Defense speding after 2012

[Yossarian]

This topic is all about balance, it seems that the more I look into defense budget projection plans proposed by both parties of Congress, It seems they are contemplating a all or nothing plan.

Either a maintaining and expanding of funds allocated for defense, or a drastic cut across the board on defense.

My topic of interest is, after Aftghanistan is wrapped up, and it will be in the next few years, being as their is little doubt it can go on at this pace forever.


How will the anual defense budget change? And most importantly , where should the balance be? Should the armed forces be smaller and more geared towards peace time, or a continuely large military complex similar to that of a permanent standing army?


And what of the funding in particular, should funds out of that budget be continuely dispersed on dozens of projects some with questionable utility?

Or on personel and taking care of the troops coming home?

What are the communities thoughts of near future defense plans set forth by Congress or your country's legistrative body.?

 

[George]

The trend is Democrats declaring a "Peace Dividend". What that means is big cuts in the military & the revenue going into the welfare/Nanny State sewer. Once money goes into the sewer it can't be used for anything else. The military ends up trying to decide what areas can be neglected with the least damage to overall needs. Beginning to look like we'll have few Fighter jets that are supposed to maintain air superiority of the next 20-30 years.

 

[mmarsh]

The trend is Democrats declaring a "Peace Dividend". What that means is big cuts in the military & the revenue going into the welfare/Nanny State sewer. Once money goes into the sewer it can't be used for anything else. The military ends up trying to decide what areas can be neglected with the least damage to overall needs. Beginning to look like we'll have few Fighter jets that are supposed to maintain air superiority of the next 20-30 years.

George

You can't have it both ways...

You cannot complain against Defense spending cuts and in the same breath give the teaparty screech about out-of-control spending brought on by the past 10 years of wars that served no real point at all.

You do know that we spend more on our military than the next 15 countries do combined? In 2012 military spending will be at the same level it was during WWII only without the Nazis and Japanese to fight.

So if we don't have the Nazis and Japanese to fight, why exactly are we spending so much? You honestly think its because of fanatics living in a cave? Which is more likely to surrender first, the US economy under the mountain of debt the wars Republican military adventurism caused? or the Taliban?

2012 Defense spending makes zero sense unless you accept the notion that Military spending has very little to do with Defense and has a lot to do with money and political power which is the way it has been since Eisenhower.

 

[George]

George

You can't have it both ways...

You cannot complain against Defense spending cuts and in the same breath give the teaparty screech about out-of-control spending brought on by the past 10 years of wars that served no real point at all.

You do know that we spend more on our military than the next 15 countries do combined? In 2012 military spending will be at the same level it was during WWII only without the Nazis and Japanese to fight.

So if we don't have the Nazis and Japanese to fight, why exactly are we spending so much? You honestly think its because of fanatics living in a cave? Which is more likely to surrender first, the US economy under the mountain of debt the wars Republican military adventurism caused? or the Taliban?

2012 Defense spending makes zero sense unless you accept the notion that Military spending has very little to do with Defense and has a lot to do with money and political power which is the way it has been since Eisenhower.

Lets see...Vietnam ends, dems gut the military, resulting in a hollow force & Desert 1, & increase welfare/entitlement spending. Reagan rebuilds the force. Clinton eleminates the whole force used in Gulf War 1 & despite welfare reforms, spending on entitlements increase. Obama has made cuts to the force already with more to come.
what's the US's longest, most expensive War? The War on Poverty with no end in sight & no exit strategy, far more money wasted on that than any other war. As far as the money spent on WWII vs now....figure in the inflation caused by entitlement spending since LBJ, not to mention all the spending since Dems took over Congress in '07. Regardless, Obama will increase spending on Govt dependance programs, it's vote buying & they love it!

 

[Yossarian]

What I am worried about is mainly cuts to programs in our defense department that mainly effect our troops coming home and their families as well as veterens of past service.

