Weapons Spending in Perspective

[bobbymike]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/02/10/washington-spends-less-on-weapons-than-you-think/

Not taking a position on this article per se, however, while the US spends a lot it is not that big of a number in comparison to the entirety of the federal budget nor of GDP as a whole.

It was like when Bill Gates was building his $50 million home and someone did the math and compared it as a percentage of his wealth to the wealth of the average American. In short it was like you or me spending a couple hundred dollars on our dream home.

Everything is relative not in dollars but in what percentage to the 'whole' amount it is IMHO.

 

[Avimimus]

Well the smart thing is for the super-powers to get together and cease seeking 'dominance'. Everytime someone obsoletes a technology it feeds the need to reinvest (and divert investment away from areas like COIN capability or infrastructure building).


I think a lot of people are disturbed by the fact that spending hasn't collapsed with the end of the Cold War. A lot of people assumed that the fall of the Soviet Union would lead to a decrease in nuclear weapons to less than 5% of previous stockpiles and less emphasis on strategic weapons in general.

So this stuff looks more impressive in the context of that assumption:
https://www.google.ca/search?client=opera&hs=yd5&channel=suggest&biw=1333&bih=684&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=inflation+adjusted+military+spending&oq=inflation+adjusted+military+spending&gs_l=img.3...204541.205943.0.206058.8.8.0.0.0.0.203.569.6j0j1.7.0....0...1c.1.35.img..8.0.0.0G4YSHtF4gw

The amount of spending compared to that of the average citizen or of other countries is also shocking to a lot of people.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Well the smart thing is for the super-powers to get together and cease seeking 'dominance'. Everytime someone obsoletes a technology it feeds the need to reinvest (and divert investment away from areas like COIN capability or infrastructure building).

Actually the *really* smart thing to do would be for the superpowers to *really* try to seek technological dominance. Nothing spurs innovation like competition.

If you want COIN investment, take it from welfare. That's *really* where the money is going these days. As for infrastructure... the American interstate system, internet, aviation industries were all products of the military and its needs.

 

[Triton]

Also need to factor in the Great Recession and tax cuts that have reduced revenue to the Federal Government.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

The US interstate system was not a product of military needs, that is an old, tired myth.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Also need to factor in the Great Recession and tax cuts that have reduced revenue to the Federal Government.

A: A drop in revenue doesn't seem to have slowed down spending much.
B: There was no long-term drop in revenue due to tax cuts. Rather than re-hash: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=10714

The US interstate system was not a product of military needs, that is an old, tired myth.

What's the myth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[9] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.

 

[bobbymike]

Well the smart thing is for the super-powers to get together and cease seeking 'dominance'. Everytime someone obsoletes a technology it feeds the need to reinvest (and divert investment away from areas like COIN capability or infrastructure building).


I think a lot of people are disturbed by the fact that spending hasn't collapsed with the end of the Cold War. A lot of people assumed that the fall of the Soviet Union would lead to a decrease in nuclear weapons to less than 5% of previous stockpiles and less emphasis on strategic weapons in general.

So this stuff looks more impressive in the context of that assumption:
https://www.google.ca/search?client=opera&hs=yd5&channel=suggest&biw=1333&bih=684&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=inflation+adjusted+military+spending&oq=inflation+adjusted+military+spending&gs_l=img.3...204541.205943.0.206058.8.8.0.0.0.0.203.569.6j0j1.7.0....0...1c.1.35.img..8.0.0.0G4YSHtF4gw

The amount of spending compared to that of the average citizen or of other countries is also shocking to a lot of people.

The 2000's include war spending so some of the charts are deceptive. As for nukes we used to have 13,000 deployed going down to 1550 or a decrease of about 82% and that is far enough IMHO!

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.htm

 

[Orionblamblam]

None of those myth-debunkings contradict what I posted.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

They do but the fact that you wont admit it is boringly predictable, but then you live in Scott Lowther fantasy land, so no surprise.

 

[Orionblamblam]

They do ...

Once again:

The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[9] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.

Which "myth" contradicts this?

but the fact that you wont admit it is boringly predictable, but then you live in Scott Lowther fantasy land, so no surprise.

Ah, the ad hominem. Brilliant! You win one free internet for your brilliant and wholly convincing rhetorical genius, sir!

