Is the marginal benefit of spending an extra 50 billion dollars

>>116923278
In the current global environment defense spending should be increased. We should also find a way to make mexico pay for it

Short answer is no. slightly longer answer is absolutely not, there's no way the taxpayer benefits beyond country sovereignty and personal safety, and there's no reason to think that we are any more safe because of this.

>>116923950
We need to update our nuclear deterrent , both Russia and China are in the process of upgrading theirs

Yes.

Go for it America, burn the world. Cleanse it all. Do it, please.

PLEASE.

>>116924173

Yeah because we really need to upgrade our stockpile of shit that can still end the world twice over.

>>116923278

Is 50 billion even that much considering how fucking big and rich America is?

What's that in percentage?

>>116923680

Is that worth > $200 for each taxpayer? Would you pay that out of pocket right now?

>>116924298
The UK has allotments in the defense budget, we are also hooking you up with a Aircraft carrier and 2 Missile cruisers. New, not used

>>116924416
Yes, and yes

>>116923278
Ideally you should only keep a minimum manning of leaders and technical experts and conscript lower enlisted for a single war that lasts less than five years.

but the constant wars of today doesn't allow for that, and it sets you up to get buttfucked by a country who has a large standing military.

>>116924535
How? What is the tangible benefit to you in exchange for that money? What makes you safer from 520 billion to 570 billion?

>>116924322

Nobody likes stale bombs and bullets. Unless they're selling them as surplus on the civilian market. In which case gimmegimmegimme.

>>116924810
Like asking if upgrading from a .22 LR to a .223 would be beneficial

>>116924996
Would that make you objectively safer? How?

>>116925196

Mo' bigger bang-bang is mo' better. It ain't rocket surgery.

>>116925538

It'll still kill the same.

>>116925538
What percentage tax increase for yourself personally would you be okay with for said bigger bang-bang? Like on your taxes today. 5% more? 15% more?

>>116924389
50 billion is nothing to America, if ww3 broke out and we hit defense spending levels proportional to ww2 we would have a military budget of around 6.5 trillion dollars

How often does our air force engage in combat - enough to warrant the 400+ billion dollars we spent on those new fighters?

>>116926065

Which is why we should use those billions towards converting to a single payer healthcare system instead of boosting ((((defense))))

>>116925800

I was just shitposting. I'd rather we had more of a militia-type deal. Everybody goes to basic training out of highschool to learn how to operate in a military unit and safely handle firearms in case of invasion. Everybody takes their service weapon home and stays vigilant. Spend money on some long-range missiles and missile defense. We keep our shit in our borders and stay out of everyone's business. I think our founders would be aghast at the MIC and all of our entangling foreign alliances.

>>116923278
We used to get brand name groceries for $100 a week and had $100 put into a mutual fund. Now we get generic brand groceries for $80 and put $120 in that mutual fund. We are still eating, but now we have more in our mutual fund.

The thing is that the benefits of defense spending in America is in R&D. If you go to any reasearch facility in the US you can find literally hundreds of patents for new technology that were originally developed for the military. Offices are tripping over themselves trying to monetize these IPs and create businesses around them. NASA is the same, where investments have resulted in a 300% return on money spent in the R&D labs. What does welfare payouts return? What does a new park in Chicago return?

Democrazy is stupid. We need a supreme ruler with kek as his crown who will oppose enemies of civilization.

File: 1485978645815.jpg (37KB, 562x600px)

37KB, 562x600px

>>116923278
Yes, it is. Despite all of it's flaws, the US still is a pillar holding the western civilization. If they lose economical or military power, another one will rise, or someone else will take over.
Honestly, I wish Brazil had so much investment in our military. Our soldiers are good, but they lack a lot of things, like decent payment and better equipment. Tho maybe this will happen when Bolsonaro becomes president in 2018.

>>116927910
Wew you had me bamboozled. It's hard when you just want an honest answer from anyone beyond the "we support our troops they need this etc." Is it just political suicide for someone to go against that?

>>116924416

ACA penalty was $350 so I think it's a good deal.