Personel is my biggest concern with defense budgets, and I try to vote for politicains who share that concern (which is harder and harder to do with each new congress).

But like Eisenhower's views on many defense projects in his presidency, and funding allocation.

I WILL NOT support any program funded that has no future, or no real value to our defense structure, and is mainly a government funded project for the sake of a government funded project.

This is usually assosiated with a senator with a family member or close college in league or working for the defense contractor who gets the mulit billion dollar contract.

THIS is what I don't like... Think of the countless programs funded in our defense establishment that never reach production or service. Thats money that could be used elswhere in government or spent improving conditions for troops and their families abroad.

 

[mmarsh]

Lets see...Vietnam ends, dems gut the military, resulting in a hollow force & Desert 1, & increase welfare/entitlement spending. Reagan rebuilds the force. Clinton eleminates the whole force used in Gulf War 1 & despite welfare reforms, spending on entitlements increase. Obama has made cuts to the force already with more to come.
what's the US's longest, most expensive War? The War on Poverty with no end in sight & no exit strategy, far more money wasted on that than any other war. As far as the money spent on WWII vs now....figure in the inflation caused by entitlement spending since LBJ, not to mention all the spending since Dems took over Congress in '07. Regardless, Obama will increase spending on Govt dependance programs, it's vote buying & they love it!

George

Respectfully, you are just grasping...

1. Nothing about Eagle Claws failure was because of budget cuts, the 1986 Hollings report stated it was bad planning, bad communications (and ill add bad luck). Ill also add that when the Vietnam military budget was cut it was done under TWO Republican Administrations (Nixon and Ford). Carter wasn't even President long enough to make the cuts you suggest, and Reagan quickly reversed any cuts that were made. So entire premise is wrong.

2. Same with the Military Cuts of 1991, which were started under Bush and concluded under Clinton. President Bush being concerned about out of control military spending wanted to curb some of the frivolous excess of the 1980 (like STAR WARS and the 600 ship Navy).

You also failed to mention that by cutting the military and increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% Clinton actually managed to balance the budget, something else the teaparty harps on and on about and never delivers.

3. A) The war on poverty? Only in a GOP mindset, is helping poor people is a BAD thing, especially in a lousy economy with high unemployment. Go ahead and remind people that although they have no jobs (thanks to GOP outsourcing of American jobs), no health insurance, cant pay the mortgage, cant give their kids toys for Christmas, they shouldn't at all accept Government help because that would be greedy. That money should be instead spent on weapons we don't need and cannot afford all in order to keep the paranoids on the rightwing calm about a possible invasion from Canada. See how many votes that heartless attitude gets you next year.

Right now Obama numbers are going UP and the Republican numbers are going DOWN. And its because, Once again, The GOP simply doesn't get it that if they don't do anything for the American Middle Class family in a bad economy, they are NOT going to get reelected. You cannot fault the Democrats for at least listening to the people. Maybe that's an act the GOP should try?

Secondly this entire part is a dodge to avoid the topic of the discussion which is about MILITARY DEFENSE SPENDING, not social welfare. It has nothing to do with inflation that's an excuse.

Why spending went up is actually very simple: A few years ago Bush and his father, and Reagan and the GOP Congress bought a lot of new military toys. That's why spending went up, thats why military spending goes through the roof whenever a GOP president is elected. Its really not any more complicated than that.

Yossarian

Its precisely what I said earlier, its about money not about defense. Soldiers cost money, alot of money. They also don't give anything back in terms of campaign contributions or Defense contracts. So when a politician is needing to make cuts he isnt going to bite the hand of military industrial lobbies that support his campaign. Hes going to cut the benefits of veterans, of the wounded, of the old and inform etc. These people are worthless to him, he is going to give that money to contractors who will give to his reelection campaign or will build new weapons so they dont have to close the plant down that makes Tanks.

 

[George]

George

Respectfully, you are just grasping...

