January 17, 1961

[lobato1]

The Dems "Have Proposed to Scale Down Defense Spending".

vis-a-vis

The GOP that had advocated for defense spending increases in the 2012 elections have continued to advocate for those increases in the GOP controlled House to this very day:

The (GOP) plan would "Increase defense spending by about $550 billion, which would likely help contractors who work with the Department of Defense"; however, the plan would trim an additional $250 billion in spending for domestic agencies.

My Reference: Dueling budget plans: How the House and Senate proposals stack up on Main Street - Washington Post

​

Notice the difference with your personal intuition & actual documented facts?

Best Regards

Lobato1

As a result, our country spends more in defense than the next dozen top defense spending countries:

Country 2011 current prices in billions

1. China, 142,859
2. Russia, 71,853
3. UK, 62,685
4. France, 62,535
5. Japan, 59,327
6. India, 48,889
7. Saudi Arabia, 48,531
8. Germany, 46,745
9. Brazil, 35,360
10. Italy, 34,501
11. S. Korea, 30,799
12. Australia, 26,706

Total 670,790
​

versus our country:

USA 711,421
​

My Reference: Military spending: how much does the military cost each country, listed | News | theguardian.com


In the last 2012 elections, the GOP campaigned to add a dozen new warships plus a new nuclear sub at a cost of two trillion more bucks for the following four years.

The question is:
Exactly how much is too much?

Sad.

Best Regards

Lobato1

A worthy perspective, this list. Cause for reflection.

Just for full perspective, if the RP wasn't drumming up a dozen new warships, the DP would be instead. All in the shortsighted name of "jobs for my district". This more than any other issue is why I consider them to be two different uniforms for the same Republicrat-Demoplican Party. There's not a lick of difference between them when they're both equally under the MIC thumb.

 

[Trajan]

OK, you see the problem... how do you propose to correct it?

The only way I can see is to do away with the congress and allow people to vote directly instead of through elected officials who become corrupted by the lobbyists.
It would be more difficult to bribe a nation of people than a handful of representatives.

No, the problem is not Congress or lobbyists, but the American people.

As long as the American people allow themselves to be frightened by ‘communists’ in the past or ‘terrorist’ today, the MIC will forever be in control, hiding behind the façade of ‘national security.’

As an aside, doing away with the Republic – and with it the rule of law – would be madness.

right, because we had nothing to worry about from either...

 

[Trajan]

As a result, our country spends more in defense than the next dozen top defense spending countries:

Country 2011 current prices in billions

1. China, 142,859
2. Russia, 71,853
3. UK, 62,685
4. France, 62,535
5. Japan, 59,327
6. India, 48,889
7. Saudi Arabia, 48,531
8. Germany, 46,745
9. Brazil, 35,360
10. Italy, 34,501
11. S. Korea, 30,799
12. Australia, 26,706

Total 670,790
​

versus our country:

USA 711,421
​

My Reference: Military spending: how much does the military cost each country, listed | News | theguardian.com


In the last 2012 elections, the GOP campaigned to add a dozen new warships plus a new nuclear sub at a cost of two trillion more bucks for the following four years.

The question is:
Exactly how much is too much?

Sad.

Best Regards

Lobato1

A worthy perspective, this list. Cause for reflection.

Just for full perspective, if the RP wasn't drumming up a dozen new warships, the DP would be instead. All in the shortsighted name of "jobs for my district". This more than any other issue is why I consider them to be two different uniforms for the same Republicrat-Demoplican Party. There's not a lick of difference between them when they're both equally under the MIC thumb.

while that is true, they have to built somewhere. and yes I agree the procurement process is sclerotic and at times contradictory, but be that as it may, its a whole lot better here than well anywhere else.

If national defense is something you all really think we can do without, then I seriously urge you to do some serious historical analysis.

 

[Pogo]

As a result, our country spends more in defense than the next dozen top defense spending countries:

Country 2011 current prices in billions

1. China, 142,859
2. Russia, 71,853
3. UK, 62,685
4. France, 62,535
5. Japan, 59,327
6. India, 48,889
7. Saudi Arabia, 48,531
8. Germany, 46,745
9. Brazil, 35,360
10. Italy, 34,501
11. S. Korea, 30,799
12. Australia, 26,706

Total 670,790
​

versus our country:

USA 711,421
​

My Reference: Military spending: how much does the military cost each country, listed | News | theguardian.com


In the last 2012 elections, the GOP campaigned to add a dozen new warships plus a new nuclear sub at a cost of two trillion more bucks for the following four years.

