General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWar is 60% of our budget. That's the ONLY place cuts need to come from.
The wars have ended, lets get that money back before we starve the elderly.
Cutting Social Security makes no sense, since SOCIAL SECURITY DOES NOT ADD ONE NICKEL TO THE DEFICIT.
On Edit: I feel compelled to keep posting this stuff, since the arguments seem to have gotten down into the the weeds with that Fiscal Bluff/chained CPI nonsense.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If only the House of Representatives did.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)...are part of that picture
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)of securing America. From the soldiers in the field to the cop on the beat and all their weapons, legal, court and incarceration cost. America what are we afraid of? Ourselves?
AAO
(3,300 posts)And as FDR so presciently pointed out, we especially fear fear!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)As if the official numbers weren't obscene enough, additional splurging on war has been purposely concealed all over the budget for decades now.
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)NASA does some military work, and some of that is covered by the NASA budget.
Unless things have changed, the Department of Energy does a lot of the maintenance (and development?) for nuclear weapons, and that's in the DoE budget.
The Department of Agriculture does some military-related research.
I'm sure there's more of it scattered throughout the civilian side of the government and not counted as military dollars.
uponit7771
(90,339 posts)reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)and it works both ways. DARPA funded the advanced prosthetic program because military personnel are uniquely subject to loss of limbs. This program, which principally serves wounded war fighters, will make a big difference to many civilians, both here and all over the world.
I work with NASA. Aside from the fact that almost all technology is dual use, what NASA programs are specifically military-related?
DavidDvorkin
(19,479 posts)It was all quite open, then.
In those days, some Air Force satellite launches were covered by the NASA budget. We had a lot of AF people working in our offices. Their salaries were paid by the AF, but they were being trained by NASA and acquiring needed skills for what was planned to be a manned AF space program. The original Shuttle program included a few (3?) extra shuttles that would be handed to the AF -- the "Blue Shuttle". Lots of official details here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4102/ch8.htm
The "Blue Shuttle" part no longer applies, of course. I'd like to think that the division is now fairly strict, but I have my doubts. I do read references, even now, to military work being done under the NASA budget.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)...he wasn't talking about the "moral high ground". Anything done in space that has an advanced engineering component, even pure science missions, has military benefit.
Personally, I don't think there is any attempt to "hide" military spending in civil programs, if for no other reason than it is unnecessary. I'm not against cutting the military budget, however, the more it is cut, the more there will be a perceived necessity to hide some of it in other programs. Just the way the political world works, methinks.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)That is a lie to propagandize Americans.
Social Security in particular is 100% funded each year by payroll taxes and the interest we
earn (thank you very much).
So, your graphs are right on as they show the true picture.
guardian
(2,282 posts)Social Security is NOT 100% funded by payroll taxes and earned interest. Go see what that Social Security Administration says. Here is an excerpt from THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/tr2012.pdf
Under the long-range intermediate assumptions, the Trustees project that
annual cost for the OASDI program will exceed non-interest income in 2012
and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period. The
projected combined OASI and DI Trust Fund assets increase through 2020,
begin to decline in 2021, and become exhausted and unable to pay scheduled
benefits in full on a timely basis in 2033. However, the DI Trust Fund
becomes exhausted in 2016, so legislative action is needed as soon as possible.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)From the SS Trustee Report
"In 2011
At the end of 2011, the OASDI program was providing benefits to about 55 million people: 38 million retired workers and dependents of retired workers, 6 million survivors of deceased workers, and 11 million disabled workers and dependents of disabled workers. During the year, an estimated 158 mil- lion people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes. Total expenditures in 2011 were $736 billion. Total income was $805 billion, which consisted of $691 billion in non-interest income and $114 billion in interest earnings. Assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew to $2.7 trillion.
"
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)raise the cap!
ie: Have people that make more than $110,000 per year continue to pay into the trust fund.
klook
(12,155 posts)Grins
(7,217 posts)I've been for that for years, but I'd make a small change:
1.
Lift the cap completely.
2.
Make the contribution percentage higher for those making more than $400,000, and lower for those making less than $60,000. (Reducing the amount for lower incomes has the added benefit of putting more money into workers pockets, money that they will quickly spend on goods and services boosting the economy.)
