Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Swish Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Everything needs to be cut, but military spending must increase.

This crap is sad. We got the money to drop bodies but not take care of them.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-poised-pass-700-billion-defense-policy-bill-080106923.html
Senate backs bill to pump $700 billion into military
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has overwhelmingly approved a sweeping defense policy bill that would pump $700 billion into the military, putting the U.S. armed forces on track for a budget greater than at any time during the decade-plus wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senators passed the legislation by an 89-8 vote Monday. The measure authorizes $700 billion in military spending for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, expands U.S. missile defenses in response to North Korea's growing hostility and refuses to allow excess military bases to be closed.

The 1,215-page measure defies a number of White House objections, but President Donald Trump hasn't threatened to veto the measure. The bill helps him honor a pledge to rebuild an American military that he said had become depleted on former President Barack Obama's watch.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other national security hawks have insisted the military branches are at risk of losing their edge in combat without a dramatic influx of money to repair shortfalls in training and equipment.

An animated McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman, bemoaned the limits imposed on military spending by both Democrats and Republicans. He said the rash of training accidents and crashes — since mid-July, nearly 100 service members have been killed or injured in close to a dozen mishaps — can be linked to the budget cuts.

"My friends, more of our men and women in uniform are now being killed in totally avoidable training accidents and routine operations than by our enemies in combat," McCain said. "Where is the outrage about this? Where is our sense of urgency to deal with this problem?"

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said senior military leaders are taking a close look at whether strict budget constraints are to blame.

Approved by the Armed Services Committee by a 27-0 vote in late June, the overall Senate bill provides $640 billion for core Pentagon operations, such as buying weapons and paying troops, and another $60 billion for wartime missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Trump's budget request sought $603 billion for basic functions and $65 billion for overseas missions.

With North Korea's nuclear program a growing threat to the U.S. and its allies, the bill includes $8.5 billion to strengthen U.S. missile and defense systems. That's $630 million more than the Trump administration sought for those programs, according to a committee analysis.

North Korea last week conducted its longest-ever test flight of a ballistic missile, firing an intermediate-range weapon over U.S. ally Japan into the northern Pacific Ocean. The launch signaled both defiance of its rivals and a significant technological advance.

The legislation directs the Defense Department to deploy up to 14 additional ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, an increase that will expand to 58 the number of interceptors designed to destroy incoming warheads. The department also is tasked with finding a storage site for as many as 14 other spare interceptors, and senators envision an eventual arsenal of 100 with additional missile fields in the Midwest and on the East Coast.

The White House, in a statement issued earlier this month, called the order for more interceptors "premature" given the Pentagon's ongoing review of missile defense programs.

Despite the push for the additional billions in military spending, major hurdles need to be cleared before all the extra money materializes. Lawmakers will have to work out a deal that lifts the caps on federal agency budgets, including the Pentagon's, mandated by a 2011 law. Congress has passed temporary relief from the limits before, but senior military officials have urged for the law to be repealed altogether.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he voted against the defense bill because the measure "blows the budget caps by nearly $83 billion." Corker, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, also said the overseas missions account is "repeatedly abused" to pay for normal operations. A self-described fiscal conservative, Corker is weighing whether to run for a third term.

As their House counterparts did, the Senate bill rejects Mattis' plan to launch a new round of base closings starting in 2021. He told lawmakers in June that closing excess installations would save $10 billion over a five-year period. Mattis said the savings could be used to acquire four nuclear submarines or dozens of jet fighters. But military installations are prized possessions in states and lawmakers refused to go along.

The bill allots $10.6 billion for 94 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, which is two dozen more than Trump requested. The bill also provides $25 billion to pay for 13 ships, which is $5 billion and five ships more than the Trump sought.

Related Video:


0:12 4:05
Williams still active duty despite life changing event


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
Conservatives want to cut food, healthcare, and heating assistance for the poor because we just can't afford these programs... But hey let's give this $700 billion to the military and cut taxes on corporations and the rich.

Now that trump has sent shots over the bow of the GOP, they will start working out their issues and all of his crap is going to hit the books.

And if you think there are divides now, just wait until Trump and company crash the economy again! It's going to be ugly.


Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
SSSHHHHH I am on the phone with them right now trying to close a deal to supply them with 10,000 of these $600 hammers.


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
Sooner or later, someone will come in here with a line of BS that attempts to legitimize this crap.

Eisenhower was a prophet.
War for profit.

Reprehensible.
Deplorable.



"too many notes, not enough music-"
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Swish Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
we have crumbling infrastructure, a healthcare system that needs to be fixed, need more educated populace to compete with the global work force.

but none of that matters, as long as we have the capability to kill as many people as possible.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
What's the link to that graph? I'd like to peruse it, get more detail, if there is more detail.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
It's all about priorities.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
couldn't find the exact same chart.

Here's one from BBC:


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39165080


"too many notes, not enough music-"
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Swish Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/18/the-...c-college-free/

The money they gave could've paid for tuition.

It's more important to kill than to educate.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
Thanks.

I guess what I was looking for was more along the lines of "what exactly is included" in the military expenditures.


Is it only weapons and personnel? Were all countries ranked according to the exact same criteria? Things like that.


Not disagreeing with the chart/ranking/expenditures. I'm just usually not one to take things at face value in most situations.

Ask my wife. Just last week, she and Sooga were out "homecoming dress shopping." Thank God I didn't go/have to go.

But, phone rings. "Hey, we found a dress she likes, and if I apply for a credit card, we can save 40% off."

Me: great What's the fine print say?
Her: I don't know, but it's 40% off if I do it.




Anyway, back to the topic: Are the military expenses shown including the u.s. having just been in 2 wars, does it include us being the "police" of the world, etc.

Does it factor in that some countries don't have to spend near as much, due to the u.s., does it include medical care for soldiers for the u.s., and not for soldiers from other countries? Etc.

See, there are hundreds of ways to skew, or even improperly show "spending". Not saying that's the case here, but it's why I asked.


And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, 2 things: I don't like the amount the u.s. spends on military. And 2: As hated as the u.s. is, over all, I can somewhat understand it. (and that has nothing to do with trump. It goes way back - honestly.)

Who would ever come to our rescue?

Let's face it, we are a nation in decline when it comes right down to it. We are a "super power" due to our military spending. That's a good thing, and a bad thing.

We are not a super power in any other aspects, other than "purchasing power" by consumers.


And also, with all that said, let's

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,553
Likes: 586
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,553
Likes: 586
Our biggest problem with defense spending can be split into the following areas, in my experience:

1. Defense contractors and their control of Congress.

2. The lack of modularity in design as well as the shear lack of competition leading to perpetual sole source environments where the defense contractors name a price which contains just an exorbitant, windfall profit, and refuse to listen to reason and/or budge. If you're looking for proof, check out the SEC return on sales for all the big boys in the defense industry. Before, we used to have a multitude of contractors who would compete and develop fighter jets for instance. Now, every fighter jet is made by 2 companies (Lockheed and Boeing). Sometimes, Lockheed and Boeing are even partners on that particular fighter platform (F-22). Not only does this lack of competition lead to worse prices, it leads to less innovation. The defense contractors have basically segmented themselves at this point with only 1 or 2 having control in one particular weapon system segment.

3. The culture of those who lead defense acquisition. First, check out how many generals and colonels in defense acquisition somehow jump ship and work for Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. once they have retired. How that doesn't get more press is way beyond me. Second, the defense acquisition mantra is basically, we have the money, so let's just spend it. Third (and this lines up with the previous point), there is a fear that if each weapon system program office doesn't spend every dollar of their budget, then their budget for the following year will be reduced.

4. Changing requirements. This is a huge cost driver. Many times the requirements change as a result of changes in the theater or changes in what threats an adversary poses. Other times, it's because our acquisition teams move to fast trying to get something to field and they don't have the requirements firmed up before moving forward. Speed is king right now, unfortunately, and that leads to less savings and more rework. Obviously, if a requirement changes, then more money needs to be thrown at a particular program/weapon system to account for the changes.

Those are the biggest in my mind. There may be other problem areas which just aren't hitting me at the moment.


Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,795
Likes: 452
Originally Posted By: Swish
we have crumbling infrastructure, a healthcare system that needs to be fixed, need more educated populace to compete with the global work force.

but none of that matters, as long as we have the capability to kill as many people as possible.


Actually we need to be able to do all of those things at the same time if we want to survive.


I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Everybody here says, "Thank you for your service" and then denies our boys the pennies and equipment they need in that service.

Shame!

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
I
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
I
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
What service would that be ? Global meddling ? Attempted nation building ? Seems we ( people who serve or have served ) would have a much easier job if we spent a little more on peaceful endeavors .

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Perhaps you would have us invest in catchers' mitts to catch the Nukes our enemies are threatening us with.

That peaceful enough for you?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
Who's denying anything?
700B is denying resources?

Damn. I wish folks would deny me like that.


"too many notes, not enough music-"
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Swish Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
We have enough money to kill, but we're broke when it comes to taking care of our people.

Always seem to find the cash for war.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
I
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
I
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Says the man who never had the stones to serve . I get offended every time I hear you pop off about protecting the country . As long as it's someone else right ?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
I
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
I
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Killing is our business and business is good !

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
Yes, always someone else.
Like my Nam Vet friends who got it done the year I graduated high school.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
I
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
I
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hats off to your friends . Was that a rebuttal because if so it wasn't a very good one . It's easy to be a keyboard commando with big ideas as long it's somebody else in harms way .

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
No, not a rebuttal, just a fact of life. Been burying them year after year since '74 as we didn't have PTSD back then. They got out, got spit on and were told to have a great life. Which of course they never did.

Best I could do was be there for them. It was always someone else.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
P
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 66,882
Likes: 1295
You buried them and they died. How noble of you.


Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.

#gmstrong
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
C
~
Legend
Offline
~
Legend
C
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
You buried them and they died. How noble of you.

Dude pays his gardener 50k a year, but I guess he just spits on his friends.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,469
Likes: 794
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,469
Likes: 794
Originally Posted By: Swish
we have crumbling infrastructure, a healthcare system that needs to be fixed, need more educated populace to compete with the global work force.

but none of that matters, as long as we have the capability to kill as many people as possible.




In many ways I agree with you. I really do. My friend Senator Bob Corker voted against the bill. I trust his judgment

That said, there are a lot of people out there who want to kill us.

Still, I have to wonder why maybe it couldn't have been $300 bil for defense and $400 for fixing roads and building better schools.

Then again, we have had a few Navy ships collide in recent months. I have read reports that ships radars in the Med have show them 20 miles inland. Somebody out there is posing a threat we haven't figured out. I don't think the appropriation is simply to line the pockets of defense contractors.

It still has to pass Congress, they control the purse.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
Swish Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 51,414
Likes: 711
The problem is that it keeps getting raised.

600 billion isn't enough, though?

The pentagon is missing how much money, again? Trillions?

And I have no faith in congress. I'm really get sick of hearing how we don't have money to take care of our own people, we don't have money to pay for college tuition, we don't have money to cover healthcare.

Yet when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden we got a rain forest full of money growing trees, and we can make it rain.

We have the money to take care of our infrastructure, college tuition, healthcare.

We just don't want to.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,690
Likes: 907
Quote:
Yet when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden we got a rain forest full of money growing trees, and we can make it rain.



I love a well-turned phrase, no matter the content.

thumbsup


"too many notes, not enough music-"
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,553
Likes: 586
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,553
Likes: 586
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Everybody here says, "Thank you for your service" and then denies our boys the pennies and equipment they need in that service.

Shame!


You realize it's not even close to being that simple, right? Do you have any idea how our defense budget is appropriated?


Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown

#gmstrong
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
4
Legend
Offline
Legend
4
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Likes: 116
It has been pointed out by Vets on here, numerous times, that I know nothing about anything because I never served.

So carry on.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,469
Likes: 794
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,469
Likes: 794
The thing is that if you want the best "stuff" you have to develop the best stuff.

R&D is expensive. The money isn't just for "stuff" to use next year. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, GE, etc. are working on projects that in many cases project 10-15 years down the line.

