[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Military Spending - Please Explain (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 1/18/2012 10:25:44 AM EDT
|
Something has been bothering me about the arguments against cutting defense spending. Many say that if we cut defense spending then our potential enemies, like China and Russia, will be able to close the gap between them and the US, invalidating our military superiority and increasing the likelihood of war. So I decided to look into this briefly. According to an article from The Economist and a chart I found on GlobalFirePower.com: - The US military budget is about $693 Billion dollars. - China's military budget is between $73 Billion and $100 Billion dollars. - Russia's military budget is $56 Billion dollars. That means that the US is spending 7-9 times as much as China and 10-12 times as much as Russia. Both Russia and China are nations that are known for having subpar manufacturing standards and being technologically inferior to the US. How then is it that these nations would be able to close the gap on us militarily? Even if we cut our defense spending in half, we would still be spending 3 times as much as China and 5 times as much as Russia. Our technology is far better, our manufacturing capabilities are superior and our military is far more experienced, battle hardened and combat ready. I don't think that this argument that the US would be put at a military disadvantage compared to other nations if we cut military spending holds any water. Sources: http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/03/defence_budgets |
|
Look at it this way.
The US is spending money to have the capability to react quickly to any point on the globe and win once there. That is far more expensive than the capability to deploy forces in a local area, which is what China and Russia are geared towards. Now, you can argue that we shouldn't try to have that capability, but that's a different discussion outside the scope of your question. |
|
There is something to be said about how the US pays for the R&D for military technology, while China and Russia just "aquire" it at a significant discount. To maintain the military edge that the US public expects and demands costs more than three to five times as much. Just one part of the larger equation, but IMHO, an important one.
|
|
Quoted: To name but a few reasons: http://images.op-for.com/images/aboutimage_0.jpg http://www.military-today.com/apc/efv.jpg http://www.generalaviationnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/osprey-400x280.jpg http://www.hightech-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/b2-bomber.jpg http://fightercountry.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/f-35.jpg Our procurement process sucks, which leads to many things, including wild operational costs. That's an absolute fact. Although, I will admit that I think that the B-2s have proven to be highly valuable. What has happened with the F-35 program though makes me sick to my stomach. They really fucked the taxpayer in the ass on that one. That could have been a cheap fighter too. |
|
- Our procurement process sucks
- We currently cover global contingencies rather than just regional - Our enemies can use low risk, off the shelf tech against us like IEDs because they are not trying to win or control territory, they are just trying to hurt us beyond our national pain threshhold - We spend inordinate amounts of money on tech intended to reduce collateral dmamge over cheaper more effective alternatives like cluster munitions because we wear the white hat - Our troops are paid better and live better than the chinese - We release the actual dollar figures on our defense budget, the chinese do not - Remove the dollar peg on chinese currency, get their actual numbers, and factor in the labor cost differences and I bet they are closer to parity than you think. |
|
Because the whole world is out to get us. At once. If we drastically cut our military spending, the world would plunge into a war-torn apocalypse that man has never known. Also, many members our .mil and it's simply natural to protect what you have.
