The US Needs More Defense Spending

[Helix]

I do. For any war we are in there should be a war tax - probably as a federal sales tax.

i support doing it as individual income tax rates for all income above a cap. that makes it a lot less likely that some will make out like bandits by relying on a constant state of war. i also support declaring every war formally.

 

[kjwins]

 

[Rexedgar]

American Military Superiority Will Fade Without Bold National Action
Kelly Ayotte & Bradley Bowman, The Hill

Not debating these people; Kelly Ayotte & Bradley Bowman

 

[armycowboy]

The American military doesn't need more money. We spend 7 times more than China, the next nation on the list of most money spent on military. Our military, of which I was a member for more than 20 years, needs to become more efficient in its spending. For example, don't cut a budget if a unit hasn't spent it's budget by the end of the FY, reward them for accomplishing their mission while not spending all allocated funds.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not debating these people; Kelly Ayotte & Bradley Bowman

I don't care.

 

[beerftw]

The only reason we need to spend more is because we dont use what we have effectively in the long term. We have plenty of money for our military, the problem we have is misuse of the money by the military, and misuse of the military by administrations. So no we dont need to spend more, we need to use what we have better and more efficiently and insure those in charge of the money at DOD are acutely aware that they are and will be held to account for misuse and loss and wastage of the money they are given. I remember when the DOD lost several BILLION dollars in recent memory, they supposedly have NO idea where it went. Last I checked it was never found. No heads rolled over that. Heads need to roll, regularly for a awhile.

The dod does waste money, myself I would like to see an end to use it or lose it, it punishes units for not spending by slashing their budget, meaning even in years where major spending is not needed they must blow every dime of their budget by the end of the fiscal year to ensure they have funds th next year.

I remember not being able to get a humvee engine because it exceeded the motorpools annual budget of 12k( a humvee engine was more than that, and the 12k budget was bs by anyones standards, not sure who thought that a good idea) but by the end of the fiscal year the co was asking everyone what equipment they needed because even on a lean budget they underspent, however after all the requests went in, it ended up being a bunch of hd lcd tv's being bought and tossed in storage to never be used.

I am sure I ruffled some feathers also when I asked why we can not afford parts for our deadline trucks that year but mid year we could blow 200k on office furniture to replace fully functional office furniture.

 

[Jack Hays]

The dod does waste money, myself I would like to see an end to use it or lose it, it punishes units for not spending by slashing their budget, meaning even in years where major spending is not needed they must blow every dime of their budget by the end of the fiscal year to ensure they have funds th next year.

I remember not being able to get a humvee engine because it exceeded the motorpools annual budget of 12k( a humvee engine was more than that, and the 12k budget was bs by anyones standards, not sure who thought that a good idea) but by the end of the fiscal year the co was asking everyone what equipment they needed because even on a lean budget they underspent, however after all the requests went in, it ended up being a bunch of hd lcd tv's being bought and tossed in storage to never be used.

I am sure I ruffled some feathers also when I asked why we can not afford parts for our deadline trucks that year but mid year we could blow 200k on office furniture to replace fully functional office furniture.

Spending "end of year funds" is not a uniquely DoD practice. That is throughout the federal government, and is rooted in appropriations law.

 

[beerftw]

Spending "end of year funds" is not a uniquely DoD practice. That is throughout the federal government, and is rooted in appropriations law.

But it is an epic waste of funds, requirements on spending vary year to year, but requiring them to spend every dime to ensure the budget is there the next year is a waste, and literally promotes the military and other govt agencies to waste as much as possible to ensure a budget rather than the budget being set on realistic needs of each agency or military branch/unit.

In a perfect world, if unit xyz was allotted 5 mil that year, and only used two million, he would keep the 3 mil and have 2 mil sent to the unit, but it the current setup, if allotted 5 mil and only needed to mil that year, next years budget would be two mil, literally punishing them for not wasting money.

 

[Jack Hays]

But it is an epic waste of funds, requirements on spending vary year to year, but requiring them to spend every dime to ensure the budget is there the next year is a waste, and literally promotes the military and other govt agencies to waste as much as possible to ensure a budget rather than the budget being set on realistic needs of each agency or military branch/unit.

