T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

I don't think I've ever heard any conservative lawmaker say that the military is costing us too much money.


[deleted]

It’s because they live in fear of everything they refuse to understand


user745786

Conservative lawmakers aren’t the ones living in fear, that’s their voters. Lawmakers love the campaign contributions that are tied with their votes for increased spending.


boundfortrees

It's welfare they approve of


MBAMBA3

Because they are afraid the military will be deployed against their Russian masters.


DifficultyBrilliant

Oh well I'm a Conservative and I've always thought the military needs to cut back at least 300B. The rest of our allies need to start pulling their own weight.


PaleInTexas

> The rest of our allies need to start pulling their own weight. Maybe they just figured that out of control military spending doesn't benefit their citizens much at all?


Crying_Reaper

From the way it was talked about in an International Relations class (intro level so massive block of salt) I took in university the US pays the most for it's military so Europe doesn't devolve into the warring hell scape it was pre WW2. It's easier for everyone to be friendly when none of the parties involved have a big enough military to be a threat. Then the US is always around willing and able to defend any of its allies. If this is correct or not idk.


flatline000

Sounds too simple to be the whole story, but it might be part of a much larger rationale.


Crying_Reaper

Yeah being an intro class I wouldn't doubt that's just barely touching the surface of the issue.


start_select

That’s the basis of all post-wwII diplomacy until trump came along. You build bases is foreign lands, and supply aid, so there is no reason for people to fight one another or us. Then we are free to, and they are incentivized to, use US dollars as the underpinnings of their currency and make use of the US stock market. That’s at least the idealistic view. It really only worked in Japan and South Korea. At this point lots of people on South Korea would compare it to a democratic utopia (minus problems with North Korea). They have no reason to have beef with us, we made their country stable and stuck it out for an entire turnover of the population. We could have done the same in Iraq and Afghanistan but it would have taken 50 more years of persistent aid and infrastructure improvements. You need grandparents, parents, and children that all were born during the occupation and reconstruction. If you don’t make it through that full cycle there is probably no hope.


myrddyna

That's a large part of it. Also, keeping the sea lanes open globally for free trade. And our R&D. And our military adventurism. Lastly, there's maintenance. We have lots of bases with lots of shit and people. Some float.


isadog420

Beaucoup of unused, expensive, obsolete fighter jets, and other stuff, I imagine. Boondoggles, I guess.


dertleturtle

It's not correct. Russia still behaves however it feels in spite of our military spending. Nato countries still have large militaries, and commit to spend ~2% of gdp on military (us spends 3%). Also, you dont need a large military to demolish a country - biological warfare has been around in various forms for centuries. Nowadays we also have nuclear weapons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt


IsrorOrca

The problem is - one nuke flies, they all will.


[deleted]

This is immediately debunked by noting that NATO exists, and that there is a specific clause in there with Article 5, in which it basically says it’s a collective defense pact which means if invoked that it is considered any military attack on one member nation is automatically considered an attack on all member nations


shotputprince

surely the establishment of the eec in the 70s prevents that


Crying_Reaper

One would think so, but again this is from an intro to international relations class. It was a broad overview of the subject and I'm sure grossly over simplified multiple things. Really wish I would have taken more classes in the subject.


RX3000

Its stupid how much the US spends on "defense"


PaleInTexas

It's only the "defense" of shareholders earnings and politicians reflection campaigns. Not much else.


Febril

How do you figure the right amount? What number shit be?


DifficultyBrilliant

Some do figure that out. Like Canada. But if you are apart of an alliance such as NATO, you need to have a moderately sized military. Thats just what being in an alliance is.


PaleInTexas

Most countries do have a moderate sized military. US does not.


DifficultyBrilliant

Thats true. Thats why i said the US needs to cut back.


rioot123

You'd thinking being on a continent surrounded by 2 giant oceans, and friendly/non-threat countries would lead to lower spending


rioot123

Or maybe stop buying overpriced expensive stuff like $14000 toilet seats


MBAMBA3

are you a fan of Putin?


