War was the major Bush era economic stimulus package.

thomps: budget increases every year for the past 11 years (unprecedented), a higher budget than it ever had during the cold war (in real dollars) and "fiscal conservatives" are still falling all over themselves to keep every red cent in the pentagon's budget. maybe the left should start making up similar fear-mongering lies about the effects of cuts to social programs.

Doesn't really work when the fear-mongering is responded to with 'well, that's what those lazy welfare queens get!'

What conservatives actually believe:

Defense is the ONLY Federal spending authorized in the Constitution. Conservatives also know (but will not admit) that a recovery is a terrible time to cut spending.

Therefore, cutting spending on defense is a really bad idea at this particular point in time.

As someone who works in the Defense industry I'll just state what everybody knows: I've seen extraordinary waste, incompetence and something that is very close to bribery (contracting officers taking jobs with the firms that they just awarded big contracts to).

The amount of money spent on paying, training, and equipping actual 'warfighters' is trivial compared to the vast sums that are pissed away on various boondoggles involving large corporations that are major political contributors. For a good example see the F-35.

zetar: As someone who works in the Defense industry I'll just state what everybody knows: I've seen extraordinary waste, incompetence and something that is very close to bribery (contracting officers taking jobs with the firms that they just awarded big contracts to).

The amount of money spent on paying, training, and equipping actual 'warfighters' is trivial compared to the vast sums that are pissed away on various boondoggles involving large corporations that are major political contributors. For a good example see the F-35.

But...but...I was told the private sector was perfect and free of waste and fraud.

Marcus Aurelius: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x584]

That chart means jack shiat unless you discount the pay of the standing army. A soldier in China costs less than a soldier in the US.

It's like some of you farking refuse to actually look beyond simple charts as long as they conform to your world view.

Half of the US DoD budget goes to troop pay and support.

I'll know people are serious about the deficit when they defense is on the table. Most of the neato gadgets they have for fighting the 21st century land war scenario are worth bupkis against your average mujahedin.

//Predators are kinda cool and cost-effective.

thomps: budget increases every year for the past 11 years (unprecedented), a higher budget than it ever had during the cold war (in real dollars) and "fiscal conservatives" are still falling all over themselves to keep every red cent in the pentagon's budget. maybe the left should start making up similar fear-mongering lies about the effects of cuts to social programs.

That's only true if you disingenuously include interest on past debt. Until the deficit is actually paid of (never), this will always be true. We are under 1970 levels if you remove the interest incurred from the history of the defense budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSp e nding.PNG

MFAWG: What conservatives actually believe:

Defense is the ONLY Federal spending authorized in the Constitution. Conservatives also know (but will not admit) that a recovery is a terrible time to cut spending.

Therefore, cutting spending on defense is a really bad idea at this particular point in time.

citation needed for your strawman argument.

Fear mongering? In my conservatism?

It's more likely than you think.

MyRandomName: Marcus Aurelius: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x584]

That chart means jack shiat unless you discount the pay of the standing army. A soldier in China costs less than a soldier in the US.

It's like some of you farking refuse to actually look beyond simple charts as long as they conform to your world view.

Half of the US DoD budget goes to troop pay and support.

So can we then start cutting the eighth that goes to us not returning equipment. Or maybe the hundredth that pays for the missile defense systems that the Muslims don't even have. Or maybe start a draw down out of the hotbed of conflict that is Germany and Japan, or leaving the sovereign nation of Cuba. I bet those may save us some money.

MyRandomName: Marcus Aurelius:

Half of the US DoD budget goes to troop pay and support.


I seriously doubt that half of the US DoD budget goes to troop pay and support (unless you define support as completely unneeded projects like the F-35 or one particular project that I know of that cost $1.2 billion, doesn't work, and is hidden in some sub, sub budget).

I'd settle for no reduction in troops if weapons building was drastically reigned in, malfeasence among contractors was strictly punished and contracts awarded to the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater/Xe, Halliburton, and other, similar enterprises were slashed.