And no, it's not paranoid! |
| Projecting power is incredibly expensive in comparison with being a regional power. And between just lying about expenditures and hiding them in other government agencies, the Chinese probably spend 2-3 times as much as they admit. They also get much more for their money than we do, so you have to adjust it to reflect purchasing power. |
|
This has been discussed several times in other threads, but to summarize
- Official budget numbers from Russia and China do not reflect actual spending. In the past, both nations have routinely concealed defense projects and defense-support projects under other budgetary buckets. - Manpower costs for China in particular, but also Russia, are a fraction of what they are for the US. - China and to some extent Russia are really only regional players, NOT global players. Our budget reflects a global commitment, while theirs do not. It might be more fair to compare US defense spending specific to the Pacific Rim versus China. - Calling China technologically backward would be incorrect, especially given that most of our electronics are produced there. They are not all that great at innovation, but very good at espionage. It could be argued that we spend too little on counter-espionage, and that shortcoming cancels out some of the benefits of our heavy spending into R&D All of that being true, I do think there is room for clean-up, improvement and budget cutting. The US defense budget is larded down with lots of non-defense activities (education grants, food voucher support) and with grants and equipment gifts to other nations that should more correctly be seen as other budget items (and in many cases should probably be trimmed). We have a procurement system that takes too long, and tries to make every item the ultimate item - the F-22 is conceptually a great aircraft, but when you lard it down with every conceivable option and program goal imaginable, the plane will end up with something that costs too much and is more prone to failures and downtime. We have way too many flag officers doing things that should be done by field-rank officers, or even civilians. We have too many programs in the military intended to enforce or encourage socio-political agendas within the force that have nothing to do with defense. We have a different fatigue and camo pattern for each service. But in the end, if we spend 5x or 10x what the rest of the world CLAIMS they are spending, I don't give a fuck - the goal should be an American military capable of taking on all comers successfully. Anything else is just optional window-dressing. |
|
Quoted: This has been discussed several times in other threads, but to summarize - Official budget numbers from Russia and China do not reflect actual spending. In the past, both nations have routinely concealed defense projects and defense-support projects under other budgetary buckets. - Manpower costs for China in particular, but also Russia, are a fraction of what they are for the US. - China and to some extent Russia are really only regional players, NOT global players. Our budget reflects a global commitment, while theirs do not. It might be more fair to compare US defense spending specific to the Pacific Rim versus China. - Calling China technologically backward would be incorrect, especially given that most of our electronics are produced there. They are not all that great at innovation, but very good at espionage. It could be argued that we spend too little on counter-espionage, and that shortcoming cancels out some of the benefits of our heavy spending into R&D All of that being true, I do think there is room for clean-up, improvement and budget cutting. The US defense budget is larded down with lots of non-defense activities (education grants, food voucher support) and with grants and equipment gifts to other nations that should more correctly be seen as other budget items (and in many cases should probably be trimmed). We have a procurement system that takes too long, and tries to make every item the ultimate item - the F-22 is conceptually a great aircraft, but when you lard it down with every conceivable option and program goal imaginable, the plane will end up with something that costs too much and is more prone to failures and downtime. We have way too many flag officers doing things that should be done by field-rank officers, or even civilians. We have too many programs in the military intended to enforce or encourage socio-political agendas within the force that have nothing to do with defense. We have a different fatigue and camo pattern for each service. But in the end, if we spend 5x or 10x what the rest of the world CLAIMS they are spending, I don't give a fuck - the goal should be an American military capable of taking on all comers successfully. Anything else is just optional window-dressing. What if we can't afford it anymore? |
People who say we can't cut the defense budget even a little bit are on crack. The amount of wasteful spending I saw when I was in the military was amazing. Example: When I was deployed there was a conex full of antenna's someone ordered for a project, around 200 of them. Apparently they were never authorized to buy them as the project was shit canned before it was even close to being approved. They had been sitting there since 2004. These antennas cost $3200 a piece. $640,000 wasted  And thats just one example I saw.
|
|