1. Nothing about Eagle Claws failure was because of budget cuts, the 1986 Hollings report stated it was bad planning, bad communications (and ill add bad luck). Ill also add that when the Vietnam military budget was cut it was done under TWO Republican Administrations (Nixon and Ford). Carter wasn't even President long enough to make the cuts you suggest, and Reagan quickly reversed any cuts that were made. So entire premise is wrong.

2. Same with the Military Cuts of 1991, which were started under Bush and concluded under Clinton. President Bush being concerned about out of control military spending wanted to curb some of the frivolous excess of the 1980 (like STAR WARS and the 600 ship Navy).

You also failed to mention that by cutting the military and increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% Clinton actually managed to balance the budget, something else the teaparty harps on and on about and never delivers.

3. A) The war on poverty? Only in a GOP mindset, is helping poor people is a BAD thing, especially in a lousy economy with high unemployment. Go ahead and remind people that although they have no jobs (thanks to GOP outsourcing of American jobs), no health insurance, cant pay the mortgage, cant give their kids toys for Christmas, they shouldn't at all accept Government help because that would be greedy. That money should be instead spent on weapons we don't need and cannot afford all in order to keep the paranoids on the rightwing calm about a possible invasion from Canada. See how many votes that heartless attitude gets you next year.

Right now Obama numbers are going UP and the Republican numbers are going DOWN. And its because, Once again, The GOP simply doesn't get it that if they don't do anything for the American Middle Class family in a bad economy, they are NOT going to get reelected. You cannot fault the Democrats for at least listening to the people. Maybe that's an act the GOP should try?

Secondly this entire part is a dodge to avoid the topic of the discussion which is about MILITARY DEFENSE SPENDING, not social welfare. It has nothing to do with inflation that's an excuse.

Why spending went up is actually very simple: Ten years ago we bought a lot of new toys. The DOD went to Santa Claus (Bush) at Xmas and he gave them everything they wanted (and even somethings they didn't). Bush didnt even go through Congress he used budget amendments to get the toys he wanted.

That's why spending went up, thats why military spending goes through the roof whenever a GOP president is elected. Its really not any more complicated than that.

1. Desert 1 happened @ a time of ships, planes & tanks unoperable because of no money for parts & canibalisation of existing equipment to keep others running.
2. Democrats controlling Congress declared the Peace Dividend after Vietnam & cut the budget. IF Clinton balanced the budget, why did borrowing of money continue?
3. help is temporary. It was institutionalised with generational dependance before the Reps forced Clinton's hand & got welfare reform passed. 1st thing Obama did was end the Clinton welfare reforms, reinstalling long term dependance.
You probably didn't hear about it, but Obama wanted to extend the payroll deduction for 2 months & said the Reps didn't. What he & the MSM didn't say was the Reps wanted it extended a year. Obama's plan will cost more in the long run. Defence budgets go up & they go down. Govt dependance programs NEVER get cut regardless of the economy.

 

[A Can of Man]

Mmarsh has it right.
The very people who did the fighting will get screwed.
If this war has taught us anything, it is that these fancy gadgets and tools have their limits. And either way, stupidity will ensure defeat every time so why even bother?

 

[mmarsh]

1. And again, even if true, There was no evidence given that this is what caused Eagle Claw too fail nor that Democrats specifically were to blame.

2. Because getting rid of the debt is going to take at least a decade, for longer than any president to do on his own. We were on the road to recovery in the 1990s.Clinton plan was to eliminate it in 15 years (about now actually) had things hadn't gotten screwed up.

3. If you go on saying government help is temporary, you can kiss 2012 goodbye as you will lose every vote in that 8.6% unemployment rate.

I did hear about it, and your history is totally wrong. The Story was this: the Dems wanted to pass a 12 month extension, the GOP tried to tack on an oil pipeline PORK (something teabaggers are supposed to be against), the Dems said no to the pipeline and proposed a 2 month extension just to prevent to taxes from expiring so they could talk more in depth about the pipeline. The GOP said yes, but the teabaggers said NO saying it was either 12 months WITH the pipeline or nothing at all.

