Any one here feel we spend too much on Military and have too many bases abroad ? I heard a politician recently say we had 130 bases world wide ? To me that is excessive. Also saw on a site that we have military personnel or equipment in over 800 sites world wide ? Could the U.S. be a pace setter by cutting back , would others cut back as well ? Last question any one know where our next major conflict will be ? Will we go back into Iraq ? Maybe go into Iran?
1 in 5 dollars of U.S. budget spent on Military ?
- Thread starter ElizabethtownHeel
- Start date
Straw man topic. We spend more $ on entitlements than anything else. This dominates the entire federal budget and discussion on any other federal spending is a waste of effort. Just this week we learned that $18 billion SS disability benefits were over paid over last 10 years. Until this is fixed, nothing else matters.
If you thought the botched roll-out of Obamacare, the government shutdown, or the sequester represented Washington dysfunction at its worst, wait until you hear about the taxpayer waste at the Defense Department.
Special Enterprise Reporter Scot Paltrow unearthed the “high cost of the Pentagon’s bad bookkeeping” in a Reuters investigation. It amounts to $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for. (The year 1996 was the first that the Pentagon should have been audited under a law requiring audits of all government departments. Oh, and by the way, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with this law.)
Here are some some highlights he found among the billions of dollars of waste and dysfunctional accounting at the Pentagon:
The DOD has amassed a backlog of more than $500 billion in unaudited contracts with outside vendors. How much of that money paid for actual goods and services delivered isn’t known.
Over the past 10 years the DOD has signed contracts for provisions of more than $3 trillion in goods and services. How much of that money is wasted in over payments to contractors, or was never spent and never remitted to the Treasury is a mystery.
The Pentagon uses a standard operating procedure to enter false numbers, or “plugs,” to cover lost or missing information in their accounting in order to submit a balanced budget to the Treasury. In 2012, the Pentagon reported $9.22 billion in these reconciling amounts. That was up from $7.41 billion the year before.
The accounting dysfunction leads the DOD to buy too much stuff. One example: the “vehicular control arm” to supply Humvees. In 2008, the DOD had 15,000 parts -- a 14-year supply (anything more than three years is considered excess supply). Yet from 2010 to 2012, it bought 7,437 more of these parts and at higher prices than they paid for the ones they already had.
The accounting dysfunction leads the DOD to buy too much stuff. One example: the “vehicular control arm” to supply Humvees. In 2008, the DOD had 15,000 parts -- a 14-year supply (anything more than three years is considered excess supply). Yet from 2010 to 2012, it bought 7,437 more of these parts and at higher prices than they paid for the ones they already had.
The Defense Department’s 2012 budget was $565.8 billion. Paltrow points out that’s more than the annual defense budgets of the next 10 biggest military spenders combined. He tells us the Pentagon “almost certainly is” the biggest source of waste in the government based on his reporting
https://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...nt-waste-8-5-trillion-pentagon-142321339.html
Special Enterprise Reporter Scot Paltrow unearthed the “high cost of the Pentagon’s bad bookkeeping” in a Reuters investigation. It amounts to $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for. (The year 1996 was the first that the Pentagon should have been audited under a law requiring audits of all government departments. Oh, and by the way, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with this law.)
Here are some some highlights he found among the billions of dollars of waste and dysfunctional accounting at the Pentagon:
The DOD has amassed a backlog of more than $500 billion in unaudited contracts with outside vendors. How much of that money paid for actual goods and services delivered isn’t known.
Over the past 10 years the DOD has signed contracts for provisions of more than $3 trillion in goods and services. How much of that money is wasted in over payments to contractors, or was never spent and never remitted to the Treasury is a mystery.
The Pentagon uses a standard operating procedure to enter false numbers, or “plugs,” to cover lost or missing information in their accounting in order to submit a balanced budget to the Treasury. In 2012, the Pentagon reported $9.22 billion in these reconciling amounts. That was up from $7.41 billion the year before.
