PDA

View Full Version : Local Gates moves to cut major defense programs.


Direckshun
04-06-2009, 03:10 PM
It's like you can already see the conversation we're about to have, isn't it?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idcsRSLw6_ppJCceAZXPgvBEfojgD97D473O0

Gates to cut several major weapons programs
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) Defense Secretary Robert Gates is proposing deep cuts to some big weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter jet as the Pentagon takes a hard look at how it spends money.

Gates announced a broad range of cuts Monday to weapons spending, saying he plans to cut programs ranging from a new helicopter for the president to ending production of the $140 billion F-22 fighter jet. The Army's modernization program would be scaled back, while a new satellite system and a search-and-rescue helicopter would be cut.

Gates says his budget will "profoundly reform" the way the Pentagon buys weapons and does business.

To fight new threats from insurgents, Gates is proposing more funding for special forces and other tools.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he is overhauling military spending to "profoundly reform how this department does business."

Outlining a $534 billion budget for 2009 that will slash funds for major weapons programs, Gates said Monday his moves amount to an "unorthodox approach" that would shift spending goals to concentrate on "wars we are in today and scenarios for the years ahead."

At a news conference to outline his budget, Gates says he closely consulted with President Barack Obama and top military leaders, but limited outside advice "because of the scope and significance of the changes."

SBK
04-06-2009, 03:19 PM
Cutting the F-22 is big news here in Atlanta because it eliminates 2,000 local jobs.

jiveturkey
04-06-2009, 03:24 PM
How many F-22 do we have now? How many were they planning on building?

Ebolapox
04-06-2009, 03:26 PM
I really don't think this is a good idea...

Deberg_1990
04-06-2009, 03:28 PM
I really don't think this is a good idea...

Its because it was developed back in the cold war era and thats not really the type of war we are fighting in the modern era.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 03:29 PM
How many F-22 do we have now? How many were they planning on building?

We are going to have 187 instead of 900. They cost 150 million per plane.

SBK
04-06-2009, 03:29 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cxL8NcNACBY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cxL8NcNACBY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

WoodDraw
04-06-2009, 03:31 PM
How many F-22 do we have now? How many were they planning on building?

The original AF plan called for 750, but that number hasn't existed in over a decade. The total order has routinely been cut due to delays and crazy costs. The F22 is the most expensive airplane ever. The proposed budget would cap the total at 187.

It's an impressive, unmatched fighter, but it serves no purpose for us right now. What good is an air dominance fighter when no one we fight even has an air force?

The JSF is the big winner here, it looks like.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 03:31 PM
Sorry, the Pentagon's budget is going to be 4% larger then last year's. They are just going to try to spend it on things that are actually useful like helicopters and more drones.

I would love if we cut our defense spending in half, but that is not what Obama is doing. At all.

Pants
04-06-2009, 03:32 PM
Su-37 > F-22 anyway. It was a losing battle. I'm all for more special forces training as that is the way to fight terrorism. You don't invade countries to get to terrorists, you do it with black ops.

SBK
04-06-2009, 03:33 PM
The original AF plan called for 750, but that number hasn't existed in over a decade. The total order has routinely been cut due to delays and crazy costs. The F22 is the most expensive airplane ever. The proposed budget would cap the total at 187.

It's an impressive, unmatched fighter, but it serves no purpose for us right now. What good is an air dominance fighter when no one we fight even has an air force?

The JSF is the big winner here, it looks like.

The F22 might be the most expensive fighter jet ever, but it's not the most expensive airplane ever.

jiveturkey
04-06-2009, 03:33 PM
We are going to have 187 instead of 900. They cost 150 million per plane.That seems like a deal for the kind of aircraft.

WoodDraw
04-06-2009, 03:35 PM
The F22 might be the most expensive fighter jet ever, but it's not the most expensive airplane ever.

Yeah, you are right. I meant to say fighter.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 03:37 PM
That seems like a deal for the kind of aircraft.

