horseshoe3
24th January 2012, 02:21 PM
I had a discussion with a coworker about who we like in the republican field. He regurgitated the Hannity/Limbaugh/Levine line that RP is good on taxes and spending, but his foreign policy would leave us vulnerable.
I gathered some data and emailed him a response. The email is below. I thought I might include it here in case anyone wants to use it for combatting neocon propaganda against RP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Comparison to the rest of the world:
The US currently spends more money on military as the next 20 countries combined. We spend 6 times as much as 2nd place China.
Under Paul’s plan, US military spending would be cut by 25% to 515,329,000,000. This is still more than 4-1/2 times China’s military budget and more than #2 through #10.
Is this what you consider an unreasonably low military budget?
Allies vs. Enemies:
Significant Allies:
USA
France
UK
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Canada
Australia
Israel (we must defend Israel at all costs. It is the only legitimate purpose for the US military.)
Taiwan
Total military budget: 989,851,000,000
Significant (potential) Enemies:
China
Russia
Saudi Arabia (probably not, but they are Muslims, so we may need to kill them at some point.)
UAE (see note on Saudi Arabia.)
Colombia (They grow drugs.)
Iran
Iraq (Technically an ally, but, well… you know…)
Venezuela (They might not want to sell us their oil, and that would be an act of war. Never mind that their military budget is less than .5% of ours.)
Syria
Afghanistan
Total military budget: 252,042,000,000
So, our allies outspend our enemies almost 4 to 1. And, as you can see, I’ve included some pretty unrealistic enemies.
After Paul’s plan, it would be 818,075,000,000 to 252,042,000,000. Or more than 3 to 1. Would this leave us unable to protect our allies from our enemies?
Summary:
I can understand how the neocon rhetoric would lead you to believe that Paul’s cuts would be drastic and leave us vulnerable. However, once you actually run the numbers, you can easily see how much we spend on the military, and that even a large cut would still leave us as the unchallenged military power of the world.
I gathered some data and emailed him a response. The email is below. I thought I might include it here in case anyone wants to use it for combatting neocon propaganda against RP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Comparison to the rest of the world:
The US currently spends more money on military as the next 20 countries combined. We spend 6 times as much as 2nd place China.
Under Paul’s plan, US military spending would be cut by 25% to 515,329,000,000. This is still more than 4-1/2 times China’s military budget and more than #2 through #10.
Is this what you consider an unreasonably low military budget?
Allies vs. Enemies:
Significant Allies:
USA
France
UK
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Canada
Australia
Israel (we must defend Israel at all costs. It is the only legitimate purpose for the US military.)
Taiwan
Total military budget: 989,851,000,000
Significant (potential) Enemies:
China
Russia
Saudi Arabia (probably not, but they are Muslims, so we may need to kill them at some point.)
UAE (see note on Saudi Arabia.)
Colombia (They grow drugs.)
Iran
Iraq (Technically an ally, but, well… you know…)
Venezuela (They might not want to sell us their oil, and that would be an act of war. Never mind that their military budget is less than .5% of ours.)
Syria
Afghanistan
Total military budget: 252,042,000,000
So, our allies outspend our enemies almost 4 to 1. And, as you can see, I’ve included some pretty unrealistic enemies.
After Paul’s plan, it would be 818,075,000,000 to 252,042,000,000. Or more than 3 to 1. Would this leave us unable to protect our allies from our enemies?
Summary:
I can understand how the neocon rhetoric would lead you to believe that Paul’s cuts would be drastic and leave us vulnerable. However, once you actually run the numbers, you can easily see how much we spend on the military, and that even a large cut would still leave us as the unchallenged military power of the world.