The accounting dysfunction leads the DOD to buy too much stuff. One example: the “vehicular control arm” to supply Humvees. In 2008, the DOD had 15,000 parts -- a 14-year supply (anything more than three years is considered excess supply). Yet from 2010 to 2012, it bought 7,437 more of these parts and at higher prices than they paid for the ones they already had.
The accounting dysfunction leads the DOD to buy too much stuff. One example: the “vehicular control arm” to supply Humvees. In 2008, the DOD had 15,000 parts -- a 14-year supply (anything more than three years is considered excess supply). Yet from 2010 to 2012, it bought 7,437 more of these parts and at higher prices than they paid for the ones they already had.
The Defense Department’s 2012 budget was $565.8 billion. Paltrow points out that’s more than the annual defense budgets of the next 10 biggest military spenders combined. He tells us the Pentagon “almost certainly is” the biggest source of waste in the government based on his reporting
https://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...nt-waste-8-5-trillion-pentagon-142321339.html
I think DOD spending is about right given our defense commitments, mission requirements, and security threats.
I'll give my answer since the first reply presented a strawman argument and the second quoted sources that seem to back up what you say but I didn't see an answer. Might have missed it though since it was almost tl;dr. Yes, we should reduce the defense budget (and all others too) by at least 10% (I prefer 15%) until we get our deficit under control. I do doubt that others will cut if we do though, but we have to at some point (not just defense).
Louigi makes a good point about entitlements. If we cut just defense it will just go to entitlements. Clean up the entire budget by cutting them all and telling them to figure it out.
Last edited:
If you cut the budget, you must change our defense commitments to friends and allies. The mission must change and people must be willing to accept much greater risks based on the threats we face.
I was going to follow-up on my post. It is true that there is immense wasteful spending on entitlements. But, when you look at the money spent on militarism and spreading/maintaining this empire, it's embarrassing. Embarrassing is too polite. When your country spends more than blank-many of all other civilized nations combined, that reveals almost an addiction. The notion that you promote peace through the barrel of a gun is ludicrous on it's face to me. I understand that we as people/a country and individuals must command respect and not allow ourselves to be pushed-around, but do you respect individuals based on how many guns they have or by how much they intimidate others? I don't.
America is drunk on militarism. It's a huge part of our economy, too. I doubt it will ever change.
Did this make anyone laugh? An expected chuckle, perhaps?
One question - I believe we already know your answer, but it should be entertaining - what territory does this "empire" encompass?
You ought to know. Supposedly you've been floating around in most of it for most of your adult life. How often were you monitoring the Mississippi River or Atlantic seaboard?
You can pretend and deny that we don't have and maintain (and seek to expand) an empire all you want, but that doesn't change it from being what it is. You think of "empire" in that bad way. Rome, Third Reich, British Empire, etc. To you, those were all BAD empires. Well, to the people in them, they were just perfect. You're biased toward your own team. You can never be objective.
Answer the question: What territory comprises this empire? Typically, empire's physically dominate a certain territory or territories that are not there own - that's why they call them empires. They are powerful, dominate a sphere of influence, and typically have/had colonies. They are universally recognized as empires and they typically call themselves empires... We are a superpower - maybe, the only superpower - but we are not an empire.
To-may-toe, to-mah-toe. That's a good one, though. I'll give you that! "We're not en empire, we're a SUPER POWER!" I love that euphemism! That is truly American- inventing new language to conceal it's sins. Perfect!
As I said before, you're incapable of being objective.
Last edited:
Geez! What's next? Posts from 'PrisonPlanet'? You are out there, man... way out there...
I just showed you what you asked for. Do I have to post them from every source on the Net? It's not like these bases and global US military presence is some kind of conspiracy.
I guess it's okay with you if China and Russia set up bases here on US Soil, too, right? No biggie, they're just being benevolent Super Powers.
nobases.org? And, you accuse me of being biased?
But, I will admit! I am BIASED!!! You're damn right I'm BIASED!!! I root for the US in everything I can think of... You bet, I'm BIASED!!!
The fact that we have been effective diplomatically speaking in order to secure access to facilities world-wide is a great thing!!! And, you will never know how those bases have helped to keep your dumb ass alive.