The TP must have thought the Dems would cavem but they were wrong and Dems told them the deal was off. That's when Boehner panicked the GOP realized that they would (and did) get blamed for causing middle Class taxes to rise John Boehner told the teaparty to stuff it and signed the tax extension WITHOUT the oil pipeline.

So once again the GOP came off looking like the party that only cares about the rich and powerful, and Obama the protector of the Middle Class. And if you don't believe me on this read Mark Mckinnion on the DB (a very conservative senior advisor to Bush Jr), he blames his own party (namely Boehner and McConnell) for not controlling the TP. The TP couldnt have have given a Obama a better PR present if they served it on a silver platter.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/21/the-republicans-payroll-tax-gift-to-obama.html

 

[mmarsh]

Mmarsh has it right.
The very people who did the fighting will get screwed.
If this war has taught us anything, it is that these fancy gadgets and tools have their limits. And either way, stupidity will ensure defeat every time so why even bother?

Sorry to DP

As we saw in the last two wars. In the DOD its always the fighting soldier who gets screwed first when it comes to cuts.

We have a senior member (whose name I wont mention for privacy unless he decides to intervene) who was pulling his hair out just a few months ago about how his pension was getting whittled away to nothing. Pensions, salaries, benefits, medical care, other perks these are the first things to get axed.

Billion dollar contracts to Defense firms are the last thing to get axed, even when the contract is for a rubbish product that is overpriced, overhyped and not needed. For example, The missile shield was a overpriced, unreliable White Elephant that was supposed to defend against a threat that never exsisted (and still doesn't) but still took 8 years to finally kill off. The money wasted on that stupid thing could have paid the medical bills of all wounded vets from Afghanistan and Iraq and still have leftover change.

 

[A Can of Man]

Yup.
And all that expensive hardware etc., for what?
I think you know the answer.

 

[George]

1. And again, even if true, There was no evidence given that this is what caused Eagle Claw too fail nor that Democrats specifically were to blame.

2. Because getting rid of the debt is going to take at least a decade, for longer than any president to do on his own. We were on the road to recovery in the 1990s.Clinton plan was to eliminate it in 15 years (about now actually) had things hadn't gotten screwed up.

3. If you go on saying government help is temporary, you can kiss 2012 goodbye as you will lose every vote in that 8.6% unemployment rate.

I did hear about it, and your history is totally wrong. The Story was this: the Dems wanted to pass a 12 month extension, the GOP tried to tack on an oil pipeline PORK (something teabaggers are supposed to be against), the Dems said no to the pipeline and proposed a 2 month extension just to prevent to taxes from expiring so they could talk more in depth about the pipeline. The GOP said yes, but the teabaggers said NO saying it was either 12 months WITH the pipeline or nothing at all.

The TP must have thought the Dems would cavem but they were wrong and Dems told them the deal was off. That's when Boehner panicked the GOP realized that they would (and did) get blamed for causing middle Class taxes to rise John Boehner told the teaparty to stuff it and signed the tax extension WITHOUT the oil pipeline.

So once again the GOP came off looking like the party that only cares about the rich and powerful, and Obama the protector of the Middle Class. And if you don't believe me on this read Mark Mckinnion on the DB (a very conservative senior advisor to Bush Jr), he blames his own party (namely Boehner and McConnell) for not controlling the TP. The TP couldnt have have given a Obama a better PR present if they served it on a silver platter.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/21/the-republicans-payroll-tax-gift-to-obama.html

So..if you are opposed to temporary help, then you believe in permanent forever "help", that's is generational government dependance. The pipeline is a private project that just needs govt permission to be built, unlike Obama's Porkulus projects. Obama is raking in donations from both sides, the oil industry & the eco lobby. If a decision is made, build or don't build, Obama loses donations from one side or the other. Why do you think he wants to defer a decision untill after the election? Or maybe it's just his usuall lack of leadership.