Bear in the Woods: Or maybe start a draw down out of the hotbed of conflict that is Germany and Japan,

At this point, that's more a diplomatic thing than anything else. Thry like having us, we're good for their local economies, leaving would piss them off as well as any troops that otherwise would have been looking forward to vacations in Germany and Japan.

You know what works great to counteract terrorist organizations and other militant, non-state actors?

Carrier battle groups. That's why we operate 11, more than the rest of the world combined.

Lunaville: I'd settle for no reduction in troops if weapons building was drastically reigned in, malfeasence among contractors was strictly punished and contracts awarded to the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater/Xe, Halliburton, and other, similar enterprises were slashed.


And BAE and SAIC.

The Japanese want U.S. military bases removed from their land. They have had protests against our bases. I'm sorry, I don't know how to do the fancy link thing you young people do. Unfortunately, you'll have to google it.

MFAWG: What conservatives actually believe:

Defense is the ONLY Federal spending authorized in the Constitution. Conservatives also know (but will not admit) that a recovery is a terrible time to cut spending.

Therefore, cutting spending on defense is a really bad idea at this particular point in time.

I'm a conservative and I absolutely believe the defense budget needs to be cut. Every branch of the federal budget needs to be trimmed if we're going to get out of this economic mess we're in.

"All" subby? So you are suggesting that there are no legitimate concerns about cutting defense spending by almost $1 trillion over 10 years (keep in mind, DOD is to cut approx $450-$480 billion over the next 10 years Before these additional cuts)?

MyRandomName: Marcus Aurelius: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x584]

That chart means jack shiat unless you discount the pay of the standing army. A soldier in China costs less than a soldier in the US.

It's like some of you farking refuse to actually look beyond simple charts as long as they conform to your world view.

Half of the US DoD budget goes to troop pay and support.

This is patently false. The cost for pay and BAH of the entire military is 154 billion and some change. Citation (new window).

Also, if this was a real limitation, then Europe's defense budget should be in line with ours, it isn't.

/vet

Gosling: thomps: budget increases every year for the past 11 years (unprecedented), a higher budget than it ever had during the cold war (in real dollars) and "fiscal conservatives" are still falling all over themselves to keep every red cent in the pentagon's budget. maybe the left should start making up similar fear-mongering lies about the effects of cuts to social programs.

Doesn't really work when the fear-mongering is responded to with 'well, that's what those lazy welfare queens get!'

Billions for defense, but not one cent for the freeloaders!

Ain't it ironic that we'll spend billions to defend a country we won't spend anything on?

jpo2269: "All" subby? So you are suggesting that there are no legitimate concerns about cutting defense spending by almost $1 trillion over 10 years (keep in mind, DOD is to cut approx $450-$480 billion over the next 10 years Before these additional cuts)?

You have to realize that these cuts are to future increases in planned spending.

For example. If the defense budget was 100 this year, it will be 106 next year, and 112.3 the next year etc. So these cuts aren't as terrible or draconian as they may sound. Also, the way the DoD spends money is a disgrace to the taxpayers.

Lunaville: The Japanese want U.S. military bases removed from their land. They have had protests against our bases. I'm sorry, I don't know how to do the fancy link thing you young people do. Unfortunately, you'll have to google it.

Okay, crash course on that then.

There should be two link buttons in the space above the comment box, the third and fourth buttons from the right. The one fourth from right- the one that looks like an infinity symbol- is to make a link that uses the current window.

Click that button. Replace "http://" in the code with the desired address, and replace 'Link' with whatever you want the link text to say.

The third from right- the infinity symbol with an arrow- is to create a link in a new window. It's greatly preferred that you use that one. Put the same things in the same places. You might also want to delete the 'new window' text before posting.

MyRandomName: MFAWG: What conservatives actually believe:

Defense is the ONLY Federal spending authorized in the Constitution. Conservatives also know (but will not admit) that a recovery is a terrible time to cut spending.

Therefore, cutting spending on defense is a really bad idea at this particular point in time.

citation needed for your strawman argument.