The countries where we have bases or access to their facilities are sovereign nations with which we do all kinds of business to mutual benefit of the both parties. Those sovereign nations have decided it's in their self-interests to do business with the USA in this manner. These bases are not free - we pay those nations to be there, to their benefit. The fact we are there doesn't make the USA an empire. IF the USA was an EMPIRE we wouldn't be paying jack for any basing rights or access to facilities. We would take them by force... And, guess what - WE DON'T!!! That is the modern world. If we were actually an EMPIRE we would be having a completely different conversation.
You want to go back to pre-07DEC1941 America. Those days are gone forever. Deal with it.
I'm pretty sure that when we set up a base, it is at the invitation of the host country. That's a wee bit different than planting a flag wherever we want whenever we want it.
I love how these people convince themselves it is necessary to spend as much as the next 24 countries combined (most of whom are allies) to keep ourselves safe.
Semantic circus aside, this country spends way too much money on 'defense'. Look at how that money is allocated and to whom it is allocated and you will get the full story. We only spend about 18 billion on cyber warfare defense, while there's a parking lot in Vegas full of tanks the pentagon repeatedly said it didn't need.
source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-pentagon-to-buy-tanks-keep-ships-a/?page=all
Semantic circus aside, this country spends way too much money on 'defense'. Look at how that money is allocated and to whom it is allocated and you will get the full story. We only spend about 18 billion on cyber warfare defense, while there's a parking lot in Vegas full of tanks the pentagon repeatedly said it didn't need.
source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-pentagon-to-buy-tanks-keep-ships-a/?page=all
You're pretty sure? Well, I'm not pretty sure. I don't trust the government or media in this country enough to believe either when it comes to anything. Especially anything of any importance. Those institutions are flagrant, historic liars. We all know this.
Military bases, invasion, occupation, presence, whatever, are a show of force. Spin it, or rationalize it however you like. I don't care.
I agree. We do spend way too much on defense and what we do spend isn't allocated correctly. It's a microcosm of the entire Federal budget.
All of the uses of "WE" in that post were misplaced. There are plenty of "we's" that are profiting from exactly what you claim "we" aren't. The You and Me (average person WE) doesn't, no. But, that's not who the powers of this country belong to or are run by. The "we" that runs it is profiting immensely from the empire.
Military presence (by force) is hardly a benign presence. You keep justifying it however you want. You have no choice. You're obedient. You have been taught to be obedient your entire adult life.
At least you're admitting bias. That's why, as I said from the first post, you cannot be objective on this issue.
Well, poke fun all you like, dude. If you take these people, who you KNOW are blatant liars, at their word, good for you. I don't. I don't have to act like a 3rd-grader and call you a mow-ron for believing known liars. Except for pointing it out there!
What alliances would you break to see your goal met? What friends are you willing to leave twisting in the breeze in the face of common enemies? What missions DOD is currently carrying out are you willing to blow off to realize your cuts? What threats are you willing to ignore? What risks are you willing to take?
Despite Obama's blathering that the wars in Iraq and A-stan are over, this is not true and everyone knows it. The wars continue. ISIS wants to sneak a nuclear weapon over our southern borders and detonate for maximum effect. Are you willing to take that risk?
I never say "nigh." The hat has to be much higher to work right.
I think we could do without two hundred million dollars worth of unneeded tanks for a start. Or maybe a fighter jet that has over a trillion invested in R&D but has never seen combat, and almost certainly never will. You ignore the point about inefficiency entirely, and keep spitting the usual chickenhawk BS.
But then again we all know Obama is secretly working for ISIS and wants to bring death to America
I don't think the "Chicken-hawk" insult would apply to me. I retired from active duty after 30 years service during the Cold War, numerous deployments, several different conflicts, including Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and the GWOT... Stow that liberal crap where it came from.I think we could do without two hundred million dollars worth of unneeded tanks for a start. Or maybe a fighter jet that has over a trillion invested in R&D but has never seen combat, and almost certainly never will. You ignore the point about inefficiency entirely, and keep spitting the usual chickenhawk BS.
