• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The US Needs More Defense Spending

pamak said:
Their aim as a rival economic system was your destruction as well just like the US aim was their destruction of their economic system. This is why the western powers tried to crash the Russian revolution from the beginning (including by sending military forces) and this is why the US continued to be hostile to countries like Cuba eve after the collapse of the Soviet Union eve though Cuba could not threaten the US
Click to expand...

Cuba was a situation literally driven by local politics and the importance of Florida's electoral votes.
 
Jack Hays said:
Cuba was a situation literally driven by local politics and the importance of Florida's electoral votes.
Click to expand...

So, we can agree that the US politics was not driven by a noble desire to spread liberal democracy in the region, right? This is why I also mentioned examples such as Saudi Arabia and other oppressive monarchies around the world, which do not trigger a hostile response even though they abuse human rights.
 
Jack Hays said:
We need to spend more on defense, not less.

Believe we’re spending too much on defense? Think again.


Any advantage the United States military may have enjoyed in size is shrinking.





Whenever I or someone else suggest that we need higher defense spending, there is an incredulous response from critics: U.S. military spending equals the outlays of the next eight countries combined . How can we possibly be spending too little when we spend so much more than any conceivable adversary? The answer is that, while technically accurate, this argument is so distorted that it becomes a fiction.
Global comparisons of military spending mislead for several reasons. One is secrecy. “What they report is not what they spend,” says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A second reason is that, since World War II, the United States has assumed strategic responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Neither China nor Russia has yet embraced similarly sweeping goals.
This boosts our spending and restrains theirs, says Harrison. Hence, we have 10 full-size aircraft carriers to project our power abroad; no other country comes close. Moving all those troops, tanks, ships and planes around the globe is expensive. In fiscal 2017, the U.S military consumed 98 million barrels of oil, costing $8.8 billion.

But there’s another reason Chinese and Russian spending is understated. Put simply, their soldiers and sailors cost less; ours cost more. We are a rich country with a volunteer military. Given the personal sacrifices that service members make, their wages and fringe benefits must be competitive to attract the needed recruits. China and Russia have lower costs and can buy more for less.
“Due to differences in purchasing power across economies . . . two countries could hypothetically field the same size and quality force at dramatically different spending levels,” said a 2017 report from the Center for National Defense at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. . . .

Defense no longer dominates the federal budget, as it once did. That distinction has fallen to health and retirement benefits. During the Cold War — from 1950 to 1990 — military outlays averaged 40 percent of federal spending and 7.4 percent of the economy’s output (gross domestic product). Now those figures are 15 percent and 3.13 percent, respectively, according to a recent CSIS report co- written by Harrison and Seamus P. Daniels.
It’s also true, as we’ve learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, that military power has its limits. We can’t spend our way to victory; but we can probably skimp our way to defeat.
Click to expand...

It's a delicate balance. Spending massive amounts of tax monies on much needed national defense without spending so much our economy goes belly up and we end up being sold to the Chinese for scrap.
 
pamak said:
So, we can agree that the US politics was not driven by a noble desire to spread liberal democracy in the region, right? This is why I also mentioned examples such as Saudi Arabia and other oppressive monarchies around the world, which do not trigger a hostile response even though they abuse human rights.
Click to expand...

I said earlier that we live in the real world and sometimes have to make choices. That does not alter the overall direction of US policy.
 
marke said:
It's a delicate balance. Spending massive amounts of tax monies on much needed national defense without spending so much our economy goes belly up and we end up being sold to the Chinese for scrap.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's the job of government.
 
Jack Hays said:
I said earlier that we live in the real world and sometimes have to make choices. That does not alter the overall direction of US policy.
Click to expand...

And because we live in the real world, I also say that we should make realistic decisions with respect to military spending by looking at what other adversaries spend instead of trying to massively outspend both Russia and China combined by arguing for the need to spread and protect "liberal democracy" (we have already succeeded in spreading free market ideology). Let's use the money we will save from lower military expenses to protect our citizens from poverty and sickness instead.
 
pamak said:
And because we live in a real world I also say that we should make realistic decisions with respect to military spending by looking at what other adversaries spend instead of trying to massive outspend both Russia and China by arguing for the need to spread and protect liberal democracy. Let's use the money we will save from lower military expenses to protect our citizens from poverty and sickness instead.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion." --William Inge[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
I suggest you acquaint yourselves with the facts and debate those, rather than defaulting immediately to an uninformed rant.
Click to expand...

The fact is that military spending is the most wasteful and unaccountable spending that the Govt. does. Before we even think of increasing it those problems must be addressed.