F-35 is something like 80 million per plane.

jiveturkey
04-06-2009, 03:43 PM
F-35 is something like 80 million per plane.Even better deal. But isn't every country on the planet going to have a handful of those?

I like have a couple hundred F-22 in our back pocket.

Hog Farmer
04-06-2009, 03:45 PM
Breaking News: With the somewhat successful launch of a balistic missile by North Korea President Barack Hussein Obama has anounced that the United States will be buying 300 missiles from them because North Korea can build them at a fraction of the cost to produce them in the United States.

When asked about the reliability of the rockets one reporter stated "Barack, that missile was supposed to deliver a satellite into orbit yet it fizzled out in the Pacific" Barack replied "We have plans to put the missiles on ships and get them really close to the intended target"

SBK
04-06-2009, 03:48 PM
Isn't the B2 Stealth Bomber like $2 billion per plane?

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 04:00 PM
Even better deal. But isn't every country on the planet going to have a handful of those?

I like have a couple hundred F-22 in our back pocket.

The United States has far better and far more aircraft then the rest of the world. We have twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world, and between Russia and China, there is only one aircraft carrier total. The United States air power/projection spending is already wasteful.

SBK
04-06-2009, 04:07 PM
The United States has far better and far more aircraft then the rest of the world. We have twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world, and between Russia and China, there is only one aircraft carrier total. The United States air power/projection spending is already wasteful.

It's wasteful until you have to use it.

Saggysack
04-06-2009, 04:13 PM
Su-37 > F-22 anyway.

Not quite, Kozak. ;) We could start at 2d and 3d thrust vectoring and work from there. Not to mention a F22 would shoot down a Flanker before it would even see the Raptor. Where the Flanker outperforms the Raptor is in a conventional dogfighting role. Those days are over though. Dogfighting is a vestige of the past. Having said that, both are aircraft I wouldn't turn down a ride in.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 04:13 PM
It's wasteful until you have to use it.

Better ignore reality so we can be prepared for some stupid hypothetical. Hell, its only 100 billion dollars. Not like we could use that money on anything else.

SBK
04-06-2009, 04:16 PM
Better ignore reality so we can be prepared for some stupid hypothetical. Hell, its only 100 billion dollars. Not like we could use that money on anything else.

I'm not saying they shouldn't look at ways to be more efficient.

Radar Chief
04-06-2009, 04:18 PM
Not quite, Kozak. ;) We could start at 2d and 3d thrust vectoring and work from there. Not to mention a F22 would shoot down a Flanker before it would even see the Raptor. Where the Flanker outperforms the Raptor is in a conventional dogfighting role. Those days are over though. Dogfighting is a vestige of the past. Having said that, both are aircraft I wouldn't turn down a ride in.

Agreed. Being capable of more spectacular aerobatics doesn’t make it a better weapon.

WoodDraw
04-06-2009, 04:41 PM
Better ignore reality so we can be prepared for some stupid hypothetical. Hell, its only 100 billion dollars. Not like we could use that money on anything else.

That's the true point here. We've been spending billions of dollars on weapons for some hypothetical, far off war, while underfunding the two wars actually going on.

Direckshun
04-06-2009, 05:01 PM
I just think it's curbing the insane spending spree the Defense Department has seen.

Over the past decade, it's seen a 73% spike in funding. For a military that's already the world's most powerful and well funded BY FAR, that's excessive and insane.

beer bacon
04-06-2009, 05:05 PM
I just think it's curbing the insane spending spree the Defense Department has seen.

Over the past decade, it's seen a 73% spike in funding. For a military that's already the world's most powerful and well funded BY FAR, that's excessive and insane.

What, are you saying it is wasteful for the United States to spend more on defense then the rest of the world combined? Insanity!

SBK
04-06-2009, 05:07 PM
I just think it's curbing the insane spending spree the Defense Department has seen.

Over the past decade, it's seen a 73% spike in funding. For a military that's already the world's most powerful and well funded BY FAR, that's excessive and insane.

