Military Spending Costs...

tenacious

PREMIER
I think most Americans support having a strong military. But with the country running a Trillion Dollar deficit... seems like it's time to start considering how much is too much?

All I know is this. Obama pulled us out of Iraq, Trump says he's getting us out of Syria. There is a peace deal in the works in Afghanistan. How can we be exiting wars and the cost of the military has gone up?


Defense spending is America’s cancerous bipartisan consensus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...46e594de5d5_story.html?utm_term=.8c7970dfff7d

You often hear that in these polarized times, Republicans and Democrats are deadlocked on almost everything. But the real scandal is what both sides agree on. The best example of this might be the defense budget. Last week, the Democratic House, which Republicans say is filled with radicals, voted to appropriate $733 billion for 2020 defense spending. The Republicans are outraged because they — along with President Trump — want that number to be $750 billion. In other words, on the largest item of discretionary spending in the federal budget, accounting for more than half of the total, Democrats and Republicans are divided by 2.3 percent. That is the cancerous consensus in Washington today.

The United States’ defense budget is out of control, lacking strategic coherence, utterly mismanaged, ruinously wasteful and yet eternally expanding. Last year, after a quarter-century of resisting, the Pentagon finally subjected itself to an audit — which, in true Pentagon style, cost more than $400 million. Most of its agencies — Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps — failed. “We never expected to pass,” admitted then- Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has identified $15.5 billion of waste. But that is after reviewing only $53 billion of the $126 billion appropriated for Afghanistan reconstruction through 2017. He wrote in a 2018 letter, “[We] have likely uncovered only a portion of the total waste, fraud, abuse, and failed efforts.”

Outside war zones, there are the usual examples of $14,000 toilet-seat lids, $1,280 cups (yes, cups) and $4.6 million for crab and lobster meals. Remember when then- Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the Pentagon had about as many people in military bands as the State Department had active Foreign Service officers? Well, it’s still true today.

President Trump says he is a savvy businessman. Yet his attitude toward the Pentagon is that of an indulgent parent. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything — and more,” he tweeted last year. Far from bringing rationality to defense spending, he has simply opened the piggy bank while trying to slash spending on almost every other government agency. The Pentagon is the most fiscally irresponsible government agency, but the Republicans’ response has been to simply give it more.

The much deeper danger, however, is spotlighted by Jessica Tuchman Mathews in a superb essay in the New York Review of Books. Mathews points out that we tend to think about the defense budget as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product, which is fundamentally erroneous. The defense budget should be related to the threats the country faces, not the size of its economy. If a country’s GDP grows by 30 percent, she writes, it “has no reason to spend 30 percent more on its military. To the contrary, unless threats worsen, you would expect that, over time, defense spending as a percentage of a growing economy should decline.”

The United States faces a world in flux, to be certain, but surely not a more dangerous world than during the Cold War. The United States now spends more than the next 10 highest-spending countries put together, six of which are close allies — Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. And the real threats of the future — cyberwar, space attacks — require different strategies and spending. Yet Washington keeps spending billions on aircraft carriers and tanks.

There are even more fundamental questions about the structure of the Pentagon. Why do we have an Air Force if the Army, Navy and Marine Corps all have their own air forces? Why does each service have its own representatives to essentially lobby Congress? When he was defense secretary in the early 2000s, Donald H. Rumsfeld tried to force some coherence onto the department (a legacy overshadowed by his disastrous handling of the Iraq War), but he was mostly outmaneuvered by the Pentagon and Congress. “You refer to closing unneeded bases,” Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.) said to Rumsfeld. “I only have one base, and I do need it.” Multiply this response by 535 members of Congress to understand the depth of the problem.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was the kind of Republican who had a pragmatic skepticism about government. He was the kind of seasoned general who understood that peace came from a combination of military strength and diplomatic engagement. That was why in his presidential farewell address he spoke about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.” Nearly 60 years later, it looks like one of the most prophetic warnings any president has ever made.
 
I think most Americans support having a strong military. But with the country running a Trillion Dollar deficit... seems like it's time to start considering how much is too much?