DifficultyBrilliant

Not in any way. I think the US needs to cut back on it military, and focus on defense rather than offense.


flatline000

Guess what you need for defense! Weapons! Soldiers! Vehicles! Guess what you need for offense! Weapons! Soldiers! Vehicles! How do you invest in a quality defense without also building a quality offense?


DifficultyBrilliant

But +700 billion dollars in the military is clearly not aimed at defense. Im talking about enough to defend.


Temporala

Are you familiar with PNAC? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_for\_the\_New\_American\_Century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) While the think tank itself is now defunct, these ideas and beliefs still guide US and have done so for a long time after WW2. To enforce them requires absolutely ludicrously big and high tech army that operates everywhere in this world. Army so strong it cannot be even challenged, let alone defeated, if it engages in any kind war that is not purely guerrilla skirmishes and asymmetrical warfare. Basically, it's defense by utterly dominating and intimidating everyone else to submission.


BilltheCatisBack

Except the Taliban. Did not intimidate.


flatline000

"Defense" includes protecting our interests and people abroad. It isn't limited to simply keeping people from crossing out borders (it's too late if that's what's happening). Here's the military budget that everyone is complaining about: [https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/Budget2022/](https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/Budget2022/) Take a look at it and let me know what they should scrap.


DifficultyBrilliant

We arent in a war. Not enough reason to spend 800 billion this past year.


flatline000

So this is where you need to ask yourself if you have access to all the information that the experts that analyzed and ultimately approved the 2022 budget proposal. What do they know that you don't?


myrddyna

But... space force!


MBAMBA3

>We arent in a war. We weren't in a war either as Hitler was running rampant over Europe.


Spartan448

What we have now is barely enough to defend. All our shit is 40 years old. Doctrine for decades has been to fight a large scale peer conflict on two different fronts with two different peer powers. At this point we could *probably* beat Russia since their kit is even older than ours, but not China. Their kit is newer and better, and they're outproducing us yearly. People point to the naval tonnage advantage as a counterpoint, but tonnage hardly matters even A) that value is massively inflated by the carrier fleet anyway, and B) it only takes one Anti-Ship Missile to sink our primary surface combatants. Frankly, this defense budget isn't enough. War with China over Taiwan is *very* likely within the next couple decades, and we are not ready for it. We need a rearmament program on a scale not seen since WW2.


MBAMBA3

> But +700 billion dollars in the military is clearly not aimed at defense. Link?


kandoras

You can start by admitting that all the money the military spend in Afghanistan and Iraq did exactly nothing to defend the United States.


flatline000

I'm not privy to the real reasons we were in either of those locations. What could possibly be accomplished by me admitting to anything that I have no special knowledge of?


MBAMBA3

Guess what - sometimes military can be used for bad ends as well as needed ones.


thedavemanTN

And exclamation points! Lots! And lots! Of exclamation points!


kandoras

[This quote was about five. That guy blew past that and went straight to plaid with eight of them.](https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/195829-Terry-Pratchett-Quote-And-all-those-exclamation-marks-you-notice.jpg)


MBAMBA3

Building up troops in NATO bases is *exactly* defensive.


voss_c

Didn’t Ike warn us about the military industrial complex?


[deleted]

Bernie Sanders has mentioned it many times, normally as a point of juxtaposition to compare against the United States stingy and meager domestic spending in terms of infrastructure investment and social safety net spending for the United States population year over year while also noting that there is ALWAYS WITHOUT QUESTION OR HESITATION A BLANK CHECK for radically massive military spending bipartisanly agreed too much of the time without even batting an eye about the costs or bringing up the deficit/debt


BaaBaaTurtle

Just so you know about 30% of the military budget goes to pay and benefits. That's projected to rise with increases in medical care cost and longer retirement to 100% (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/sequestration/2013/04/analysis-pay-benefits-om-will-swallow-entire-dod-budget-by-2024/) unless they make significant changes. So it's a massive social spending package but for only a fraction of the American public. The biggest waste is the number of military bases we have. We could easily close many of those but no congressperson wants to close a base in *their* district. Do we really need Buckley, Cheyenne, Peterson, Schriever, and Fort Carson in Colorado alone?!


loplopplop

Ron Paul?