I am more interested in the results than the money we spend. If the idea is to be more efficient and cut costs that way I'm okay with it. If the idea is to dismantle our military so that it's power is more in line with everyone else I'm very much against that.

Amnorix
04-06-2009, 09:16 PM
I am more interested in the results than the money we spend. If the idea is to be more efficient and cut costs that way I'm okay with it. If the idea is to dismantle our military so that it's power is more in line with everyone else I'm very much against that.

Did I not see that it's a 4% military increase over last year, and still funded at HALF a TRILLION dollars?

No one is modeling our military after everyone else, that's for damn sure.

HonestChieffan
04-06-2009, 09:20 PM
we all knew he would gut our military.

Jenson71
04-06-2009, 09:53 PM
Better ignore reality so we can be prepared for some stupid hypothetical. Hell, its only 100 billion dollars. Not like we could use that money on anything else.

Exactly, but the people who will rationalize spending billions upon billions upon billions every year to supply corporate defense contractors are usually the same who scream PORK when a few million is sent to a school district. It would be hilarious if it weren't so utterly sad. Gut schools, gut research grants, gut welfare, gut foreign aid, but for the love of God, do not gut filling the pockets of defense contractors. That would be anti-American.

BigRedChief
04-07-2009, 07:39 AM
we all knew he would gut our military.Quit listening to Limbaugh for just a second and read this.....

Even after these cuts defense spending will increase 4% next year.

MIAdragon
04-07-2009, 07:46 AM
Su-37 > F-22 anyway. It was a losing battle. I'm all for more special forces training as that is the way to fight terrorism. You don't invade countries to get to terrorists, you do it with black ops.

ROFL

patteeu
04-07-2009, 11:00 AM
Its because it was developed back in the cold war era and thats not really the type of war we are fighting in the modern era.

That's right.

I don't know much about the specific cuts that Gates is proposing, and I'm sure I'd be opposed to some of them, but in a world in which we are fighting two major insurgencies and a bunch of other minor insurgencies around the globe, it makes sense to realign priorities away from massively complicated cold war oriented hardware and toward such things as expanded special operations and manpower.

Now if these cuts are intended to help fund Obama's gargantuan domestic budget blowout instead of just realigning defense priorities, I've got a serious problem with them at the macro level.

patteeu
04-07-2009, 11:01 AM
The original AF plan called for 750, but that number hasn't existed in over a decade. The total order has routinely been cut due to delays and crazy costs. The F22 is the most expensive airplane ever. The proposed budget would cap the total at 187.

It's an impressive, unmatched fighter, but it serves no purpose for us right now. What good is an air dominance fighter when no one we fight even has an air force?

The JSF is the big winner here, it looks like.

I'm not sure what measure you're using and I could be wrong, but I believe the B2 was quite a bit more expensive than the F22 on a per unit basis.

Edit:

Yeah, you are right. I meant to say fighter.

Nevermind.

patteeu
04-07-2009, 11:06 AM
Sorry, the Pentagon's budget is going to be 4% larger then last year's. They are just going to try to spend it on things that are actually useful like helicopters and more drones.

I would love if we cut our defense spending in half, but that is not what Obama is doing. At all.

I just think it's curbing the insane spending spree the Defense Department has seen.

Over the past decade, it's seen a 73% spike in funding. For a military that's already the world's most powerful and well funded BY FAR, that's excessive and insane.

So, which is it? Absent these changes, what would our defense spending growth be?

vailpass
04-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Sorry, the Pentagon's budget is going to be 4% larger then last year's. They are just going to try to spend it on things that are actually useful like helicopters and more drones.

I would love if we cut our defense spending in half, but that is not what Obama is doing. At all.

You have no DOD experience whatsoever have you?
You can't play catch-up in military preparedness. Peace through power is who we are. The price for freedom is constant vigilance which these days means satcom, satint, humint, sigint, information assurance and countless other programs that must be updated and improved every day to keep this country from being overrun from within as well as from without.