We could lop off 10% and nobody would even notice. When we're spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars putting up cell towers in Afghanistan, the wheels are off the cart. Of course, the Federal spending train has been steaming along for decades with nobody backing off on the throttle and absolutely zero thought of hitting the brake. I'm almost convinced it's a plan to drive us into socialism. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has been discussed several times in other threads, but to summarize - Official budget numbers from Russia and China do not reflect actual spending. In the past, both nations have routinely concealed defense projects and defense-support projects under other budgetary buckets. - Manpower costs for China in particular, but also Russia, are a fraction of what they are for the US. - China and to some extent Russia are really only regional players, NOT global players. Our budget reflects a global commitment, while theirs do not. It might be more fair to compare US defense spending specific to the Pacific Rim versus China. - Calling China technologically backward would be incorrect, especially given that most of our electronics are produced there. They are not all that great at innovation, but very good at espionage. It could be argued that we spend too little on counter-espionage, and that shortcoming cancels out some of the benefits of our heavy spending into R&D All of that being true, I do think there is room for clean-up, improvement and budget cutting. The US defense budget is larded down with lots of non-defense activities (education grants, food voucher support) and with grants and equipment gifts to other nations that should more correctly be seen as other budget items (and in many cases should probably be trimmed). We have a procurement system that takes too long, and tries to make every item the ultimate item - the F-22 is conceptually a great aircraft, but when you lard it down with every conceivable option and program goal imaginable, the plane will end up with something that costs too much and is more prone to failures and downtime. We have way too many flag officers doing things that should be done by field-rank officers, or even civilians. We have too many programs in the military intended to enforce or encourage socio-political agendas within the force that have nothing to do with defense. We have a different fatigue and camo pattern for each service. But in the end, if we spend 5x or 10x what the rest of the world CLAIMS they are spending, I don't give a fuck - the goal should be an American military capable of taking on all comers successfully. Anything else is just optional window-dressing. What if we can't afford it anymore? Cut the programs that aren't in the Constitution |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has been discussed several times in other threads, but to summarize - Official budget numbers from Russia and China do not reflect actual spending. In the past, both nations have routinely concealed defense projects and defense-support projects under other budgetary buckets. - Manpower costs for China in particular, but also Russia, are a fraction of what they are for the US. - China and to some extent Russia are really only regional players, NOT global players. Our budget reflects a global commitment, while theirs do not. It might be more fair to compare US defense spending specific to the Pacific Rim versus China. - Calling China technologically backward would be incorrect, especially given that most of our electronics are produced there. They are not all that great at innovation, but very good at espionage. It could be argued that we spend too little on counter-espionage, and that shortcoming cancels out some of the benefits of our heavy spending into R&D All of that being true, I do think there is room for clean-up, improvement and budget cutting. The US defense budget is larded down with lots of non-defense activities (education grants, food voucher support) and with grants and equipment gifts to other nations that should more correctly be seen as other budget items (and in many cases should probably be trimmed). We have a procurement system that takes too long, and tries to make every item the ultimate item - the F-22 is conceptually a great aircraft, but when you lard it down with every conceivable option and program goal imaginable, the plane will end up with something that costs too much and is more prone to failures and downtime. We have way too many flag officers doing things that should be done by field-rank officers, or even civilians. We have too many programs in the military intended to enforce or encourage socio-political agendas within the force that have nothing to do with defense. We have a different fatigue and camo pattern for each service. But in the end, if we spend 5x or 10x what the rest of the world CLAIMS they are spending, I don't give a fuck - the goal should be an American military capable of taking on all comers successfully. Anything else is just optional window-dressing. What if we can't afford it anymore? then we cannot afford it, but bringing up comparative fantasy budgets has no bearing on that |
|
Quoted:
Something has been bothering me about the arguments against cutting defense spending. Many say that if we cut defense spending then our potential enemies, like China and Russia, will be able to close the gap between them and the US, invalidating our military superiority and increasing the likelihood of war. So I decided to look into this briefly. According to an article from The Economist and a chart I found on GlobalFirePower.com: - The US military budget is about $693 Billion dollars. - China's military budget is between $73 Billion and $100 Billion dollars. - Russia's military budget is $56 Billion dollars. That means that the US is spending 7-9 times as much as China and 10-12 times as much as Russia. Both Russia and China are nations that are known for having subpar manufacturing standards and being technologically inferior to the US. How then is it that these nations would be able to close the gap on us militarily? Even if we cut our defense spending in half, we would still be spending 3 times as much as China and 5 times as much as Russia. Our technology is far better, our manufacturing capabilities are superior and our military is far more experienced, battle hardened and combat ready. I don't think that this argument that the US would be put at a military disadvantage compared to other nations if we cut military spending holds any water. Sources: http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/03/defence_budgets Wages are lower in those countries. 