All I know is this. Obama pulled us out of Iraq, Trump says he's getting us out of Syria. There is a peace deal in the works in Afghanistan. How can we be exiting wars and the cost of the military has gone up?

Rand Paul recently took the honorable position of refusing to allow unanimous approval of a bill that would have funded millions of dollars to support health care for first responders to the 911 disaster in New York and Washington. Unanimous approval is a procedural maneuver that allows a bill to bypass the normal machinery a bill must pass through, such as multiple readings in the House and Senate (often bypassed by technicalities) and committee hearings, all of which can take weeks, even when a bill (such as the one in question) has overwhelming support. His reason for refusing to grant unanimous passage was the bill's impact on the national debt. However, he has not expressed much opposition to the real billion-dollar-budget-buster bills, such as defense appropriations and tax cuts for billionaires.
 
I think most Americans support having a strong military. But with the country running a Trillion Dollar deficit... seems like it's time to start considering how much is too much?

All I know is this. Obama pulled us out of Iraq, Trump says he's getting us out of Syria. There is a peace deal in the works in Afghanistan. How can we be exiting wars and the cost of the military has gone up?
A man like Eisenhower knew issues like this from all sides and saw where lobbying from powerful entities like those of defense contractors could/would go amuck. Much like big pharma, oil, food production, etc. Except in the case of military spending it is all tax payer dollars, not just tax breaks, loopholes, easing of regulations and making special allowances, etc.
If we are so afraid of impending war we should have universal conscription, no excuses.
 
A man like Eisenhower knew issues like this from all sides and saw where lobbying from powerful entities like those of defense contractors could/would go amuck. Much like big pharma, oil, food production, etc. Except in the case of military spending it is all tax payer dollars, not just tax breaks, loopholes, easing of regulations and making special allowances, etc.
If we are so afraid of impending war we should have universal conscription, no excuses.

The military budget has long been welfare for science and engineering disciplines (of which I benefited for decades) without any of the messy political consequences of science and engineering being funded to study environmental impacts or the development of new energy sources.
 
I think most Americans support having a strong military. But with the country running a Trillion Dollar deficit... seems like it's time to start considering how much is too much?

All I know is this. Obama pulled us out of Iraq, Trump says he's getting us out of Syria. There is a peace deal in the works in Afghanistan. How can we be exiting wars and the cost of the military has gone up?
Obama built that.
 
I think most Americans support having a strong military. But with the country running a Trillion Dollar deficit... seems like it's time to start considering how much is too much?

All I know is this. Obama pulled us out of Iraq, Trump says he's getting us out of Syria. There is a peace deal in the works in Afghanistan. How can we be exiting wars and the cost of the military has gone up?
6 straight years of QE. You people crack me up.
 
Not sure I follow? Presidents don't fund the military...

But politics aside. Can someone please tell me how it's gotten to be more expensive during peace time then war? Because the we're getting ripped off alarm bells just started sounding in my head.
Since Vietnam we have always had some kind of war or "police action" going on somewhere.
 
Since Vietnam we have always had some kind of war or "police action" going on somewhere.

We got into Vietnam because we forgot our own roots in fighting off colonialism in the 18th Century, and some of our "leaders" were scared that if Vietnam went full-on commie (which is how the plebiscite election we had pledged to respect had turned out) that every country from India to New Zealand would be at risk to follow. As it has turned out, the surest way for the people of a country to learn to hate having a Communist government is to actually have a Communist government.
 
We got into Vietnam because we forgot our own roots in fighting off colonialism in the 18th Century, and some of our "leaders" were scared that if Vietnam went full-on commie (which is how the plebiscite election we had pledged to respect had turned out) that every country from India to New Zealand would be at risk to follow. As it has turned out, the surest way for the people of a country to learn to hate having a Communist government is to actually have a Communist government.
Should have stayed out of Central America as well.
 
Should have stayed out of Central America as well.

We have more legitimate concerns about Central America than we do (or did) in southeast Asia. Our big problem there, as I see it, is that we act in a way that might be helpful to us culturally and economically, but lie about it because of the political liability back home (see the history of the rehabilitated felon Oliver North as an example).
 