In 2015, The Washington Post discovered a report that showed how the DoD was wasting nearly $125 billion dollars due to bureaucratic waste. In the report, they identified a clear path forward that would bring the defense budget down by 15-20 percent. According to the Washington Post’s sources, the report was buried amid fears that it would lead Congress to cut their budget even further.
Click to expand...

The military spends a ridiculous amount of its budget on civilian contractors. In 2016, the DoD awarded over $300 billion in defense contracts. $100 billion of that went to just five companies: Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Gruman, and General Dynamics.
If you’re saying “good for them”, you’re right. The CEO’s of those companies took home a combined $100 million in pay that was partly subsidized by your tax dollars. And if you think that all that spending is creating jobs, the evidence doesn’t support that claim.
Click to expand...

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-cities/the-disturbing-ways-we-waste-money-our-military-budget.html/
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="]"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion." --William Inge[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The difference though is that in real life the wolf clearly overpowers the sheep, while in our world, the US clearly overpowers Russia and China. So, I cannot see how that saying is applicable to the real world in which we live.
 
iguanaman said:
The fact is that military spending is the most wasteful and unaccountable spending that the Govt. does. Before we even think of increasing it those problems must be addressed.





https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/...ways-we-waste-money-our-military-budget.html/
Click to expand...

As for the defense contractors and their CEO salaries: so what?

There are good reasons why things work the way they do. From your Washington Post story:

". . . The Defense Business Board was ordered to conduct the study by Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work, the Pentagon’s second-highest-ranking official. At first, Work publicly touted the efficiency drive as a top priority and boasted about his idea to recruit corporate experts to lead the way.
After the board finished its analysis, however, Work changed his position. In an interview with The Post, he did not dispute the board’s findings about the size or scope of the bureaucracy. But he dismissed the $125 billion savings proposal as “unrealistic” and said the business executives had failed to grasp basic obstacles to restructuring the public sector. . . ."
 
pamak said:
The difference though is that in real life the wolf clearly overpowers the sheep, while in our world, the US clearly overpowers Russia and China. So, I cannot see how that saying is applicable to the real world in which we live.
Click to expand...

The US can only maintain its superiority by investing what is required.
 
Jack Hays said:
As for the defense contractors and their CEO salaries: so what?

There are good reasons why things work the way they do. From your Washington Post story:

". . . The Defense Business Board was ordered to conduct the study by Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work, the Pentagon’s second-highest-ranking official. At first, Work publicly touted the efficiency drive as a top priority and boasted about his idea to recruit corporate experts to lead the way.
After the board finished its analysis, however, Work changed his position. In an interview with The Post, he did not dispute the board’s findings about the size or scope of the bureaucracy. But he dismissed the $125 billion savings proposal as “unrealistic” and said the business executives had failed to grasp basic obstacles to restructuring the public sector. . . ."
Click to expand...

LOL So you support the continuing bloated waste of the military industrial complex as just part of the game? Shame on you.
 
Jack Hays said:
The US can only maintain its superiority by investing what is required.
Click to expand...

If the US simply matches the military expenses of the second bigger adversary, this will be enough for maintaining superiority. I see no need to try to keep an overwhelming superiority by massively outspending everybody. Sure, if that could come for free, I would not mind. But since military funds come from other areas in which the US does not compare favorably (and gradually losses ground) to the rest of the developed world (healthcare, public education, etc), I cannot agree to such type of fiscal decisions.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL So you support the continuing bloated waste of the military industrial complex as just part of the game? Shame on you.
Click to expand...

It's not "bloated waste." In most cases it's compliance with legally mandated procedures. It's the same kind of unfamiliarity with government functions demonstrated regularly by Trump. The defense contractors provide products and services they bid to provide. Their CEO's are private sector executives whose salaries are not set by the government.
 
pamak said:
If the US simply matches the military expenses of the second bigger adversary, this will be enough for maintaining superiority. I see no need to try to keep an overwhelming superiority by massively outspending everybody. Sure, if that could come for free, I would not mind. But since military funds come from other areas in which the US does not compare favorably (and gradually losses ground) to the rest of the developed world (healthcare, public education, etc), I cannot agree to such type of fiscal decisions.
Click to expand...

That is your right. We disagree.
 
Jack Hays said:
We need to spend more on defense, not less.

Believe we’re spending too much on defense? Think again.


Any advantage the United States military may have enjoyed in size is shrinking.





Whenever I or someone else suggest that we need higher defense spending, there is an incredulous response from critics: U.S. military spending equals the outlays of the next eight countries combined . How can we possibly be spending too little when we spend so much more than any conceivable adversary? The answer is that, while technically accurate, this argument is so distorted that it becomes a fiction.
Global comparisons of military spending mislead for several reasons. One is secrecy. “What they report is not what they spend,” says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A second reason is that, since World War II, the United States has assumed strategic responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Neither China nor Russia has yet embraced similarly sweeping goals.
This boosts our spending and restrains theirs, says Harrison. Hence, we have 10 full-size aircraft carriers to project our power abroad; no other country comes close. Moving all those troops, tanks, ships and planes around the globe is expensive. In fiscal 2017, the U.S military consumed 98 million barrels of oil, costing $8.8 billion.