 

[bobbymike]

http://freebeacon.com/end-of-american-military-dominance/

 

[sferrin]

The Democrats are far more dangerous to the US military than Russia or China could ever be. I'll bet they love Barry & Co.

 

[Sundog]

The Democrats are far more dangerous to the US military than Russia or China could ever be. I'll bet they love Barry & Co.

Really, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously with such hyperbolic B.S.? Russia and China can't do crap against us, other than with nukes. Also nobody, Democrat or Republican is going to do anything with China, because corporate money will kick the crap out of any Democrat or Republican that harms their access to the world's biggest market.

We out spend most of the world by a large margin, and now I'm I'm supposed to be afraid, because it's only going to be a really big margin now? I get it though, your comment looks great in comic books.

 

[Orionblamblam]

We out spend most of the world by a large margin,

A) That's an irrelevant metric. If Side A spends a hundred bucks on ten baseball bats, and Side B spends $10,000 on a single gold plated fully blinged out platinum baseball bat... Side A is going to beat the tar out of Side B. And then take their blingbat. In other words... the US military might spend a million bucks to procure a single soldier. For the same amount, the Chinese can field how many?

B) It's unlike to be an *accurate* metric. Do you actually think that the Russians and Chinese honestly report just how much they spend?

 

[bobbymike]

We out spend most of the world by a large margin,

A) That's an irrelevant metric. If Side A spends a hundred bucks on ten baseball bats, and Side B spends $10,000 on a single gold plated fully blinged out platinum baseball bat... Side A is going to beat the tar out of Side B. And then take their blingbat. In other words... the US military might spend a million bucks to procure a single soldier. For the same amount, the Chinese can field how many?

B) It's unlike to be an *accurate* metric. Do you actually think that the Russians and Chinese honestly report just how much they spend?

In reality the PLA basically runs the entire $5 trillion economy of China.

And the other point is that OF COURSE these cuts won't translate into Russia moving on the Ukraine, Iran further influence in Iraq or more overt (if that's possible) support of terrorism, its nuke program or China invading Taiwan TOMORROW.

But you can be sure of one thing the despots, dictators and thugs of the world were ALL watching Hagel and they were smiling.

 

[sferrin]

The Democrats are far more dangerous to the US military than Russia or China could ever be. I'll bet they love Barry & Co.

Really, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously with such hyperbolic B.S.? Russia and China can't do crap against us, other than with nukes. Also nobody, Democrat or Republican is going to do anything with China, because corporate money will kick the crap out of any Democrat or Republican that harms their access to the world's biggest market.

We out spend most of the world by a large margin, and now I'm I'm supposed to be afraid, because it's only going to be a really big margin now? I get it though, your comment looks great in comic books.

Where does one even start? Okay, let me take a stab at it. You think the only purpose of a military is to defend the motherland. As long as we don't see Chinese or Russian tanks driving our streets we have enough. That about sum it up? :

 

[bobbymike]

As the Obama administration announces proposed sweeping defense cuts, a Congressional Budget Office report documents how increases in other areas of domestic spending may be forcing the White House to reduce money for the military.

The CBO report finds that mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is projected to rise $85 billion, or 4 percent, to $2.1 trillion this year.

Interest on the debt is worse. It is projected to increase 14 percent per year, almost quadrupling in dollar terms between 2014 and 2024. "We are going to be spending more in interest in a couple of years then we do on national defense," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., told Fox News.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/deeply-unsettling_783582.html

 

[lastdingo]

The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[9] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.

The Autobahn network was begun and planned before the Nazis were in power and before rearmament begun.
It was basically irrelevant to national defence because the mobilized army was 85% marching on foot due to only partially motorized divisions and support units. The ~15% were not meant to do long deployments on roads either, for the railroad network was the primary and utterly dominant means of transporting troops over long distances. Tanks loaded on trucks or semi-trailers became extremely rare (basically only immobilized tanks) once the second generation tanks (III and IV) arrived (they were much heavier).

Even as of today the U.S. military moves from its forts to harbours for sea lift by rail, and it did so during 1990 and 2002 as well.

The strategic military importance of motorway networks is a myth (with sole exception beign Saudi Arabia, where motorized army brigades need the road network to suppress revolts ASAP because there's no railroad network to speak of).