The argument from the right is that the payroll tax is a contribution that all pay and share equally. But when you use Soc. Security funds to fund the general obligations of government because you don't want to raise income/corporate/interest-dividend taxes normally used to pay those obligations, then you have been getting a free ride.
spooky3
(34,455 posts)Go back to the SSA site and read about the 1983 actions (and subsequent actions) to create and maintain the trust fund.
Only in the last two years did were general fund revenues committed (to make up the difference in the temporary cut in FICA contributions in order to stimulate the economy). This was legislated by Congress.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Today's SS doesn't have to be covered by today's income.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)And what do you mean by 'SS doesn't have to be covered by today's income'?
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Social Security always worked by loaning the money it received in payroll deductions to the rest of the government...because when it is paid back it is with interest.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)The way RW pundits and prognosticators do it is add all outlays together, which makes Social Security and Medicare equal around 40 percent of the total outlays.
Social Security funds outside the general budget, so the OP's chart, showing general expenditures, is better.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)absofrigginlutely.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)K&R!
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)This is the real issue. Counterproductive misuse of our tax dollars.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I can only rec this once.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)SnowCritter
(810 posts)At least they could back when I was serving. It was a pretty sweet deal, too. The greens fee was based on your rank - as a Sergeant (E-5) I paid only a fraction of what a General (0-7 and above) paid and only slightly more than anyone ranked E1 - E4.
On edit, I decided to see if I could find information about the golf courses at Camp LeJeune. It turns out that E-5 and below all pay the same rate now (or maybe they always did - heck, it was 35 years ago). The courses are also open to the public (I don't know if that's the norm for golf courses on military bases, but that's the case at LeJeune).
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Research, development, test and evaluation is the big money hole. How many uncountable billions were spent on developing antiaircraft guns that can't shoot down airplanes, manportable radios the troops wouldn't have been able to lift, and space-based lasers to zap ICBMs out of the sky while they're still over Russia?
On edit: A simple example is the M9 pistol. 9mm pistols were popular in police departments at the time and the simplest thing would have been to find out the most popular police sidearm in America and get that. In the 1980s the most popular gun to issue to cops was the Beretta 92. The government doesn't do that. They call for manufacturers to send 100 guns to the government who then did all sorts of tests - immersion in sea water, dropping 100 times on concrete, and firing 50,000 rounds through each gun being just some of the tests. At the end the chosen pistol was the Beretta 92. The Army didn't like the test results (truth be told, what the Army didn't and still doesn't like is the 9mm part; the Army likes putting big holes in people so that when you shoot people they stay shot) so the whole test was rerun. The winner was the Beretta 92 - the same gun they could have chosen by writing letters to every cop shop in America asking what their officers are issued.
This had an unexpected civilian windfall. The stock 92 is an ounce heavier than the M9. To get it that way they take metal out of the frame, with frame cracking the result. It has become a tradition in Special Operations to go to Jim's Pawn Shop in Fayetteville, buy a Beretta 92 with personal funds, and carry it to the field. They are far more reliable and all the Army's parts fit.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)The Military-Leisure Golf Complex
Pentagon elites and high government officials are tee-ing off at taxpayer expense at hundreds of courses all over the planet.
April 11, 2008 | http://www.alternet.org/story/82009/the_military-leisure_golf_complex
In actuality, the military has cooked the books. For example, the Department of Defense reported that the U.S. Air Force operates 68 courses. A closer examination indicates that the DoD counts the 3 separate golf courses, a total of fifty-four holes, at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., as 1 course. The same is true for the navy, which claims 37 courses (including facilities in Guam, Italy, and Spain) but counts, for example, its Admiral Baker Golf Course in San Diego, which boasts 2 eighteen-hole courses, as a single unit. Similarly, while the DoD claims that the army operates 56 golf facilities, it appears that this translates into no fewer than 68 actual courses, stretching from the U.S. to Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
Moreover, some military golf facilities are mysteriously missing from all lists. In 2005, according to the Pentagon, the U.S. military operated courses on twenty-five bases overseas.
A closer look, however, indicates that the military apparently forgot about some of its golf courses -- especially those in unsavory or unmentionable locales. Take the unlisted eighteen-hole golf course -- where hot-pink balls are used so as not to lose them in the barren terrain -- at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, .....
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)My favorite Proxmire shitstorm is the Worcestershire sauce specification.