But there’s another reason Chinese and Russian spending is understated. Put simply, their soldiers and sailors cost less; ours cost more. We are a rich country with a volunteer military. Given the personal sacrifices that service members make, their wages and fringe benefits must be competitive to attract the needed recruits. China and Russia have lower costs and can buy more for less.
“Due to differences in purchasing power across economies . . . two countries could hypothetically field the same size and quality force at dramatically different spending levels,” said a 2017 report from the Center for National Defense at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. . . .

Defense no longer dominates the federal budget, as it once did. That distinction has fallen to health and retirement benefits. During the Cold War — from 1950 to 1990 — military outlays averaged 40 percent of federal spending and 7.4 percent of the economy’s output (gross domestic product). Now those figures are 15 percent and 3.13 percent, respectively, according to a recent CSIS report co- written by Harrison and Seamus P. Daniels.
It’s also true, as we’ve learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, that military power has its limits. We can’t spend our way to victory; but we can probably skimp our way to defeat.



I agree. With a resurgent Russia and an expanding China, the US needs to step it up. I'm sure that within the next few years at the very least a proxy war or 2 will sprout up between the super-powers.
Click to expand...

I agree. With a resurgent Russia and an expanding China, the US needs to step it up. I'm sure that within the next few years at the very least a proxy war or 2 will sprout up between the super-powers.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not nearly a trillion, and overseas contingency operations are only funded when we're actively deployed. Those funds are for current operations and do nothing to build capabilities.

[h=3]Pentagon to Start FY 2019 with Defense Spending Bill Signed Into ...[/h]
[url]https://news.usni.org › Aviation
[/URL]



Sep 28, 2018 - The $674 billion Fiscal Year 2019 Department of Defense appropriations bill was signed into law Friday, funding the military for the year ..
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I was pleased to read that President Trump has already signed FY 2019 Defense Spending Bill into law! :thumbs:
 
We have a military complex completely out of control. They do not even follow generally accepted accounting practices to show congress where they are spending money. AND OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CARE!!!!

Does anyone really think if the Defense department had to cut their budget or spend zero percent more money next year that our defense system would fall apart.

I can admire the US defense and still have the ability to question their efficiency. Can we stand up and beg them to be better stewards of our hard earned money. I do not think the request is unpatriotic.
 
charliebrown said:
We have a military complex completely out of control. They do not even follow generally accepted accounting practices to show congress where they are spending money. AND OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CARE!!!!

Does anyone really think if the Defense department had to cut their budget or spend zero percent more money next year that our defense system would fall apart.

I can admire the US defense and still have the ability to question their efficiency. Can we stand up and beg them to be better stewards of our hard earned money. I do not think the request is unpatriotic.
Click to expand...

Piss poor accountability in government spending has been a very big concern for good government managers. Around $6 billion went missing from the State department while Hillary was there and nobody knows where it went.
 
Nobody as in nobody talks about the Russian MIC.

We could be misled to believe Russia doesn't have an MIC. Or that it's insignificant.

Critics of USA military spending always -- as in always -- give Russia a free ride on this. This is true despite Russia violating treaties and national borders to include USA national sovereignty.

The Chinese military and MIC belong to the Party, as does the entire government. If this might sound familiar it's because we've been down this road before with the USSR where the Party was also supreme over the military and the government. When it's ring around the Party it's also all fall down. Each Russia and China collapsed twice apiece in the 20th century. It's an old habit they have and can't escape from.
 
Tangmo said:
Nobody as in nobody talks about the Russian MIC.

We could be misled to believe Russia doesn't have an MIC. Or that it's insignificant.

Critics of USA military spending always -- as in always -- give Russia a free ride on this. This is true despite Russia violating treaties and national borders to include USA national sovereignty.

The Chinese military and MIC belong to the Party, as does the entire government. If this might sound familiar it's because we've been down this road before with the USSR where the Party was also supreme over the military and the government. When it's ring around the Party it's also all fall down. Each Russia and China collapsed twice apiece in the 20th century. It's an old habit they have and can't escape from.
Click to expand...

Russia has a mic but it just functions vastly different from the us and more similar to china's. Russia either controls or owns most of the domestic production for military equipment, and russia also owns vast amounts of resources, while having special deals with companies that sell those resources. This means russia can get their equipment far cheaper, however they do much like america and make crap they do not need to ensure their companies keep full employment, and that no damage to local economies occurs.

