We spend over half a trillion a year in Military spending!!!!!!!1111

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
Holy shit!

Cant we cut 100 billion a year from this? 54% of our budget.

There has to be 100 billion worth of fat that can be cut, I find it hard to believe that we need to spend so much on the Military a year. We are not in some world war III.

In 2003 we only spent a little over 300billion a year. we doubled that in 12 years.

What are we getting for doubling the spending in 12 years? No wonder Republicans want to cut social security, and everything else so they can keep engorging the Military Industrial complex.

Even Obama kept the status quo. Shit if we cut a little of that spending I can see college for everyone being free.


us-spending-2001-2014.png



discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,021
32,991
136
That the entire GOP field is calling for even more military spending should be highly disturbing to anyone with a functional brain. I don't envision Hillary going in with the axe much either though. We've been conditioned to accept this as required and the new normal. Congresspersons don't want to cut since it directly affects their districts.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
We can't or else the terrorists win, duh. I thought everyone knew that?
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
That the entire GOP field is calling for even more military spending should be highly disturbing to anyone with a functional brain. I don't envision Hillary going in with the axe much either though. We've been conditioned to accept this as required and the new normal. Congresspersons don't want to cut since it directly affects their districts.

Yeah, it's kind of a joke. How often will you hear the GOP say something like this? People actually cheer for Rubio more than Paul. It's laughable.
 

Ventanni

Golden Member
Jul 25, 2011
1,432
142
106
Uhhh this pie chart is woefully misleading. The US national budget is approximately $4 Trillion dollars give or take some change. This represents $1.1 Trillion of it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Services take up more than half of all *total* US federal budgetary spending.

Despite the US military budget being the highest in all the world by a long shot, it's about in line with the average total GDP expenditure of about 4% ish. And we can do this because our economy is substantially larger than everyone else in the world.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
We can get back to 2003 levels at least. I find it hard to believe that in 12 years we had to double it.

We are gonna end up like the Soviet Union if we keep at it.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,517
6,947
136
The fat is found in the layers upon layers of political kick-backs, over-pricing, corrupt puppet politicians dancing to the tune of their corporate over-lords, trading tax dollars for votes......the web is so tangled and ingrained from the very top to the lowliest of low that are hoping for a measly raise in their COLA so as to put something decent on the table for their kids to eat.

The military-industrial complex is just that...a complex behemoth that has taken on a life of its own and is now dictating terms and running things as it sees fit. It has grown fat and obese on the largess it has corrupted the gov't into acquiring. The beast has gotten so out of control that it has acquired the ability to find ways to justify its existence on a global scale and it is willing to bleed the nation of its resources to feed itself.

Eisenhower was accurately prophetic about it.

To gain control over "it" so as to cut the fat from its belly requires us to suffer as "it" will because "it" is more than willing to sacrifice us before "it" has to start feeding on itself.
 
Last edited:

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Uhhh this pie chart is woefully misleading. The US national budget is approximately $4 Trillion dollars give or take some change. This represents $1.1 Trillion of it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Services take up more than half of all *total* US federal budgetary spending.

Despite the US military budget being the highest in all the world by a long shot, it's about in line with the average total GDP expenditure of about 4% ish. And we can do this because our economy is substantially larger than everyone else in the world.

Try again

The 'we can do this because our economy is bigger' only works on spending a smaller %, not more.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Reps: "Nonono, you can't have free education, this is crazy!"
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,709
1,450
126
That's just the defense department.

You add to that NSA and what at one time had been 90,000 employees or assets, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security

I think I saw a total in the vicinity of $1.3 Trillion.

I already posted this Amazon book link in another thread. I haven't read it, but Smerconish interviewed the author on CNN within the last 24 hours.

The book argues what I had essentially said in fall, 2002 -- listening to Scott Ritter and other comment, and watching old Senator Byrd filibuster relentlessly.

Risk is a matter of probability. Infinite risk is perhaps something similar to the Battle of Stalingrad, or losing "first strike capability" when facing some hostile government with a psychopath dictator brandishing nukes.

If you want to worry about risk in these recent attacks, you have to include the risk of the Lanzas, Holmes', Roof, Dear. Only in facing infinite risk would you risk something short of infinite spending.