We have more legitimate concerns about Central America than we do (or did) in southeast Asia. Our big problem there, as I see it, is that we act in a way that might be helpful to us culturally and economically, but lie about it because of the political liability back home (see the history of the rehabilitated felon Oliver North as an example).
The destabilization of duly elected governments, regime change, didn't work for us in Vietnam, Central America, Chile, Africa nor the Middle east. The "what happens next" plans were either ill concieved or not a consideration at all.
 
A man like Eisenhower knew issues like this from all sides and saw where lobbying from powerful entities like those of defense contractors could/would go amuck. Much like big pharma, oil, food production, etc. Except in the case of military spending it is all tax payer dollars, not just tax breaks, loopholes, easing of regulations and making special allowances, etc.
If we are so afraid of impending war we should have universal conscription, no excuses.

When you own a business, not upgrading with new equipment
to stay ahead of the competition is lost revenue....
When you are the leader of the Free World, not upgrading with
new equipment to stay ahead of the " Competing " Nations is a
recipe for impending FAILURE !

That's NOT a scare tactic....It's a FACT !

As for your comment about " Universal Conscription " ...it's a
ridiculous one. And NOT very well thought out. Of course what
should we expect from you Rodent, you don't do research....
You just regurgitate.

Throwing " Bodies " at a problem is absolute insanity and a good
way to lose in today's advanced warfare battlefield tactics....
 
A man like Eisenhower knew issues like this from all sides and saw where lobbying from powerful entities like those of defense contractors could/would go amuck. Much like big pharma, oil, food production, etc. Except in the case of military spending it is all tax payer dollars, not just tax breaks, loopholes, easing of regulations and making special allowances, etc.
If we are so afraid of impending war we should have universal conscription, no excuses.
Ahhh my little chicken hawk.
 
Not sure I follow? Presidents don't fund the military...

But politics aside. Can someone please tell me how it's gotten to be more expensive during peace time then war? Because the we're getting ripped off alarm bells just started sounding in my head.
Exactly, they don’t fund it but they can tear it down.
 
A man like Eisenhower knew issues like this from all sides and saw where lobbying from powerful entities like those of defense contractors could/would go amuck. Much like big pharma, oil, food production, etc. Except in the case of military spending it is all tax payer dollars, not just tax breaks, loopholes, easing of regulations and making special allowances, etc.
If we are so afraid of impending war we should have universal conscription, no excuses.
Don’t forget the near doubling of the national debt under Obama. Makes military spending look like chump change. But you people keep running from it. It’s kinda funny. But I get it.
 
We got into Vietnam because we forgot our own roots in fighting off colonialism in the 18th Century, and some of our "leaders" were scared that if Vietnam went full-on commie (which is how the plebiscite election we had pledged to respect had turned out) that every country from India to New Zealand would be at risk to follow. As it has turned out, the surest way for the people of a country to learn to hate having a Communist government is to actually have a Communist government.
So it wasn’t the Russians after all.
 
Don’t forget the near doubling of the national debt under Obama. Makes military spending look like chump change. But you people keep running from it. It’s kinda funny. But I get it.

I'm sorry what's your point here? That because of Obama now nobody can talk about deficits ever again because you've thrown up a couple made up stats? Good grief, you're really starting to pull the pasta a little thin on some of these answers bubs.
 
I'm sorry what's your point here? That because of Obama now nobody can talk about deficits ever again because you've thrown up a couple made up stats? Good grief, you're really starting to pull the pasta a little thin on some of these answers bubs.
Talk about the cause of ALL deficits all you want. That’s the point. Use all the Lasagna you want.
 
Talk about the cause of ALL deficits all you want. That’s the point. Use all the Lasagna you want.

Um... not sure I agree.
Obama inherited two/three wars that were started in the wake of 911. Since then those wars have all been declared success and have seen massive troop withdraws. And yet the year cost of funding the military hasn't fallen the way it has at the end of every war in the history of mankind.

Do you see where I'm going with this, and how my exact point is that plainly this is not business as usual?
 
Back
Top