Their mic is like chinas it is pretty much state owned or controlled. A su-27 will export in base configuration for more than a base f-15, however that is export costs, what russia actually pays is only known to them, and likely they are paying a small fraction of export costs for domestic aquisition.
 
Oozlefinch said:
The answer to this is actually rather simple.

The problem is not the amount we are spending, as much as the how it is being spent.

Most of our military equipment is old. As in 3 decades old and older old. It is quite common to see equipment like trucks and the like in the motor pool that were new during my first enlistment in the military.

In 1985.

A great percentage of our equipment is to be honest falling apart. We are spending huge amounts of money in refurbishing and repairing them, something that no sane organization anywhere else does that. Does anybody think that FedEx or UPS uses 30 year old trucks to deliver packages? Flies them around in 30 year old planes? But that is exactly what the US military does on a daily basis. Trucking companies know that after around 10 years the maintenance costs and down time start to outweigh any benefits of having a "paid off truck", so they replace them.

The military does not do that, because then somebody would jump up and down and scream that we were "wasting money".

Then there is the other thing. 1/3 of the DoD personnel are civilians. Then you have the contractors, which are hard to figure out buy many estimate that the number is the same or higher than the members in uniform (as many as 1.5 million).

So first step, get rid of most of those contractors. Doing jobs such as washing dishes, changing light bulbs, guarding the gates, mowing the grass, managing the barracks, issuing the equipment, changing the oil in vehicles, and 10,000 other jobs that the military itself did just fine until the 1990's. Fire most of them, put the military back to work doing those things.

The same with the bloated civilian sector of the DoD. The number of civilians I see today is staggering to somebody who served in the 1980's. And these are government employees, handling such important jobs as checking the ID of people entering the gym, and running the projector at the base theater. Get rid of them all, that is a job that formerly was done by military members who were in the last weeks-month of their contract and were coasting before getting out, somebody who was injured and could only handle such light duties, or as a "bennie" for somebody who had been working their butt off on a difficult mission and a few months of easy duty was part of the reward.

Nope, not no more. Now they are all done by civilians. Cut the fat in those areas (and start replacing the oldest equipment which will eliminate maintenance costs) and you will get a better and stronger military with little to no added expense.
Click to expand...

I had to wash dishes, mow grass, and many other things in the military, it really costs nothing extra as soldiers are already paid and often just do pt equipment maintenance and inventory betwen deployments. I can understand during the bush admin when iraq and afghanistan deployments made the us military short handed stateside, but at the same time more recruitment could have solved that as well as better balanced deployment cycles.

I had to guard a fort hood gate on active duty, it was the only one manned by military, as I left active duty all the gates were manned by military instead of civilians. In the dfac we had civilians cook while the actual military cooks got stuck on details like picking up trash, seems a waste since the cooks could have cooked, and it was made worse when deployed as the cooks did not know how to cook worth a darn and had to learn on the fly when deployed.

I never saw a burden in kp, it was easy work and even kept you from worse details, and kp was also an effective punishment, sometimes when you need non judicial punishment peeling potatoes for hours was a good choice over making them paint and flip rocks, the soldier was punished and army needs were met.
 
beerftw said:
I never saw a burden in kp, it was easy work and even kept you from worse details, and kp was also an effective punishment, sometimes when you need non judicial punishment peeling potatoes for hours was a good choice over making them paint and flip rocks, the soldier was punished and army needs were met.
Click to expand...

And when we are in garrison, we have tons of down-time.

When stateside we spent probably 3/4 of our time just doing nothing and make-do work. Clean weapons for the 10th time in a month, lay out our gear to show we had not lost any since the last gear layout the month before, it literally was an exercise to keep everybody busy until the next time we went and did something. Sending somebody for a few days to do dishes or other tasks was never a problem.

Hell, for many of those working parties they would ask for 10 people, we would send the entire platoon because there was nothing else to do.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And when we are in garrison, we have tons of down-time.

When stateside we spent probably 3/4 of our time just doing nothing and make-do work. Clean weapons for the 10th time in a month, lay out our gear to show we had not lost any since the last gear layout the month before, it literally was an exercise to keep everybody busy until the next time we went and did something. Sending somebody for a few days to do dishes or other tasks was never a problem.

Hell, for many of those working parties they would ask for 10 people, we would send the entire platoon because there was nothing else to do.
Click to expand...

That is where the Air was different. Our aircraft/helicopters were being used daily and when not flying they were in maintenance such and scheduled inspections or unscheduled repairs. Many flights were to keep the pilots.current. Others in weapons training. I would say 50% of peacetime flights used ordnance of one sort or another.

Our days were full and we hurting when folks were sent off on working parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom