Super commitee fails..but there will be no cuts in defence spending

[iamwhatiseem]

Interesting...never cease to be amazed.

Paul: "This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we're only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make this cut], it will still go up 16%."

Only in Washington is a 16% increase considered a "devastating" cut.

Read more: Crying wolf over military spending "cuts" - Stossel's Take Blog - Fox Business

 

[JoeB131]

The real question we need to ask ourselves is to what degree is the military focused on its mission, and to what degree is it a Keynesian job making program.

The Department of Defense has 1.4 million members in uniform, and 700,000 civilian employees. Consider that. for every two service members in uniform, they have 1 civilian employee. That doesn't include subcontractors and suppliers, which is probably millions of more people.

We have bases we don't need. We have troops stationed in countries that are under no threat of foreign attack and are easily wealthy enough to defend themselves.

We could easily cut into it, while still maintaining current force levels, simply by doing it all smarter.

Why buy new aircraft carriers when we already have more than the rest of the world combined, including allied fleets.

 

[Listening]

And yet another example of how words and our understanding of them are twisted to create disinformation or soft-pedal their failures.

It boggles the mind.

And pisses me off.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet another example of how words and our understanding of them are twisted to create disinformation or soft-pedal their failures.

It boggles the mind.

And pisses me off.

Not really.

a 16% increase over 10 years would be a cut because the baseline costs are going to increase more than 16%.

If apples cost $1.00 each in 2011, and they increase 3% a year, they'll cost 1.34 in 2021. But if you only allocated a 16% increase in your apple budget when prices have increased 34%, you aren't going to be able to buy as many apples.

This is actually pretty simple math.

Which may not be a problem if you find you can actually live with less apples.

 

[Claudette]

The real question we need to ask ourselves is to what degree is the military focused on its mission, and to what degree is it a Keynesian job making program.

The Department of Defense has 1.4 million members in uniform, and 700,000 civilian employees. Consider that. for every two service members in uniform, they have 1 civilian employee. That doesn't include subcontractors and suppliers, which is probably millions of more people.

We have bases we don't need. We have troops stationed in countries that are under no threat of foreign attack and are easily wealthy enough to defend themselves.

We could easily cut into it, while still maintaining current force levels, simply by doing it all smarter.

Why buy new aircraft carriers when we already have more than the rest of the world combined, including allied fleets.

Totally agree.

It would be very smart for us to pull our troops out of Germany and close down bases that aren't absolutely needed. Europe hasn't been under any threat for quite some time. They all have armies. Let em take care of themselves.

There are loads of things the military could do to cut costs without lowering our ability to respond if needed.

Defense, like all other parts of Govt, should be on the block for cuts. We don't want to neuter the military just get rid of whats not needed, waste and try to cuts costs.

 

[editec]

And yet another example of how words and our understanding of them are twisted to create disinformation or soft-pedal their failures.

It boggles the mind.

And pisses me off.

Not really.

a 16% increase over 10 years would be a cut because the baseline costs are going to increase more than 16%.

If apples cost $1.00 each in 2011, and they increase 3% a year, they'll cost 1.34 in 2021. But if you only allocated a 16% increase in your apple budget when prices have increased 34%, you aren't going to be able to buy as many apples.

This is actually pretty simple math.

Which may not be a problem if you find you can actually live with less apples.

Right if your expectation of an annual rate of 3% inflation is correct.

It is my understanding that the automatic cuts lead to about a ONE TRILLION dollar decrease in DoD spending over the next ten years.

We get so much conflicting information, don't we?

WHO TO TRUST? ends up being the real question facing citizens.

And even that almost doesn't matter because, let's face it, even the people we trust might get it wrong.

Fact is its possible nobody knows what "the truth" really is because they are making predictions based on assumptions about a POLITICAL reality that is in the FUTURE.

What will congress look like 8 years from now?

Who the hell knows?

 

[California Girl]

The real question we need to ask ourselves is to what degree is the military focused on its mission, and to what degree is it a Keynesian job making program.

The Department of Defense has 1.4 million members in uniform, and 700,000 civilian employees. Consider that. for every two service members in uniform, they have 1 civilian employee. That doesn't include subcontractors and suppliers, which is probably millions of more people.

We have bases we don't need. We have troops stationed in countries that are under no threat of foreign attack and are easily wealthy enough to defend themselves.

We could easily cut into it, while still maintaining current force levels, simply by doing it all smarter.

Why buy new aircraft carriers when we already have more than the rest of the world combined, including allied fleets.

Totally agree.

