Pentigon seeks 620 Billion dollar budget

[JMS]

Just wanted to provide a little background on the web site being quoted in this thread.

The beauty of quoting fact is that you can find those facts all over the Web. Having said, that I haven't posted anything from that particular site since early in this thread. My numbers comparing the US military and the next 45 greatest militaries comes from the Center for Defense Information, A Washington Defense thinktank. It's true that those numbers are posted all over the internet including on some intelligent liberal sites.

If you find specific fault with any of the numbers posted then comment on that. Rather than questioning the validity of the entire argument spanning many web sites based on perceived philosophical objection to a single site...

I do not consider myself a fiscal liberal. I do not think fiscal responsibility is exactly a liberal theme. Although I would agree with you that fiscal conservatives like myself are forced from the Republican party in search of fiscal sanity. I would also agree with you that Republican conservative has taken on a meaning unrelated to fiscal policy.

Shoot, even Bush only called for a balanced budget and murmured the words fiscal responsibility after the Democrats got control of the house and senate.

I don’t think liberal or conservative a meaningful label for this debate. I would prefer sane and insane. Because until somebody can explain to me the sanity of outspending the entire world’s military budget ( top 400 – 500 nations ). I will continue to refer to the advocates of that policy as insane…

DixieFlatline and other posters on this thread exceptions to the insane label to aid polite discourse.

[portisizzle]

Those numbers that you quoted..... are they adgusted to all mathc the US dollar?

[portisizzle]

Those numbers that you quoted..... are they adgusted to all mathc the US dollar?

I am not drunk. Let me ask again. :laugh:

Those numbers you quoted.... are they adjusted to all match the US dollar. :laugh:

[JMS]

I am not drunk. Let me ask again. :laugh:

Those numbers you quoted.... are they adjusted to all match the US dollar. :laugh:

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html

The Center for defense Information's liberal bias is unknown to me. Perhaps you could research this organization and tell me if you think they are left of center?

Opps check that... Seems as though the pentigon requested the numbers..

Table prepared by Center for Defense Information.

Sources: International Institute for Strategic Studies, Department of Defense

"For 45 years of the Cold War we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union. Now it appears we're in an arms race with ourselves."

Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.)

Deputy Director

Center for Defense Information

[portisizzle]

JMS, search the web for a book called The New American Militarism

I think you will like it.

No my question about the comparisons go to the point that a Big Mac sandwich costs more in the U.S. than China. By extension our cost to build and maintain the military is much more than say China.

Or did the comparison already discount the difference?

[JMS]

I meant catch up from the cuts we did in the 90s and therefore didn't keep up our pace with developing new technology, keeping the right size military for our needs, etc.

The United States started cutting the military budget beginning in Regan's second term in office in 1986 and continued to cut it right up until Clinton's second year in his first term in office. At that point and until Clinton's final year in office the budget was heald relatively flat. Dropping 1% or going up 1% until Bush started raising military spending in his first Budget, 2002.

The point is Dixie that we don't have an enemy on the horizon which comes close to our spending. We are literally in an arms race with ourselves and we are building the wrong kind of army too boot...

The military budget is like the Katrina relief fund and the Iraqi war. It's just anouther chance for Big Business to soak the tax payer.

Sure..how much is too much? But how do you answer that without discussing the details? I just see you saying this is too much because its so much more than all these combined countries. I don't buy that line of argument and don't find the comparison meaningful. We should talk about what is being proposed and whether or not that fits with what we want our military to be and how it should be used.

I'm discussing nothing but details.

Please name a weapon system which failed to perform against the Iraqi army? You know the Iraqi army was the 4th largest army in the world before the first gulf war right. You know their airforce contained the new MIG's which are the most modern systems in the world right. Took us what 45 minutes to control their skys from a continent away. Another day to destroy their army.

Sure we're currently modernizing the airforce and all. One can always by newer stuff. We just retired the F-14 which was still the finest navel aircraft flown even if it was a 30 year old airframe. The electronics were brand new.

Isn't 4 times what the chinese spend enough to keep us ahead of them technologically why do we have to spend 12 times?

I don't understand your reasoning and I want too because then I'd sleep a little better.

This part of the discussion should probably be moved to another thread. If the oil companies could have supplied more they would have. As it is, our refineries are essentially maxed out in the US. We can't push more through even if we wanted to. That is a major reason why gas jumped so much after Katrina because a number of refineries went offline and the gap couldn't be made up any where else.

Well we're in it now anyway... As for the refineries.. That's what they tell us. Course the electric companies told California that they didn't have enough capacity either, and that turned out to be bunk. In the absense of competition you just have to trust them don't you.

Three weeks after Katrina hit, the capacity was almost back to normal. But you're right gas prices spiked that very next day. Likewise when we invaded Iraq. Gas prices spiked that day and stayed high all based upon speculation. Then when the speculation subsided. Gasoline prices at the pump remained high for months because the oil companies tried to tell us that they had purchased all the gas we used in two months in the two weeks that the prices were high. It's a racket...

[JMS]

President Bush’s fiscal year 2008 (FY 08) Pentagon budget seeks $624.6 billion, not including additional national defense costs for the Department of Energy and other federal agencies (an additional $22.6 billion). Moreover, a comprehensive calculation might also include the costs of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of State (add another $159.1 billion). Combining all national security related costs would total $802.9 billion for FY 08.

The Pentagon’s budget alone calculates to $1.7 billion per day for 2008. It’s highly probable that our enemies in Iraq do not spend that amount in an entire year, and yet we are losing this war.

