A Defense Budget Cut We Can All Agree On

I don't believe much in the media when it comes to defence spending.

As an example, we see headlines that such and such a war is costing the US x billions per day.

My question is: where is this money going? Is it to accommodate, and arm the troops? In which case will they be dismissed and arms destroyed when the war is over? If not, then what is the incremental cost of the war, and where is it going?

My second question is: money goes around in circles, so if the defence budget is xx billion, this goes to (a) troops who buy stuff and pay taxes (b) contractors who employ people who buy stuff and pay taxes. So if the defence budget is cut, what is the collateral damage?

Now, if a significant percentage of the defence budget is spent on purchasing arms from abroad, then that is 'lost money', or is it? Surely encouraging good industry and relationships with foreign powers is to be commended? So the money is not lost, it is an investment into a political future.

So when I look into the story, the defence don;t want it, but congress has bigger concerns, they are worried about shutting down a factory, loosing jobs, and all the damage caused by it, of which the military do not give a damn (they probably do, but it is not in their remit).

It's like any big company, the troops can;t always see the bigger picture.

Now, having said all that, I am a strong believer in providing goods and services that people want, and not supporting a dead duck.

So in conclusion, I wouldn't cut the defence budget, but I would reorganise it so that new investments are made, new innovative companies encouraged, and dead wood burnt. Plus make a few ginormous contracts with UK suppliers!

p.s. I drove with my family past Fort Hood ? (just past Waco), my son saw the helicopters, and said his friend's dad was CEO of the British company which makes them (which paid for his son's school fees). Same way, when I go to Dharhan I see all the US fighters being used to train Saudi pilots (am I out of date on this one?, not sure how much military equipment Saudi buys from US, I know France and UK fights like cats and dogs over contracts, and nobody plays clean).

Now here's a thought - why doesn't that nice company making these tanks which the US army says they don;t want, export them to some foreign friendly power, like Pakistan, keep the employees happy and provide some export revenue? Originally Posted by essence

I was thinking Israel could have some fun with those tanks.

You guys are kinda missing the point. Never mind.

You want to know why hardware is forced on the military even though they don't want it? Look at whose district/state it's built in.

As a far distant 2nd reason, sometimes there is an honest difference of opinion about what future threats are the most pressing. There isn't enough money to counter all of them, and not everyone evalustes risks the same way.

The light attack plane someone mentioned: that little fluff article is only 10% of the story.

You guys are kinda missing the point. Never mind. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I got your point.

Tanks we do not need are going to be built anyway. Stupid. How can we ever cut spending with that mentality. I get it COG. That is why I think our forvm of government is broken. I have been making that point for years.

But no matter what the subject. Some will always try and blame Obama. Just look at this thread. WTF does NDAA signing have to do with over spending? Nothing. Yet that winds up in the debate. You have irrational people that hated Bush and one's that hate Obama. Both were/our our President(s). Disheartening.

You guys are kinda missing the point. Never mind. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I get the point completely. But when you have a town/city that relies on a particular industry, you have to be imaginative to see how to handle any transition to new industries.

Any large corporation gets complacent when contracts are renewed year after year. So corporations need to continually rebirth themselves and diversify.

Automotive bail outs, defence spending, not so much difference.

Geez. Nobody wants the tanks, except for the contractors. Guess who runs the show.

If not the elected person trying to look good on the home turf or the contractor has influence on elected people. You know who else has influence? Unions.

This is not the only example of the military being forced to buy something it does not want.

And those little pee shooter airplanes are not the only give aways we do or have done for export to certain countries.


Essence a large amount of the time we export to many countries, if they are not outright gifts of surplus or beyond service life items(to us), they are subsidized by the American taxpayer. Only a small number of rich countries actually buy stuff from us. Very few of those get the top of the line newest stuff. Many end up with older tech versions so that we maintain a slight edge or the latest and greatest does not end up(wishful thinking) in the (potential)enemies hands.


