True Cost of the Military

Great, we've got all this tech...now let's use it to bomb the fuck out of Iran, N. Korea, etc.

Thanks George Bush for destroying America! Bring home the troops, close the foreign bases, and let the rest of the world take care of their own military problems. We need the money here in America to rebuild our neglected infrastructure so we can compete with the real threat to our economy, China!

Tough spot dbw. If you even talk about cutting the military and try to run for office and all you hear is how you “hate the military” and want to see “the military fail”.

I remember an argument on Swampbubbles last year with a guy arguing that the Obama was hurting military reediness because they only got a 4% increase in their year over year budget, not counting funding for Afghanistan and Iraq.

You have neo-cons arguing that Obama "lost" Iraq for pulling our troops out per Bush's agreement.

Thanks George Bush for destroying America! - Sure as long as you thank Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Obama, and all the other Dems who helped get the war machine off the ground and it rolling. I'm sick of Dems pointing the finger at Neo-Cons and then going "well their all to blame" but you NEVER hold your own party at fault. I though the 99%'ers blamed them all?

Mr. G - Neo-Cons are just another shade of Neo-Liberal both owned and vote to keep the game rolling. Yes I do support a "Republican" candidate only because you currently have to run with that ball to get in the game. If Ron Paul doesn't not get the Republican nomination I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate.

We spend 2 trillion a year on the wars, if we stopped it and cut spending by 1 trillion and used the other trillion on domestic revitalization projects I don't think you would find many people who would object. The catch being you would have to open that up to all American business and not funnel it into unionized "shovel ready" projects. Reward Mom & Pops as much as you do SEIU, I think that would be a pretty easy sell even to hardcore Neo's on either side.

Of course in the end the military industrial complex pretty much owns all Democrats and Republicans. That said, Clinton dared to cut the military budget a percent or two per year and all you heard was how Clinton gutted and destroyed the military.

Bush ran against Gore pretty hard on the Clinton cuts too.

Now you have Obama pulling our troops out of Iraq and the neo-cons are freaking out. Am I wrong on that? Who's freaking out over the automatic defense cuts that congress agreed to last year? A few Democrats and pretty much every Republican.

I agree with your assertion on the Republicans. But the whole Obama troop withdraw Is smoke and mirrors as most of them are going to Kuwait. The reason they "hate us" is because we leave tanks on their front yards for decades and blow their kids up on the way to school, it's called blow back. It's not because of capitalism or our way of life.

I think once we found there was no WMD we should of pulled out.Nation building never works well or cheaply and more than likely just leaves angry citizens of said country. As far as chopping our military down, well I'm sure it will happen again and we will look with hindsight again why we did it I'm sure. They did before just about every war we've had in the past, and its always a finger pointing time at who let us get so complacent and weak. History repeats itself and politicians usually fail to learn from their mistakes.

LC there is a difference in weak and bloated/over extended. No reason we need bases in Germany, Poland, and Australia. Let those countries start pulling their weight. The reason those EU countries have such low military budgets is because we do it for them for FREE.

China doesn't have bases around the world and I don't see the world's evil beating down their door.

Linecrosser, are you saying it would be wrong to cut the defense budget? This year we spent over $700 billion on defense. Adjusted for inflation, that’s more than America has spent on defense in any year since World War 2, more than during the Korean war, the Vietnam war, or the 80’s military buildup.

We spend more on defense than the next 20 countries combined. How about we only spend what the top 10 counties combine spend…

I'm not sure any of us know what the "real" deal is with staying in Iraq and Afganistan, but I agree we need to cut back the military to concentrate on everyone back home.

It is ludacris to expect any middle eastern country to live like us. They will never be anything like us. No matter how many troops/planes/bombs/attacks are there. The one thing I thought Obama was going to follow through on was to get out of the middle east. Since he's taken office, we've increased our presence there. It's time-get out of middle east.

Not gonna argue about it you obviously don't care if we weaken the military. The cuts are coming regardless, there are plenty of places to cut fraud waste and abuse. We wont see meaningful cuts to the federal budget any time soon.

Because I think we should cut spending, I "obviously don't care if we weaken the military"?

I call bullshit.

DBW- this is what I'm talking about. No sooner do you call for less spending the wet their pants neo-cons attack you.

Their is no threat in the world that justifies us spending what we do.

Isn't it about time in the thread for Danneskjod to jump in with a quote from a historical figure that conservatives idolize that vaguely justifies the current level of military spending, despite the fiscal implications?

As a conservative, I believe we spend too much at the Dept. of Defense. I also believe that the money we do spend can be spent in better ways.

I'm very much in favor of advances in technology that help keep our troops safe - or eliminate the need to use them (drones are an example) and don't mind paying for such things.

