DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I was arguing to maintain the current military budget, and against cutting it by 50%. Nice straw man though.
APP - The death spiral has begun: The US can no longer sustain itself.
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Oh sorry, and there was me thinking that you were advocating yet another war.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
To be prepared for war reduces the chances of it.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
And those options don't exist with a military at 50%?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Not all of them. Besides, our service members don't get paid enough already.
apple0154
MEOW
No, bankruptcy was the Repub plan. That's why they spent while cutting taxes. They didn't/don't believe in government programs so their plan was to bankrupt the government so the government couldn't offer social programs. What better way to prevent a government medical plan? When there's no money, there's no money. Or so they thought.
But Obama didn't play their game. He got health care passed. Now the government has the obligation of funding it. Now, when budget time rolls around it's no longer a question of whether the government can afford a medical plan. It has to afford it.
So, the medical plan goes to the top of the "payment list". Now the government is obliged to find the money for things it is not obliged to do like...oh, I don't know....like buying the latest military equipment from their friends? Having military bases in allied countries for the last 60+ years? Paying someone to pick up garbage in a National Park while complaining there is a custodial shortage at the local hospital? Erecting a monument in the Town Square when that money could be used for medical insurance? Tax breaks for businesses?
The focus of questions have shifted. Should taxes be raised to pay for park maintenance, monuments, unnecessary military hardware, overseas bases, ........
Now, any and all non-obligation expenditures will be scrutinized. Health care is no longer an option.
Paradigm: "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them"
That is the change, the paradigm shift, if you will.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Although I agree that the Republicans spent too much I don't agree that was the agenda. I think they were just plain stupid.
apple0154
MEOW
Oh, no. They weren't stupid. They had a plan. Just like the plan to invade Iraq long before they took office.
Run out the money and then make it look like any tax increase would be the result of any implemented social policy. They figured it was a win-win situation. People would be against any tax increase so they would oppose any social policies.
Obama called their bluff. Now medical is the government's responsibility and that responsibility will continue to increase over the years and like every other country once the citizens get used to government medical coverage it's here to stay.
Obama was brave. He went ahead with it anyway.
Socrtease
Verified User
Very interesting what is and is not considered military spending. There is a good article in Slate about the FY 2009 Military budget.
What's Really in the U.S. Military Budget?
Much more than the oft-cited $515.4 billion.
http://slate.com/id/2183592/pagenum/all
It's time for our annual game: How much is really in the U.S. military budget?
As usual, it's about $200 billion more than most news stories are reporting. For the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget, which President Bush released today, the real size is not, as many news stories have reported, $515.4 billion—itself a staggering sum—but, rather, $713.1 billion.
Before deconstructing this budget, let us consider just how massive it is. Even the smaller figure of $515.4 billion—which does not include money for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—is roughly equal to the total military budgets of all the rest of the world's nations combined. It is (adjusting for inflation) larger than any U.S. military budget since World War II.
But this is simply the Pentagon's share of the military budget (again, that part of it not related to war costs). Since most reporters writing about this are Pentagon reporters, that's the part of the budget that they consider their turf.
However, the Office of Management and Budget's documents focus on a broader category called "National Defense," which also includes $16.1 billion for nuclear warheads and reactors under the Department of Energy's control and $5.2 billion for "defense-related activities" at other agencies (mainly the FBI). There is also $4.3 billion for mandated programs (most having to do with military retirement and health care for victims of radiation sickness).
So, that brings the total, so far, to $541 billion. ("National Defense," by the way, does not include programs in the Department of Homeland Security; that's another story.)
Then there is the $70 billion emergency war supplemental that the Pentagon is requesting for FY 2009. (In one sense, it is strange that they're requesting this upfront; supplementals are usually submitted in the middle of the year, to cover unanticipated expenses. In another sense, it's refreshing that Robert Gates' Pentagon—as opposed to Donald Rumsfeld's—is making no effort to disguise what will definitely be needed.)
Now we're up to $611 billion.
Finally, as the Pentagon's budget documents note up front, in the "Summary Justification," Congress has yet to approve $102 billion left over from the supplemental for FY 2008. And so—in terms of how much Congress is being asked to authorize this year—that brings us to $713 billion.
But let's delve into the Pentagon's base line figure—the $515.4 billion that has nothing directly to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's in there? Do the U.S. armed forces really need that much for the everyday maintenance of national security?
About a quarter of that sum—$125.2 billion—is for personnel costs: understandable. Another third—$180 billion—is for operations and maintenance of equipment (a bit more mysterious, since this is apart from the O&M costs brought on by the war). But a larger sum still—$184 billion—is for what the Pentagon calls "major weapons systems."
This includes $45.6 billion for military aircraft, including $6.7 billion to buy 16 more F-35 stealth planes. The F-35 is still in its early stages; the Pentagon has, to date, spent only about one-tenth of what it estimates to be a $300 billion program. It's not too late to ask if we need such a costly, sophisticated fighter jet, given that air-to-air combat is not likely to be a major element of future wars and, to the extent that it might be, we're way ahead—in numbers and technology—of any prospective foe. Or let's accept the proposition that China's air force is going to be a formidable rival by the year 2020: Do we need to tear full-speed ahead on the F-35 now? Could we slow the program down and see how things shape up?
