A Little Basic Math: The Trillions We Waste in 'Defending' the US

[xchrom]

http://www.nationofchange.org/little-basic-math-trillions-we-waste-defending-us-1375107669



Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates argued against president Obama’s aim to cut $400 billion from national security spending, a bloated habit which was to be reigned in over the next 12 years, but let’s look at what the U.S. government has spent on ‘defending’ our nation in just the last decade.

Getting Rid of Fossil Fuel Dependency

We have transferred over $4 trillion of energy-wealth to foreign countries in the past decade in the form of petroleum dependency, and this speaks nothing of the cost of ‘controlling’ the Middle Eastern countries who largely supply the U.S. with its cocaine-like dependency on fossil fuels.

The cost of securing forces to travel and fight in the Middle East is astounding. According to costofwar.com, tax payers have shelled out more than $814,809,683,000 to fight in Iraq, and more than $645,114,590,000 in Afghanistan. The cost of fighting in the Persian Gulf, is estimated to have cost over $50 billion a year. In a decade, that adds up to $500 billion. If we were to look at this one line item alone, we could install a solar system in every single home in America (approximately 313,915,000 people live in America and presumably not all in individual households), at an average of 86 cents per kilowatt, and with solar cell technology advancing every day, the entire nation could be running off the power of the sun in less than a decade.

Congress recently reviewed an appeal to cut more than $3 billion to fund an ‘alternate engine’ for a Joint Strike Fighter, which members of the Navy, Air Force, and Marines have called unnecessary. Might not $3 billion provide free solar power to some of our nations poorest, not unlike the recent initiative being carried out in Peru, which will provide solar energy to over two million citizens? Or why not give just half of that money to researchers, Vladimir Bulovic and Richard Lunt from MIT who developed a transparent solar cell that can be applied to windows and even paint? I’d pick up a paintbrush tomorrow, if it meant we could stop supporting the petro-dollar, wouldn’t you?

[Civilization2]

1. The US military is all about defending CORPORATE INTERESTS,. not the people of America!!!

All the costs that are stolen from the people through taxes, and debts foisted upon us for these wars and mass surveillance systems are purely for the private interests of the 1%, the banksters, and the corporations they control and profit from.

[kelliekat44]

6. And that is the TRUTH!!! nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. YES! Troops out now (and contractors)

[raouldukelives]

14. And of course the owners of those corporations, the shareholders. nt

[truebluegreen]

15. It has been some time since the bulk of earnings of corporations

went to shareholders, as dividends, instead of to executive pay.

[raouldukelives]

18. And yet they still line up to support them financially in the hopes of getting a little back.

Must be nice not to be saddled with a conscience.

[truebluegreen]

27. Yep. More fools they.

ETA: I remember reading stories in the last couple of years when shareholders tried to force their company/companies to behave responsibly...tried and failed. So it's not all black and white.

[raouldukelives]

29. Aye, tried and failed. If you can't beat them, join them is the refrain. nt

[Civilization2]

28. and the working poor (and unemployed poor!),. i.e. non-stockholders, get the trickle down?

I tried that;

I put out a bucket to catch some of this 'trickle down', but when I went to check it, it was full of only bullshit.

[awoke_in_2003]

31. To modify a line from The Outlaw Josie Wales...

don't piss down my back and tell me it's trickle down economics.

[corkhead]

33. Meanwhile, it's BECOME the corporate interests

[SHRED]

2. The USA military is the biggest consumer of petroleum

So change will happen when?

[valerief]

5. ^^^THIS^^^

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. That's the Big Secret, isn't it?

For less than half (far less) of what we spend on military, we could reduce the military to a truly defensive role while allowing the world to love us again.

But that doesn't pay executive bonuses or finance billion dollar political campaigns.
& R

[Pelican]

7. Is that what matters? Making us loved?

I got a hint for you sister. The US could drop every arm we have into the Marianas trench and we will never be "loved."

Some people are just assholes and the way they view the world is in direct conflict with ours.

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. Way to completely miss the point. n/t

[truebluegreen]

16. And illustrate his own point:

"some people are just...."

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. .

[valerief]

4. But where will the wealthy steal their money if they can't steal from the Treasury? nt

[Coyotl]

8. The real purpose of the Defense Dept. is to transfer wealth to the few from the many.

Once we understand that, we might make a little progress in stopping the insanity.

[hay rick]

12. That's not the plan. It's just a massive coincidence. nt

[Civilization2]

30. "The real purpose of the Defense Dept. is to transfer wealth to the few from the many."

bears repeating,. ""The real purpose of the Defense Dept. is to transfer wealth to the few from the many."

When you actually look for it you will notice many "systems" in our culture/empire designed to do just this one thing,. over, and over and,. . .

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. And think of the jobs that conversion would create.

It's a no-brainer. That, and a subsidy program for hybrid cars, and an infrastructure program, and we'd be much better off for the future.

But smart ideas don't provide as much graft opportunity. We pay a big price for corruption. (And get nothing out of it -- except more trouble.)