|
|
Quoted:
So we borrow from china to defend against china. and you think as long as china continues to be our lender of choice we are really stopping them from acquiring their strategic objectives. china's war with us is economic, not military. and they are winning. Looking at it another way, we're trading china empty promises of future scraps of paper that we control the value of in exchange for more military hardware and bread for the people. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has been discussed several times in other threads, but to summarize - Official budget numbers from Russia and China do not reflect actual spending. In the past, both nations have routinely concealed defense projects and defense-support projects under other budgetary buckets. - Manpower costs for China in particular, but also Russia, are a fraction of what they are for the US. - China and to some extent Russia are really only regional players, NOT global players. Our budget reflects a global commitment, while theirs do not. It might be more fair to compare US defense spending specific to the Pacific Rim versus China. - Calling China technologically backward would be incorrect, especially given that most of our electronics are produced there. They are not all that great at innovation, but very good at espionage. It could be argued that we spend too little on counter-espionage, and that shortcoming cancels out some of the benefits of our heavy spending into R&D All of that being true, I do think there is room for clean-up, improvement and budget cutting. The US defense budget is larded down with lots of non-defense activities (education grants, food voucher support) and with grants and equipment gifts to other nations that should more correctly be seen as other budget items (and in many cases should probably be trimmed). We have a procurement system that takes too long, and tries to make every item the ultimate item - the F-22 is conceptually a great aircraft, but when you lard it down with every conceivable option and program goal imaginable, the plane will end up with something that costs too much and is more prone to failures and downtime. We have way too many flag officers doing things that should be done by field-rank officers, or even civilians. We have too many programs in the military intended to enforce or encourage socio-political agendas within the force that have nothing to do with defense. We have a different fatigue and camo pattern for each service. But in the end, if we spend 5x or 10x what the rest of the world CLAIMS they are spending, I don't give a fuck - the goal should be an American military capable of taking on all comers successfully. Anything else is just optional window-dressing. What if we can't afford it anymore? We will be a second rate power and the rest of the world will pay the price. |
|
Quoted:
What if we can't afford it anymore? Why not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other forms of welfare? They contribute much less to the United States' general welfare and would save a lot more money than you could cut from the Defense budget. Smart cuts in the DoD are very possible, but they're not easy cuts to make, and could save a decent amount. The dumb cuts which are easier to cut will be the ones going, though. |
|
A few points.
First, money spent there goes a hell of a lot farther than it goes here. Dollar for dollar comparisons do not paint an accurate picture. Second, unless you want the same tech as they do, you have to be prepared for extreme R&D costs that other countries can largely avoid. That's not to say that we can't make cuts (that's also not to say that we shouldn't spend more) but the comparison really isn't valid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has been discussed several times in other threads, but to summarize - Official budget numbers from Russia and China do not reflect actual spending. In the past, both nations have routinely concealed defense projects and defense-support projects under other budgetary buckets. - Manpower costs for China in particular, but also Russia, are a fraction of what they are for the US. - China and to some extent Russia are really only regional players, NOT global players. Our budget reflects a global commitment, while theirs do not. It might be more fair to compare US defense spending specific to the Pacific Rim versus China. - Calling China technologically backward would be incorrect, especially given that most of our electronics are produced there. They are not all that great at innovation, but very good at espionage. It could be argued that we spend too little on counter-espionage, and that shortcoming cancels out some of the benefits of our heavy spending into R&D All of that being true, I do think there is room for clean-up, improvement and budget cutting. The US defense budget is larded down with lots of non-defense activities (education grants, food voucher support) and with grants and equipment gifts to other nations that should more correctly be seen as other budget items (and in many cases should probably be trimmed). We have a procurement system that takes too long, and tries to make every item the ultimate item - the F-22 is conceptually a great aircraft, but when you lard it down with every conceivable option and program goal imaginable, the plane will end up with something that costs too much and is more prone to failures and downtime. We have way too many flag officers doing things that should be done by field-rank officers, or even civilians. We have too many programs in the military intended to enforce or encourage socio-political agendas within the force that have nothing to do with defense. We have a different fatigue and camo pattern for each service. But in the end, if we spend 5x or 10x what the rest of the world CLAIMS they are spending, I don't give a fuck - the goal should be an American military capable of taking on all comers successfully. Anything else is just optional window-dressing. What if we can't afford it anymore? Cut the programs that aren't in the Constitution In the other word, you mean welfare and entitlement, which will result in a balanced budget, without touching a dime from the DoD's budget? It make so much sense, it will never be done, especially we are having an aging society, thanks to our first class medical system. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So we borrow from china to defend against china. and you think as long as china continues to be our lender of choice we are really stopping them from acquiring their strategic objectives. china's war with us is economic, not military. and they are winning. Looking at it another way, we're trading china empty promises of future scraps of paper that we control the value of in exchange for more military hardware and bread for the people. those empty promises extend to every citizen of the US. we can't fuck china without fucking ourselves. china knows this. we should know this as well. |
|
Quoted:
So we borrow from china to defend against china. and you think as long as china continues to be our lender of choice we are really stopping them from acquiring their strategic objectives. china's war with us is economic, not military. and they are winning. So, in Gunner language what you're saying is, China plays Chess while we play Checkers? 
|
|
Defense and military spending are not the same. Lots of agencies get a piece of the "defense" budget. Some notable examples, certainly not all inclusivie. .