The question is:
Exactly how much is too much?

Sad.

Best Regards

Lobato1

A worthy perspective, this list. Cause for reflection.

Just for full perspective, if the RP wasn't drumming up a dozen new warships, the DP would be instead. All in the shortsighted name of "jobs for my district". This more than any other issue is why I consider them to be two different uniforms for the same Republicrat-Demoplican Party. There's not a lick of difference between them when they're both equally under the MIC thumb.

while that is true, they have to built somewhere. and yes I agree the procurement process is sclerotic and at times contradictory, but be that as it may, its a whole lot better here than well anywhere else.

If national defense is something you all really think we can do without, then I seriously urge you to do some serious historical analysis.

So... burning more money than China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea and Australia, combined... turns into "doing without national defense".

Quite the leap you've got there. Kind of all-or-nothing, innit?

 

[Trajan]

A worthy perspective, this list. Cause for reflection.

Just for full perspective, if the RP wasn't drumming up a dozen new warships, the DP would be instead. All in the shortsighted name of "jobs for my district". This more than any other issue is why I consider them to be two different uniforms for the same Republicrat-Demoplican Party. There's not a lick of difference between them when they're both equally under the MIC thumb.

while that is true, they have to built somewhere. and yes I agree the procurement process is sclerotic and at times contradictory, but be that as it may, its a whole lot better here than well anywhere else.

If national defense is something you all really think we can do without, then I seriously urge you to do some serious historical analysis.

So... burning more money than China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea and Australia, combined... turns into "doing without national defense".

Quite the leap you've got there. Kind of all-or-nothing, innit?

aside from the first 2, what do the rest have in common?


what leap are you referring to? I didn't see any quantization or qualifications regards size except we spend more than anyone else....

 

[Pogo]

while that is true, they have to built somewhere. and yes I agree the procurement process is sclerotic and at times contradictory, but be that as it may, its a whole lot better here than well anywhere else.

If national defense is something you all really think we can do without, then I seriously urge you to do some serious historical analysis.

So... burning more money than China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea and Australia, combined... turns into "doing without national defense".

Quite the leap you've got there. Kind of all-or-nothing, innit?

aside from the first 2, what do the rest have in common?


what leap are you referring to? I didn't see any quantization or qualifications regards size except we spend more than anyone else....

They're all big countries with big economies and populations. They're not supposed to have something in common with each other beyond that; the point is those are countries two through thirteen in the world rank on military spending -- and we outspend them ALL. Not just them individually but combined. Someone with ambition could add up their populations and I guarantee you it's many times ours. That's putting into perspective what the MIC addiction begets.

The "leap" was your drawing a contrast between that ^^ and, in your words, "doing without national defense". It's an extremely precipitous drop from absolutely dominating world military spending..... to Zero. Don't you think?


OTOH we'd all be millionaires... hmmm

 

[Trajan]

So... burning more money than China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea and Australia, combined... turns into "doing without national defense".

Quite the leap you've got there. Kind of all-or-nothing, innit?

aside from the first 2, what do the rest have in common?


what leap are you referring to? I didn't see any quantization or qualifications regards size except we spend more than anyone else....

They're all big countries with big economies and populations. They're not supposed to have something in common with each other beyond that; the point is those are countries two through thirteen in the world rank on military spending -- and we outspend them ALL. Not just them individually but combined. Someone with ambition could add up their populations and I guarantee you it's many times ours. That's putting into perspective what the MIC addiction begets.

The "leap" was your drawing a contrast between that ^^ and, in your words, "doing without national defense". It's an extremely precipitous drop from absolutely dominating world military spending..... to Zero. Don't you think?


OTOH we'd all be millionaires... hmmm

what they have in common is they count on us and have so.......and several of those countries that have thru history every 30-40 years or so took turns trying to bleed each other to death, have not in the last 70....



look, you are making the same remarks or restating other views here in just another way, we outspend everyone, yea I get that ...and? state your case, that cannot be all of it....is it?

I don't get your millionaire remark..

 

[FA_Q2]

aside from the first 2, what do the rest have in common?


what leap are you referring to? I didn't see any quantization or qualifications regards size except we spend more than anyone else....

They're all big countries with big economies and populations. They're not supposed to have something in common with each other beyond that; the point is those are countries two through thirteen in the world rank on military spending -- and we outspend them ALL. Not just them individually but combined. Someone with ambition could add up their populations and I guarantee you it's many times ours. That's putting into perspective what the MIC addiction begets.

The "leap" was your drawing a contrast between that ^^ and, in your words, "doing without national defense". It's an extremely precipitous drop from absolutely dominating world military spending..... to Zero. Don't you think?


OTOH we'd all be millionaires... hmmm

what they have in common is they count on us and have so.......and several of those countries that have thru history every 30-40 years or so took turns trying to bleed each other to death, have not in the last 70....



look, you are making the same remarks or restating other views here in just another way, we outspend everyone, yea I get that ...and? state your case, that cannot be all of it....is it?

I don't get your millionaire remark..

It is a little extreme when we are out spending virtually the entire world though, don’t you think?

We could have a stronger military at half the cost if we simply scaled back some of the more expensive military practices that we go through. Being in the AF myself, I can easily point out several MILLIONS in savings in my shop – a shop with only 15 personnel. The reality is that the procurement process is absolute garbage and some of the rules that we follow are absolute asinine. 90 percent of what I do is wasted on bullshit that should not be accomplished at all let alone be the bulk of my production. The entire system is majorly screwed up.

 

[AVG-JOE]

while that is true, they have to built somewhere. and yes I agree the procurement process is sclerotic and at times contradictory, but be that as it may, its a whole lot better here than well anywhere else.

If national defense is something you all really think we can do without, then I seriously urge you to do some serious historical analysis.

So... burning more money than China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea and Australia, combined... turns into "doing without national defense".

Quite the leap you've got there. Kind of all-or-nothing, innit?

aside from the first 2, what do the rest have in common?


what leap are you referring to? I didn't see any quantization or qualifications regards size except we spend more than anyone else....

In the opening posts I suggested that the defense budget be slashed by 432 billion / year from 682 billion to 250 billion, which is still what China spends times 1.5.

 

[Pogo]

aside from the first 2, what do the rest have in common?


what leap are you referring to? I didn't see any quantization or qualifications regards size except we spend more than anyone else....

They're all big countries with big economies and populations. They're not supposed to have something in common with each other beyond that; the point is those are countries two through thirteen in the world rank on military spending -- and we outspend them ALL. Not just them individually but combined. Someone with ambition could add up their populations and I guarantee you it's many times ours. That's putting into perspective what the MIC addiction begets.

The "leap" was your drawing a contrast between that ^^ and, in your words, "doing without national defense". It's an extremely precipitous drop from absolutely dominating world military spending..... to Zero. Don't you think?


OTOH we'd all be millionaires... hmmm

what they have in common is they count on us and have so.......and several of those countries that have thru history every 30-40 years or so took turns trying to bleed each other to death, have not in the last 70....



look, you are making the same remarks or restating other views here in just another way, we outspend everyone, yea I get that ...and? state your case, that cannot be all of it....is it?

I don't get your millionaire remark..

Perhaps to a degree they "count on us" in the same way our dog counts on us for his food, as opposed to being a wolf in the wild. There's a certain codependence. If we find that offering food stamps and checks to the unambitious takes away their incentive to work, then why are we doing the same thing with other countries' militaries?

Just a random thought... the main point there is the perspective; nobody else in the world finds it necessary to spend anywhere near what we do. That alone should say a lot. So that is the case. When the case is that obvious, it should be enough.

Forget the millionaire remark; just a joke about how much money we'd free up. And a numerical exaggeration, but the point remains it is a dollar sucker and for all our financial foibles there's a ton of money sitting there not being used for anything productive.

 

[Trajan]

So... burning more money than China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea and Australia, combined... turns into "doing without national defense".

Quite the leap you've got there. Kind of all-or-nothing, innit?

aside from the first 2, what do the rest have in common?


what leap are you referring to? I didn't see any quantization or qualifications regards size except we spend more than anyone else....

In the opening posts I suggested that the defense budget be slashed by 432 billion / year from 682 billion to 250 billion, which is still what China spends times 1.5.

you and I went round and round on this just 5-8 months ago, remember? I do. I am not reposting it all. *shrugs*

 

[Trajan]

They're all big countries with big economies and populations. They're not supposed to have something in common with each other beyond that; the point is those are countries two through thirteen in the world rank on military spending -- and we outspend them ALL. Not just them individually but combined. Someone with ambition could add up their populations and I guarantee you it's many times ours. That's putting into perspective what the MIC addiction begets.

