Should the U.S. government invest in defense or spend more on social programs?
606687
We spend far too much on defense (especially on foolish space programs) and social programs are in the gutter.  This is the neo-con's dream come true, the Libertarian vision, and we are seeing the consequences of such selfishness and lack of humanity; homelssness on the rise, elders who served our country in the times of real war having to choose between eating or buying their medications, drug addiction, job loss, and overall a national psychological state of mind that borders on psychosis.  People have lost all vlaues in regard to community and they say "family values" well, families do not work in a vacuum and to allow your nieghbor to starve just so you can get that one more useless peice of entertainment or other valueless items is a sign of mental illness.  \n\nWe need more funding for social services such as Medicaid.  Wake up America!
983620
Not as much as defence,should be around millions
4762
The USA - the USA provided 100% of Japan's self defense - Japan had to spend NOTHING on its own military for 50 years (and the US still provides most of it to this day), whereas the USA spends billions a year. This 'free money' gave Japan tons and tons of capital to first rebuild, and then to monopolize - the USA gave Japan a free meal ticket to rebuild after the war.
16683
I agree with bd, we help other countries more than we help our own and these people need our help. I understand your point but look at the monies our government wastes on less important issues. This one my friend is the best way I have seen in a long time to spend money, and if we don't rebuild New Orleans, what state is next? in a 100 years who knows what the earth will look like but I am all for preserving what we have and rebuilding when tragedy strikes.
257829
Until about 2020 the Social Security has a positive cash flow.  After that it has a negative one.  Remember Social Security can only invest in GOVERNMENT DEBT.  This means all agendas and all programs will be hit twice.  1st the surplus is not available. 2nd the debt must be paid alone with the interest.  The 2020 figure assumes a robust economy.  The 2nd thing is since we are living longer we take out more than we put in.\n\nAnother item that hasn't been put into the equation is energy.  The 1st World's economy runs on energy both to make us more productive & our toys consume energy.  The next major energy crisis should collide with the 2020 figure.  Either we will have to go nuclear or change the economics of Renewable Energy.\n\nFor at least solar the major cost is energy to purify & crystlize silicon, therefore, the cost of energy rising doesn't change the economic viability.  To date the solar cells don't reqire to absorb the full cost since the ones we use today comes from the trash of the electronic industry.
160536
This gets my vote for the best question ever!\n\nI oppose gov't spending on stupid liberal studies about usless topics, but I would love to see a private corporation fund that study.  The results could be fascinating.
1067407
Of course it could.  However I don't think that will ever happen.  War is too convenient.  War is a remarkable catalyst for redistribution of funds.  A select  few in the grand scheme benefit.  War does not help the starving children.  It does however help the munition mfg. and makers of war  implements. War helps lobbyist  and the organizations they lobby for.  It also helps  political enities  who are not above a little ill gotten gold.
777714
Try this website for information on the National Budget for 2000:\n\nhttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/guide02.html\n\nSpending\nThe Federal Government will spend nearly $1.8 trillion1, and have a surplus of over $117 billion in 2000, which we divided into nine large categories.\n\nThe largest Federal program is Social Security, which will provide monthly benefits to nearly 45 million retired and disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. It accounts for 22 percent of your Federal dollar (or 23 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicare, which will provide health care coverage for over almost 40 million elderly Americans and people with disabilities, consists of Part A (hospital insurance) and Part B (insurance for physician costs and other services). Since its birth in 1965, Medicare has accounted for an ever-growing share of spending. In 2000 it will comprise 11 percent of your Federal dollar (or 12 percent of all Federal spending). \n\nMedicaid, in 2000, will provide health care services to almost 34 million Americans, including the poor, people with disabilities, and senior citizens in nursing homes. Unlike Medicare, the Federal Government shares the costs of Medicaid with the States, paying between 50 and 83 percent of the total (depending on each State's requirements). Federal and State costs are growing rapidly. Medicaid accounts for six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nOther means-tested entitlements provide benefits to people and families with incomes below certain minimum levels that vary from program to program. The major means-tested entitlements are Food Stamps and food aid to Puerto Rico, Supplemental Security Income, Child Nutrition, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and veterans' pensions. This category will account for an estimated six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \n\nThe remaining mandatory spending, which mainly consists of Federal retirement and insurance programs, unemployment insurance, and payments to farmers, comprises six percent of your Federal dollar (also six percent of the budget). \nNational defense discretionary spending will total an estimated $275 billion in 