Pentigon seeks 620 Billion dollar budget

[JMS]

What is up with that? To put this in perspective, in 2001 the United States had a military Budget of of 320 Billion. At that spending level the United States outspent the next 16 largest militaries combined. The vast majority of those militaries being Strong American allies. Now while conducting two off budget wars which inflate military spending approximately 200 billion a year we are almost doubling what is easily far and away the most expensive military in the world by many times.

Looking at global military spending.. who exactly are we protecting ourselves from? Or are we increasing military spending for a reason other than protection?

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.php#chart-7

[portisizzle]

Actually you are failing to put your numbers in the PROPER perspective.

What everyone should be interested in is not the sheer dollar amount but rather that number in relationship to our GDP. Only then can you get a true historical perspective on the weight of this budget on our country.

What we hope as Americans is that our country's leadership spends sufficient resources on our military so that we never get to see THIS graph like we did during the 40's and WW2.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#gdp-graph

[PleaseBlitz]

And dont forget the amount of jobs that the $620 billion creates.

[Insomniac]

i'm confused....what's the pentigon?

[twa]

i'm confused....what's the pentigon?

Satan's defense headquarters(built in the shape of a pentagram) ?

[Zen-like Todd]

Also keep in mind the fact that comparing budgets between countries is fairly difficult given the vastly differing levels of compensation in many situations. A large percentage of our budget is directly paid out to personnel, and an even larger portion is a function of indirect personnel costs. In other words, it's far cheaper in absolute terms for North Korea or China to stand up a million man army than it is for the United States.

The FY2006 budget was 441 billion. 111 Billion of that was from military personnel costs. Keep in mind that the 441 also includes homeland security, nuclear cleanup/protection/management cash, etc, etc.

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/fy2006_greenbook.pdf

The main breakdown is:

111 Billion - Military Personnel

Ops & Maintenance - 148 Billion

Procurement - 78 Billion

R&D - 70 Billion.

[HOF44]

If they do, I hope it's to fund more troops and take better care of the ones we have now. Not 10's of billions to bloated contractor's.

[mjah]

These comparisons with the 1940s are interesting. But they're a really a red herring in relation to the original point, which is that military spending will have doubled in five years.

I have no intention of starting a debate about justifications for the Iraq War (because we've already seen that it was an incredibly stupid idea), but at some point you have to ask why we use the term, Department of Defense. We aren't in any effective defense mode at all in this country, unless you want to consider the paranoid civilian siege mentality that leads to paramilitary commandos blowing up Boston Lite-Brites.

Increased military spending won't cause unbearable financial hardship for the US, but it's just ridiculous. Is there really 40% more need for military spending next year than there was this year? Seriously? Come on.

And sure, it creates jobs now. That's great. What's going to happen when reasonable heads prevail and military spending gets "right-sized" again? It's a shame that some future President who does the responsible thing and moderates the military throttle will be blamed for cutting jobs.

I like airborne lasers, antimissile missiles, killer dolphins, and nuclear ray guns as much as the next guy, by the way. I've even worked on one of those projects, though I won't say which. But if you really want to overdo it on defense, at least do something that has a chance of being materially effective in addressing a problem that's known to actually exist. Take a cue from the Chinese and build a giant wall across the Mexican border. You'd only have to ding the Pentagon for a portion of their requested increase, and you'd still be creating plenty of jobs (for illegal immigrants, ironically).

[portisizzle]

Mjah, you opinion about the war is not the issue here.

The point raised was the high cost of defense spending.

My only point was to say that the "high cost" is not so high at all. Especially considering the high cost our country paid during WW2.

The reality is that our country must do whatever it takes to avoid another WW2. If you and I can agree to this point then we can agree on this subsequent point....

Premptive action is a viable military strategy. See Iraq for an example of premtive action.

[portisizzle]

And just on more point.

Consider the fact that the cost the American military pays for personnel and equipment is MUCH higher than in other countries.

If the only point learned from this conversation is that we are RICH in comparison to these other countries it would have been a worthwhile exercise.

[chomerics]

Premptive action is a viable military strategy. See Iraq for an example of premtive action.