But I think the entire federal budget is all about priorities. Each of us has things we believe the govt. should spend our tax dollars for - but the defining document as to what is 'legal' is the Constitution.

Providing for the defense of the nation is a Constitutional mandate and an authorized expense of the federal government. The Dept. of Education, for example, isn't mentioned in the Constitution and is one thing I believe could be eliminated at the federal level and entrusted to the states to handle. The states are perfectly capable of addressing the educational needs of their citizens. They can't, however, successfully defend the nation.

So once you decide the Constitution requires the defense, the question becomes defining the necessary equipment, etc... to ensure the defense.

I don't think anyone wants to eliminate the Dept. of Defense. But who do you trust to tell you what is necessary to protect the nation? Your neighbor? A politician? The President? The Joint Chiefs? A member of the military?

As Shakespeare says, "Aye...there's the rub."

Personally? I don't trust any of them to make a good decision on that question.

Its easy to say we spend to much on the military, compare what things cost today with the increase in technology compared to the past. Everything costs more than it used to, problem is when you decide what to cut there are always somebody's vested interest in something that they want saved. Back during the Clinton era cuts in defense do you remember how the politicians wanted everything cut till it came to something in their state?

I was in the military and I can tell you there is plenty of room to cut costs.
From base maintenance money that "must be spent" or you will get less next year to the contracts paid to defense contractors that either go over budget or never deliver at all.
It doesn't take a genius to look at any budget and make cuts to balance. No matter what the decision there will always be critics. But, the key is make the decisions based on knowledge, recommendations from informed people, and good common sense. Not from those who are biased to save their political career.

You must have stopped reading the Constitution right after the part that says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence" because the next bit continues with "and general Welfare of the United States" and frankly that enables Congress to create a Department of Education just like "provide for the common Defence" enables Congress to create a Department of Defense.

You also totally forgot this bit: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

So while Congress HAS THE POWER
, having the power does not REQUIRE them to use the power. So they don't HAVE to maintain an army or navy, but they CAN provide for and govern the Militia. Which means the Congress can defend the nation with the Militia.

Aww, I think I just invalidated Mags's argument by citing the Constitution. Shows why I don't trust any argument put forth by a self-described "Tea Party" member citing the Constitution.

While I don't necessarily agree with the assertion about technology and increase in cost, Line-repeater is right on the money with how the interests of the military-industrial complex are protected and promoted by Congress. Even the JCS heads can't get Congress to quit blowing money on shit the Armed Forces don't want and don't need and instead directing it towards what they really want and need. Congress will sign off on umpteen billion for some planes and ships and subs and tanks and other crap, but actual money for supplies like proper armor? Training materials and ammo for live-fire exercises? That shit's EXPENSIVE but PROPER TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT KEEP OUR TROOPS ALIVE! BILLION-DOLLAR BOONDOGGLES DON'T.

If I was the frigging C-in-C, I'd go meet the JCS and find out what they need, go ask the various command and divisional heads what they need, etc. and TELL the civvie fucks who are bribed by the lobbyists at the DoD to focus on the feedback I got direct from the armed forces instead of the next $2B-a-piece plane and which defense contractor was going to get the contract.

I will agree that some of the stuff they are buying might not be needed. I recall some programs the military didn't want but the Congress approved anyways because it was money for their state.

When i said increase in cost with technology, do we really need the f22? wont the planes we have now not beat everyone else's planes? The Abrahms Tank I do agree on of you actually climbed into the previous model tank you would know how dated it was. Not sure we had to buy that many and replace every single one, same with the jeeps for hummers.

I believe we spend way too much money for defense. This goes from building planes the military does not want, Coast Guard cutters that will not float (kinda a priority for a boat!) overpriced toilet seats, etc. And the list goes on and on.

Congress is to blame for all this spending. God forbid we cut a plant in their district no matter if we need the product or not.

The president is CIC but the money is appropriated in the House. How we got into this mess doesn't matter. How we get out does. And get out we must.

Bravo!

Look I'm not a beleiver in "shovel ready" jobs or BarryCare but it's hard to tell people we can't fill the potholes on your street or do anything about your liver but but we can build drone bases around the world.

Every day I feel "conservatives" are becoming less connected from being conservative. I wouldn't have said this 6 months ago, but the Tea Party is a failure when they run out Newt as their choice. The problem is most of them just want someone to go out there and "stick it" to Obama with verbal barbs and twist the knife through the media because it makes them feel good emotionally. How the Tea Party can say they are Constitutional Conservatives and get behind Newt & the warmonger crowd blows my mind. Rush Limbaugh would not make a good President and beating Obama will not save this nation if we replace him with NewtRomney, might slow the decent into hell for a couple of months at best.