Warrior5
04-07-2009, 12:49 PM
You have no DOD experience whatsoever have you? You can't play catch-up in military preparedness. Peace through power is who we are. The price for freedom is constant vigilance which these days means satcom, satint, humint, sigint, information assurance and countless other programs that must be updated and improved every day to keep this country from being overrun from within as well as from without.

Don't forget IMINT and ELINT.

... accounting for all the INTs.

vailpass
04-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Don't forget IMINT and ELINT.

... accounting for all the INTs.

Thanks Warrior! I'm just trying to point out that military budget encompasses so much more than guards, gates and guns.

FishingRod
04-07-2009, 12:57 PM
The best use of military spending is so we don't ever need to use it. We have been involved in numerous conflicts but really we haven't been "forced" to be in any since WWII. Korea would be the closest at that occurred, not so ironically after a huge disarming of our military. Do we spend more than we need to on our military? Yes we probably do but, the number one job of the government is to provide for the common defense. And in those conflicts we have been involved in, I'm glad we haven't fought fair and used every technological advantage we have to reduce the number of our people that end up dead. I do think we should spend less time being the worlds police force. I haven't seen a thank you card lately.

Amnorix
04-07-2009, 02:14 PM
Don't forget IMINT and ELINT.

... accounting for all the INTs.

Alot of that is outside the publicly announced DoD budget IIRC. I think NSA for example is just black budgeted, basically.

Garcia Bronco
04-07-2009, 04:08 PM
medicare, medicaid, and SS blow away the spending on defense. And while we should always be efficent on our spending and budgets, I would start with the other 3 first.

beer bacon
04-07-2009, 04:12 PM
You have no DOD experience whatsoever have you?
You can't play catch-up in military preparedness. Peace through power is who we are. The price for freedom is constant vigilance which these days means satcom, satint, humint, sigint, information assurance and countless other programs that must be updated and improved every day to keep this country from being overrun from within as well as from without.

The day America doesn't spend more on defense then the entire rest of the world combined is the day this country falls!

beer bacon
04-07-2009, 04:15 PM
America needs those 24 carriers because if China and Russia come up with 23 more carriers anytime soon we will have lost our naval and force projection advantage . Also, who knows what Al-Q is up to right now? For all we know they could be secretly building a couple thousand fighter jets right now and training pilots to fly them. We need to be prepared for that kinda stuff.

patteeu
04-07-2009, 04:32 PM
America needs those 24 carriers because if China and Russia come up with 23 more carriers anytime soon we will have lost our naval and force projection advantage . Also, who knows what Al-Q is up to right now? For all we know they could be secretly building a couple thousand fighter jets right now and training pilots to fly them. We need to be prepared for that kinda stuff.

I know you think you're saying something profound, but you're really talking nonsense. We don't want to be just a little better than the biggest threat we face. The reason we dropped Saddam's regime and drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan so quickly and with so few American casualties is because we had dramatically superior capabilities not just quite a bit better capabilities. Merely "quite a bit better" would be a recipe for dramatically increased American pain, or more likely, an inability to achieve our objectives altogether (see Iran for a present day example).

And you might not agree that the US has interests worldwide, but on the premise that we do, we can't just size our military to contend with the various regional powers around the globe. We have to be able to contend with all of them at once (whether through hot conflict or deterrence).

Brock
04-07-2009, 05:14 PM
Count me as someone who doesn't want our military to be just a little better than the rest of the world's. I want it to continue to be the one that everyone is terrified to have to fight.

WoodDraw
04-07-2009, 05:26 PM
The budget still increases military spending by 4%. That's a healthy increase in a year the economy is shrinking.

jjjayb
12-03-2009, 01:45 PM
White House Demands Airmen Remove F-22 Raptor So Obama Wouldn't Be Pictured With It, Orders F-15 Put In Its Place (He Was There To Honor Squadron That Operates The F-22).....


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091202_F15.jpg

(The Cable)- When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hanger. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed to The Cable that the F-22 was parked in the hanger and then was replaced by an F-15 at the White House's behest.

