Anonymous #2 2w

Eh I’m not sure about that. Look at the wealth distribution and real take home income over the last few decades. The wealthy are not spreading their profits very far

5

Anonymous #1 2w

There are enough houses for everyone if you count the abandoned run down shacks in the middle of nowhere

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Lmao maybe but I don’t think we should count those

10

Anonymous #1 2w

real median household income has increased by about 20k since the 90’s

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Sure, I’m just saying that that growth is slowing as the top 1% get even richer. There is more than enough surplus wealth to quickly solve these issues if we had more common sense tax codes for the wealthiest among us. I’d rather that than wait another 30 years for it to trickle down so I’ll be able to afford a house or visit to the doctor when I’m in my 50’s

1

Anonymous #4 2w

The issue is that the whole thing is too large, regardless of the itemization. Unfortunately it’s hard to realistically downsize because we’ve relied on military might for so long. In a world that we’ve so thoroughly destabilized and alienated we may not survive if we gave up our military dominance.

4

Anonymous #1 2w

there are tens of millions of empty homes owned by banks and foreign investors. there were fewer than 1m homeless in 2024 - a record high. there are enough even without the dilapidated homes and shacks

9

Anonymous #1 2w

If you could how would you reduce military spending, assuming all else equal?

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Just start with the most obviously wasteful stuff. Reduce funding for the propaganda campaigns, reduce flight hours of military aircraft to essential operations and training (why are we paying billions of dollars for b2’s to fly over football games?). Get corruption and incompetence under control so that we can build the ships we pay for instead of letting them get cost overrun than scrapped when they don’t work (littoral class ships, trump class…etc)

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

Then*

1

Anonymous #1 2w

And obvious ones like not starting wars for Israel

1

Anonymous #1 2w

These are good suggestions but they wouldn’t make much of a dent. Aircraft are already required to fly routine training hours, with flyovers folded into these hours. So the cost is negligible if the planes already have to be out there for training. Advertisements and the like don’t compose a significant portion of the budget either. Regarding cost overruns, they’re a real issue but large project costs are spread out over years, with each year only taking in a portion of the overall cost.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

The major money saver would be less foreign involvement in wars and such. But a lot of those costs are already baked into the baseline budget, so a new war represents less extra spending than is intuitive. It’s also really situationally dependent and wouldn’t represent a reliable way to save money. At best we’re saving 50ish billion but that’s pretty small in comparison to the ~trillion budget. If we want to cut costs we would reduce personnel size, reserves, pay, and benefits.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Although I suspect nobody would go for a bill that wants to reduce the pay and benefits of the armed forces.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

These problems improve for some, but so long as the current system remains in place, its problems will also remain. For example, homelessness is a tacit threat against the working class. In order for this system to function, not everyone can be employed; there must be a set of desperate people willing to do work for less in case the currently employed workers start demanding what they’re owed as human beings—things like fairer wages, healthcare, etc.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

In all militaries, most of the budget is allocated to logistics; this is the nature of things. However, there is no reason why we need a military budget larger than the next 9-10 nations combined (aside from the imperialist pursuits of this nation)

1

Anonymous OP 2w

its good to be the military hegemon of the world

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

The budget is large because we pay our soldiers well and field large numbers of active duty personnel and reserve groups like the national guard. Do you want us to pay our soldiers less and give them fewer benefits? Do you want us to turn away more people who want to join the military for a career? Or should we lower the support we give to our many friends overseas, placing them and ourselves under greater threat for a cheaper bottom line?

0

Anonymous #4 2w

"large" is misleading. it's bloated thanks to contractors; not efficient spending on soldiers, equipment or partnerships

1

Anonymous #4 2w

"we have a screw. it's the ultra mega super tactical screw-10u8-alpha. it cost $0.3 to make. that'll cost $80"

1

Anonymous #5 2w

I am solely referencing active duty personnel. Military contractors are not included. If you’re considering contractors in your analysis I’d suggest you re-analyze.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

Costs like these (assuming you mean weapons development because frankly that screw could go anywhere) are still less than half of the total us budget. A majority of FY2024 spending fell into the Operations and Maintenance, military personnel, and Housing/family bracket according to the 2024 defense budget overview.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/profits-war-top-beneficiaries-pentagon-spending-2020-2024 (for the 1st 3 images)

1

Anonymous #5 2w

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/contractors-percentage-dod-spending/ (for the last image)

1

Anonymous #5 2w

While the initial post only vaguely describes military budget I have taken it to mean fiscal year DoD allocations. This is what I have been addressing in my claims. This report details amounts over multiple FYs and is thus not fully relevant to what we have been discussing. I’d suggest a more targeted piece specifically criticizing spending over one year (I used a report fr FY2024 if that helps)

1

Anonymous #5 2w

Veterans Affairs does not fall under the DoD budget, as the US Department of Veterans Affairs is a separate organization with its own budget. Please try to stay on topic.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

I want to make a clarification: in an earlier post where I discuss military pay I am referring to active duty service members and reserves (2.1mil). I wasn’t considering contractors, although they would fall under the O&M category (but I assume based on your posts you mainly mean RDT&E contractors). If this is the case, the contractors you referenced still make up a smaller portion of FY spending than O&M and personnel costs.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

the problem is not that it's not more it's that it is incredibly wasteful

1