There is a military specification for this product. There is a MILSPEC for nearly everything the military buys...because without one, the government is required to buy strictly on price. If you can put "must comply with MIL-C-11796 (the specification for axle grease, which only applies here because the french fries at the 1/3 Air Defense Artillery's mess hall tasted like they were cooked in it)" you are far more likely to get compliant grease than doing a bid solicitation for 40,000 pounds of "wheel bearing grease, not otherwise specified."
Proxmire's "award" talks about how the government has a 15-page document telling them how to buy a bottle of Worcestershire sauce. The Army doesn't buy a bottle of it, they buy a 53-foot trailer full of it and without a document that contains absolutely no wiggle room there is almost nothing stopping someone from buying 50 barrels of it, cutting it 1:1 with water, hiring illegals to bottle it with funnels, and being the low bidder every time. People used to pull that shit regularly. You're probably like "so what? It's just a condiment." Which it is, but if the cooks need to use two bottles of Army issue sauce to do what one of French's will and we pay 80 percent of French's prices for Army issue...all of a sudden it's just gotten expensive.
Back to the subject: the golf courses, riding stables, auto shops (every base has a place troops can go to work on their cars), movie theaters, bowling alleys, Walmart-size department stores, liquor stores, bars, ceramics workshops, day care centers and hundreds of other things for soldiers to do off-duty are required to fund themselves through user fees and retail sales. Google Fort Bragg MWR or Nonappropriated Fund activities.
To put the $14 million in perspective, it will pay a year's hazardous duty pay for 778 paratroopers. Fourteen mil to the Army is a rounding error. The military has a very bad habit of reinventing wheels, a practice that must be stopped.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It is time to stop swallowing the propaganda.
It is time to stop playing their game.
Ian62
(604 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)
.
2naSalit
(86,630 posts)argument and I'm sticking to it.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Just would like to read what else is in your data source (and how to get there!).
valerief
(53,235 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Over the cliff!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Bucky
(54,013 posts)VA is ultimately about healthcare, employment & housing services, and entitlement benefits. I don't think any of that stuff should be cut.
Ligyron
(7,632 posts)at this point, it's about the only war related area we should be prepared to spend much money on.
Ian62
(604 posts)should be included in military costs.
Vets medical bills (as a result of injury during their service) should also be included in the military budget, they are NOT included in official defense budgets.
If a marine gets blown up or shot in a war theater and subsequently gets disability, how the heck are his medical and disability costs NOT a cost of going to war and therefore a defense cost?
The government is trying to hide as much as possible of the cost of going to war.
It should be made plain.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society. From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction indeed, in some sense was the destruction of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction.
It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.
MORE
leftlibdem420
(256 posts)We can and must do better than the perpetual war machine.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Ian62
(604 posts)Thank you for posting
Overseas
(12,121 posts)on point
(2,506 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Cut grandma and disabled vets to keep the Bush era charade alive. Sickening.
I agree...who is putting out the miss info about SS on this site....SS is self sufficient...it needs to be left alone when ever some Politician wants to balance they're budget....the defense budget should be whacked up a bit,,,we budget more for defense than all other Countries on this Planet combined,,,,
korak
(77 posts)Tolal military spending is about 20% of total.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
Actually nearer to 30% if discretionaryt military is as large as the OP's chart indicates...
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Your "federal spending" includes things like Social Security, which is a separate funding stream.
How many seconds of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is your annual federal income tax paying for?
In my case, it's less than one.
Ian62
(604 posts)That total includes a heck of a lot of items NOT in the official DoD budget.
Things like maintaining America's nuclear weapons, veterans medical bills, veterans or war widows pensions.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)come from a seperate pool of money and DON'T CONTRIBUTE ONE NICKEL TO THE DEFICIT!
The game the pro-war types plays is to mix these two pools.
The deficit is caused by the military, it's pretty plain to see.
ileus
(15,396 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)employ mercenaries than is paid to US military personnel, and then the other thread about vets dying before claims are paid out.
How greedy is the military industrial complex?
Our values are simply not represented, not in any shape or form. But, they'll sure as hell take our tax dollars.
K & R, grahamgreen, I'll check out that film in your sig line too, kudos to you for bringing it to our attention!
spanone
(135,838 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)right on the mark. The defense of this nation would still be enabled even with large cuts in the defense budget.
airplaneman
(1,239 posts)2000: $350 billion
2011: $800 billion
In fact if you eliminate these from the budget the federal government has been shrinking.