The budget also allots $16.9 billion for Navy shipbuilding, including $4.2 billion for a new aircraft carrier, $3.2 billion for a new DDG-1000 destroyer, and $3.6 billion for a new Virginia-class submarine. (The Navy is also pushing up, from 2012 to 2011, the year when it starts to build two of these subs annually, instead of one.) Again, where's the imminent danger, what's the rush?
There is another $12.8 billion for missile defense, despite the numerous foibles that still plague that program (along with the occasional, but not so significant, successful test).
And there is $3.6 billion for continued research and development into the Army's trouble-ridden Future Combat Systems program. (According to the Pentagon's budget documents, the estimated "initial deployment" for this system has now slipped to 2015, and its projected cost has risen to $160 billion—second only to the F-35 in the list of most expensive programs. Only about $20 billion has been spent so far; it's not too late to bite the bullet.)
What efficiencies is the Pentagon taking to accommodate these technological risks? The "Overview" section of the Pentagon's budget document contains a section called "Program Terminations." It reads, in its entirety: "The FY 2009 budget does not propose any major program terminations."
Is it remotely conceivable that the Defense Department is the one federal bureaucracy that has not designed, developed, or produced a single expendable program? The question answers itself.
There is another way to probe this question. Look at the budget share distributed to each of the three branches of the armed services. The Army gets 33 percent, the Air Force gets 33 percent, and the Navy gets 34 percent.
As I have noted before (and, I'm sure, will again), the budget has been divvied up this way, plus or minus 2 percent, each and every year since the 1960s. Is it remotely conceivable that our national-security needs coincide so precisely—and so consistently over the span of nearly a half-century—with the bureaucratic imperatives of giving the Army, Air Force, and Navy an even share of the money? Again, the question answers itself. As the Army's budget goes up to meet the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force's and Navy's budgets have to go up by roughly the same share, as well. It would be a miracle if this didn't sire a lot of waste and extravagance.
Congress exposes this budget to virtually no scrutiny, fearing that any major cuts—any serious questions—will incite charges of being "soft on terror" and "soft on defense." But $536 billion of this budget—the Pentagon's base line plus the discretionary items for the Department of Energy and other agencies—has nothing to do with the war on terror. And it's safe to assume that a fair amount has little to do with defense. How much it does and doesn't is a matter of debate. Right now, nobody's even debating.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently that, quite apart from the wars, the nation should get used to spending 4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. This isn't an unreasonable sum in terms of what the nation can afford. But the same could be said of many other functions of government. It has very little to do with what the nation needs. The $515.4 billion in the base line Defense Department budget amounts to 3.4 percent of GNP. Is that not enough? Should we throw in another $85 billion to boost it to 4 percent? The relevant question, in any case, should be not how much we spend, but what we buy.
What's Really in the U.S. Military Budget?
Much more than the oft-cited $515.4 billion.
http://slate.com/id/2183592/pagenum/all
It's time for our annual game: How much is really in the U.S. military budget?
As usual, it's about $200 billion more than most news stories are reporting. For the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget, which President Bush released today, the real size is not, as many news stories have reported, $515.4 billion—itself a staggering sum—but, rather, $713.1 billion.
Before deconstructing this budget, let us consider just how massive it is. Even the smaller figure of $515.4 billion—which does not include money for fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—is roughly equal to the total military budgets of all the rest of the world's nations combined. It is (adjusting for inflation) larger than any U.S. military budget since World War II.
But this is simply the Pentagon's share of the military budget (again, that part of it not related to war costs). Since most reporters writing about this are Pentagon reporters, that's the part of the budget that they consider their turf.
However, the Office of Management and Budget's documents focus on a broader category called "National Defense," which also includes $16.1 billion for nuclear warheads and reactors under the Department of Energy's control and $5.2 billion for "defense-related activities" at other agencies (mainly the FBI). There is also $4.3 billion for mandated programs (most having to do with military retirement and health care for victims of radiation sickness).
So, that brings the total, so far, to $541 billion. ("National Defense," by the way, does not include programs in the Department of Homeland Security; that's another story.)
Then there is the $70 billion emergency war supplemental that the Pentagon is requesting for FY 2009. (In one sense, it is strange that they're requesting this upfront; supplementals are usually submitted in the middle of the year, to cover unanticipated expenses. In another sense, it's refreshing that Robert Gates' Pentagon—as opposed to Donald Rumsfeld's—is making no effort to disguise what will definitely be needed.)
Now we're up to $611 billion.
Finally, as the Pentagon's budget documents note up front, in the "Summary Justification," Congress has yet to approve $102 billion left over from the supplemental for FY 2008. And so—in terms of how much Congress is being asked to authorize this year—that brings us to $713 billion.
But let's delve into the Pentagon's base line figure—the $515.4 billion that has nothing directly to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's in there? Do the U.S. armed forces really need that much for the everyday maintenance of national security?