The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hanger with the president.

A White House official, commenting on background basis, told The Cable that yes, there were discussions about which plane or planes would be in the hanger, but that they were not meant as an insult to the pilots and other personnel who work on the F-22. The official couldn't elaborate on why the White House aides felt it necessary to get involved in the matter in the first place.

The official pointed to Obama's speech to the troops that day, where he praised both the 90th Fighter Squadron, known as the "Dicemen," and the 525th Fighter Squadron, the "Bulldogs," both of which operate the F-22.

Even so, the Air Force personnel thought it odd the White House wanted to display the older plane rather than the more advanced plane that, in the eyes of its supporters, represents the latest and greatest in American aviation.

:shake:

wild1
12-03-2009, 02:08 PM
What a joke.

vailpass
12-03-2009, 02:16 PM
White House Demands Airmen Remove F-22 Raptor So Obama Wouldn't Be Pictured With It, Orders F-15 Put In Its Place (He Was There To Honor Squadron That Operates The F-22).....


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091202_F15.jpg



:shake:

Tool. Is it election time yet? Let's flush this disgrace to the office.

Calcountry
12-03-2009, 03:02 PM
Better ignore reality so we can be prepared for some stupid hypothetical. Hell, its only 100 billion dollars. Not like we could use that money on anything else.A billion is the new million. You have to be talking Trillions before it matters in the Obama administration.

Calcountry
12-03-2009, 03:03 PM
Tool. Is it election time yet? Let's flush this disgrace to the office.Somebody who has more technical expertise than I, needs to make an election countdown widget.

Whoarethechefs
12-03-2009, 03:55 PM
For about 350 mil each I expect more.
The F-22 is a dud, Major system failures every 1.3 flights and requires 30+ hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. Not to mention the problems it has in the rain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?nav=hcmodule

Norman Einstein
12-04-2009, 02:57 AM
The United States has far better and far more aircraft then the rest of the world. We have twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world, and between Russia and China, there is only one aircraft carrier total. The United States air power/projection spending is already wasteful.

So who is wasteful? The Air Force or the Navy? Who do you call when there is a crisis somewhere in the world? Who can get there and be a presence to deter any ongoing agression?

It's a question of what do we need and where do we need it. Regardless of the costs involved the defensive forces or police forces, if you will, need to be strong and have the equipment needed to do whatever job there is to defend our country. If the current thought pattern carries out the U.S. will continue to have a shrinking National Defense and at one time will not be able to respond to an aggressor.

At the moment we are at risk of being attacked from within as much as we are from the outside. How many illegal aliens are crossing into the U.S. from the Mexican border that are not Mexicans? Think about it, it's an open door and we stand the chance of having a great number of Al Queda type terrorists in our country in 'safe houses' from coast to coast.

Where do we spend on defense and how do we establish the actual threat to the country? I don't think the direction of the current administration is savvy enough to understand that you can't be PC in matters of security. Barbara Boxer is still demanding that our detainees in GTMO be given the same rights in court as an American citizen. Face it, if she has her way we are totally screwed and by the time it's figured out we will not be the U.S.A. any longer but subserviant to some other power.

Saggysack
12-04-2009, 04:11 AM
For about 350 mil each I expect more.
The F-22 is a dud, Major system failures every 1.3 flights and requires 30+ hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. Not to mention the problems it has in the rain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?nav=hcmodule

Gates is absolutely right. Get rid of the clunker.

Norman Einstein
12-04-2009, 05:27 AM
Gates is absolutely right. Get rid of the clunker.

Why do that? Just start selling them to our partners overseas, they seem to have the ready money for stuff and it would keep those people working on the plane employed.

Nobody said we needed to keep it in our inventory.

Saggysack
12-04-2009, 05:48 AM
Why do that? Just start selling them to our partners overseas, they seem to have the ready money for stuff and it would keep those people working on the plane employed.

Nobody said we needed to keep it in our inventory.

How does selling them overseas have any relevance to what I posted?