With these shootings, and with ISIS, the objective is to make as many attacks unsuccessful, impossible, thwarted, or quickly eliminated. But in the broad range of all outcomes, you will never eliminate some level of risk, while you can bankrupt and deteriorate the country through spending on this one thing.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Uhhh this pie chart is woefully misleading. The US national budget is approximately $4 Trillion dollars give or take some change. This represents $1.1 Trillion of it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Services take up more than half of all *total* US federal budgetary spending.

I think you're correct, I could also have sworn that SS, Medicare etc. makes a HUGE chunk. So what is this chart?
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,047
6,845
136
Just look at the screaming that goes one when anyone tries to:

a) close a military base
b) get rid of a dated weapons platform that is unnecessary with modern precision-guided munitions
c) cut unnecessary military capabilities

We probably also need to have a serious conversation about what we want our military to be able to do, especially in light of modern technology. For example, does every service **need** an F-35, or could we have done what we wanted to do with the AF and Navy carrier versions only?
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
I think you're correct, I could also have sworn that SS, Medicare etc. makes a HUGE chunk. So what is this chart?

It is discretionary spending. This is spending that is on top of what is mandated by laws; so SS, medicare etc are getting a lot more than what that chart lists.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,953
47,849
136
It is discretionary spending. This is spending that is on top of what is mandated by laws; so SS, medicare etc are getting a lot more than what that chart lists.

Yes. Discretionary spending is spending that won't occur unless congress authorizes it each year. Mandatory spending like social security happens regardless. This is a good idea, btw. Imagine if you had to wait on congress before you could go in for chemotherapy.

As others have mentioned, defense spending is actually quite a bit higher than half a trillion, depending on what you count. While most operations have been put on budget, lots of stuff is accounted for elsewhere. For example the care and maintenance of our nuclear arsenal is under the department of energy. Various intelligence agencies are under homeland security, department of state, etc. Care for veterans is its own thing, etc. People can argue what percentage should be counted as defense spending but I imagine most people would agree that some should be.

I would imagine the most easily agreed on figure would be somewhere around $700 billion.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,709
1,450
126
I think you're correct, I could also have sworn that SS, Medicare etc. makes a HUGE chunk. So what is this chart?

Without even looking at the charts, because I posted here in response to one of them based on numbers I'd known for a long time, I wager we might even be surprised with a look at the growth in Medicare spending over the last decade or two.

And I could argue off the top of my head that it comes from two causes:

Demographics, or the growth in senior population over a minimum 62.5 years old.

Profit-taking, fraud and abuse. Not by the government. Not by the recipient. One news-item: in a northerly Midwestern state (Minn., Wis.??) investigators found that a company in the drug-provision chain had bought tons of a certain drug at a price, thrown truckloads away and claimed them as actual expense to Medicare accounts. There are unnecessary procedures.

What does it mean against the model of efficient markets, when you can go to one dentist who estimates $28,000 to re-build someone's mouth, and two blocks away, a competitor offers to do it for $9,000? And they were both going to submit their bills to an insurance company providing dental coverage, possibly leaving the recipient with a big uncovered invoice?

I've gone too far on this. I'd bet on a look at the Medicare outlays over a span of time.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
That the entire GOP field is calling for even more military spending should be highly disturbing to anyone with a functional brain. I don't envision Hillary going in with the axe much either though. We've been conditioned to accept this as required and the new normal. Congresspersons don't want to cut since it directly affects their districts.

Rand Paul even got booed at one of the debates for daring to question whether someone who argues for increasing the defense budget could really be a fiscal conservative.

'Course most of them also think cutting tax rates will help balance the budget... so yeah.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,953
47,849
136
Rand Paul even got booed at one of the debates for daring to question whether someone who argues for increasing the defense budget could really be a fiscal conservative.

'Course most of them also think cutting tax rates will help balance the budget... so yeah.

I think my favorite one is when conservatives argue against cutting military spending because it will cost us jobs.

Money spent on building housing for people in America? Waste of money. Drain on the economy.

Money spent on weapons to blow up houses of people in another country? Job creation!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,398
6,076
126
I think my favorite one is when conservatives argue against cutting military spending because it will cost us jobs.

Money spent on building housing for people in America? Waste of money. Drain on the economy.