The "leap" was your drawing a contrast between that ^^ and, in your words, "doing without national defense". It's an extremely precipitous drop from absolutely dominating world military spending..... to Zero. Don't you think?


OTOH we'd all be millionaires... hmmm

what they have in common is they count on us and have so.......and several of those countries that have thru history every 30-40 years or so took turns trying to bleed each other to death, have not in the last 70....



look, you are making the same remarks or restating other views here in just another way, we outspend everyone, yea I get that ...and? state your case, that cannot be all of it....is it?

I don't get your millionaire remark..

Perhaps to a degree they "count on us" in the same way our dog counts on us for his food, as opposed to being a wolf in the wild. There's a certain codependence. If we find that offering food stamps and checks to the unambitious takes away their incentive to work, then why are we doing the same thing with other countries' militaries?


Just a random thought... the main point there is the perspective; nobody else in the world finds it necessary to spend anywhere near what we do. That alone should say a lot. So that is the case. When the case is that obvious, it should be enough.

Forget the millionaire remark; just a joke about how much money we'd free up. And a numerical exaggeration, but the point remains it is a dollar sucker and for all our financial foibles there's a ton of money sitting there not being used for anything productive.

They count on us a lot more than in degrees. Out of 360, I'd say they rate around 300.


Now as to the thrust of your statement I wholly agree, and let me say you’re the first person from left of center that has agreed with any premise along those lines outside of straight up isolationism, but maybe for not the same reasons I proposed, we'll see; I have said before and my contention is, that the savings the Europeans have realized for decades due to our preponderance of forces they used to buttress their welfare states(s).

Now that’s not a value judgment, just a fact and has made it all but impossible to retrench.



One would have thought that say, the Balkans issue where in the European were bereft of will and equipment to make a go of doing what we finally stepped in and did, would have taught them there are viable reasons to build keep and manage an armed force(s).
I remember when there was some discussion over this in La Monde and Der Spiegel, their attitudes was, where will we get the money, reallocating funds would be pulling monies and specie away from social constructs, politically, almost suicide, and would be a non starter. The moment passed.

Lets step forward to just the last 2 years-

Libya; the EU could not put 100 aircraft and 30 ships in the Med. to manage the Libyan conflict, they ran out of ammunition, fuel, etc. Who stepped up? We did.


Mali; France barely managed to get 3,000 men, yes 3k men to Mali and simply could not supply them, we had to allocate wings of air transport to supply them, a distance from France equal to that from NYC to Las Vega….I mean really?

And then theres Syria and Egypt and that whole mess, and trust me, its just begun. We are still closer to the beginning than the end.


Look, if you were against use of forces in any of those scenarios thats fine, but doesn’t allay the facts I have laid out as to our singular ability to do what was done. Unless you are an isolationist to the extent that you feel we should not engage outside the northern hemisphere period, if that’s the case I am not interested in arguing that, its cyclical and will lead no where imho, it never has.


Like it or not the ship has sailed, yes there is a codependency, I agree, but? What would you have us do? Simply vaporize those assets?

 

[Trajan]

They're all big countries with big economies and populations. They're not supposed to have something in common with each other beyond that; the point is those are countries two through thirteen in the world rank on military spending -- and we outspend them ALL. Not just them individually but combined. Someone with ambition could add up their populations and I guarantee you it's many times ours. That's putting into perspective what the MIC addiction begets.

The "leap" was your drawing a contrast between that ^^ and, in your words, "doing without national defense". It's an extremely precipitous drop from absolutely dominating world military spending..... to Zero. Don't you think?


OTOH we'd all be millionaires... hmmm

what they have in common is they count on us and have so.......and several of those countries that have thru history every 30-40 years or so took turns trying to bleed each other to death, have not in the last 70....



look, you are making the same remarks or restating other views here in just another way, we outspend everyone, yea I get that ...and? state your case, that cannot be all of it....is it?

I don't get your millionaire remark..

It is a little extreme when we are out spending virtually the entire world though, don’t you think?

We could have a stronger military at half the cost if we simply scaled back some of the more expensive military practices that we go through. Being in the AF myself, I can easily point out several MILLIONS in savings in my shop – a shop with only 15 personnel. The reality is that the procurement process is absolute garbage and some of the rules that we follow are absolute asinine. 90 percent of what I do is wasted on bullshit that should not be accomplished at all let alone be the bulk of my production. The entire system is majorly screwed up.

I have already said I agree with that....