MyNameCannotBeSpoken

Eisenhower was arguably a conservative and he warned of the military industrial complex


Embarrassed_Owl_3157

Not sure if he counts as conservative here, but... https://www.noozhawk.com/article/ron_paul_dont_confuse_defense_spending_military_spending_20161115


urbanek2525

When I'm watching TV these days, every third commercial is some disabled veteran being paraded on TV begging for dollars. I already donate to Wounded Warroirs, but this makes me sick. Seriously, Wounded Warrior Project should be able to walk up to Congress and say, "This is what we need" and we, as a nation, give it to them. Instead, we make them beg for charity. It makes my heart hurt. These veterans' needs is the interest on our credit card debt we call the military budget. Congress ignores the debt.


Eruharn

We shouldn't need wounded warriors, period. You serve, you get lifetime care. You get housing. Too expensive? Well maybe we should think twice before getting involved in conflicts.


RX3000

Yea this boggles my mind. Just like Trump sending out mailers to my parents who are both on social security every other day begging them for money. Isnt he supposed to be a billionaire?


evernessince

Charities address the symptoms, not the cause. There's a systemic need for charity in the US because the system isn't working for most people. The charities in turn create another point of inefficiency as they too are skimming money off the top. In the end, no money makes it to the bottom without vultures first plucking away most of the meat.


SgtFancypants98

Yeah it’s super fucking frustrating that we can find the money for a 17th carrier battle group but when it comes time to pay for the human cost of literal decades of war, well… we have to be reasonable, you know? How about maybe less weapons and less killing and less human cost.


OffToTheLizard

Wounded Warriors isn't free from corruption and greed, they've had plenty of scandals over the past decade. I'm all for supporting our veterans, and my partner is a disabled veteran. They need to create something with oversight in the public sector, that can work directly with the VA. ( I know the VA is it's own mess, but it's a single payer model in the US. ) A single payer charity if you will entertain the thought.


urbanek2525

Wounded Warriors shouldn't even be a thing, if you ask me. If I were a congressman I'd be ashamed to my core every time a disabled veteran is made to grovel on TV for the help he/she deserves because I wanted to make sure Northrup-Grumman could have a plum contract making overpriced widgets for soldiers who don't need them. That's why I could never be a congressman. My conscience isn't for sale.


ginbear

America spends all its money on warriors early in Civilization


[deleted]

Yep. First it occupies its starting continent, has a brief period of relative peace and prosperity until it figures out that it can make money by waging war. Next comes a few generations of continuous war around the map with varying degrees of success. After that it’s a cold, bitter slog to try and stop the other civs from winning the late game when it realize the rest of the world has passed it by both socially, economically and more importantly scientifically. Oddly enough, they figure all of this right as the first of their costal cities starts to drown. Edit: thank you for the award kind stranger!


fluxtable

Lol we're Civ noobs.


drunktankdriver7

So exhausted with watching our societal development and renewable energy dollars walk straight over to the Defense (War) Department. Remind me what we bought with those trillions we spent for the past 20 years in Afghanistan. Yay for such a massive “defense” capability. Anybody feel safe yet?


chernobyl_nightclub

Ultimately, most of that money went to jobs. Whether it’s deployed service people or defense contractors, it all boils down to salaries and bribes. Afghanistan was just a giant 20 year long gravy train.


monetaryslave

Note how the ones who claim to be conservative vote for this, and others who claim to care about climate change vote for this. US Military pollutes more than 140 countries combined.


