I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting. We can afford to cut defense spending. Look at the F-35 Lightning II--The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever. The United States Air Force (USAF) budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projects the F-35 to have a flyaway cost from US$89 million to US$200 million over the planned production of F-35s.<13><14><15><16> Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each. The rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on "probation" for two years because of development issues. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.<17><18>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_IIIt's plainly obvious that we can win wars with the aircraft we have now. So why, when we're in such dire straits economically would the Pentagon be allowed to continue on with this? I'm sure there are other areas in the defense budget that can be cut out too. Why is this less important than getting rid of the EPA or cutting out financial aid for low income families that can't afford to heat their homes in the winter.
Finally, Libya, thus far is not a "war" we are involved in. We are already out of Libya. Let's talk about our Empire building instead. We still have 50k soldiers in Germany (did we not already beat Hitler?), we have troops stationed in Korea (who never left after the Korean war). Why do we need these bases there? Why can't we instead negotiate terms with these countries, that if need be, we share their bases? We don't need the number of troops we have in Germany and Korea...