About a quarter of that sum—$125.2 billion—is for personnel costs: understandable. Another third—$180 billion—is for operations and maintenance of equipment (a bit more mysterious, since this is apart from the O&M costs brought on by the war). But a larger sum still—$184 billion—is for what the Pentagon calls "major weapons systems."
This includes $45.6 billion for military aircraft, including $6.7 billion to buy 16 more F-35 stealth planes. The F-35 is still in its early stages; the Pentagon has, to date, spent only about one-tenth of what it estimates to be a $300 billion program. It's not too late to ask if we need such a costly, sophisticated fighter jet, given that air-to-air combat is not likely to be a major element of future wars and, to the extent that it might be, we're way ahead—in numbers and technology—of any prospective foe. Or let's accept the proposition that China's air force is going to be a formidable rival by the year 2020: Do we need to tear full-speed ahead on the F-35 now? Could we slow the program down and see how things shape up?
The budget also allots $16.9 billion for Navy shipbuilding, including $4.2 billion for a new aircraft carrier, $3.2 billion for a new DDG-1000 destroyer, and $3.6 billion for a new Virginia-class submarine. (The Navy is also pushing up, from 2012 to 2011, the year when it starts to build two of these subs annually, instead of one.) Again, where's the imminent danger, what's the rush?
There is another $12.8 billion for missile defense, despite the numerous foibles that still plague that program (along with the occasional, but not so significant, successful test).
And there is $3.6 billion for continued research and development into the Army's trouble-ridden Future Combat Systems program. (According to the Pentagon's budget documents, the estimated "initial deployment" for this system has now slipped to 2015, and its projected cost has risen to $160 billion—second only to the F-35 in the list of most expensive programs. Only about $20 billion has been spent so far; it's not too late to bite the bullet.)
What efficiencies is the Pentagon taking to accommodate these technological risks? The "Overview" section of the Pentagon's budget document contains a section called "Program Terminations." It reads, in its entirety: "The FY 2009 budget does not propose any major program terminations."
Is it remotely conceivable that the Defense Department is the one federal bureaucracy that has not designed, developed, or produced a single expendable program? The question answers itself.
There is another way to probe this question. Look at the budget share distributed to each of the three branches of the armed services. The Army gets 33 percent, the Air Force gets 33 percent, and the Navy gets 34 percent.
As I have noted before (and, I'm sure, will again), the budget has been divvied up this way, plus or minus 2 percent, each and every year since the 1960s. Is it remotely conceivable that our national-security needs coincide so precisely—and so consistently over the span of nearly a half-century—with the bureaucratic imperatives of giving the Army, Air Force, and Navy an even share of the money? Again, the question answers itself. As the Army's budget goes up to meet the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force's and Navy's budgets have to go up by roughly the same share, as well. It would be a miracle if this didn't sire a lot of waste and extravagance.
Congress exposes this budget to virtually no scrutiny, fearing that any major cuts—any serious questions—will incite charges of being "soft on terror" and "soft on defense." But $536 billion of this budget—the Pentagon's base line plus the discretionary items for the Department of Energy and other agencies—has nothing to do with the war on terror. And it's safe to assume that a fair amount has little to do with defense. How much it does and doesn't is a matter of debate. Right now, nobody's even debating.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said recently that, quite apart from the wars, the nation should get used to spending 4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. This isn't an unreasonable sum in terms of what the nation can afford. But the same could be said of many other functions of government. It has very little to do with what the nation needs. The $515.4 billion in the base line Defense Department budget amounts to 3.4 percent of GNP. Is that not enough? Should we throw in another $85 billion to boost it to 4 percent? The relevant question, in any case, should be not how much we spend, but what we buy.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
I just got one question...
Why do you hate America?
Because every single penny that is spent in "defense" of this country is necessary!
Every. Single. PENNY.
How else can we guarantee that the suits that run all those defense contractors will be able to afford a third summer house...uuuhhh...ummmm...I mean guarantee that the people of this nation are safe if we don't simply rubber stamp every single request for financing that comes across the president's desk?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Obama is a radical socialist and Obamacare will be found to be unconstitutional and thrown out. America is on the verge of bankruptcy and we are about to enter in a period of inflation that will make the Carter years look tame. The American people aren't stupid, and in November we'll see a lame-duck Democrat congress desperately try to pass still more socialist legislation before they get replaced by Republicans who kicked their asses in the elections. Obama will be a one-term President, and history will see him as a failure.
apple0154
MEOW
Have you considered writing for a sci-fi magazine?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No. Are you considering historical fiction?
The government is not obligated to fund anything. Congress usually does though. I think if the Republicans get control of the House, they can defund the health care control bill and tell Obama Zombies to go pound sand. I hope so anyway.
apple0154
MEOW
One can always hope.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Yes, all the options still exist. And you're half right. Officers get more money then they deserve, enlisted don't.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Not in one year. We really don't need to pay it all off and uber-fast; if we could keep a balanced budget the debt would eventually become minuscule in comparison to our economy.
Only if we grew in the double digits for about 70 years would we be able to make it "minuscule", did you read the article that Annie posted?
We have, for the past 60 years, never paid even one dime towards any of our debt. Zero, nada, not one iota. We pay the interest and borrow more each and every year.