Preemptive action? Are you serious :doh:

A 40% increase in military spending, and this DOES NOT INCLUDE IRAQ!!?! How can ANYONE justify a 40% increase in spending? This is a joke, as well as the GOP has turned into. Forget our deficit, forget science, forget everything but the Military Industrial Complex, that is what the GOP is all about, giving over HALF A TRILLION dollars to the DOD. . . and people think this is good, with opinions like that, it is no wonder how we ended up in Iraq in the first place. . .oh yea, it was a "preemptive" war because Saddam was such a threat to the US :doh:

Spot on Mjah as usual.

[portisizzle]

Preemptive action? Are you serious :doh:

In twenty years the middle east will not exist as you and I know it. It is at that point that you can buy me a beer and we can toast President Bush for his ability to get into the face and eyes of Iran and Syria.

[portisizzle]

How can ANYONE justify a 40% increase in spending?

A Democrat....... for everything Socialist in nature EXCEPT MILITARY.

[Destino]

Actually you are failing to put your numbers in the PROPER perspective.

What everyone should be interested in is not the sheer dollar amount but rather that number in relationship to our GDP. Only then can you get a true historical perspective on the weight of this budget on our country.

What we hope as Americans is that our country's leadership spends sufficient resources on our military so that we never get to see THIS graph like we did during the 40's and WW2.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#gdp-graph

That is a completely laughable right wing statistic. Percentages don't tell you if you spent too much or too little. Trying to claim our spending is too low because our economy has grown faster then defense spending is lunacy. It's crap preached by right wingers trying desperately to seek a way to increase funding to something clearly already well funded. This is the only way they can argue increased spending without being laughed out the room.

Before I support defense spending increases by a single dollar - fix the golden parachute problem and return with a clean audit. Also let's have a chat about every contractor bidding one thing and then going wildly over budget. I don't agree with the idea that the military should be allowed to waste as much money as it can and never be held accountable.

[portisizzle]

That is a completely laughable right wing statistic. Percentages don't tell you if you spent too much or too little. Trying to claim our spending is too low because our economy has grown faster then defense spending is lunacy. It's crap preached by right wingers trying desperately to seek a way to increase funding to something clearly already well funded. This is the only way they can argue increased spending without being laughed out the room.

Before I support defense spending increases by a single dollar - fix the golden parachute problem and return with a clean audit. Also let's have a chat about every contractor bidding one thing and then going wildly over budget. I don't agree with the idea that the military should be allowed to waste as much money as it can and never be held accountable.

Simple question.

How much is a 30 year mortgage on a 2000 s/f house today and say forty years ago?

Once you get your answer come back to me and talk about how laughable my point is.

[Darth Tater]

And dont forget the amount of jobs that the $620 billion creates.

Broken glass. Military spending (in fact, all government spending) ALWAYS destroys many more jobs than it creates.

[Baculus]

Let's also add in the missing $2.2 trillion dollars in Pentagon spending.

The fact, is if it wasn't for both fraud, waste, and siphoning of expenditures (for personal profit and blackbudge programs), this amount wouldn't have to be so large. Look at Iraq: BILLIONS of US government money was simply given away. During Paul Bremer's tenure as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, we had billions of missing spending as well. And partially because millions were being given away without any oversight. (And yes, Halliburton and KBR did receive a lot of this money; and some folks here protested when Halliburton was attacked for repeatedly defrauding the government, behaviour which is undefensible.)

And Paul Bremer received a damn MEDAL for his incompetent "rule" as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, if that isn't ironic enough.

When you have little oversight, and when conditions are created for great fraud, that is what you get: And that is the entire issue that we have with the Bush administration as well as previous administrations. It most certainly did not start with the current administration, but it certainly has become much worse, to the deteriment of the average American citizen and to the profit of a small group of businesses and individuals.

It is the age old story - such military-industrial exploitation is one reason why Robert Lafollette voted against the First World War. And why folks such as Smedley Butler writes papers such as "War is a Racket." Military spending often is not simply about providing our nation and its fighting warriors with the tools they need, but about profit: pure profit.