Money spent on weapons to blow up houses of people in another country? Job creation!

I remember a time when jobs were cited as a reason why we couldn't attempt nuclear disarmament. We have a huge military budget because we fear and we fear because the world is full of self hating scum so focused on wealth that they promote only their own interests and the expanse of the chumps they view as making up the human race. We were warned about the military industrial complex but we pay no attention. We are full of fear because we fear we will remember the torture we endured as children, We fear fear itself. And all fear is is the active repression of feelings that something has triggered begin to come into consciousness. Have any of you seen anybody relive their childhood traumas?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,953
47,849
136
I remember a time when jobs were cited as a reason why we couldn't attempt nuclear disarmament. We have a huge military budget because we fear and we fear because the world is full of self hating scum so focused on wealth that they promote only their own interests and the expanse of the chumps they view as making up the human race. We were warned about the military industrial complex but we pay no attention. We are full of fear because we fear we will remember the torture we endured as children, We fear fear itself. And all fear is is the active repression of feelings that something has triggered begin to come into consciousness. Have any of you seen anybody relive their childhood traumas?

I have personally found that whatever type of government spending someone likes suddenly magically also creates jobs. Everyone paints their preferred spending in this light I think.

The difference is that the rest of the time conservatives argue that government spending cannot create jobs, that it's inherently wasteful, etc. You can't have it both ways. I would simply prefer they be honest with themselves and us and either admit that government spending does create jobs or that they prefer military spending despite the perceived job loss.

The sad part is, of course, that military spending is perhaps the lowest return on investment we are likely to get. Yes it has big benefits in some cases, but my strong suspicion is in terms of total quality of life for the average citizen we would be much better off with a lot of that money going to roads, hospitals, education, or lower taxes.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,709
1,450
126
I think my favorite one is when conservatives argue against cutting military spending because it will cost us jobs.

Money spent on building housing for people in America? Waste of money. Drain on the economy.

Money spent on weapons to blow up houses of people in another country? Job creation!

Do you remember the Carlyle Group, and the telling video when Bush spoke to them?

Just consider the process and pitfalls of government contracting for huge weapons systems, parts, services for the size and length of the rent-seeking relationship. The Joint Strike Fighter -- I think approved early in the Bush years but go fact-check -- was well over a $Trillion spent over ten years. Signed, sealed, delivered, cost-overruns. That's a contractual proxy for a market process. The guaranteed revenue stream follows the contract phases and expense outlays. More of it is re-testing a $2.00 part against a MIL spec and pricing it at $75 dollars in procurement. The $600 coffee-maker or toilet seat.

Or the Bush-league DOD bureaucrat charged with bribery and similar transgressions in conjunction with some otherwise-stalwart outfit like Boeing. It shouldn't be any different today than it was 40 years ago, when it had a diverse array of revenue streams, while Lockheed was doing 90% of its business with the government.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,523
2,111
146
I don't know why this pie chart looks so different. I guess it depends on who is presenting the data.

U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,953
47,849
136
Do you remember the Carlyle Group, and the telling video when Bush spoke to them?

Just consider the process and pitfalls of government contracting for huge weapons systems, parts, services for the size and length of the rent-seeking relationship. The Joint Strike Fighter -- I think approved early in the Bush years but go fact-check -- was well over a $Trillion spent over ten years. Signed, sealed, delivered, cost-overruns. That's a contractual proxy for a market process. The guaranteed revenue stream follows the contract phases and expense outlays. More of it is re-testing a $2.00 part against a MIL spec and pricing it at $75 dollars in procurement. The $600 coffee-maker or toilet seat.

Or the Bush-league DOD bureaucrat charged with bribery and similar transgressions in conjunction with some otherwise-stalwart outfit like Boeing. It shouldn't be any different today than it was 40 years ago, when it had a diverse array of revenue streams, while Lockheed was doing 90% of its business with the government.

The $600 hammer, etc, is a myth actually. It simply has to do with how R&D is accounted for. Ie: if you have a jet engine that costs a million dollars to design and the contract provided the engine and a wrench to instal it with, each part would be credited with $500,000 for R&D.

At least that's how it was when the notorious hammer was bought. It's kind of a phantom problem.