Three briefing slides prepared by Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project, track these costs using various perspectives.

http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Briefing%20on%20Numbers2.ppt

[DixieFlatline]

The point is Dixie that we don't have an enemy on the horizon which comes close to our spending. We are literally in an arms race with ourselves and we are building the wrong kind of army too boot...

I'm discussing nothing but details.

Actuually, I think you were talking broad strokes by talking about the total budget and not what's in it.

Please name a weapon system which failed to perform against the Iraqi army? You know the Iraqi army was the 4th largest army in the world before the first gulf war right. You know their airforce contained the new MIG's which are the most modern systems in the world right. Took us what 45 minutes to control their skys from a continent away. Another day to destroy their army.

Sure we're currently modernizing the airforce and all. One can always by newer stuff. We just retired the F-14 which was still the finest navel aircraft flown even if it was a 30 year old airframe. The electronics were brand new.

Isn't 4 times what the chinese spend enough to keep us ahead of them technologically why do we have to spend 12 times?

I don't understand your reasoning and I want too because then I'd sleep a little better.

My point has been that I don't know the details of the proposed budget, so I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. There might be appropriations in there for new technology that I think we don't need, but just because nothing failed in Iraq doesn't mean we should stop thinking ahead.

What if the new weapon systems are designed to allow our soldiers to perform more with less? Or aircraft that can perform multiple duties instead of being primarily an air to air or air to ground which would make us more efficient? Maybe we're asking to increasing our troop levels so we're better prepared to handle deployments in multiple theaters. I mean, I think its been proven we can take care of anyone, but you still need boots on the ground.

FYI - I did read today that some of the budget does contain money for Iraq and Afganistan. I believe its $100 billion.

[JMS]

Actuually, I think you were talking broad strokes by talking about the total budget and not what's in it.

Well the total budget is a detail. And many of the specific line items are classified. So if we talk specifics we loose detail. We loose focus on the monstrocity that is the defense budget.

Here are some specifics..

- $27 billion for various aircraft programs, including $6.1 billion for the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter, $4.6 billion for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and $ 2.6 billion for the V-22 Osprey, made by Boeing Co. and Textron Inc.'s (TXT) Bell Helicopter unit.

- $3.7 billion for the Army's Future Combat Systems

- $6.0 billion for satellite systems and other space programs

- $8.9 billion for missile defense programs

- $14.4 billion for shipbuilding programs, including $3 billion for the next generation DDG-1000 destroyer made by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and General Dynamics Corp. (GD)

This is kind of an interesting ship. It's the proposed successor to the Iowa class battle ships which we had in WWII and every war since, except this latest Iraq war. Where the Iowa's had 8-10 16 inch guns, this proposed replacement has 2 automatic 6 inch guns. Some plusses are,

• with automation the rate of fire is actually better with the new system.
  
• new ship is smaller and requires only 10% of the Battle Ship.
  
• New ship is faster and uses less fuel
  
• 60 mile range for shells as oposed to 24 miles for the BS
  

The Negatives are glaring though.

• The new ship will only be able to maintain it's rate of fire for about an hour before it has exhausted it's supply of advanced long range shells. ( 60 mile range as apposed to 24 mile ).
  
• The newer ship is much smaller and lighter so it's not nearly as durable against mines, torpedo's, shore fire.
  
• The new one is the largest line item on the Navy's 2008 proposed procurement.
  
• The new ship's 6 inch guns are not nearly as "effective" as the battleships 16 inchers.
  
• Congress's had to relax their own mandate in order for the new ship to fill the same role as the BS.
  

Interesting to read about the debate... Keep the battle ships or start to replace them with this new though in some respects less capable very expensive ship.

-Most big weapons programs saw their requested funding increase over 2007 levels. But the 2008 request includes a $500 million cut to missile defense programs.

My point has been that I don't know the details of the proposed budget, so I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. There might be appropriations in there for new technology that I think we don't need, but just because nothing failed in Iraq doesn't mean we should stop thinking ahead.

And outspending the next 50 militaries combined to your mind doesn't give us the type of financial resources to "think ahead"?

What if the new weapon systems are designed to allow our soldiers to perform more with less? Or aircraft that can perform multiple duties instead of being primarily an air to air or air to ground which would make us more efficient? Maybe we're asking to increasing our troop levels so we're better prepared to handle deployments in multiple theaters. I mean, I think its been proven we can take care of anyone, but you still need boots on the ground.

We can take care of anybody in days. So we need to double our funds?

FYI - I did read today that some of the budget does contain money for Iraq and Afganistan. I believe its $100 billion.

Yep I saw that too. of the 620 Billion, 107 billion are for Iraqi War Costs. But the administration also stripped out some other items which traditionally are included in the Defense departements budget. Funding for the VA. funding for the Department of Energy ( which develops and stores our nuclear weapons).. Dropping these items into a different line item accounts for about half of 100 billion hit they took for the Iraqi war funding.

Still this is the first time the Iraqi/Afghanistan war funding was part of the Pentagon's budget.

[DixieFlatline]

Thanks for some info JMS. I probably won't have time to digest it during the day, but I'll look at it later.

[Thanos]

Here's what we lost in the 90's

Think we could use some of those personnel/equipment right now?

The number of personnel dropped but the Navy and Af seemed to get every weapons system that it wanted.Also the Army began to lean heavily on the Reserves for CSS assets especially.