[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

The military budget in the US is over one trillion dollars per year.

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to US$515.4 billion.
Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending
brings the sum to US$651.2 billion.[1] This does not include many
military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department
budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production
(about $9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget),
Veterans Affairs (about $33.2 billion), interest on debt incurred in
past wars, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely
funded through extra-budgetary supplements, about $170 billion in
2007). As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1
trillion annually on defense-related purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

This does not include homeland defense spending and the aforementioned
DOE spending on nukes. Let's see what one republican uses as a
justification for continued spending (all quotes from the above site):

Republican historian Robert Kagan has argued that 2009 is not the time
to cut defense spending, relating such spending to jobs and support
for allies: "A reduction in defense spending this year would unnerve
American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation.
There is already a sense around the world...that the United States is
in terminal decline. Many fear that the economic crisis will cause the
United States to pull back from overseas commitments. The announcement
of a defense cutback would be taken by the world as evidence that the
American retreat has begun."

Now let's look at 2pid's favorite Dem and see what he has to say:

In February 2009, Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., called for a
reduction in the defense budget: "The math is compelling: if we do not
make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget
starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an
adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush's tax
cuts for the very wealthy. I am working with a variety of thoughtful
analysts to show how we can make very substantial cuts in the military
budget without in any way diminishing the security we need...
[American] well-being is far more endangered by a proposal for
substantial reductions in Medicare, Social Security or other important
domestic areas than it would be by canceling weapons systems that have
no justification from any threat we are likely to face."

And finally let's see what Robert Gates, SECDEF, has to say:

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in January 2009 that the
U.S. should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing
nature of threats in the world: "What all these potential adversaries
-- from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers -- have in
common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the
United States directly on conventional military terms. The United
States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to
invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that
dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some
perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the
Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still
larger than the next 13 navies combined -- and 11 of those 13 navies
are U.S. allies or partners."

With all of this overwhelming evidence and the thoughtful statements
of senior leaders at the federal level, is it any wonder that 2pid has
a 'differing POV' (and fails, once again, to see or understand the
obvious)?