Ah yes speaking of buying stuff from certain countries. The uproar a couple of weeks of bad parts from a certain country has been going on ever since we have been stupid enough to let them. It just got to a bad enough point to cause a big problem.

I don't believe much in the media when it comes to defence spending.

As an example, we see headlines that such and such a war is costing the US x billions per day.

My question is: where is this money going? Is it to accommodate, and arm the troops? In which case will they be dismissed and arms destroyed when the war is over? If not, then what is the incremental cost of the war, and where is it going?

My second question is: money goes around in circles, so if the defence budget is xx billion, this goes to (a) troops who buy stuff and pay taxes (b) contractors who employ people who buy stuff and pay taxes. So if the defence budget is cut, what is the collateral damage?

Now, if a significant percentage of the defence budget is spent on purchasing arms from abroad, then that is 'lost money', or is it? Surely encouraging good industry and relationships with foreign powers is to be commended? So the money is not lost, it is an investment into a political future.

So when I look into the story, the defence don;t want it, but congress has bigger concerns, they are worried about shutting down a factory, loosing jobs, and all the damage caused by it, of which the military do not give a damn (they probably do, but it is not in their remit).

It's like any big company, the troops can;t always see the bigger picture.

Now, having said all that, I am a strong believer in providing goods and services that people want, and not supporting a dead duck.

So in conclusion, I wouldn't cut the defence budget, but I would reorganise it so that new investments are made, new innovative companies encouraged, and dead wood burnt. Plus make a few ginormous contracts with UK suppliers!

p.s. I drove with my family past Fort Hood ? (just past Waco), my son saw the helicopters, and said his friend's dad was CEO of the British company which makes them (which paid for his son's school fees). Same way, when I go to Dharhan I see all the US fighters being used to train Saudi pilots (am I out of date on this one?, not sure how much military equipment Saudi buys from US, I know France and UK fights like cats and dogs over contracts, and nobody plays clean).

Now here's a thought - why doesn't that nice company making these tanks which the US army says they don;t want, export them to some foreign friendly power, like Pakistan, keep the employees happy and provide some export revenue? Originally Posted by essence

+1
Well stated.

The Defense Industry has become a bloated behemoth that is far beyond trimming, it needs to be slashed with a buzz-saw before it starts another horribly expensive program that will be even more difficult to stop.

We already spend more than 5 times on Defense than China.

. . . It's time to get our economic house in order and slash the Defense Budget right now.

Sometimes a simple chart can convey the disparity more clearly than words.

. . .Now, who thinks we need to spend more on this gigantic mountain of expense?.

And still there was enough for welfare:

Any comparison about military spending comparin the US to any other country is ridiculous. We are (whether we like it or not) the policeman of the world. Would you compare the spending of the NYC police department to that of Bopunk, ID? Or a private security firm?

I have to look at this from a couple of different angles; in the modern world time and money are both important. Keeping a production line open costs money. Closing a production line and starting it back up again costs money. More according to the experts than keeping it running. Back to time. If we closed down our MBT (main battle tank) producer because we no longer had an IMMEDIATE need for tanks then it will cost time and money to open it back up. Time is something that we may not have. I used to work in a manufacturing environment. If we shut down a machine for a time because we had no use for it for say a year or two, then we had a problem with training people to run the machines again. Time was lost. In manufacturing that is not a big deal. What happened if there was an attack in the Middle East and we lost 100 MBTs. How long would it take to replace them if we had to stop up again? As much as it would cost, we have to keep the line open year round just to be able to respond to an emergency. That additional cost of start up would also delay decisions to open the line. What if it cost 100 million dollars to open the factory again. Would you do it for an additional 25 MBTs or 50 MBTs or 100 MBTs? We may need 25 MBTs but the decision would be put off until the need was greater to justify the cost. Democrats would traditionally put off military buys so they could save the money... (LOL) sorry, they never save money. They would just spend the money on social programs.

