[Jblx2]

>Defense LAPS every other budget category.

I suppose it matters how you lump things, but for federal spending:

  - $678 B, Social Security
  - $478 B, Medicare
  - $425 B, Net Interest
  - $419 B, Health
  - $412 B, National Defense
  - $320 B, Income Security
  - $184 B, Veterans Benefits and Services
  - $75 B, Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
  - $53 B, Transportation
  - $43 B, Administration of Justice
  - $15 B, Other

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Note there would be no veterans benefits and services without a military, so effectively the total for defense is 412 PLUS 184 = $596B, more than anything except SS.

Also note that most people consider social security to be an entirely different kind of government spending than anything else in that list.

[pembrook]

No, if the US had no military the majority of veterans benefits and services money would still need to be spent (its mostly healthcare) it would just be bucketed under SS and Medicare/Medicaid then.

Also, without a military the US would not be even 1/3rd as wealthy as it is today, given its military created the global order that secured the last 80 years of the global economic system, shipping lanes and USD dominance. You can argue over specific wars/missions being dumb, but to pretend the overall ROI on that dominance enabling 80 years of relatively peaceful global trade hasn’t been positive is to be intellectually dishonest.

The world is currently teetering on a global economic crisis over just ONE shipping lane not being fully open for a few weeks. Read more history and you’ll see this used to be the norm.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I avoided commenting on the ROI associated with defense spending, deliberately.

Veterans get SS too, so no, costs associated with veterans wouldn't shift to SS. It is fair to suggest that the health care costs of uninjured, untraumatized veterans would just show up under Medicaid/Medicare. I don't know what percentage of veterans health care costs (not health care visits) fit in that category, versus "stuff that wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't been in the military".

[JKCalhoun]

Not all of those are discretionary spending? Maybe not equivalent to include, for example, Social Security.

[shimman]

It is relevant if you want to attack one of the greatest achievements of the new deal and hate working Americans.

[MichaelDickens]

People can have motivations for wanting to cut back Social Security other than "they hate working Americans". I would prefer commenters make more of an effort to understand their opponents' perspective rather than painting them in the worst light possible.

[fwip]

I think the common miscommunication here is that defense is the largest part of the US discretionary budget (about half overall), but that doesn't include those non-negotiable things like Social Security, Medicare, etc .

[actionfromafar]

Trump doesn't want to do Medicare etc anymore. The states can do that now.

[anon84873628]

"Please note: Values displayed are outlays, which is money that is actually paid out by the government. Other sources, such as USAspending, may display spending as obligations, which is money that is promised to be paid, but may not yet be delivered."

The Biden administration's FY2025 defense budget request was $850 billion for the DoD, with the total national security budget reaching over $895 billion. The FY2026 proposal submitted by the Trump admin is 1.5 trillion for DoD.