Budget Hero: Would you cut military spending?

Hell no!

Carol, you're pretty clear on that. Would you increase spending? If so, how?

I don't want to play it in a game. Nor do I want anyone to have to play it in real life. Bring them all home that will save our money.

From what I can tell, they have put civilians in places historically military for quite some time to avoid the draft.

I echo what Carol said!

Ryan T's statement poses an equally interesting counter-statement

Its amazing what Canada would become if the USA dumped that big military spending card."

The reality of our modern world is countries like Canada enjoy a free-ride from the military protection paid for by US taxpayers. I would hope a country whose northern neighbor is Russia, would appreciate that.

Amy, that sort of sounds like you'd like to cut military spending - it would reduce costs, and actually is an option in the game.

Can you elaborate, John?

Greg wrote:

The reality of our modern world is countries like Canada enjoy a free-ride from the military protection paid for by US taxpayers. I would hope a country whose northern neighbor is Russia, would appreciate that.

How do you think it would affect the global economy, then?

I certainly would cut military spending, having seen some of the enormous waste we currently have. That said, there would be targeted increases where it seems necessary, and this is the point I'd like to make.

I believe that the way we think about many problems is too simplistic. For example, given the existing deficit's negative impact, why does increasing taxes this year to reduce the deficit not allow us to decrease it in the coming decade? Or why is it not possible to delay the investment in the next generation of stealth technology, instead of only having as an option the typical "leftist anti-military" versus the rightist "kill those heathen terrorists"?

It is too easy for politicians to continue to resort to a black and white division on issues as seen in Budget Hero. To turn the development of policy into a political debate, rather than a method of solving problems is itself a problem that leads to delayed action at best and often unwise action. To set in stone cost estimates limit options- are there magic numbers behind the various tax cuts and increases? Due to our extremely partisan environment, I was continually wondering about hidden agendas behind the numbers and and text provided. I would be far more at ease if the statements in each "card" were endorsed by named politicians and parties as being in line with their views- something that is sorely lacking in televised discourse.

Budget Hero seems like a terrific mechanism to promote civic participation, but it has to lose the rigidity that agenda-influenced political think tanks promote. In a Web 2.0 world, I expect better.

It looks like there's a lot of room to cut the military without losing capabilities. I mean how many aircraft carriers, fighter planes, and nuclear bombs are needed? Are we preparing for another battle of midway? I think we can spend on the military as needed, rather than going overboard and thus paying through the nose for stuff that will never see combat and will be obsolete in no time at all. We could continue technological research while trimming things elsewhere. The money saved would save many more lives being spent elsewhere.


Michael K., I'm not sure what you mean by there being a partisan division in Budget Hero. The pros and cons listed for each issue briefly show both sides of the argument, but generally they didn't seem to come off as partisan, especially since both viewpoints were side by side and didn't include name-calling. I did disagree with some of the claims in the arguments, but those still were the arguments used to defend/support those issues. But I felt most of the pros and cons were true, and I just had to weigh the merits.

The issue choices weren't extreme either. Actually, the game assumes the bulk of current spending and tax policies will stay in play, and only lets you change things on the fringes. You can cut back military spending or increase it, but not eliminate it. You can reduce SS benefits and push the retirement age higher, or do the opposite, but can't completely dismantle it. You can raise or lower capital gains, or adjust tax burden distribution or taxes overall, but can't go extreme. You example of delaying stealth technology isn't really a middle of the road option. It won't really affect the final outcome of the game.

The game is actually republican talking points with a few democrat talking points thrown in.

The solutions are too rigid. I would love to play a real game, where you could fine tune the expenses and income.

It was interesting but disappointing. Mine would not let me cut the war costs if I slid the marker to 2009 to start then instead of starting in 2018.

I hope this game is not taken seriously by anyone cutting the budget.

The slider is just for viewing the effects of the changes in the budget over time. All the policy choices are present day. You can cut the war budget with the immediate withdrawal option.

sounds like fun... too bad it's not for real...

theres room to cut around the edges but in the main, better tools and training means the shedding of less blood when the s*** hits the fan

What about our military getting paid to provide aid to other countries? We're spending $10B per month to "aid" Iraq - though I'm sure a significant part of our motivation to "aid" Iraq has to do with our own dependancy on oil. What if we had waited until we were asked to come to their "aid" and then charged them $10B per month?

It is truly amazing to me that people literally believe we need to continue spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined to be safe. We spend more than $700 billion on defense, while the nearest competitor, China, spends something like $60 billion. We have 11 aircraft carriers; there are only 10 others in the rest of the world. Why is this? It's not for defense. We are hanging ourselves on a cross of iron, as Ike said.

Just bring the troops back

no!!! we need to get out of IRAQ already alot of ppl are dying for a stupid cause

I think that we should'nt allow the government to give the war anymore money, because we need to get out of Iraq. Alot of soldiers are dying, and its been like this for several years. It's getting to the point where its unnecesary so the answer I have is no we should not give anymore money to the war.

(: - maria ,

i think that if the us would reduce the spending on milatary materials they would save alot of money. I dont think they should elminate the milatary but the should reduce our tax dollars and use in better places.

i would reduce some military spending if its necessary.like for instance, cut some of the military equipment that soldiers dont use.

I think that the military noes wut there doing and i noe its our right to noe wut happens to them but we dont even really noe wuts going on the only ppl that have the total right to say anything is the military b.c they noe wuts going on but hey im only posting this cause my teacher is making everyone do this for a worksheet so yea

i would not cut it because there fighting for us their protect us so y would u cut there money that a job the need more they us

How to reduce the military wastage?

Easy as pie = dissolve the Pentagon and refrain from all foreign entanglements just as our Founding Fathers demanded.