The reasons the Republicans cant tell you where to cut is because they don't have any place to cut without screwing the rest of us and it does not exist given their refusal to cut the military.
-Airplane
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)That big, blue section of the pie should be ONE FOURTH of it at the most. And YES - I DO have concern for folks that might be put out of a job. But building stuff we DO NOT need is just plain STUPID.
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)Of that $700 billion I've seen it estimated by someone on DU that $150 billion of that goes to the two wars. I've got no idea if that is currently accurate.
The one thing about social security is that the taxes collected do not cover the payments. What happens to cover the shortfall? If it gets covered out of general treasury funds, then it is directly impacting the deficit, right? If it is covered from interest on the trust fund it should be noted that the single largest holder of US debt is the SS trust fund, so the interest collected by the trust fund is added to our national debt, and the interest payments on our debt come out of the federal budget so SS is at least indirectly adding to the deficit. Or am I wrong?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)K&R
And this is PEACETIME! Yip, it's the big elephant in the room that nobody seems to see, and of course which our politicians like to keep our eyes off of. Don't you just love our EMPIRE. Makes me want to puke! Our society is coming unglued, yet we spend that much on defense. What I would like to see is where we have bases (besides the US) and how much it costs per annum to operate each one of them. I'll show them where to cut some corners!
Denise21
(63 posts)i totally agree that is the only place that cuts should take place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Wielding Truth
(11,415 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)if I get the time I'll try to do a comparison.
npk
(3,660 posts)They keep these politicians in check. All it takes is the threat of closing that check book, and they (politicians, congress) come to their senses.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)The wars have ended shouldn't we already be seeing the deficit shrink because of the money not going to the war anymore, why have the deficits risen if war was causing so much of the debt?
Panasonic
(2,921 posts)and redirected to education, mental health, real life COLA increases for SS, and jobs!
NOT FUCKING MILITARY.
China is second, and they only spend about 12% of their budget.
WE ARE NOT THE FUCKING WORLD POLICE!
Uncle Joe
(58,363 posts)Thanks for the thread, grahamhgreen.
Maineman
(854 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)expect nothing to change.
Raster
(20,998 posts)This is LONG PAST TIME for the merchants of death to ante up and pay their fair shares. LONG PAST TIME!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Tanta
(42 posts)I was wondering if I can have links/sources for this material for a deeper insight to these numbers.
Thanks
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)contractors like Bechtel and Halliburton? If it is, I say this is a good place to start with trimming down the military budget. Second place would be closing down the bases we have in Europe and Japan.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)"The Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA) appropriation provides the resources to organize, equip, and train forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land and in support of Combatant Commanders." - DOD
think
(11,641 posts)A full audit needs to be done:
Rep. Barbara Lee
U.S. Representative, California's 9th congressional district
Posted: 12/05/2012 1:30 pm
~Snip~
Nearly 60 cents of every federal discretionary dollar now goes toward defense spending, and by the Pentagon's own admission, it cannot properly account for how the money is spent. There is no doubt that these circumstances have contributed to instances of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon. It is past time to audit the Pentagon just like the 34 other Executive branch agencies. That is why I introduced H.R. 6528, the Audit the Pentagon Act of 2012, and plan on reintroducing it for the 113th Congress.
~Snip~
Full post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barbara-lee/toss-wasteful-defense-wea_b_2245671.html
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)"The Project for Defense Alternatives, CATO Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Center for American Progress, and Bowles-Simpson Commission have all called for deep cuts in defense spending ranging from $350 to $590 billion beyond the cuts already in place. "
And we're not even auditing???? That's amazing to me!
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)We need overwhelming military expenditure! We need to militarize the police! We need several domestic spy agencies! We need for every citizen to be heavily armed! Someone somewhere wants to touch our stuff!!!!!!
If nations were people, the US would be the paranoid schizophrenic wearing kleenex boxes on its feet and sleeping with a shitgun.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Shoot the Pentagon into outerspace.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)We are borrowing money to perpetuate the killing of thousands of American soldiers! FROM CHINA!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And I'll give it a Tweet.
ehrenfeucht games
(139 posts)pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)and boost the fleet to over an arbitrary 300 warships.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)general fund.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)---Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
"They were arrogant and spoiled; they had everything they needed and still refused to help the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49
"For the scoundrel will speak like a scoundrel and will hatch evil in his heart; he is an impostor in all his actions, and in his words a liar even to the LORD; he starves the hungry of their food and refuses drink to the thirsty. The villain's ways are villainous and he devises infamous plans to ruin the poor with his lies and deny justice to the needy."-- Isaiah
[/font]
[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)It's not defense, it's external aggression.