2000, comprising nearly 15 percent of your Federal dollar (and 16 percent of the budget). \n\nNon-defense discretionary spending-a wide array of programs that include education, training, science, technology, housing, transportation, and foreign aid-has shrunk as a share of the budget from 23 percent in 1966 to an estimated 18 percent in 2000 (or 17 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nInterest payments, primarily the result of previous budget deficits, averaged seven percent of Federal spending in the 1960s and 1970s. But, due to the large budget deficits that began in the 1980s that share quickly doubled to 15 percent. Since the budget is now in surplus, interest payments are estimated to drop to 12 percent of the budget in 2000 (11 percent of your Federal dollar). \n\nSix percent of your Federal dollar (the budget surplus) will not be spent. The President has proposed that any surplus be reserved until a plan to save Social Security has been enacted. \n\nNational defense \nGeneral science, space, and technology  \nEnergy \nNatural resources and environment  \nAgriculture \nCommerce and housing credit  \nTransportation \nCommunity and regional development  \nEducation, training, employment, and social services   \nHealth \nMedicare \nIncome security  \nSocial security  \nVeterans benefits and services  \nAdministration of justice  \nGeneral government  \nNet interest  \nAllowances \nUndistributed offsetting receipts
445551
decline. the governemtn should spend more on  the people living in poverty before it tries to save anyone else
702698
Stop for a moment & think. \n\nIt is for sure a good idea to increase what we spend on caring for the less poor& to decrease what we spend on wars.\n\nWars a useuly fought by those that want more of something for them selfs. (Money, power etc.) with little though as to what happens to the children. Those children that survive grow up & become fighters against those that fought against them.\n\nAnd the cycle goes on again.
972847
actually, they won't cut a whole lot... unless they cut spending for the war.  their campaign was one of "create more social programs to spend the extra money that we will be taxing"
945525
When  you include everything, all our debt, the number is over 50 trillion.  " A billion here and a billion there, soon you are talking about real money."  It is all a colossal shell game perpetrated on the public.  Social Security was supposed to be a fund that contributions went in to, and benefits were to be taken from the interest.  If left alone, there would be more than enough money now to draw from.  Instead, Congress adopted another criminal  practice and started, in the sixties, dumping that money in the general fund to be spent every year on their pet projects, like Vietnam.  Today is  the same with Iraq.  I imagine they call it creative bookkeeping 101.
1134669
Damn man, you are almost right on target with me. You have to prioritize what is most important to you.  Unlike the lamo who brought up the power plant,  look at real everyday situations.  I found myself closest to Libertarian, since personal freedoms and a small central government is most important to me.  Since you balance your budget you are definitely NOT GOP or DNC.  I think you need to define in you own views what "general welfare" entails.  I believe the gov should provide a safety net far too many have become addicted and dependent on the "free" money.  Plus I dislike the fact that it costs the feds $12 to deliver $1 in welfare.  So, I rationalize MY social welfare as only non-ablebodied people can get it for more than one year at a time. If you can not get a job then you have a choice to enter the military or civil service.\n\nGood luck...and thank you for all your good posts\n\n\nThen you are right with me  or I with you
108979
Wealth should never be redistributed or built by the government for individuals within the society. Each person is responsible for themselves and those within their own family unit.\n\nSo with this in mind, the obvious answer is YES, sustaining the economy is more important than any socialist wealth building programs.
793563
No enough, and by a far margin.  If only 1/10 of what is being spend on armament would be devoted to space, NASA would be swimming in money.\nIn 2005, NASA budget was $16.2 billion (see link #1) and compare that to the spending of US army in Iraq: $3.9 billion per month in 2003 ($1 billion per month in Afghanistan -- see second link) and that was in 2003!  US military spending is over $400 billion per year, and that is to *not catch*  Bin Laden.
256081
I understand your concern.  However, I think that the space program is a relatively small expenditure in terms of the U.S. budget.  It's about expanding possibilities for the future, but I think that it would be good to give more aid to those who really need it also.
240599
One thing to keep in mind is that anytime money is spent on war it is usually in the form of debt.  Wars are paid for by borrowing money, or by raising taxes.  Neither one of these is desirable.  Eventually someone has to pay for the war.  Just because we spend the money on war does not necessarily mean that that same money would have gone to the poor or other social programs.\n\nGeneral MacArthur summed it up by saying:  "The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.”\n\nActually, the US gives more than just financial donations.  It provides military presence.  It provides the ability to trade through free trade agreements.  It provides benchmarks for other countries to follow the lead.\n\nThe US does give the highest dollar amount than any other country in the world.\n\nSee the supporting source for an in depth report on how the US aids other countries relative to the rest of the world.