Not really. Many times the end-of-year funds are used for capital improvements that improve performance. Are there some misfires? Sure, but the system actually works pretty well.

 

[PirateMk1]

Call it all you want. Doesn't make it so.

In my eyes it does. Thats the great thing about opinions yours are always wrong and mine are always right.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So you support significant wartime tax rates, I would guess.

If we make everyone responsible for their own healthcare and retirement we don't need to raise taxes a penny. one time lump sum, refund all your paid FICA taxes and good luck to you.

 

[beerftw]

Not really. Many times the end-of-year funds are used for capital improvements that improve performance. Are there some misfires? Sure, but the system actually works pretty well.

From my experience it never goes to improving performance, it goes to anything they can blow money on not already allocated. For example the agency may be short on working trucks and all of their printers are don except two, but the money may be blown on getting luxurious leather chairs and top dollar desks.

When it comes to end of year it is a given performance is never a thought, they have to abide by xyz budget and by the end they have very short time to decide what to spend the rest on, so it is usually frivilous bs since it takes less thought and manpower than fully inventorying everything as well as going section by section and determining priorities. Whatever affects performance gets addressed in the new budget not the remainder of the old.

 

[Jack Hays]

From my experience it never goes to improving performance, it goes to anything they can blow money on not already allocated. For example the agency may be short on working trucks and all of their printers are don except two, but the money may be blown on getting luxurious leather chairs and top dollar desks.

When it comes to end of year it is a given performance is never a thought, they have to abide by xyz budget and by the end they have very short time to decide what to spend the rest on, so it is usually frivilous bs since it takes less thought and manpower than fully inventorying everything as well as going section by section and determining priorities. Whatever affects performance gets addressed in the new budget not the remainder of the old.

That was not my experience.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In 2015, the US spent 54% of the budget on the military, not including veterans. As I posted I cannot debate the author of your opinion piece that you agree with.

View attachment 67249090

How much is enough?

Your pie chart doesn't include entitlements which exceed military spending and will continue to increase until they are cut off.

Also many of those other things on the chart are not things the Federal Government needs to be concerned about, we can eliminate almost all of those departments entirely.

 

[beerftw]

That was not my experience.

Then what was your experience please explaine.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I'm not the one hiding behind an excuse.

LOL! No, you're the one lying about an excuse.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then what was your experience please explaine.

Nearly 34 years in the Central Intelligence Agency, 1.5 years Raytheon, 5 years contractor/consultant.

 

[Helix]

If we make everyone responsible for their own healthcare and retirement we don't need to raise taxes a penny. one time lump sum, refund all your paid FICA taxes and good luck to you.

i am willing to pay my current private health care premiums to fund a single payer health care system to replace our current hodgepodge system.

 

[beerftw]

Nearly 34 years in the Central Intelligence Agency, 1.5 years Raytheon, 5 years contractor/consultant.

Never dealt with cia, raytheon has been shady in my experience, and I watched dol fort hood waste money faster than a drunken sailor on payday, as well as many other agencies and contractors. My experience with contractors is mostly over employed and under worked, often to the biggest funds possible by requiring the biggest workforce rather than running efficiently.

A common theme I have ran across with some govt employees and govt contractors is what is called the 15 minute hour, meaning they work 15 minutes out of every hour, because if they shown any efficiency their budget would be cut since they could meet govt demands with a much smaller workforce.

 

[Rucker61]

i am willing to pay my current private health care premiums to fund a single payer health care system to replace our current hodgepodge system.

Would that be enough, given that health care would be extended to a portion of the population not currently paying into the health care system?

Are you willing to accept lesser service for the same cost?

 

[Jack Hays]

Never dealt with cia, raytheon has been shady in my experience, and I watched dol fort hood waste money faster than a drunken sailor on payday, as well as many other agencies and contractors. My experience with contractors is mostly over employed and under worked, often to the biggest funds possible by requiring the biggest workforce rather than running efficiently.

A common theme I have ran across with some govt employees and govt contractors is what is called the 15 minute hour, meaning they work 15 minutes out of every hour, because if they shown any efficiency their budget would be cut since they could meet govt demands with a much smaller workforce.