[Darth Tater]

That is a completely laughable right wing statistic.

To identify military spending with the right-wing is laughable. How can any organization whose primary mission is the destruction of capital be considered right wing?

[JMS]

Mjah, you opinion about the war is not the issue here.

The point raised was the high cost of defense spending.

My only point was to say that the "high cost" is not so high at all. Especially considering the high cost our country paid during WW2.

The reality is that our country must do whatever it takes to avoid another WW2. If you and I can agree to this point then we can agree on this subsequent point....

Premptive action is a viable military strategy. See Iraq for an example of premtive action.

Why is it valid to compare the military build up in 2007 when we have to manufacture faulty inteligence in order to hoodwink the American public into backing a war of choice, and 1941 when we were involved in the greatest struggle for national existance since the revolutionary war?

How can you compare 1941 when we nationalized the entire manufacturing industry in this country to support the war effort, and 2007 when we don't even have the draft, and much of the money we've pumped into Iraq has been spent on no bid contracts, graft, bribes, or just outright stolen?

How many billions of dollars has Halaburton been awarded in no bid contracts, because "they're the only ones who can do it", only to have the contract get withdrawn and rebid after Haliburton was caught over billing? ( 8 billion dollars ).

I don't think your comparison is valid... please explain to me where I'm wrong..

[JMS]

Broken glass. Military spending (in fact, all government spending) ALWAYS destroys many more jobs than it creates.

Let's not forget. We are running record deficites even before this military increase. So in fact were are borrowing all this additional money from Red China through the massive trade deficites.

This military spending makes us less secure.

[JMS]

Consider the fact that the cost the American military pays for personnel and equipment is MUCH higher than in other countries.

The vast majority of the money we spend on defense goes to weapons not personel. And our personel costs are not significanly higher than the other countries on the lists.

For instance we spend more money per person than China and Russia, but They're militaries are many times larger than the American Military. Thus over all costs for personell aren't significanly higher for America. Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Israel all pay their military personel in the same ranges we do.

[portisizzle]

The vast majority of the money we spend on defense goes to weapons not personel. And our personel costs are not significanly higher than the other countries on the lists.

For instance we spend more money per person than China and Russia, but They're militaries are many times larger than the American Military. Thus over all costs for personell aren't significanly higher for America. Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Israel all pay their military personel in the same ranges we do.

Show me the proof to back up this assertion.

[portisizzle]

Why is it valid to compare the military build up in 2007 when we have to manufacture faulty inteligence in order to hoodwink the American public into backing a war of choice, and 1941 when we were involved in the greatest struggle for national existance since the revolutionary war?

How can you compare 1941 when we nationalized the entire manufacturing industry in this country to support the war effort, and 2007 when we don't even have the draft, and much of the money we've pumped into Iraq has been spent on no bid contracts, graft, bribes, or just outright stolen?

How many billions of dollars has Halaburton been awarded in no bid contracts, because "they're the only ones who can do it", only to have the contract get withdrawn and rebid after Haliburton was caught over billing? ( 8 billion dollars ).

I don't think your comparison is valid... please explain to me where I'm wrong..

You don't think it is valid because you are choosing to ignor the possibility of the NEXT "WW2" type war. And that that possibility (I call it a reality) lies directly in the sands that our troops now tread and those Countries very near to our position.

You want to talk about an incovenient truth? I will give you one. Our next mortal enemy will not lob nuclear missles across an ocean toward us. They will deliver it in a truck to the middle of our largest cities.

How do we stop that possibility TODAY so we do not have to reactively deal with it in the future? Well....we do exactly as we have been doing.

[Blighty Skins]

This thread about pantys?

[Winslowalrob]

I love the switched positions on this thread: sizzle is advocating socialism, and saying that government money creates jobs. I assume that, using your logic, we might as well nationalize everything to eliminate unemployment entirely. The right-wing belief that the free-market should guide everything (education, medicine, etc.) seems to stop squarely at the door of national defense, when big government is the answer. An innefficient beauraucratic military seems to tittilate the right-wingers in ways no other government agency can.