 

[lastdingo]

Where does one even start? Okay, let me take a stab at it. You think the only purpose of a military is to defend the motherland. As long as we don't see Chinese or Russian tanks driving our streets we have enough. That about sum it up? :

Defence is the only purpose of a military for which cost-ineffectiveness is doubtful. Playing political games with soldiers and sailors as game chips is always a losing game.

Defence does extend to collective defence (defence of NATO, for example), though.


The United States spend hundred sof billions of dollars more on its military than would be normal by global standards. It's ridiculous that some people believe there's equivalent value being generated or preserved by this extra spending.
Look at Iraq; an utterly useless and unnecessary conflict, costing one to three trillion dollars - for basically nothing. Next time a UPS delivery guy delivers a package to you ask him what value he thinks the Iraq War gave him. His share of the debt and future expenses causec by this folly is about 3,000-9,000 dollars. On top of the inflated 'normal' DoD budget.

 

[bobbymike]

The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[9] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.

The Autobahn network was begun and planned before the Nazis were in power and before rearmament begun.
It was basically irrelevant to national defence because the mobilized army was 85% marching on foot due to only partially motorized divisions and support units. The ~15% were not meant to do long deployments on roads either, for the railroad network was the primary and utterly dominant means of transporting troops over long distances. Tanks loaded on trucks or semi-trailers became extremely rare (basically only immobilized tanks) once the second generation tanks (III and IV) arrived (they were much heavier).

Even as of today the U.S. military moves from its forts to harbours for sea lift by rail, and it did so during 1990 and 2002 as well.

The strategic military importance of motorway networks is a myth (with sole exception beign Saudi Arabia, where motorized army brigades need the road network to suppress revolts ASAP because there's no railroad network to speak of).

What did Napoleon say the most important thing about the military? Soldiers, cannons, generals? No he was the first to see logistics as key.

The highway systems was not just for the use of tanks but for the efficient movement of the ENTIRE war economy.

As for your final post about the US spending hundreds of billions over 'normal global' standards YOU completely contradict yourself when the prior sentence talks of 'collective' defense.

YOU SEE the US spent too much, in your opinion, BECAUSE it was responsible for the collective defense OF THE FREE world for 60 years! You're welcome ;D

 

[lastdingo]

Motorways have a speed minimum requirement which horse carts cannot match.
The transportation capacity of the German War economy was almost only trains and horse carts once the trucks were requisitioned for the mobilized divisions in late 1939.
The Autobahnen were basically empty during 1940-1944, with few stretches used as auxiliary airfields.
Their military relevance was close to zero.

It makes no sense to claim military relevance by pointing at war economy relevance anyway; that's economic relevance, not military relevance.
The Autobahnen / motorways were until the 70's what subsidies for operas are today; government goodies for the upper class and upper middle class which cannot withstand an economic analysis.

---------

About the overspending / collective defence, you're just too stuck in your paradigm to understand.

For starters; I did not claim that the US overspent during the Cold War, but it spent a large share of the DoD budget on things other than national or collective defence. The USMC and the amphibious fleet were almost entirely irrelevant for WW3. Naval aviation was multiple times as expensive epr sortie as land-based aviation, so this squandered much of the budget on relatively little firepower. The budget of half of the CVBGs could probably have doubled NATO air power in Europe. That's quite inefficient.

And the U.S. is not responsible for spending for the entire alliance. Read the North Atlantic Tretay. This treaty has so very little obligations that the Soviets could have invaded Italy and the United States would have been allowed to claim that it can't do shit about it because it's too dangerous.
The treaty is that weak on defence obligations. It's not weak on demanding that it members behave peacefully in international disputes, a clear treaty provision which the U.S. and UK violated several times grossly. They're the equivalent of the too-loose-a-trigger-finger Austria-Hungary. It's amazing that the German government doesn't remember the history of 1914 and is still so much committed to NATO.

 

[bobbymike]

Motorways have a speed minimum requirement which horse carts cannot match.
The transportation capacity of the German War economy was almost only trains and horse carts once the trucks were requisitioned for the mobilized divisions in late 1939.
The Autobahnen were basically empty during 1940-1944, with few stretches used as auxiliary airfields.
Their military relevance was close to zero.

It makes no sense to claim military relevance by pointing at war economy relevance anyway; that's economic relevance, not military relevance.
The Autobahnen / motorways were until the 70's what subsidies for operas are today; government goodies for the upper class and upper middle class which cannot withstand an economic analysis.