My experience was different.

 

[Evilroddy]

Mr. Samuelson's article is not persuasive. America spends more than eight times what the next largest military spending states do. But what he doesn't see fit to mention is that five of those "rival spenders" are actually Western states closely aligned and allied with the USA. One could claim that there could be a defection of Europe from the US sphere of influence but that is very unlikely and if it did become a real possibility then diplomacy, not military strength would be needed to deal with such a situation as two of those powers are nuclear armed.

The table of weapons by the Heritage Foundation is a problem area too. It puts Russian tank strength at 3000 but fails to mention that in 1985 it was 20,000 under the Soviet Union. It cites China as having 6700 tanks but many of those are Chinese versions of ancient T-54, T-55 and T-62 MBT's which even Russia has retired now. The number also included lighter vehicles than main battle tanks which the comparable versions of are not included in the US total. There are more such errors/misrepresentations in the table and the article as a whole but these examples should be enough to make readers wary and very, very skeptical of Mr. Samuelson's arguments for higher US military spending.

The argument that China and Russia have lower relative costs compared to the inflated costs of US kit and personnel costs is somewhat valid (especially legacy-costs like pensions and medical coverage for post-service veterans) but it also masks another reality which Samuelson does not mention. The Chinese and Russian militaries are essentially defensive structures designed to protect each nation and its near abroad. Even the recent build-up of Chinese naval strength is focused on littoral power projection and area denial and is not even close to being a powerful enough blue-water navy which could challenge the US Navy in any meaningful way, except along the coastline of China itself. In contrast to Russia and China, the US military is a global military leviathan designed to project overwhelming military force (and thus political power) in multiple locations all around the world (and in space and cyberspace) simultaneously. It needs this multiply redundant force-projection capability to enforce discipline on its invisible (does not appear on maps) but very real commercial and financial empire which is global in scope. It is there to suppress economic nationalism, to limit other state's access to strategic resources, to control trade routes and to threaten uncooperative states; it is designed and used not to assure global peace but to belligerently enforce US global military, political and economic hegemony.

The argument that the US is the global policeman protecting the world from wars and therefore needs such an expensive military is a sham. The majority of the serious wars and military interventions fought since WWII were either caused or outright started by US policy makers so the US is an out of control, rogue cop which isn't preventing wars but is rather causing most of them in the first place.

The US military needs to be downsized and reoriented towards a far more defensive force structure designed to protect America (not project and protect corporate America's business interests) and such cuts will force it to give up the role of unilaterally self-anointed world cop. That job must now be done by coalitions of states rather than by a monopolar global superpower which is driven by its own narrow self-interests. Cutting military budgets carefully and responsibly is the only way to force this evolution from global cop/bully-boy to a responsible senior partner working in cooperation with other like-minded states to foster peace and prevent war.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[beerftw]

My experience was different.

Well then you must have stayed in an isolated part of govt void of the vast majority of govt. Govt agencies waste money like no other, and contractors work as inneficient as possible to justify a larger workforce to justify a bigger budget and more profits. The military and all govt agencies waste money, military being one of if not the worst waster, we should not be demanding more money but rather better use of the money we have first.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well then you must have stayed in an isolated part of govt void of the vast majority of govt. Govt agencies waste money like no other, and contractors work as inneficient as possible to justify a larger workforce to justify a bigger budget and more profits. The military and all govt agencies waste money, military being one of if not the worst waster, we should not be demanding more money but rather better use of the money we have first.

No. I think your view is just peculiarly bitter and narrow. Better to leave it at that.

 

[beerftw]

No. I think your view is just peculiarly bitter and narrow. Better to leave it at that.

I disagree, the us govt punishes agencies for not spending enough, and you are arguing it is efficient, I served in the us army and the national guard and also live next to the largest army base in the country, so I get to see this stuff daily, and the govt is not only wasteful it punishes it's agencies for not being wasteful enough, while you mostly claim cia which no one has any real means to verify as most of their spending is outside the view of the civilian world unlike the military branches and other govt agencies.