|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Military spending 4
#24025328 - 01/20/17 11:09 AM (7 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Like Rome -- just like Rome -- the U.S. allocates most of its resources, and spends more than it can afford, on the military. It tore Rome apart.
Our current military budget of roughly $600 billion is essentially half of all discretionary spending. What if we took 25% and spread it around to the other discretionary recipients? As far as I can tell, this is workable. They spend that much on policy wonks whose only job is to justify their jobs. Getting rid of the dross would be surprisingly easy. And we wouldn't necessarily lose one iota of military capability -- at that number.
That's all well and good, but the defense industry has very rich and very powerful lobbyists in Washington, whose main job it is to prevent something like this from ever happening.
So, I'm wondering, does anyone think it is likely that this will change in the next thirty years? Will we ever reallocate the bloated defense budget? I mean, we are really broke. Or will we go down like the Romans did, finally running out of money for the military and slowly losing control and fading away?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: What if we took 25% and spread it around to the other discretionary recipients? ...we wouldn't necessarily lose one iota of military capability.
Haven't you heard about Russian aggression? 
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
|
how did clinton gain a surplus? were we spending shit tons on the military back then as well? jc.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404] 2
#24025797 - 01/20/17 02:30 PM (7 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
By spending very little on everything other than defense. Bill Clinton was basically an honorary Republican. And the budget was only balanced from '98 to '01. Big fucking deal. Meanwhile we have a 20 trillion dollar debt. Military spending is only adding to it.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404]
#24026466 - 01/20/17 06:33 PM (7 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
404 said: how did clinton gain a surplus? were we spending shit tons on the military back then as well? jc.
The surplus was the result of being in the right place at the right time, a massive asset bubble in stocks created strong tax receipts for those years, once the 2000 bubble burst, it was back to economic reality.
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Military spending [Re: qman]
#24026619 - 01/20/17 07:36 PM (7 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Debt is created by spending more than you bring in, this concept is lost on most of the American populace
|
Skellies


Registered: 06/02/15
Posts: 822
Loc: The Dream
Last seen: 1 day, 52 minutes
|
|
Around 16% of the total federal budget was defense spending (in 2015) so I wouldn't call it a majority by any means. However, there is a lot of wasteful spending when it comes to private military contractors charging exorbitant rates. We could maintain our military power while reducing costs at the same time by actually negotiating prices with those we contract.
-------------------- Nosleep mode: Activated
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,342
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 14 hours, 9 minutes
|
Re: Military spending [Re: qman]
#24029046 - 01/21/17 08:04 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
404 said: how did clinton gain a surplus? were we spending shit tons on the military back then as well? jc.
The surplus was the result of being in the right place at the right time, a massive asset bubble in stocks created strong tax receipts for those years, once the 2000 bubble burst, it was back to economic reality.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Military spending [Re: Skellies] 3
#24029296 - 01/21/17 10:23 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
austothehun said: Around 16% of the total federal budget was defense spending (in 2015) so I wouldn't call it a majority by any means. However, there is a lot of wasteful spending when it comes to private military contractors charging exorbitant rates. We could maintain our military power while reducing costs at the same time by actually negotiating prices with those we contract.
Your 16% number is correct, but misleading. In reality, defense accounts for 60% of discretionary spending. Mandatory spending doesn't really count because it's mandatory -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Discretionary spending is what all of our senators and representatives are fighting about when it comes to the budget. Now, the Republicans would like to make sweeping changes to nondiscretionary spending, but that will be tough.
So, sixty percent of everything we pay into the treasury for the operating budget is a lot. My proposal is to take a small percentage of that and spread it around. It would solve a lot of currently intractable problems and not reduce military capability very much if at all, conceivably.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Prem. Kissoff
Tourist with a typewriter

Registered: 11/09/16
Posts: 259
|
|
well have to get off the bloated empire thing, salvaging/restoring earth isnt an optional endeavor, the bugs and worms dont care if we cut our own throats.
|
Prem. Kissoff
Tourist with a typewriter

