Pentagon Wants $450 Billion Increase Over Next Five Years

[Bigmack]

Source: Trouthout..

Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.
The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions.

Read more: http://www.truthout.org/101108Z

---

Looks like the neocons and Repubs generally want to paint President Obama into a corner.... Either bankrupt the country with an even more bloated military budget or be seen as the President who ends our military domination.

All this money would be in addition to the already insane military budget.
We just can't afford this shit!

"The Pentagon budget would rise to a new record while U.S. automakers and victims of hurricanes and floods would receive billions of dollars in a $630 billion-plus omnibus spending bill rushing toward the House floor Wednesday. ...

,,, That includes $488 billion for the Pentagon, $40 billion for Homeland Security Department programs and $73 billion for veterans programs and military base construction projects. ..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3507903

[Turbineguy]

1. Well...yes,

But they always want an increase.

[ShortnFiery]

2. And WE know that if McCain scores the Presidency, he will NOT cut Defense Spending AT ALL.

No freeze on defense spending while ALL social programs will be shot to hell. :(

[BanzaiBonnie]

3. So they can go on retreats

[mbperrin]

4. Heck, why such a measly increase? Why not $450 billion more THIS year?

After all, we've got plenty of dough for banks, foreign and domestic, and to loan to business directly from the Treasury, and also for hedge funds, enterprise funds, and soon, CDS!

Wheeee!!!! It's raining money!!!! It's all for free!!!

Uhhh, nothing bad could happen from all this, could it?





(Do I REALLY need a sarcasm tag here?)

[jus_the_facts]

13. It already happened....19 hijackers with boxcutters beat our $$$defense system$$$on 9/11/01 n/t

[Bigmack]

20. And our military has been....

caught in a quagmire... actually two quagmires... for many years. Fought to a standstill by countries with no army.

I realize I'm being dramatic here, but our military is not constituted for these conflicts.

[jus_the_facts]

21. A shit load of people have gotten richer with all those thousands upon thousands of contracts....

.....the military so readily gives out...a lot of those are members of congress or their relatives....they serve the all mighty pentagram and not their constituents.

[Uben]

5. Not no, but HELL NO!

The American people have suffered enough from these greedy defense contracting son of a bitches. Ask any soldier who works in supply in Iraq or Afghanistan. The waste over there is unimaginable!

[Uzybone]

6. Enough with feeding this fat Pig called the Pentagon

how many more sweetheart defense contracts do they want to give out?

[Arctic Dave]

7. Sure, as soon as we fix the economy, get healthcare to all the citizens

fund our education, rebuild our infrastructure, build a green energy program,etc., etc. Until then, they can go fuck themselves.

[tech3149]

8. Short answer ............FOAD! n/t

[Frisbee]

9. Hold a bake sale. eom

[Phred42]

10. Here is one reason this request is completely irrational

.....EVEN INSANE

if they can't do the job with THIS much money - They are the wrong people for the job.

[shanti]

23. and THAT

is precisely why we can't (won't) fund health care for our citizens. it's DISGUSTING!

[gtar100]

11. This is where we bleed.

Lives and money.

[JCMach1]

12. Time we hit them in the pocket books and scale back the military from WORLD DOMINATION

mode...

Our country cannot afford it in so many ways.

[BREMPRO]

14. SLEAZY FUKERS.... playing political games with the budget and stoking fear. FUK THEM!!

I"M TIRED OF THIS SH*T! They are the biggest expense in the budget and should get the biggest cuts. There is more pork and other nonsense in the pentagon budget THAN ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT... We don't need 25,000 nukes, endless war, , no bid contracts, outsourcing to military contractors like Halliburton/KBR(at great unnecessary expense) we don't need star wars technology that doesn't work. We need to spend less money on defense and more on PEACE>..THIS would make us safer, and wealthier. The Dems need to stand up to this shallow ploy and stop cowering to the false argument that more expense on defence makes us safer...

[Purveyor]

15. Wrong. The policy should be a $450 billion reduction in defense spending over the next 5 years. nt

[DavidDvorkin]

16. Fuck, no.

Cut them to the bare bones.

Any extra should go to veterans' care and help for military families, not to bloated military-hardware companies or the cosseted upper military ranks. Talk about lazy welfare bums!

[gratuitous]

17. For what?

When my freedom of speech was being abridged by the city cops last year, there weren't any soldiers coming to defend my freedom, like they always tell us they're doing. Cut the military budget to about $200 billion a year, end our elective wars of empire, and start spending the money on our citizens, infrastructure, education and other things that will truly make our nation strong again.