You don't take a system from concept to production in a few months. Probably more like 2-3-4 years. And that is for things like a fighter where Boeing or whoever is probably going to go with a already proven wing design, so they don't have to do extensive design and wind tunnel testing.

It's not cheap to have good stuff.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,374
Likes: 437
Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
The thing is that if you want the best "stuff" you have to develop the best stuff.

R&D is expensive. The money isn't just for "stuff" to use next year. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, GE, etc. are working on projects that in many cases project 10-15 years down the line.

You don't take a system from concept to production in a few months. Probably more like 2-3-4 years. And that is for things like a fighter where Boeing or whoever is probably going to go with a already proven wing design, so they don't have to do extensive design and wind tunnel testing.

It's not cheap to have good stuff.


It's somewhat ironic you say that.

Our school system is thinking of closing the middle school - it's over 8 years old - and adding on to our current elementary school to add a middle school

People, upon hearing this, well, many got worked up. "We can't afford it now" "We shouldn't afford it now", etc.

And, the school board simply said "Just so you all know, IF something like this were to happen, it's 6-8 years down the road. We're simply announcing what we're thinking about."

6-8 years down the road? For planning a possible addition to a school? yup, that's what it takes.

Now, imagine military spending - new weapons, etc. They don't just pop up in a years time.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
O
Legend
Offline
Legend
O
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 32,538
Likes: 668
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
It has been pointed out by Vets on here, numerous times, that I know nothing about anything because I never served.

So carry on.


See! You beat an old dog enough and he will learn new tricks! Trump sucks, take it from a Vet!

Last edited by OldColdDawg; 09/22/17 12:25 AM.

Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,553
Likes: 586
D
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,553
Likes: 586
Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
The thing is that if you want the best "stuff" you have to develop the best stuff.

R&D is expensive. The money isn't just for "stuff" to use next year. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, GE, etc. are working on projects that in many cases project 10-15 years down the line.

You don't take a system from concept to production in a few months. Probably more like 2-3-4 years. And that is for things like a fighter where Boeing or whoever is probably going to go with a already proven wing design, so they don't have to do extensive design and wind tunnel testing.

It's not cheap to have good stuff.


I'm not even talking about R&D, but that has its issues too. Plus, now that the contractors have all consolidated, our innovation is falling behind. We're actually starting to get to the point now where the commercial sector is advancing at technological pace that is outgrowing the defense sector. That's a first considering a lot of our every-day commercial technology was originally developed for or rooted in fighting wars (sadly).

Sometimes companies spend their own IRAD money to perform research and development, but the overwhelming part of it is funded by DARPA and various branches of the defense sector. The problem is, either through the fault of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or through the defense agencies themselves, when the government funds the R&D projects, we don't assert our data rights. Then when the project gets to a point where it's in production, you're left with one contractor who's the "only dealer in the lot."

There are adversaries who are also developing top-of-the-line technology...and they're doing it for a cheaper price than we are...and that's a problem.

Even so, there are so many research projects that are just insanely bogus. I don't want to get into too much detail, but the only clear cut answer for why we even perform some R&D is just to funnel money to someone who's padding the purse holder's pocket.

Even so, R&D isn't the main culprit behind defense spending. It's the sole source production/sustainment environment where we are just getting gouged. It's also where you have the most corruption.

Ever wonder why the big defense contractors have a presence in nearly every state? They employ a lot of people. Then, when it comes time to look at the defense budget, those company lobbyists look right at the Congressional representatives and say "you better get us more money, or X amount of your constituents will lose their jobs, and we won't be able to fund your campaign." So the cycle continues.

The bottom line is that it has just become an enormous bubble at this point, and we are not recouping anywhere near the value of our spending. Think about it this way: if you gave someone $5 to buy as much candy as they could, and they came back with one Snickers bar, would you say, "Wow, I need to give you $10 so you can buy two Snickers bars," (what we are currently doing), or would you say "Candy should not be that expensive. We need to get more for our money."

The funniest/saddest part is that Congress appropriates the money to the DoD, and earmarks a lot of the money for certain projects to be spent in certain ways, and then blasts the DoD for spending the money in the manner that Congress instructed it to spend.


Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown

#gmstrong
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Senate backs bill to pump $700 billion into military

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5