---------

About the overspending / collective defence, you're just too stuck in your paradigm to understand.

For starters; I did not claim that the US overspent during the Cold War, but it spent a large share of the DoD budget on things other than national or collective defence. The USMC and the amphibious fleet were almost entirely irrelevant for WW3. Naval aviation was multiple times as expensive epr sortie as land-based aviation, so this squandered much of the budget on relatively little firepower. The budget of half of the CVBGs could probably have doubled NATO air power in Europe. That's quite inefficient.

And the U.S. is not responsible for spending for the entire alliance. Read the North Atlantic Tretay. This treaty has so very little obligations that the Soviets could have invaded Italy and the United States would have been allowed to claim that it can't do shit about it because it's too dangerous.
The treaty is that weak on defence obligations. It's not weak on demanding that it members behave peacefully in international disputes, a clear treaty provision which the U.S. and UK violated several times grossly. They're the equivalent of the too-loose-a-trigger-finger Austria-Hungary. It's amazing that the German government doesn't remember the history of 1914 and is still so much committed to NATO.

The economy is irrelevant to the 'war economy' really? You stand by that? Thank God the US's economy had the heavy industry to convert into a 'war economy' we might be speaking German right?

And it seems you have a very limited view (hey maybe cause you looked to the east and thought that was all the Cold War was about?) of what the Cold War entailed it was a global conflict where yes Marines might have been needed for amphibious ops in about a thousand places. Your self defense only West German background is showing the US had far greater responsibilities if you didn't notice.

 

[bobbymike]

Stolen from Walter Russell Mead of AEI with slight changes; Seems relevant for some reason;

[T]his massive intellectual breakdown has a lot to do with a common mindset that is especially built into our intellectual and chattering classes. Well educated, successful and reasonably liberal minded people find it very hard to believe that other people actually see the world in different ways.... Experts and academics assume that smart people everywhere must want the same things and reach the same conclusions about the way the world works.

Which I paraphrase as Col Nathan R. Jessup;

......you sleep and wake under the blanket of freedom I provide and then question the very manner in which I provide it....I would rather you said thank you and went on your way...........

 

[lastdingo]

The economy is irrelevant to the 'war economy' really? You stand by that? Thank God the US's economy had the heavy industry to convert into a 'war economy' we might be speaking German right?

And it seems you have a very limited view (hey maybe cause you looked to the east and thought that was all the Cold War was about?) of what the Cold War entailed it was a global conflict where yes Marines might have been needed for amphibious ops in about a thousand places. Your self defense only West German background is showing the US had far greater responsibilities if you didn't notice.

I see, the matter is much too complicated for you. I will dumb the explanation down accordingly.

military = military
economy = economy
war economy = still economy

The strategic military importance of motorway networks is a myth.

This is even true today, as alternative overland roads are nowadays paved and allow an average speed almost as high as on motorways - especially if you have MP in cars speeding ahead and securing crossroads.
Back in the 30's and 40's the Autobahn was almost entirely useless for Germany.

-----------------

The Marines weren't needed in any amphibious op during the Cold War. Even Inchon was no necessity, and many Marines were employed as simple army infantry substitutes in that conflict and in Vietnam. There was no USMC unit in Normandy, or at Anzio, or in Southern France '44.
Marines are not needed for amphibious ops or alliance defence, nor is forward positioning of MEUs.
The USMC's raison d'être was always first and foremost to coerce small powers. They were cost-inefficient for Cold War interventions even compared to the 82nd.

And the other responsibilities of the U.S. were much smaller than the assets available. Austral/NZ were far out of reach of any reds. South Korea protected itself since the 70's, with only token U.S. forces left in the peninsula. Americans did not secure Turkey, Greece or Italy to significant extents. There was no American force on Iceland which could have repelled Soviet airborne forces. The main effort of the US for NATO were two CVBGs, the two corps in Germany and a couple wings in Germany.

The DoD during the Cold War was a story of poorly devised small wars, a middle power level contribution to Central European defence, plenty troops held back in the U.S. where they were guaranteed to be useless for the usual two-week European WW3 scenarios and lots of inefficient spending.
The American contribution to Europe's defence was always dwarfed by the DoD budget's overall size.