Department of Energy 17.7 billion Department of Labor 1 billion Department of Justice 4.7 billion Department of Homeland Security 2.9 billion Department of Veterans Affairs 121.7 billion FBI 4.7 billiion I believe I heard during the debate the other night that the new embassy in Bagdhad was built using defense dollars. |
|
IMO all federal spending needs to meet the same standard, is the expendature necessary and sufficient to secure the rights of the American people?
Military isn't exempt, it's just got a much better claim, and a wider range of acceptable appraisals of what is necessary and/or sufficient. I don't think we need any deep cuts to capabilities but we need to be willing to subject DoD to the same scrutiny as any other government program and the missions we undertake militarily need to meet that same standard. Political reality is that we are never going to get what we want, even if what we wanted as a party was correct, which it isn't. We're never going to be able to dismantle entitlements completely and spend the whole federal budget on stuff the right thinks is worthwhile, so getting our fiscal situation under control is going to involve cutting everything, the only real question is whether we'll do it voluntarily, with a plan to minimize the negative effects, or it will be done for us in a more destructive way when economic reality forces our hand. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So we borrow from china to defend against china. and you think as long as china continues to be our lender of choice we are really stopping them from acquiring their strategic objectives. china's war with us is economic, not military. and they are winning. So, in Gunner language what you're saying is, China plays Chess while we play Checkers? China plays chess, we play MW3. in army doctrine we talk about phase zero operations as shaping the environment. than phases 1-5 constitute the combat portions. In chinese military thinking, shaping is phases 1-5. Combat is phase 6, and is only partaken due to a mistake or completely ensured dominance at that point. Actual conflict is seen as a failure in chinese military thought. Not that it doesn't occur, but it should be avoided at all costs. They are also infinitly more patient. As long as our economy continues to falter, their shaping operations continue. so for 30 years they can't operate with impunity? so what. relook the strategic situation in 30 years. this whole ASB is a procurement justification exercise. that lasts for one generation. the continued destruction of our economy (through borrowing much of that from china) meets their strategic objectives. china is willing to wait till the USAF has 20 aircraft and the Navy has 3 ships. Then they will do whatever they want. Meanwhile you have GEN Schwartz talking about how we need multi-roles and not dedicated aircraft (unless that dedicated aircraft is super expensive, fast and does great at airshows) so, all we have are B-1s and F35s to do COIN CAS? China ferments discord where we fight guerrilla warfare with our uber expensive planes that wear out after 2K hours. then our fleet is dead. they have still destroyed our AF. They just did it in a different way. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This has been discussed several times in other threads, but to summarize - Official budget numbers from Russia and China do not reflect actual spending. In the past, both nations have routinely concealed defense projects and defense-support projects under other budgetary buckets. - Manpower costs for China in particular, but also Russia, are a fraction of what they are for the US. - China and to some extent Russia are really only regional players, NOT global players. Our budget reflects a global commitment, while theirs do not. It might be more fair to compare US defense spending specific to the Pacific Rim versus China. - Calling China technologically backward would be incorrect, especially given that most of our electronics are produced there. They are not all that great at innovation, but very good at espionage. It could be argued that we spend too little on counter-espionage, and that shortcoming cancels out some of the benefits of our heavy spending into R&D All of that being true, I do think there is room for clean-up, improvement and budget cutting. The US defense budget is larded down with lots of non-defense activities (education grants, food voucher support) and with grants and equipment gifts to other nations that should more correctly be seen as other budget items (and in many cases should probably be trimmed). We have a procurement system that takes too long, and tries to make every item the ultimate item - the F-22 is conceptually a great aircraft, but when you lard it down with every conceivable option and program goal imaginable, the plane will end up with something that costs too much and is more prone to failures and downtime. We have way too many flag officers doing things that should be done by field-rank officers, or even civilians. We have too many programs in the military intended to enforce or encourage socio-political agendas within the force that have nothing to do with defense. We have a different fatigue and camo pattern for each service. But in the end, if we spend 5x or 10x what the rest of the world CLAIMS they are spending, I don't give a fuck - the goal should be an American military capable of taking on all comers successfully. Anything else is just optional window-dressing. What if we can't afford it anymore? then we cannot afford it, but bringing up comparative fantasy budgets has no bearing on that Not true. Looks to me like we could cut our budget in half and still have enough of an edge to handle China and Russia. |
|
Quoted: people seem to forget the DVA is included in defense spending... meaning a large portion of that 695 billion is spent on pensions, and healthcare for vets I doubt that the cost of health care for vets and pensions is equivalent to say running 11 carrier battle groups. |
|
weve haad one large attack in 60 years and then we have only suffered 4100 kia in 10+ years of war with 98% of wounded surviving. please keep spending htat 700 billion on the Constitutionally mandated please correction: 7625 not 4100. 4800 in iraq and roughly 2800 in afghanistan |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
then we cannot afford it, but bringing up comparative fantasy budgets has no bearing on that Not true. Looks to me like we could cut our budget in half and still have enough of an edge to handle China and Russia. Well, that's because you're completely ignorant of what you're talking about. 