[ctsnowman]

11. K & R

[Progressive dog]

13. I'm looking for the energy-wealth of $4 trillion,

and trying to figure out what energy-wealth is. I'm also curious about the Afghanistan expenditures, I didn't know that they exported any oil, much less to us.
I think your math might be slightly off here, too.

at an average of 86 cents per kilowatt

[DissidentVoice]

17. DND is not a good steward of the public purse

I know this because I was in the Air Force.

I knew an officer with 20+ years service whose last posting was at the Pentagon...he said all the jockeying for big money about drove him crazy.

The F-22 is an overpriced piece of hardware that the Air Force didn't even want...and which isn't allowed for export to our allies.

The F-35 is becoming a money pit that allies who are waiting on it are starting to doubt. The Royal Australian Air Force decided to purchase off-the-shelf, much cheaper F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and the Royal Canadian Air Force is reconsidering THEIR participation in the F-35.

Meanwhile, the Swedes (SAAB Gripen) and the British/Germans/Italians/Spanish (Eurofighter Typhoon) are doing quite well selling cheaper, but still highly capable, aircraft to countries WE used to sell to (including other NATO countries).

[Dustin DeWinde]

19. we absolutely should reduce defense spending but

Your post makes it seem as if All defense spending is unnecessary and that's just not the case.

I really like your theme of beating swords.into plowshares, but as long as others have swords we need them too.

That said, its entirely legitimate to question whether we are spending too much on defense. And we are. We spend more money on defense than the next ten countries COMBINED.
That's obviously unnecessary.

I really like your idealism, but the world is what it is.

[leftstreet]

20. What scares me is the al Qaeda Naval Fleet

...but as long as others have swords we need them too.

Is there some military power out there with more 'swords' than the US?

[Egalitarian Thug]

22. Afraid not. The American perception of the world is an image of fear,

shot through a paranoid, fractured lens in a fun-house mirror.

Just who is it that you imagine is going to invade the U.S.? We're spending over a trillion of our dollars every year to prepare for a mid-20th century war that will never happen again. I know those sneaky Canadians are pretty frightening with their friendly smiles and freakish diet (poutine? really?), but I'm not too worried about their invasion plans for Albany.

[Dustin DeWinde]

26. wtf are you talking about?

Maybe you responded to the wrong post because your rant wasn't even tangentially related to anything I've posted.
Invasion? Canada? Wtf?
Oh well I guess if some folks are contrarians and can't find any coherent arguments to make they will just make up incoherent ones. Or respond to what they were hoping would be posted instead of what was actually posted

Where's that damned ignore button

[Egalitarian Thug]

36. LOL! You didn't answer the question. Who is it that has these metaphorical swords that

we have to prevent from invading our nation? Who's the enemy we must prepare for?

[Dustin DeWinde]

37. seriously??

It's one,thing to question how much we spend on defense. In fact its a good thing. But to really suggest that there,is NO need for defense spending is insane. It doesn't matter who the potential enemy is. We have to be ready to defend ourselves againnst anyone.

Are you trying to match gop craziness of unlimited defense spending with your own brand of zero defense spending insanity? Stop it our side doesn't do crazy. We are grownups.
You can't fight crazy with crazy. Insanity turns folks off. And when you question whether we need national defense, that is batshit crazy.

If,you really care about the well being of the usa leave the insanity to the rwingers. Our country's future is at stake.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. And still, you don't answer the question.

You've done an amateurish job of pretending that other people are making statements you would like to argue against, and even at that, you don't really put any actual thought into your rebuttal of what nobody but you said.

But, here we are, still waiting to hear who it is that we have to prepare to fight against...

The DoD just ordered over 70 more F-35s today. Whose fighters are we going to fight with these platforms?

[Dustin DeWinde]

39. you are not a serious person

Who is this we you are referring to?
Fine. I will try my best to use words with as few syllables as possible.

My answer was that while adversaries change over time we have to be prepared to defend ourselves against ANYONE.


The onlly countries that could stand toe to toe. blow for. blow with us right now are Russia and China, that will. change over time. England is our most stalwart ally right now, that too may change over time. The point is that we have to be ready to defend ourselves against anyone. I won't reply to any more of your posts as you are either unwilling or unable to address basic reality.


Lots of luck to you friend. I have no desire to converse further with a person of your ilk.

[Egalitarian Thug]

40. "Anyone" is not an answer. It is a very serious question and one which none of you

are ever able to answer. Just because you nod your head and repeat an idea that has been told to you all of your life, doesn't make it so.

Feel free to run away, now.

[ErikJ]

23. $50 billion a yr is equal in taxes to $6 a gallon gas.

Our taxes are subsidizing the cost of oil/gas so the pushers can sell more of it.

[dickthegrouch]

24. Do those numbers include the costs to the States of fighting those wars?

An enormous amount of State-owned materiel and equipment has been loaned(?)/given(?) to the federal government to fight these wars. Do the Federal figures take those costs into account?

Who pays National Guard (State) troops to be in foreign theaters of war? Is my State tax paying them, or is the federal tax paying them? Can California claim reimbursement from the feds for those salary costs?

Can California claim reimbursement for all the trucks, tanks, food, clothing, huts, tents, helicopters etc., etc., that the feds have consumed in this stupidity?

[Enthusiast]

32. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[Mnemosyne]

34. K&R nt