FishingRod
12-04-2009, 10:38 AM
If we stop trying to be the worlds policeman and use our forces for defending our country and our interests we can certainly have a leaner military. That being said the Navy and the Air force would be the one to keep the bad guys away from our territory. While the ships and planes are indeed expensive the cost of training and supplying boots on the ground should not be overlooked because it is huge. We have had a substantial technological advantage in any scenario for the last 30 years or so and it has allowed us when we choose to fight, to not fight fair and slaughter our adversaries at a minimal loss of life to our forces. The F-15, 16 and 18s have allowed our air force to sweep our enemies from the sky allowing our ground forces a huge tactical advantage. The F-22 and F-35 are necessary if we would like to continue to have this sort of advantage for the next couple of decades. I we are going to fight I have no desire for our forces to fight fair. Cutting our forces substantially will encourage aggression by other countries such as China vs. Taiwan and as long as we really don't care and have no intention of involving ourselves, then who cares. I just question our willingness to once again become an isolationist country like we tried before both World Wars. If we are not willing to do that we are far better off spending the money to keep events like this from happening in the first place than to have them happen and, then respond where the outcome is questionable and the American lives lost are thousands or tens of thousands higher than they needed to be. Frankly I'm all for letting the world create and fix their own problems but I do not think we as a country are willing to stand by and do nothing.

Norman Einstein
12-05-2009, 09:54 PM
How does selling them overseas have any relevance to what I posted?

Keeps jobs in the U.S., maybe you didn't understand. The plane is described, by you, as a clunker, so we sell them to other countries so that whatever we develop in the future would be a superior plane. Or would you rather sell our top of the line weapons systems around the world?

(It was a f*ucking joke and still is, you seem to take yourself far too seriously. Take a chill pill and do a time out for a while.)

PunkinDrublic
12-06-2009, 09:07 AM
Glad to see some cuts to the war industry.
Posted via Mobile Device

Norman Einstein
12-06-2009, 09:08 AM
Glad to see some cuts to the war industry.
Posted via Mobile Device

So you aren't interested in the common defense of the U.S.?

PunkinDrublic
12-06-2009, 09:39 AM
So you aren't interested in the common defense of the U.S.?

This is such a huge jump to conclusion it's not even funny. Our war budget is so overinflated it isn't even funny. The military industrial complex today has little to do with defending our country.

I don't expect reactionaries such as yourself to understand
Posted via Mobile Device

Norman Einstein
12-06-2009, 03:16 PM
This is such a huge jump to conclusion it's not even funny. Our war budget is so overinflated it isn't even funny. The military industrial complex today has little to do with defending our country.

I don't expect reactionaries such as yourself to understand
Posted via Mobile Device

Reactionary? I doubt that. You do realize that our military numbers are below 1,000,000 personnel?

Why is our military budget overinflated? Could it have anything to do with the fact that anyone that sells to the military jacks the price up beyond what anyone else would pay?

There was a move a while back to have the military use COTS (commercial off the shelf) components. They did and the problem was that the COTS components were substandard for even civilian use.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the cost of shit in general, but if you are going to put those 1,000,000 men and women on the line for your freedom they need to be outfitted. Remember the outcry when the troops were in Iraq and didn't have the right equipment? It sounds like you'd have that as business as usual for our kids fighting for us.

I presume your cost of living hasn't gone up in the past few years so you need to reduce the amount of money you accept from your employer, right?

patteeu
12-07-2009, 08:50 AM
This is such a huge jump to conclusion it's not even funny. Our war budget is so overinflated it isn't even funny. The military industrial complex today has little to do with defending our country.

I don't expect reactionaries such as yourself to understand
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm curious about where you picked up your expertise on national defense issues? I wouldn't pay so much attention to lyrics from the likes of NOFX if I were you.

patteeu
12-07-2009, 08:55 AM
Reactionary? I doubt that. You do realize that our military numbers are below 1,000,000 personnel?