 

[FA_Q2]

what they have in common is they count on us and have so.......and several of those countries that have thru history every 30-40 years or so took turns trying to bleed each other to death, have not in the last 70....



look, you are making the same remarks or restating other views here in just another way, we outspend everyone, yea I get that ...and? state your case, that cannot be all of it....is it?

I don't get your millionaire remark..

It is a little extreme when we are out spending virtually the entire world though, don’t you think?

We could have a stronger military at half the cost if we simply scaled back some of the more expensive military practices that we go through. Being in the AF myself, I can easily point out several MILLIONS in savings in my shop – a shop with only 15 personnel. The reality is that the procurement process is absolute garbage and some of the rules that we follow are absolute asinine. 90 percent of what I do is wasted on bullshit that should not be accomplished at all let alone be the bulk of my production. The entire system is majorly screwed up.

I have already said I agree with that....

Must have missed it then. No offense meant.

 

[Trajan]

It is a little extreme when we are out spending virtually the entire world though, don’t you think?

We could have a stronger military at half the cost if we simply scaled back some of the more expensive military practices that we go through. Being in the AF myself, I can easily point out several MILLIONS in savings in my shop – a shop with only 15 personnel. The reality is that the procurement process is absolute garbage and some of the rules that we follow are absolute asinine. 90 percent of what I do is wasted on bullshit that should not be accomplished at all let alone be the bulk of my production. The entire system is majorly screwed up.

I have already said I agree with that....

Must have missed it then. No offense meant.

none taken

the net sucks for nuance....

the procurement system sux, thats a given, the system is built to be abused, humans being humans where there is money and the gov. involved, cronyism, featherbedding via politics follows......and its not just the defense industry either, name one, ethanol? FHA? Medicare?

I told joe way back in the last go round on this, thought we should keep the navy and air force staffed at approx. 375 ships and the air force pretty much at par BUT we need more F-22's, 187 is not enough, the army can go bare bones by reallocating and take savings from these moves.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'll continue to leave the details of the shopping list to the professionals and those of you who seem to know an F-22 from an M1-A1.

The purpose of the thread is to call attention to the bleeding and the first rule of accounting is to stop the bleeding.

You boys think the pentagon can do the job with a mere $250 billion per year to do it?

 

[Trajan]

I'll continue to leave the details of the shopping list to the professionals and those of you who seem to know an F-22 from an M1-A1.

well that parts of the issue joe, a wing of aircraft still has to cover distance to get somewhere else and/or serve the theaters they are in? ...... a carrier air group covers the ocean it can see a round it and approx. 400 miles beyond into periphery, yet can only move at 28 knots. its moving bubble...4-5 at sea at once are not enough, I'd gladly trade an army division for 2 CAG's ....I'd trade another one for 150 F-22's. ( and fuck the F-35, now thats a boondoggle of the first magnitude and is a perfect example of exactly whats wrong with the MIC).....but thats me

I'd also pull the inf. div. we have in S. Kor. its no longer necessary, the nor kor army is a shadow ( size isn't all its cracked up to be) they don't need it. If the Chinese come in, we have the 3rd Marine div. for that and follow on Marine units ....

look, saying do same with less is not viable, just saying do more with less is not viable either.

The purpose of the thread is to call attention to the bleeding and the first rule of accounting is to stop the bleeding.

what bleeding are you addressing, specifically? just procurement

You boys think the pentagon can do the job with a mere $250 billion per year to do it?

No, no way, I think, 450. we can get there once we close shop in the ME, which I don't totally agree with but it is happening..plus an unfortunate but real fact- we are hitting the end of the Reagan build up era, meaning those airframes ships etc. are at or nearing the end of their services lives...they need replacement, thats aside/outside any war or conflict we are or not involved in.

 

[AVG-JOE]

$682 Billion in annual expenditures for 'Military'. That bleeding.

Reducing it to $450 is a start. I'll take it.

 

[Trajan]

$682 Billion in annual expenditures for 'Military'. That bleeding.

Reducing it to $450 is a start. I'll take it.

Not sure where you got 682, unless theres a supplemental out there not incl. here....


as you can see we are at a $525 baseline, I can live with chopping off 100 perhaps, over say the next 3 years and just letting cola rise per annum.

Oh and and before you ask why don't we settle for the pre 911, budget, its not pre 911 anymore and our equipment, ships, aircraft etc. are 10 years older now

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/Fy2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

 

[Trajan]

we good joe?