This is a war machine, not a defense machine. Without a war, ANY war, most American military spending would be pointless.
adieu
(1,009 posts)100% of any reduction in the expenditures can come from the DoD. If we just reduce the DoD from its current $600B/yr to the Clintonian levels fo $300B/yr, we will be in the black before the next president's reelection.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Our military budget is appalling. And we're not at war!
andym
(5,443 posts)There's supposedly something like a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit. How much is discretionary spending contributing to that deficit? Is any other non-discretionary spending contributing to the deficit? How big is the discretionary budget?
Ian62
(604 posts)not just on here.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I'm a draft-card burning, baby-boomer. I have been protesting military spending since my parents build a bomb shelter in our back yard in the early 1960's. Doomsday preppers are nothing new to me.
In my lifetime, the US has spent enough on secret weapons, nuclear weapons, foreign wars, bases all over the world, etc. that it is insane. We could have funded health care and free education all the way through college for everyone in the country for the $$'s we've spent on the military.
Personally, I'd like the entire DOD limited to 10% of the budget - and I'd bet no one would notice except a lot fewer people would be killed.
Phentex
(16,334 posts)It seems so logical.
FlyByNight
(1,756 posts)The war/empire maintenance/national "security" budget runs, roughly now, a trillion dollars per year. That's where budget cuts should come from FIRST. Regarding this, the silence from the Beltway is deafening and telling.
Putting SS/Chained CPI on the bargaining table was/is appalling. That SS adds NOTHING to the debt and deficit should be repeated over and over again from here on out. And any "savings" from chaining CPI would be chump change and hurt those who most need it.
If President Obama doesn't like or trust his own left flank on this, all he needs to do is reference YouTube and type in "Ronald Reagan on Social Security" for additional perspective.
Civilization2
(649 posts)de-fund the over seas murder campaigns,. stop building weapons of mass-destruction, and use the military as it was intended; to defend America,. you know, inside our own shore-line.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)WHERE are the "democrats" in congress calling for a serious/significant cut to our bloated defense budget??
it's over, folks. over fifty years ago, a general, a war hero (Eisenhower) warned us about the military industrial complex and the potential dangers. obviously the powers that be ignored him, and a Frankenstein monster was created-- a monster which NOBODY in congress has the balls to deal with honestly.
BTW, the around $2 Trillion poured down the ratholes in Iraq and Afghanistan the last ten years-- that's more or less the same amount of money the American Society of Civil Engineers is on record stating we need to spend NOW on our nation's pathetic, crumbling infrastructure.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Military types will say that it costs a great deal to maintain helicopters and jets when they are deployed in places like the deserts of Afghanistan and Kuwait. My response is:
"Keep the damn things at home!"
valerief
(53,235 posts)And thanks for calling it WAR rather than DEFENSE. Because it is WAR. It kills people at home and all over the world.
Agony
(2,605 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to trim some money from operations and procurement.
Ian62
(604 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:29 AM - Edit history (2)
The US in 2012 spent :-
$170bn on building & supplying foreign military bases
$105bn on 7,000 "contractors" in Iraq
About $100bn on the Afghan war.
$4.8 bn of new military procurement contracts were signed today.
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4943
The largest was for $1.8bn for the next stage of development for the next generation of ballistic missile submarines. Who is Barack Obama planning to shoot nuclear missiles at?
The $1,450bn (estimated cost) development of the next generation stealth plane is on-going.
The US hasn't had a plane shot down for 20 years.
Everybody knows that defense contracts generally over run by 3 or 6 times the original budget.
Obama is ordering increasing numbers of drones. 73% of Pakistani's now consider America their enemy because of the drone warfare program and the high rate of civilian casualties.
Each predator and reaper drone costs $36m - I would like to know how much profit General Atomics is making on each one. China is building their copies of these drones for $1m a pop.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)comes from operations and procurement.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Owl
(3,642 posts)The MIC / war budgets are obscenely bloated and need serious reductions.