But then again we all know Obama is secretly working for ISIS and wants to bring death to America
Last edited:
I'll be here whenever you care to approach the issue of inefficient spending. I'd love to listen to you justify over a trillion dollars being spent on the F-35 which doesn't even freakin work. How exactly does a jet that doesn't work keep us safe? How about surplus tanks? Funny how we "need" this equipment to defend us from the people who will be attacking us with weapons that we also paid for.
Saving that trillion dollars wouldn't have cost us any alliances. It wouldn't have left anyone twisting in the breeze. It wouldn't require abandoning any missions, or ignoring any threats. It would however require not lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin in exchange for a bunch of scrap metal.
Meanwhile we have over fifty thousand veterans living on the street. Yeah nukey sounds like that money is being spent just about perfectly.
Saving that trillion dollars wouldn't have cost us any alliances. It wouldn't have left anyone twisting in the breeze. It wouldn't require abandoning any missions, or ignoring any threats. It would however require not lining the pockets of Lockheed Martin in exchange for a bunch of scrap metal.
Meanwhile we have over fifty thousand veterans living on the street. Yeah nukey sounds like that money is being spent just about perfectly.
"I'll be here whenever you care to approach the issue of inefficient spending." - I did that as part of my job as a leader when I was active duty, and I continue to do it right now in my current capacity as a financial manager at NAVSEASYSCOM, so don't lecture me about it. Are there inefficiencies in the defense sector? ABSOLUTELY! Are there ineffeciencies in practically every sector of the government? ABSOLUTELY! But, the inefficiencies in the DOD pale in comparison to the waste, fraud and abuse in entitlements. When you are ready to approach the issue of waste, fraud and abuse in entitlements, I'll be here.
You talk about surplus tanks. You're talking about the M1A2 Abrams, the most advanced tank on the face of the planet. Where do you think the next war will take place? You're telling me the US Army will not use the most advanced tank in the world when it has to go up against Russian or Chinese or North Korean tanks in Northeast Asia or the Middle East or Central/Eastern Europe? Give me a break. Odierno said he didn't need the tanks because he was told to say he didn't need the tanks by Obama Administration officials - every high ranking officer at that level is political and know what they have to say to keep their jobs and status.
As far as the F-35 is concerned, you have no freakin' idea how the defense aquisition process works and where the F-35 is at in this process. To blurt out that the F-35 doesn't even work is a crock of liberal crap.
Come back when you know something...
Last edited:
My biggest concern is that the type of military we currently have (at least the military I am familiar with) is not geared toward the type of threats that likely are down the road. Cyberterrorism is primarily a nuisance right now, but it will only get worse and bigger. It doesn't matter how many guns, tanks, and soldiers we have when a few smart people can sit 1/2 a world away and play havoc with our infrastructure. You can give me the tin foil hat if I'm way off base here, but these types of threats seem far more likely to me than a ground invasion or a missile launch, for which we seem more prepared these days.
They could continuously cause issues that create enormous costs for the U.S. and they can do so at relatively low cost to themselves.
They could continuously cause issues that create enormous costs for the U.S. and they can do so at relatively low cost to themselves.
Cybersecurity is one of the biggest priorities these days in DOD. That is a fact.
You're the one that said DoD spending is about right. Which is absurd.
The F-35 is a joke. Its the laughing stock of the defense industry and you know it. 1.5 trillion dollars and yet not a single one left the ground in the wars in Iraq and A-stan. The waste from that project alone would fund entitlements for several years.
How about the HTV-2? Never had a successful landing yet costs over 300 million per launch.
War is profitable. But obviously you already know that.
The F-35 is a joke. Its the laughing stock of the defense industry and you know it. 1.5 trillion dollars and yet not a single one left the ground in the wars in Iraq and A-stan. The waste from that project alone would fund entitlements for several years.
How about the HTV-2? Never had a successful landing yet costs over 300 million per launch.
War is profitable. But obviously you already know that.
We, as American citizens, are basically under the impression that America is a mostly kind, altruistic, generous-minded nation (with a few exceptions, obviously). Well, If America is so altruistic, kind and generous... why does it have so many enemies and/or potential enemies that it needs that much to protect itself?
