point is void, we are on level playing field with all but four nations, four insignificant nations (excluding Vietnam, Vietnam is somewhat important)

How is my point void? You just said everything that I said. O_o

lol, I am proving that the percentage of GDP is a relevant measurement in all but four nations, you said it was not a good way to measure military spending, I argued that it was. :P
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:20:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 5:46:15 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:17:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:28:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:26:45 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:33:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% Per Year.

Give me a couple days...maybe send me a reminder. I have a lot of debates pending at the moment.

That's absurd, I'm not advocating exponential decay in military spending.

Guess I'm forced to make that explicit, the resolution should be within the realm of discussion.

That was not my intent. How about this:

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% in FY 2013

Works for me.

Go ahead and start it up, since you'll be arguing PRO. I may wait a couple days before accepting so that other debates I have going on can complete. Cheers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:22:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 5:56:34 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/28/2013 4:20:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Military spending by its nature is non-productive. The key is to figure out how to minimize the cost. The 600 billion number looks excessive, but historically is actually a small cost in comparison to GDP. Globally, the costs are even smaller.


We don't measure it as a percentage of GDP, but of revenue. Considering the federal government doesn't collect $16 trillion in revenue, the GDP doesn't actually matter as far as that goes.

I have a libertarian mindset. I think the government should be involved in as little as possible. To me, the military budget should be close to 100% of federal spending, as I wouldn't want the government to be involved in much else. Regardless, I'd still want it to be as small a chunk of GDP as feasible.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.