Where is the strawman? Every Republican since Nixon has increased defense spending.

jpo2269: "All" subby? So you are suggesting that there are no legitimate concerns about cutting defense spending by almost $1 trillion over 10 years (keep in mind, DOD is to cut approx $450-$480 billion over the next 10 years Before these additional cuts)?

Considering that, before any cut is factored in, the DOD will be set to spend over $7 trillion over those 10 years, no, not really.

Politico is a very credible Talking Points Delivery System for the Washington Establishment, with a noticeable list to starboard, thus revealing that they are willing to bought by forces on the Right.

My theory is most every journalist to the right of David Gregory, maybe include David Gregory is willing to accept a bribe or gratuity or whatever you want to call it.

Who'd a thunk

MyRandomName: That's only true if you disingenuously include interest on past debt.

When measuring ABC spending, It's not disingenuous at all to include all expenses directly incurred due to ABC spending, including interest on debt used to finance said spending.

They're not cuts; they're reductions in anticipated increases.

Gosling: Lunaville: The Japanese want U.S. military bases removed from their land. They have had protests against our bases. I'm sorry, I don't know how to do the fancy link thing you young people do. Unfortunately, you'll have to google it.

Okay, crash course on that then.

There should be two link buttons in the space above the comment box, the third and fourth buttons from the right. The one fourth from right- the one that looks like an infinity symbol- is to make a link that uses the current window.

Click that button. Replace "http://" in the code with the desired address, and replace 'Link' with whatever you want the link text to say.

The third from right- the infinity symbol with an arrow- is to create a link in a new window. It's greatly preferred that you use that one. Put the same things in the same places. You might also want to delete the 'new window' text before posting.

Thank-you, I saved it as a document so I can reference it when I screw up the courage to make a public nuisance of myself giving it a try.

MyRandomNumbergenerator: Marcus Aurelius: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x584]

That chart means jack shiat unless you discount the pay of the standing army. A soldier in China costs less than a soldier in the US.

It's like some of you farking refuse to actually look beyond simple charts as long as they conform to your world view.

Half of the US DoD budget goes to troop pay and support.




/don't know why people try to lie about facts on the internet

Unfortunately, militarism has become America's raison d'etre. Military spending is not going to be cut.

BlippityBleep: /don't know why people try to lie about facts on the internet

Your quote of $685.1 billion for total spending only includes the original budget, and not the "emergency" spending that gets approved by Congress each year when the Pentagon spends the original budget too soon.

BlippityBleep: /don't know why people try to lie about facts on the internet

685.1 / 2 = 342.55

342.55 - 152.2 = 188.35

188.35 - 3.1 = 185.25

So we have 185.25 billion left once we take half the budget and take out what we know for absolute certain

So I'm guessing that you're making the unfounded assumption that nothing at all from "Operations and maintenance" goes to 'troop pay and support', you're making the unfounded assumption that nothing at all from "Procurement" goes to 'troop pay and support', you're making the unfounded assumption that nothing from "R&D, T&E" goes to 'troop pay and support', and finally "Construction", which couldn't possibly be anything that is used for 'support'.

Good job, you posted a graphic that supports what he said and proves you wrong.

randomjsa: BlippityBleep: /don't know why people try to lie about facts on the internet

685.1 / 2 = 342.55

342.55 - 152.2 = 188.35

188.35 - 3.1 = 185.25

So we have 185.25 billion left once we take half the budget and take out what we know for absolute certain

So I'm guessing that you're making the unfounded assumption that nothing at all from "Operations and maintenance" goes to 'troop pay and support', you're making the unfounded assumption that nothing at all from "Procurement" goes to 'troop pay and support', you're making the unfounded assumption that nothing from "R&D, T&E" goes to 'troop pay and support', and finally "Construction", which couldn't possibly be anything that is used for 'support'.

Good job, you posted a graphic that supports what he said and proves you wrong.

No dear, I believe "troop pay and support" will fall under the Military Personnel" heading.

ssssshhhhhhhhhh defense contractors need to build really expensive things for us to blow up in the middle east wars of Halliburton profits.