People want to cut the DoD budget because it's politically easy, not because it's the right thing to do. |
|
Quoted:
Looks to me like we could cut our budget in half and still have enough of an edge to handle China and Russia. Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion Military Personnel $154.2 billion Procurement $140.1 billion Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion Military Construction $23.9 billion Family Housing $3.1 billion Total Spending 683.7 billion Or: Army $244.9 billion Navy $149.9 billion excluding Marine Corps Marine Corps $29.0 billion Air Force $170.6 billion Defense Intelligence $50 billion Defense Wide Joint Activities $118.7 billion Let's just start with big numbers: What would you cut from? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tag for later. I'll get my hip boots. Since you've implied I'm full of shit, you can wallow in your misconceptions. It's obvious, by this point, you're only looking for people to confirm your beliefs anyway. Heaven forbid you challenge your preconceptions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
people seem to forget the DVA is included in defense spending... meaning a large portion of that 695 billion is spent on pensions, and healthcare for vets I doubt that the cost of health care for vets and pensions is equivalent to say running 11 carrier battle groups. Costs associated with employees is a gigantic chunk of the DOD budget, if not the largest (I don't have the chart in front of me). ETA: Also, just because you have 11 carriers doesn't mean you are really actively running 11 CSGs (they aren't called carrier battle groups). There's 11 carriers. There are only three deployed. That's how it works. |
|
Quoted:
weve haad one large attack in 60 years and then we have only suffered 4100 kia in 10+ years of war with 98% of wounded surviving. please keep spending htat 700 billion on the Constitutionally mandated please You might want to recheck your numbers, bub. You're off by about... oh, 2,300. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
people seem to forget the DVA is included in defense spending... meaning a large portion of that 695 billion is spent on pensions, and healthcare for vets I doubt that the cost of health care for vets and pensions is equivalent to say running 11 carrier battle groups. Costs associated with employees is a gigantic chunk of the DOD budget, if not the largest (I don't have the chart in front of me). Bah, I'm told people aren't expensive. |
|
Quoted:
Aww, that's cute, you think China is telling the truth about their spending, and that their spending dollars buy the equivalent to ours at a similar price. That Chinese budget does sound crazy low. Like the other above said, offensive vs defensive spending/capability. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
people seem to forget the DVA is included in defense spending... meaning a large portion of that 695 billion is spent on pensions, and healthcare for vets I doubt that the cost of health care for vets and pensions is equivalent to say running 11 carrier battle groups. Costs associated with employees is a gigantic chunk of the DOD budget, if not the largest (I don't have the chart in front of me). Bah, I'm told people aren't expensive. They don't have to be. We choose to make it so. |
| our spending is way out of control. As much as I enjoyed my time in I saw nothing bootlicker on the heels of government money and support one after the other. Why the fuck do we have medical ships providing surgeries to people in Indonesia and Africa? Why do we continue to be in western europe? Focus on key elements for our defense and leave our Army, cut all the superflous bullshit down to nothing. Its time we stopped being the world police force and sending our own to die for others just so they can kick us out and laugh in our faces. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
people seem to forget the DVA is included in defense spending... meaning a large portion of that 695 billion is spent on pensions, and healthcare for vets I doubt that the cost of health care for vets and pensions is equivalent to say running 11 carrier battle groups. Costs associated with employees is a gigantic chunk of the DOD budget, if not the largest (I don't have the chart in front of me). Bah, I'm told people aren't expensive. They don't have to be. We choose to make it so. We can certainly lower personnel costs, the Navy did so over the last decade. You know what we discovered? A simultaneous increase in maintenance costs. If you want to play you have to pay. The only real difference is the color of the money. |