[dkofos]

18. What they deserve is $125 billion max. When they are capable of

accounting for that amount, maybe they can have more.

I don't think they are capable.

[sarcasmo]

26. It deserves to be scrapped like the Iraq and Afghan wars.

[rasputin1952]

19. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that

approximately 10% of that additional cash, virtually every child would not go hungry; diseases would be cured; international relations would be better, and we could do a hell of a lot more good than just trot about the earth telling people how tough we are.

[depakid]

22. It also doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to figure out that's not going to happen

Defense spending's not going to change too much in FY 2009 and not too much in 2010- but it sure isn't going to bloat!

Kind of makes you wonder what sort of idiot wrote that bit. And why.

[rasputin1952]

24. Because people insist on introducing the "More Might, thre

More Right" crowd is out there. There is still the "Pearl Harbor Mentality" out there.

Of course by putting the Fleet in PH and lining all of the planes on the tarmac is to often forgotten.

[depakid]

27. The pearl harbor mentality is curious considering

battleships didn't win the war in the Pacific. Aircraft carriers, destroyers- and troops on the ground did.

But what was far more important than that- was winning the peace.

[sarcasmo]

25. Fuck, NO! That is one building which should be budget cut to zero.

[bdab1973]

28. These wars have broken the military...

I am in the military, and I fly airplanes that were built in 1961. Yes, 1961, when my FATHER was 11 years old. I have friends that fly KC-135 tankers that were built in 1955 and 1956. And that is just the Air Force.

The Army is having huge issues with their equipment too. Mostly vehicles wearing out, and aircraft racking up many more flying hours than they were designed for.

We've already had the in-flight break up of a couple aircraft over the years. Luckily they were both fighters, and the pilots were able to eject. But what if one of the C-130s folds a wing, like the old fire-fighting aircraft that crashed a few years back in California? That was a C-130A that had wing cracks. We have aircraft that are restricted to certain weights and airspeeds because of things like wing cracks. KC-135s have been effectively grounded because of cracking and corrosion. Those airplanes should all be in museums, not still actively flying as front-line aircraft.

I am in agreement that there should be defense spending reform. The WAY the military spends money is inefficient at best. Congress doesn't help by slow-rolling these modernization projects, forcing the long term and unit costs of aircraft and vehicles to become astronomical. And of course you have contractors, who often have too much overhead. It amazes me how Boeing's commercial jet business can produce really modern, efficient aircraft and still stay competitive with Airbus in price, yet their military aircraft business will produce aircraft with LESS technology (yes, a Boeing 737-800 has more technology in it than, say, the Boeing C-17) but higher prices. It probably has something to do with lack of competition...back in the 1950s, there were dozens of companies vying to produce equipment for the military. Now, there are effectively three major corporations: Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop. And lately they have been protesting the contract awards over silly technicalities, further costing the government money.

I disagree with the notion we should cut the funding to the Pentagon to zero. We still need a defense...we still have treaty obligations with NATO (we effectively Europe with 50% of its defense capability..something the Europeans should probably start to shoulder the burden for...they get to cut their defense spending to the bone because they know we'll do it for them). And as I've pointed out in another thread, the military provided a HUGE amount of support during the recent natural disasters such as Katrina and Ike. Search and rescue? Nearly all of that support rests with the military.

I am amazed that the US Air Force is SMALLER today than it was prior to World War II, yet it costs more in constant dollars to operate. Most of the cost of operations has gone into the recent wars. But even when those wars end, we're going to face either replacing worn out aircraft (that should have been replaced years ago), or just letting the crews (ie, myself) fly the airplanes until the wings rip off.

If you think "that's a bunch of BS", go look up the C-130 crash at Judsonia, Arkansas back in 1983. They had cracking problems back then with some aircraft, and while flying a training mission, the airplane lost a wing and killed the whole crew. The guys and gals I fly with are dedicated to providing a service for this country, be it national defense or disaster relief. They don't deserve to be reviled and forced to fly old airplanes with wing and fuselage cracks.

I am liberal on many issues, but I still feel our nation needs a military, and that military should be well equipped. It's a shame that some of you suggest that after having to deal with years of Iraq, we should just shut up and deal with flying 50 year old airplanes. You're probably the same folks that have told me that only the idiots in society wind up in the military.