Ironically, MIC / war budgets are killing America.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sequestration, which has already been signed into law, cuts $500 billion from defense automatically in January if no deal is reached.
The White House Shows its Hand and the Republicans Fold
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021969595
Ian62
(604 posts)It trims the already planned for large future INCREASES to the military budget by about $50bn a year.
The military budget in 2016 is planned to be FAR HIGHER than in 2012, even with the so called "cuts".
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)do you have a link to the original document please?
We are wasting far too much on war. Defense is one thing.
CrispyQ
(36,470 posts)The graphics are outstanding, the points are sobering. I posted it on FB & it was deleted. A friend shared it on her page & it, too, was deleted.
Thanks to Will Pitt for the original post of this.
november3rd
(1,113 posts)This is going viral.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)...that my beloved military is fat with waste and pork. Not talking about pay for troops, vehicles I need, equipment I need. Nor any part of the training budget.
What we havent needed in the past 12 years are two(2) stealth fighters. Or really the osprey. Or a future combat system for soldiers. Or literally thousands of contracts for "new weapons" that never get past development, let alone prototype phase. When I came home in 2004, they were 'field testing' the XM-8 rifle. Im sure to quite an expense. Never saw the light of day. An my universal camo pattern uniforms I wear right now? they suck. That shit cost $5B. replacing them will cost another $4B.
so yeah, there is __plenty__ of waste in the DOD. This soldier supports cutting all of it. And then give my troops a goddamn raise that says "thank you".
This is what sickens me about flag lapel pins & this trumped up 'big bad military to keep us all safe' bullshit. It's not keeping us safe. It's just a huge mechanism to siphon our tax dollar to the 1%. If their GD flag pins meant shit, they would do just what you said, give my troops a goddamn raise that says "thank you".
For the 1%, war is a profit & a very good one at that.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Festivito
(13,452 posts)I'm all for that, that is charging the military expense with our overspending.
think
(11,641 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)work after their tour of duty....
Festivito
(13,452 posts)Social Security is off-budget so it is not included in this circle budget shown. It should be. The federal government should pay SS back for the cost to SS of its wars and the cost of the disabled in general, instead of making the poor and middle class to pay for it all, letting the rich and moderately rich pay nothing more than what they intend to get back.
The rich need to pay their fair share.
benld74
(9,904 posts)with only blank stares coming back at me when I say as much. My 1st statement in my office was response to someone agreeing with the GOP talking points of budget cutting for the agencies.
I stated," How can cuts from agencies that make up only 40% of the entire budget REALLY reduce the budget when a 60% military budget is NEVER discussed?"
Blank Stares
Crickets
Then I said, "Thats what I thought".
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Both receive a considerable amount of money from North Sea oil.
Norway has invested its oil earnings in improving its own infrastructure and the lives of its people. They enjoy one of the highest living standards in Europe. Even business magazines have praised the wise way in which Norway uses its oil money.
Britain, on the other hand, has a huge military budget--the fourth largest after the U.S., China, and Russia--as if it can't get over the fact that it no longer rules 1/3 of the world. Frankly, despite the country's many charms, Britain's roads, railroads, public housing, and newer buildings look shabby in comparison to those in Norway. Where it was once one of the richest countries in Europe, it now has the largest gap between the rich and poor in Europe and is tied with the U.S. for lack of social mobility. The Tories' austerity program is barely touching the military budget.
Things that make you go "hmmmm."
Ian62
(604 posts)Norway has one of the lowest National Debts as a percentage of GDP in Europe.
It has a large and successful Sovereign Wealth Fund, derived from it's oil revenues.
Norway continues to generate large revenues from it's North Sea oil reserves, whilst the Brits have almost exhausted theirs.
Norway spends very little of it's wealth on it's military with a budget of $7.3bn in 2013 or about 2.5% of GDP.
Apart from the farce over butter runners with stupid import controls, Norway is very well governed - unlike the Brits.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)We've subsidized Big Oil's business plan for decades..maybe a trillion dollars worth of protection.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)When I think of the billions upon billions of dollars we've wasted over the past several decades by slaughtering innocent people, invading their countries, taking their resources and propping up corporate war enablers it just makes me SICK.
"Fighting for Freedom" my ass.
Just think what this country could have been if we'd invested that wasted money in education, healthcare and infrastructure.
Slash the military now.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)No Compromise
(373 posts)nt