 

[Orionblamblam]

military = military
economy = economy
war economy = still economy

Get rid of the interstate highway system, the economy collapses. And without an economy, you have no military (or do you believe that the military is a self-funded operation?). And thus the strategic military importance of motorway networks is high and vital.

 

[bobbymike]

The economy is irrelevant to the 'war economy' really? You stand by that? Thank God the US's economy had the heavy industry to convert into a 'war economy' we might be speaking German right?

And it seems you have a very limited view (hey maybe cause you looked to the east and thought that was all the Cold War was about?) of what the Cold War entailed it was a global conflict where yes Marines might have been needed for amphibious ops in about a thousand places. Your self defense only West German background is showing the US had far greater responsibilities if you didn't notice.

I see, the matter is much too complicated for you. I will dumb the explanation down accordingly.

military = military
economy = economy
war economy = still economy

The strategic military importance of motorway networks is a myth.

This is even true today, as alternative overland roads are nowadays paved and allow an average speed almost as high as on motorways - especially if you have MP in cars speeding ahead and securing crossroads.
Back in the 30's and 40's the Autobahn was almost entirely useless for Germany.

-----------------

The Marines weren't needed in any amphibious op during the Cold War. Even Inchon was no necessity, and many Marines were employed as simple army infantry substitutes in that conflict and in Vietnam. There was no USMC unit in Normandy, or at Anzio, or in Southern France '44.
Marines are not needed for amphibious ops or alliance defence, nor is forward positioning of MEUs.
The USMC's raison d'être was always first and foremost to coerce small powers. They were cost-inefficient for Cold War interventions even compared to the 82nd.

And the other responsibilities of the U.S. were much smaller than the assets available. Austral/NZ were far out of reach of any reds. South Korea protected itself since the 70's, with only token U.S. forces left in the peninsula. Americans did not secure Turkey, Greece or Italy to significant extents. There was no American force on Iceland which could have repelled Soviet airborne forces. The main effort of the US for NATO were two CVBGs, the two corps in Germany and a couple wings in Germany.

The DoD during the Cold War was a story of poorly devised small wars, a middle power level contribution to Central European defence, plenty troops held back in the U.S. where they were guaranteed to be useless for the usual two-week European WW3 scenarios and lots of inefficient spending.
The American contribution to Europe's defence was always dwarfed by the DoD budget's overall size.

Yup don't understand I am a commercial banker of 20 years with an economics education what do you do for a living?

Again you cannot seem to even fathom the US had far greater global responsibilities that your precious W Germany (maybe you are still upset at the outcome of 1945?) had during the Cold War. The USSR was on the march throughout the 3rd world placing itself along strategic waterways and in strategically important resource rich countries that had to be pushed back. You know all the resources and waterways W Germany needed to build and export its products. Maybe the US should have turned the whole country over to Stalin you probably all deserved to live in the E German 'paradise' after your WWII adventure.

The West Germans have not really played any part in post WWII geopolitics if that is a sore point for you get used to it you won't really have a military in about 20 years anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNHXESQF2Fk#aid=P-a7gxucZuM

 

[lastdingo]

military = military
economy = economy
war economy = still economy

Get rid of the interstate highway system, the economy collapses. And without an economy, you have no military (or do you believe that the military is a self-funded operation?). And thus the strategic military importance of motorway networks is high and vital.

By that definition, breakfast is of strategic military importance, too - so whatever definition you use is nonsense obviously.
You're merely arguing out of hostility and as a reflex. You've topped thinking about the merit of your point long ago.

 

[Orionblamblam]

By that definition, breakfast is of strategic military importance, too

What did Napoleon have to say about what an army marches on?

If you eliminated the modern highway system, military logistics would break down because *civilian* logistics would break down. The military cannot survive without the civilian sector.

 

[sferrin]

By that definition, breakfast is of strategic military importance, too

What did Napoleon have to say about what an army marches on?

If you eliminated the modern highway system, military logistics would break down because *civilian* logistics would break down. The military cannot survive without the civilian sector.

This. The logistics of Desert Storm for example is a very interesting topic.