It would be very smart for us to pull our troops out of Germany and close down bases that aren't absolutely needed. Europe hasn't been under any threat for quite some time. They all have armies. Let em take care of themselves.

There are loads of things the military could do to cut costs without lowering our ability to respond if needed.

Defense, like all other parts of Govt, should be on the block for cuts. We don't want to neuter the military just get rid of whats not needed, waste and try to cuts costs.

There are really good reasons why we still maintain bases in Europe.... more to do with international relations than any threats. But those bases serve a valuable purpose to the United States. A short term gain at the sacrifice of long term loses is never a smart move.

However, there are projects that come under the banner of 'military' that are more pork projects than military requirements. And those things, they can be cut with absolutely no impact on our military preparedness. Even the Military wants those projects cut. They do not want or need the outcomes of those projects.

 

[Listening]

And yet another example of how words and our understanding of them are twisted to create disinformation or soft-pedal their failures.

It boggles the mind.

And pisses me off.

Not really.

a 16% increase over 10 years would be a cut because the baseline costs are going to increase more than 16%.

If apples cost $1.00 each in 2011, and they increase 3% a year, they'll cost 1.34 in 2021. But if you only allocated a 16% increase in your apple budget when prices have increased 34%, you aren't going to be able to buy as many apples.

This is actually pretty simple math.

Which may not be a problem if you find you can actually live with less apples.

Right if your expectation of an annual rate of 3% inflation is correct.

It is my understanding that the automatic cuts lead to about a ONE TRILLION dollar decrease in DoD spending over the next ten years.

We get so much conflicting information, don't we?

WHO TO TRUST? ends up being the real question facing citizens.

And even that almost doesn't matter because, let's face it, even the people we trust might get it wrong.

Fact is its possible nobody knows what "the truth" really is because they are making predictions based on assumptions about a POLITICAL reality that is in the FUTURE.

What will congress look like 8 years from now?

Who the hell knows?

Excellent post.

What is frustrating is that you often don't get the qualifiers. The statements are made as absolute fact when, as you pointed out, they are predictions and promises that have some purpose related to re-election and power.

I find that many people don't trust any information they get.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I don't usually go here...but I will, not like some military brass is going to see this.
I have a neighbor that works for a company that is contracted by the military.
They produce training films for soldiers (why the military can't do this themselves is beyond me) On average, he works 10-15 hours a week at most...sometimes he may only go into the office once in a whole week. If he is REALLY busy he may work 2-3 12 hour days and then not work for a week.
They bill the military by the hour. He told me when he seed the project papers - and it will have his portion showing say - 280 hours for Project "A"...and he knows he can easily get it done in less than a week.
They have over 100 employees doing this.

THIS is why the military spends so much - there is no accountability.

 

[Claudette]

The real question we need to ask ourselves is to what degree is the military focused on its mission, and to what degree is it a Keynesian job making program.

The Department of Defense has 1.4 million members in uniform, and 700,000 civilian employees. Consider that. for every two service members in uniform, they have 1 civilian employee. That doesn't include subcontractors and suppliers, which is probably millions of more people.

We have bases we don't need. We have troops stationed in countries that are under no threat of foreign attack and are easily wealthy enough to defend themselves.

We could easily cut into it, while still maintaining current force levels, simply by doing it all smarter.

Why buy new aircraft carriers when we already have more than the rest of the world combined, including allied fleets.

Totally agree.

It would be very smart for us to pull our troops out of Germany and close down bases that aren't absolutely needed. Europe hasn't been under any threat for quite some time. They all have armies. Let em take care of themselves.

There are loads of things the military could do to cut costs without lowering our ability to respond if needed.

Defense, like all other parts of Govt, should be on the block for cuts. We don't want to neuter the military just get rid of whats not needed, waste and try to cuts costs.

There are really good reasons why we still maintain bases in Europe.... more to do with international relations than any threats. But those bases serve a valuable purpose to the United States. A short term gain at the sacrifice of long term loses is never a smart move.

However, there are projects that come under the banner of 'military' that are more pork projects than military requirements. And those things, they can be cut with absolutely no impact on our military preparedness. Even the Military wants those projects cut. They do not want or need the outcomes of those projects.

Good post Cali. My big problem with international relations is that we've been in Europe since the close of WWII. If we don't have good relationships with Europe by now we probably won't ever have em.

WE are 15 Trillion in debt and I have to wonder if we really need these bases in Europe??

I can see your point about already being there, on site, if needed as opposed to getting there with no base if needed.

Food for thought.