Why is our military budget overinflated? Could it have anything to do with the fact that anyone that sells to the military jacks the price up beyond what anyone else would pay?

There was a move a while back to have the military use COTS (commercial off the shelf) components. They did and the problem was that the COTS components were substandard for even civilian use.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the cost of shit in general, but if you are going to put those 1,000,000 men and women on the line for your freedom they need to be outfitted. Remember the outcry when the troops were in Iraq and didn't have the right equipment? It sounds like you'd have that as business as usual for our kids fighting for us.

I presume your cost of living hasn't gone up in the past few years so you need to reduce the amount of money you accept from your employer, right?

It sounds to me like he'd like to complain out of both sides of his mouth on issues like that. Complain about the cost of the military and then complain about it if we don't have bleeding edge equipment available for every GI who might be able to use it.

Liberals are going to go through the same dance with healthcare. They'll complain about the cost of healthcare and then they'll turn around and complain when every non-wealthy person in the country doesn't have access to the most advanced medicine known to man.

Amnorix
12-07-2009, 09:05 AM
I support a strong military. I don't support our current military budget, as it is too high by almost any objective standard one could hope to apply.

At this point, I would support almost anything that would trim our deficit/debt. Unfortunatley, I fear that any savings on military expenditures will just be reallocated to social programs, which is not the best use for them at all.

Our country is essentially bankrupt, and has many programs that are absolutely NOT sustainable in the long run. Everybody wants to protect their pet project. I wish we could cut them all down to size and return to a revenue/expense situation that had a modicum of common sense underlying it.

Amnorix
12-07-2009, 09:06 AM
This might help suggest that we're overspending by just a tad.

http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/09/country-distribution-2008.png

Amnorix
12-07-2009, 09:12 AM
Our military spending is also increasing dramatically, though I imagine a huge portion of this is related to Iraq/AFghanistan:

http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/09/increase-1999-2008.png

patteeu
12-07-2009, 11:16 AM
I support a strong military. I don't support our current military budget, as it is too high by almost any objective standard one could hope to apply.

At this point, I would support almost anything that would trim our deficit/debt. Unfortunatley, I fear that any savings on military expenditures will just be reallocated to social programs, which is not the best use for them at all.

Our country is essentially bankrupt, and has many programs that are absolutely NOT sustainable in the long run. Everybody wants to protect their pet project. I wish we could cut them all down to size and return to a revenue/expense situation that had a modicum of common sense underlying it.

How about as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.willisms.com/archives/defensebudgetandgdp.gif

The real runaway train when it comes to spending are the entitlements.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/defenseversusentitlements.gif

Amnorix
12-07-2009, 02:21 PM
How about as a percentage of GDP?



The real runaway train when it comes to spending are the entitlements.

I agree that entitlements needs trimming. I also agree that defense expenditures are not unsupportable in relation to GDP.

But when you are faced with massive fiscal problems, you cut out both the plasma TV purchases that you can't afford, and the $5 latte a day habit that is really just wasteful.

The defense expenditures really just aren't necessary at that level. It's just a self-perpetuating orgy of spending.

Entitlements are a fiasco of a different kind.

patteeu
12-07-2009, 04:17 PM
I agree that entitlements needs trimming. I also agree that defense expenditures are not unsupportable in relation to GDP.

But when you are faced with massive fiscal problems, you cut out both the plasma TV purchases that you can't afford, and the $5 latte a day habit that is really just wasteful.

The defense expenditures really just aren't necessary at that level. It's just a self-perpetuating orgy of spending.

Entitlements are a fiasco of a different kind.

But if you live in a high crime neighborhood do you cut out the home security system?

I think the defense budget should continually be reviewed to minimize waste and to make sure that we're spending our dollars wisely when it comes to the threat we face (rather than spending to fight the previous war), but we should be looking to get fiscally healthy in the areas where we got fiscally unhealthy first before making deep cuts in important security measures. IMO, one of the first duties of government is to provide for the national defense. Of course, I'm sure we can agree on this until we get down to details of what that means. :D