 

[VDKMS]

Leopold Lippens, a mayor of Knokke in Belgium said : today 90% of the attention go to 5% of the people that are in trouble, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the 90% of the people that are not in trouble instead of making it harder for them because of the 5%?

The financial troubles of the Belgian forces are due to salaries (74% of the budget!). The government takes away almost half of my salarie.

I once talked to a Turkish guy who was unemployed and lived in a social housing. He could have work immediately but then the rent of his social housing goes up (it's income related) and in the end he ends up with having less money.

Helping people is good, but pampering them is not. And that's the problem in some European nations.

 

[George]

I once talked to a Turkish guy who was unemployed and lived in a social housing. He could have work immediately but then the rent of his social housing goes up (it's income related) and in the end he ends up with having less money.

The Welfare Trap, get you on it & the system block the way off. I've had a number of women tell me their Husbands turned down jobs in this recession becouse it wouldn't pay much more than unemployment was paying them to sit on their butts.

 

[Yossarian]

The Welfare Trap, get you on it & the system block the way off. I've had a number of women tell me their Husbands turned down jobs in this recession becouse it wouldn't pay much more than unemployment was paying them to sit on their butts.

Sometimes many people these days can't afford to work. Literally living in a situation where it cost them more money to work than to not be employed.

But this is a good topic for another day. My focus point here is how America's defense establisment may change with rising or falling budgets and hopefully a new era of peace time with the conclusion of Afghanistan.

 

[George]

Sometimes many people these days can't afford to work. Literally living in a situation where it cost them more money to work than to not be employed.

But this is a good topic for another day. My focus point here is how America's defense establisment may change with rising or falling budgets and hopefully a new era of peace time with the conclusion of Afghanistan.

Well...Paneta is warning of a military reduced to pre WWII levels...

 

[Yossarian]

His announcement is what got me to start this thread.

I think Congress should rethink such a drastic cutback, at the same time they should be responsible and not over spend on defense programs, or pay for programs we don't really have use for.

 

[George]

His announcement is what got me to start this thread.

I think Congress should rethink such a drastic cutback, at the same time they should be responsible and not over spend on defense programs, or pay for programs we don't really have use for.

The thing is...the dem leaders look @ it as there is always room to cut defence, or you cut a $ from defence for every $ cut anywhere else. Even better for them is they exempt Nanny State dependence spending from the cuts(that's how they keep their Base, buy it with handouts in echange for votes) so it's really A.defence b. everything else except handouts & C. handouts, with handouts exempt. Handouts are now bigger than defence. One thing about the Dems view of Defence is a story from Clinton's 1st Inageral Parade. Reportedy one Staffer was outraged that USAF fighters flew over the procession. Another Staffer calmed him down by explaining the the fighters were "ours now", apparently the guy thought of the USAF fighters as enemy aircraft.

 

[Yossarian]

I know I sound very cliche when I say this,

But as partly speaking of my opinion, and I truely am meaning my opinion. Is that in today's finiacial situation facing our goverment, there is a critical and recurring need to observe every progam oftered and proposed to the Federal Government before ever blindly purchasing it.

That's the main focal point of my concern, unessary spending without using better judgement, especially in today's terrible budget situation.

Not only of defense mind you, but being as this is a military forum I figured it would make a approriate topic of discussion on the matter.

Lastly I do not make the blind mistake of confusing my opinion with fact,( I am only speaking of me of course, not trying to sound rash) so I am willing to read up on this topic further as time progresses and next years spending assements come out.

 

[George]

Rumsfeld seemed too ocupied trying to prepare for the next war to buy stuff needed @ the time, like the delay in aquiring the MRAPs. Ammo shortages while Govt ammo plants remained shuttered. Some programs were cut, but apparently there are a lot of elderly planes, like the older KC-135s & C-130s that the AF wants to junk but Congress has mandated that they be kept in flying condition, if not in acual use. Not saying there isn't areas that can be cut, but not with a cleaver that some want.