Cut to SS, but plenty of money for more troops deployed to *Australia*?

Seriously, why are we deploying more troops to Australia, especially on a permanent basis? It's not like Australia is defenseless, they have a defense force of nearly sixty thousand full time, active duty troops, plus over forty thousand active reserves. Not to mention they are technically sophisticated and are the largest force in Oceania.

So why the hell are we wasting money staging troops in Australia? A sad, sad sign of our priorities when we're expanding our military presence abroad needlessly, but our leaders are more than willing to cut programs that save lives at home, programs such as SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

Frankly, it is bases like this one that need to be cut first. We have dozens of needless military bases around the world, relics of WWII and the Cold War. We need to be closing them up and bringing the troops home instead of opening new ones. We can no longer afford to have these bases, nor can we afford to be the world's cop. We currently have permanent military bases in sixty three countries, and a military presence in over one hundred and fifty countries. Seriously, do we need bases in Japan, Iceland, Great Britain, Finland and on, and on, and on?

We cannot afford to have this global military presence, we simply can't. Struggling under a massive load of debt, with the largest military budget in the world, and looking to cut programs that help the poor and needy, we simply cannot afford our military. If we continue to go down this path, that self-same military will kill us. Which does more good for our country, keeping the heat on for our poor and elderly in the winter or putting 2,500 troops on permanent duty in Australia?

We have got to stop this insanity, now. The only cuts that we should be making is to our bloated military, and it needs to be cut in half, at minimum. Anything else is a travesty of leadership and social justice.

but the military is the largest employer of Black and Hispanic youth here in central Texas near Ft. Hood. What you propose is to re-build our ability to have work for them outside of the military. GOP won't allow that unless we make a bigger and more focused protest about the unfairness and meanness inherent our lives thanks to the 1%.

are dependent on military spending.
Who says Government doesn't create jobs?

trust-funded and showing a multi-trillion dollar surplus. It is supposedly separate from the general fund.

At least that's the deluge of responses I get whenever I claim I'll never see a dime of SS. So either the OP is misleading or all those who claim SS is OK are misleading me.

That SS is actually solvent, but the rich and powerful want to raid it anyway, like an addict going for that last serious hit.

Australia spends 1.9%. They should protect themselves.

Other fun spending facts:

Canada - 1.5%
South Korea - 2.9%
Japan - 1.0%
Germany - 1.4%
Ireland - 0.6%
France - 2.2%
UK - 2.7%
Italy - 1.8%

Ain't no one in DC listening to you.

He's putting pressure on China with this, though that seems like a game of chicken considering they own us financially.

It's a signal to China...

I don't see any of this going well. *sigh*

nt

...as a percentage of GDP, not even in absolute terms, would more than cover the amount the supercommittee is tasked with raising/cutting.

SS and Medicare cuts"

just an expansion...not sure why this is even news..

Seriously, why are we stationing troops in the front yard of an ally? Especially when we simply can't afford it.

They can be here, or they can be there. There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

US military build-up did not end with the cold war. It is disgusting what the US spends money on, and the US is unflinched about tossing its citizens to the curb all for the sake of world domination by military force.