It never ceases to amaze me how Americans convince themselves that having a military presence all over the world is not seen as an imposition or threatening to the rest of the world where the bases exist. I guess it's because they think "well, I'm basically a good person and I like where I live." That's a reasonable conclusion. But, when you switch places with the foreign citizen who feels that the American presence is unnecessary and is imposing at least a minor threat to how they MIGHT want to run their country were it not for a foreign nation's military base around the corner, then you're engaging in empathy and you begin to experience some humility. In the case of many Arabic nations, they REALLY don't like it. Saudi Arabia, for one! The French and Germans and Japanese are probably numb to it, I dunno. But, middle eastern Arabs are not cool with it at all. If you refuse to feel any empathy with that, then you're likely to be, at least partially, to blame for future casualties of Americans on their soil or ours.
It never ceases to amaze me how Americans convince themselves that having a military presence all over the world is not seen as an imposition or threatening to the rest of the world where the bases exist. I guess it's because they think "well, I'm basically a good person and I like where I live." That's a reasonable conclusion. But, when you switch places with the foreign citizen who feels that the American presence is unnecessary and is imposing at least a minor threat to how they MIGHT want to run their country were it not for a foreign nation's military base around the corner, then you're engaging in empathy and you begin to experience some humility. In the case of many Arabic nations, they REALLY don't like it. Saudi Arabia, for one! The French and Germans and Japanese are probably numb to it, I dunno. But, middle eastern Arabs are not cool with it at all. If you refuse to feel any empathy with that, then you're likely to be, at least partially, to blame for future casualties of Americans on their soil or ours.
It absolutely is about right given the threats and mission requirements. You need to learn how threats are matched with mission and missions are matched with weapons.
Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about regarding the F-35. Anyone who expected the aircraft to be ready for dropping warheads on foreheads in Iraq, Syria, or A-stan were smokin' too much weed in their dorm rooms while listening professor podcasts...
HTV-2. Hmmmm, it is an experimental hypersonic vehicle. Good grief. It's experimental, designed to test new, emerging technologies. You expect it to drop bombs on ISIS next year?
So yes the DoD wastes money, and yes the DoD spending is about right. Okay gotcha... lol
You want to try to convince us that ISIS with its 30k troops (generous estimation) is a legitimate threat to the US. Nonsense. Control over the region is economically beneficial to the US and that's why we're there.
Israel could handle ISIS without our help. So could Turkey. Maybe if we stopped building bases everywhere and fighting everyone's battles for them, even when they wont fight themselves, we wouldn't have to spend the outrageous amount of money we currently do. But then again fighting jihad isn't the reason we're actually there.
More importantly, its kinda funny where many of those weapons you love so much end up. Weapons paid for by American tax payers that are now being used by ISIS. Then the same companies who produced said weapons tell the American public we need to spend more to defend ourselves against said jihad.
You want to try to convince us that ISIS with its 30k troops (generous estimation) is a legitimate threat to the US. Nonsense. Control over the region is economically beneficial to the US and that's why we're there.
Israel could handle ISIS without our help. So could Turkey. Maybe if we stopped building bases everywhere and fighting everyone's battles for them, even when they wont fight themselves, we wouldn't have to spend the outrageous amount of money we currently do. But then again fighting jihad isn't the reason we're actually there.
More importantly, its kinda funny where many of those weapons you love so much end up. Weapons paid for by American tax payers that are now being used by ISIS. Then the same companies who produced said weapons tell the American public we need to spend more to defend ourselves against said jihad.
Good post. It's like Norton or McAfee letting loose a Trojan virus on the net and then selling the anti-virus. Win-win!
Meanwhile, people are so blindly tribal that they wouldn't dare think that their leaders would bullsh*t them or exploit them for profit, gain and influence. People NEVER do that, after all! It's only "our foreign enemies" that do bad things!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Transfer Portal Thread (Update 4-23: Portal update on several players)- Latest: tarheel0910
-
-
-