Registered: 11/09/16
Posts: 259
|
|
not to mention our military is one of if not the single worst polluter on earth.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
austothehun said: Around 16% of the total federal budget was defense spending (in 2015) so I wouldn't call it a majority by any means. However, there is a lot of wasteful spending when it comes to private military contractors charging exorbitant rates. We could maintain our military power while reducing costs at the same time by actually negotiating prices with those we contract.
Your 16% number is correct, but misleading. In reality, defense accounts for 60% of discretionary spending.
So, sixty percent of everything we pay into the treasury for the operating budget is a lot. My proposal is to take a small percentage of that and spread it around. It would solve a lot of currently intractable problems and not reduce military capability very much if at all, conceivably.
Exactly.
Plus we no longer have the kind of "wasteful spending when it comes to private military contractors charging exorbitant rates" that we used to have back in the 80's. $500 hammers are a thing of the past that ended after Reagan/Bush. I know because I used to buy things for the US Government, and costs went down SIGNIFICANTLY after the Acquisition Reform Act of 1995.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
|
You know, the situation with congress and their pensions come to mind, where they keep ordering more abrams tanks when the army keeps telling them not to but they do it anyway because they get money from the MIC to do so. is stuff like that still happening?
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404]
#24031088 - 01/22/17 04:38 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I bought Raytheon stock a couple months ago. Its up a lot now that Trump won the election. I'm rich! I'm rich!
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404]
#24031090 - 01/22/17 04:38 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately, yes.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Military spending [Re: Luddite]
#24031092 - 01/22/17 04:40 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I'm so proud to be an American!
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404] 2
#24031106 - 01/22/17 04:44 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
check out the F-35
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Military spending [Re: ballsalsa] 2
#24031112 - 01/22/17 04:46 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I hope Enlil finishes up his trial soon. This sub-forum could use an active mod
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
|
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: check out the F-35
haha, i had completely forgotten about the f-35. really neat and sexy bit of engineering, no denying that... however, it just doesn't seem to really be quite what we had hoped it would be, and it's turning into a rather expensive issue. It would kind of be nice if it could outfly the f-16 of which it is supposed to replace, but i understand that dog-fighting isn't really an up-to-date method of aerial warfare.
Quote:
ballsalsa said: I hope Enlil finishes up his trial soon. This sub-forum could use an active mod
yeah, no doubt. i hope this luddite shitposting bot gets banned here soon. dude has been posting the same spam for at the least 16 days now from the looks of things.
Edited by 404 (01/22/17 08:44 PM)
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404]
#24031143 - 01/22/17 04:56 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,876
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404]
#24031146 - 01/22/17 04:57 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Pris never comes here, and Enlil hasn't been active lately, so i won't be holding my breath.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Military spending [Re: Luddite]
#24031149 - 01/22/17 04:58 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
edit: luddite, copy/paste of off topic nonsense will lead to your ban
Edited by Prisoner#1 (01/22/17 05:26 PM)
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404]
#24031154 - 01/22/17 05:00 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
Re: Military spending [Re: Luddite] 1
#24031161 - 01/22/17 05:02 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Military spending [Re: falcon]
#24031165 - 01/22/17 05:04 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: check out the F-35
Yeah the F-35, what a fucking ludicrous boondoggle. $1.5 trillion in taxpayer dollars up in smoke. Goddamn thing doesn't even work. Collapsing landing gear, malfunctioning electronics, poor maneuverability, etc. If that's not wasteful, criminal, porkbarrel bullshit on the part of a decadent military-industrial complex, I'm a dancing aardvark. And what a laughingstock Lockheed is. Fucking infuriating and disgusting. These thieves should be put in stocks and displayed at Wal-Mart or something.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Military spending [Re: Luddite]
#24031172 - 01/22/17 05:06 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I have banned Luddite. I don't have access to this sub, but by God I found a way.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
T-Funkadelic
Hepatitis G


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 11,392
Loc: 2535 W Fairmont Ave MD 21223
|
Re: Military spending [Re: Luddite]
#24031184 - 01/22/17 05:11 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
The bigger the budget, the more money I make, so I can't complain.
--------------------
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I have banned Luddite. I don't have access to this sub, but by God I found a way.
|
Morel Guy
Stranger


Registered: 01/23/13
Posts: 15,577
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Military spending [Re: 404] 1
#24033557 - 01/23/17 03:34 PM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Military leaders like to play with the budget. A bigger budget doesn't really mean a more superior force.
If they would keep more money and weapons in reserve. They wasted so much on really small objectives since WWII. They try to fight on every political front and that's not really working out that well.
Obama was smart using special forces more. They used to be cheaper and very effective. Paratrooper numbers are going down compared to Russia's. That's not such a good thing. For some reason the leaders seem to think that paratroopers aren't as important.
The main problems is not knowing what wars will come up. Second having a force even if not used is a deterrent. All over the world people think experiment over what moves to make. Most of the efforts are dealing with thoughts and known thoughts of others. Then actions and what they can do about it.
It's a big waste of human achievement. But there is always some asshole that's gotta start a fight.
-------------------- "in sterquiliniis invenitur in stercore invenitur" In filth it will be found in dung it will be found
|
Skellies


Registered: 06/02/15
Posts: 822
Loc: The Dream
Last seen: 1 day, 52 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Plus we no longer have the kind of "wasteful spending when it comes to private military contractors charging exorbitant rates" that we used to have back in the 80's. $500 hammers are a thing of the past that ended after Reagan/Bush. I know because I used to buy things for the US Government, and costs went down SIGNIFICANTLY after the Acquisition Reform Act of 1995.
I guess they found a way around it then. $100 for laundry is definitely exorbitant.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5333896/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/t/new-halliburton-waste-alleged/#.WIevGvkrKUk
-------------------- Nosleep mode: Activated
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 22 days
|
Re: Military spending [Re: Skellies]
#24035992 - 01/24/17 01:03 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
austothehun said: I guess they found a way around it then. $100 for laundry is definitely exorbitant.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5333896/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/t/new-halliburton-waste-alleged/#.WIevGvkrKUk
Corruption can find its way around any law.
But here's the last paragraph from your article:
Quote:
Pentagon auditors apparently agree. They're withholding $186 million from the company and threatening to hold back even more unless Halliburton corrects the problems.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|