A lot of what some people consider wasteful spending is about preparedness. When the Civil War began the federal army consisted of 17,000 men and officers. It took six months to build up an army. When World War I began the army had a little over 100,000 men and Pershing took over a year to build a 2 million man army. World War II found the US behind the eight ball again. We had to build a navy, an army, and an air force to compete with the big boys. Eisenhower saw the problem and committed this country to a standing army. A useful standing army has to continually update its technology or we will be fighting in the Middle East with Vietnam Era weapons. We don't have the luxury of time anymore to build an army. It cost moneys. As I have asked people what costs more in the long run in the 1940s; had we maintained a 10 carrier navy in the Pacific there would have been no Pearl Harbor and no loss of thousands of men and women. Instead we kept a bar bones navy (three real carriers) and the Japanese with their six carriers thought they could take us. So maintaining a strong military costs less in the long run in money and lives. This does not excuse waste. If we are going to a new fighting vehicle then lets get it planned but I didn't read that in the story. What I read was that we were going to phase out the M-1 but I didn't read about a replacemnt.

The Defense Industry has become a bloated behemoth that is far beyond trimming, it needs to be slashed with a buzz-saw before it starts another horribly expensive program that will be even more difficult to stop.

We already spend more than 5 times on Defense than China.

. . . It's time to get our economic house in order and slash the Defense Budget right now.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

DAMMIT! I HATE it when I agree with FastGoon! DAMMIT!!!!!

Sometimes a simple chart can convey the disparity more clearly than words.

. . .Now, who thinks we need to spend more on this gigantic mountain of expense?. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

He does throw one in there once in a blue moon, give the boy props today , bash him tomorrow

ooops, wrong link, but you get the point

Any comparison about military spending comparin the US to any other country is ridiculous. We are (whether we like it or not) the policeman of the world. Would you compare the spending of the NYC police department to that of Bopunk, ID? Or a private security firm?

I have to look at this from a couple of different angles; in the modern world time and money are both important. Keeping a production line open costs money. Closing a production line and starting it back up again costs money. More according to the experts than keeping it running. Back to time. If we closed down our MBT (main battle tank) producer because we no longer had an IMMEDIATE need for tanks then it will cost time and money to open it back up. Time is something that we may not have. I used to work in a manufacturing environment. If we shut down a machine for a time because we had no use for it for say a year or two, then we had a problem with training people to run the machines again. Time was lost. In manufacturing that is not a big deal. What happened if there was an attack in the Middle East and we lost 100 MBTs. How long would it take to replace them if we had to stop up again? As much as it would cost, we have to keep the line open year round just to be able to respond to an emergency. That additional cost of start up would also delay decisions to open the line. What if it cost 100 million dollars to open the factory again. Would you do it for an additional 25 MBTs or 50 MBTs or 100 MBTs? We may need 25 MBTs but the decision would be put off until the need was greater to justify the cost. Democrats would traditionally put off military buys so they could save the money... (LOL) sorry, they never save money. They would just spend the money on social programs.

A lot of what some people consider wasteful spending is about preparedness. When the Civil War began the federal army consisted of 17,000 men and officers. It took six months to build up an army. When World War I began the army had a little over 100,000 men and Pershing took over a year to build a 2 million man army. World War II found the US behind the eight ball again. We had to build a navy, an army, and an air force to compete with the big boys. Eisenhower saw the problem and committed this country to a standing army. A useful standing army has to continually update its technology or we will be fighting in the Middle East with Vietnam Era weapons. We don't have the luxury of time anymore to build an army. It cost moneys. As I have asked people what costs more in the long run in the 1940s; had we maintained a 10 carrier navy in the Pacific there would have been no Pearl Harbor and no loss of thousands of men and women. Instead we kept a bar bones navy (three real carriers) and the Japanese with their six carriers thought they could take us. So maintaining a strong military costs less in the long run in money and lives. This does not excuse waste. If we are going to a new fighting vehicle then lets get it planned but I didn't read that in the story. What I read was that we were going to phase out the M-1 but I didn't read about a replacemnt. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Red lipstick on a PIG. JD these fuckers do not get it....fuckem