 

[lastdingo]

Yeah, but also an anomaly and largely a story of how U.S.Army units moved (their equipment) by rail from forts in the U.S. and Germany to harbours for sea lift.
Besides, road networks were good enough that they could easily have bypassed motorways if they had been told to make the administrative movement without rail

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.csbaonline.org/2014/03/04/pentagon-weapons-would-get-25-billion-less-than-planned/

Just released 2015 Federal Budget raises spending to $3.9 Trillion of which the DOD get $495 Billion or roughly 12.6% the lowest since before WWII and only 2.9% of GDP the lowest since before 9/11. Is the argument over about the POWER of the so-called military-industrial-complex yet? Is the argument over that the DOD is responsible for deficits?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1434&RootFolder=%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts

$26 Billion or 67/100ths of 1% of federal spending. Decline is a choice.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/03/05/drones-helos-and-ships-win-in-2015-budget/

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.investors.com/031014-692704-us-government-payments-to-individuals-70-of-budget.htm

Highlights for me;

1) Obamacare to cost $100 billion/annum by 2019
2) Cost of immigration reform AKA amnesty $56 billion/year by 2019
3) Wealthy 1% get $10 billion/year from federal government programs

The so-called 'need' to cut defense to reduce the deficit is a complete fabrication. DC is just choosing to spend on other things.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://news.investors.com/031014-692704-us-government-payments-to-individuals-70-of-budget.htm

Highlights for me;

1) Obamacare to cost $100 billion/annum by 2019
2) Cost of immigration reform AKA amnesty $56 billion/year by 2019
3) Wealthy 1% get $10 billion/year from federal government programs

The so-called 'need' to cut defense to reduce the deficit is a complete fabrication. DC is just choosing to spend on other things.

Isn't that the purpose of Government? Simply because you don't agree with their spending priorities doesn't necessarily make them wrong, just different to what you believe is important. Perhaps demilitarising the US economy might be a good idea? Afterall, why should people not benefit from the taxes paid?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plteXDmbA2I

What is wrong is the deception about why.

When the military is being cut like this the President should go on TV and say, "I am cutting defense spending because I believe our military is too big and spends too much AND I need the money for my domestic priorities"

Instead we are told it is a time of budget austerity and we are FORCED to cut defense spending to reduce the deficit.

..............perhaps, like me, you have wondered why it is that these people who are otherwise civil nonetheless can neither explain their positions nor stop talking, and their talk consists of nothing, nothing, nothing aside from childish personal attacks, slanders, sneers, and accusation, accusation, accusation. Why are they so angry? Why are they so noisy? Why are they so blissfully unaware of the vice, injustice, ugliness and evil they support?
-- John C. Wright

 

[Orionblamblam]

Perhaps demilitarising the US economy might be a good idea?

Just released 2015 Federal Budget raises spending to $3.9 Trillion of which the DOD get $495 Billion or roughly 12.6% the lowest since before WWII and only 2.9% of GDP ...

2.9% of GDP

 

[Rickshaw]

Sorry, I don't get the cultural reference.

What is wrong is the deception about why.

You believe they are being deceitful. That doesn't mean they are being deceitful, just that you perceive it that way. As you appear to believe ANY spending on ANYTHING other than nuclear weapons is wasteful, I have to question your perceptions.

When the military is being cut like this the President should go on TV and say, "I am cutting defense spending because I believe our military is too big and spends too much AND I need the money for my domestic priorities"

Instead we are told it is a time of budget austerity and we are FORCED to cut defense spending to reduce the deficit.

In other words, because they actually believe domestic priorities are more important than the defence priorities you believe are, you believe they are being deceitful. Perhaps the reality is that they are making cuts in the areas they feel they can to in order, as you point fund the areas they have made policy promises in.

What threat is the US facing that requires massive militarisation of your society and continued excessive spending on defence?

I really can't see any. There are minor disagreements with Russia and the PRC at the moment but they are indeed minor. There is the terrorist threat but that is an internal security issue. Where is the big bogeyman like the fUSSR which presents an existential threat to the United States? :

..............perhaps, like me, you have wondered why it is that these people who are otherwise civil nonetheless can neither explain their positions nor stop talking, and their talk consists of nothing, nothing, nothing aside from childish personal attacks, slanders, sneers, and accusation, accusation, accusation. Why are they so angry? Why are they so noisy? Why are they so blissfully unaware of the vice, injustice, ugliness and evil they support?
-- John C. Wright

Good quote. I'll save it and use it in future the next time someone attacks me personally and calls me a "troll"...