Yes, the US needs to have at least some military spending. If the US is not prepared to defend itself, it would undoubtedly be taken over by some other country, which would not work out well for the American population. Exactly how much military spending the US needs for the purpose of self-defense, is highly debatable. But it does need some.
Of course, this is a question asking for an opinion, so take my view with a grain of salt.
My view on military spending is reallocating what we spend. As to whether that will result in a net increase or decrease in the total budget is questionable, but oftentimes, the government does not allocate an appropriate amount to particular branches of the military because they are often dictated by the presence of local bases or the flashiness of certain spending.
For example, the US government spends too much money on the US Navy as a general enterprise considering that the US has not fought a naval war for decades, even though new submarines and cruisers are beautiful to look at. Additionally, the US government maintains dozens of excess bases because of the congressional districts that they sit in and how many local people are employed by the military to maintain these bases, not because they are necessary or even useful to national defense. Finally, you have situations where the Pentagon actually advised Congress not to give them money for a certain project related to tank production because they had enough money, but the project was funded anyway/
Conversely, the US government has repeatedly underspent on soldier protections, like improved armor and medical support for injured soldiers. Money should be shifted from places where it is not needed in order to protect the men and women who risk their lives for the country. How the exactly this comes down monetarily is a question for the Accountants.
depends on whom you ask. My opinion is that military and government in general should spend smarter, not more.
Military Keynesianism is the position that the government should increase military spending in order to increase economic growth.
a Keynesian would argue that the essence to solve recession lies with demand management. When an economy is experiencing a boom (inflationary gap), government should tax people, reduce spending ...etc... to soak up the demand. When an economy is experiencing a bust (recessionary gap), government should decrease tax and increase government spending (using money they gained during the boom) to increase the demand of an economy.
[If the Federal Reserve is selling bonds, banks will have lower reserves due to decreased deposits. With the decreased reserves, they will have to decrease the number and size of loans. The decrease in loans and the resulting higher interest rates discourage business (and consumer) borrowing and spending. The decreased spending in the economy should result in decreased business production and employment.]
yes
Keynesian Economics
Military Keynesianism is the position that the government should increase military spending in order to increase economic growth.
that a government should take the form of a military Dictatorshipthat a government should take the form of a military dictatorship
that a government should take the form of a military Dictatorshipthat a government should take the form of a military dictatorship
a Keynesian would argue that the essence to solve recession lies with demand management. When an economy is experiencing a boom (inflationary gap), government should tax people, reduce spending ...etc... to soak up the demand. When an economy is experiencing a bust (recessionary gap), government should decrease tax and increase government spending (using money they gained during the boom) to increase the demand of an economy.
[If the Federal Reserve is selling bonds, banks will have lower reserves due to decreased deposits. With the decreased reserves, they will have to decrease the number and size of loans. The decrease in loans and the resulting higher interest rates discourage business (and consumer) borrowing and spending. The decreased spending in the economy should result in decreased business production and employment.]
Federal law forbids the military and government employees to strike, and the military is further forbidden to form unions. Similar to police and fireman being declared essential employees and not allowed to strike, government employees and the Armed Forces are equally 'essential.'
No, we already don't have enough money, taxing us more will further weaken the economy. We should cut government spending.
People deserve to be protected from serious poverty.
yes
Keynesian Economics
A militaristic government believes in the ideology that a country should maintain a strong military force. The state should then be prepared to use this force against external threats.
military spending and consumer goods. Galbraith advocated for shifting resources towards social programs to address inequality and improve public welfare. He believed that prioritizing social services over military and consumer spending would lead to a more equitable and prosperous society.