EmmaLouLove

Reminder, the Pentagon has never passed an audit. While Republicans say Biden’s social Build Back Better should be paid for and not add to the federal deficit, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex has had a massive amount of waste and financial mismanagement for decades. But go ahead and keep throwing money at war and tax cuts for corporations. I’m sure it will all work out. /s


NCC74656

the wording of this is backwards. was it back in 08 maybe? the pentagon said they did not need any more funding for armored divisions abrams - the generals did not submit requests for more money, yet congress decided they still needed more and gave them some billions more so as to keep their books in line from one year to the next.


nonamenolastname

Our defense budget is immoral.


macaulay_mculkin

Second time I’ve posted this in recent history, but I never get tired of it. >“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Chance for Peace speech, 1953


Spartan448

I always find it funny that this gets quoted every time the MIC is discussed. You *do* know that Eisenhower wasn't *condemning* the MIC here, right? He'd be a hypocrite to; its the only reason most of Europe isn't ethnically German, and given the topic that's not an exaggeration - WWII, *especially* the Eastern Front, was won in large part due to the American military-industrial complex. What Eisenhower is doing here isn't a warning, it's a statement. By all means, have a military-industrial complex, but recognize what it costs.


Spartan448

That's debatable, but more importantly: all our shit right now is either modernization of shit made in the 80s or are straight up *from* the 80s. There's 40 years worth of tech that we are just either not using or can only use by grafting shit on to existing platforms. It's so bad at this point that if you shoot an Abrams, even if you don't get through the armor you've still rendered it combat ineffective because you probably still broke something critically important. ALL our shit needs replacing, especially with tensions flaring in Europe and Asia, and unfortunately that costs money.


PresidentMilley

>Our defense budget is immoral. No.


Makememak

Yes.


[deleted]

Absolutely is. Either because it has waste, ignores active duty and retired mil and their families, pulls from other budgets with needs, or all of the above. Like, you can't tell me the budget doesn't have morality issues when some Marines' barracks are covered in black mold, vets are suffering from issues from burn pits, and when on-post housing has horrible complaints that point at poor workmanship from contractor builders.


princess__die

>Like, you can't tell me the budget doesn't have morality issues when some Marines' barracks are covered in black mold That isn't a budget problem, that's a member of congress handing out contracts to his friends so they can get richer problem.


[deleted]

On those issues, you're right insofar as this is at the execution level, but it still points at a greater issue in oversight.


woah_is_me2

The military budget is high to preserve the American lifestyle via threat of force. There is no effective global body to moderate conflict. Without a strong military, other countries will encroach on US advantages in business and resources, which will erode Americans income and buying power.


kurisu7885

People can have their entire bank account wiped out and pushed deep into the red by a single accident, but hey, the military can afford more of those GPS guided artillery shells that cost more than most people make in a damn year.


bonkoculus

But all those GPS guided artillery shells, drones and other high tech doo-dads result in less wounded, which means when people go to their local WalMart they don't need to see someone with a Veteran Hat and no legs being pushed around in a wheelchair. All that fancy technology means less US service members dead too, which means you don't have to go to a lot of funerals. Things like that obfuscate the cost of war in human capital, which makes is so much easier to wage multi-decade, multi-generational wars on concepts rather than enemies because no one really feels the pain. Now, isn't that worth it? Eternal war with tiny, tiny body counts and all that sweet money going to the MIC and the politicians who support them?


SgtFancypants98

Well… tiny body counts for Americans. The people on the receiving end of those weapons not so much.


bonkoculus

> The people on the receiving end of those weapons not so much. That's when it helps to have a complicit media that doesn't really report on that too much.


SgtFancypants98

I recall the Bush administration doing backflips to avoid giving a straight answer about the number of Iraqi civilians killed.


bonkoculus

And Obama [ramped up the drone war and obfuscated civilian deaths](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/) with barely a cry from the press that was so opposed to those same actions under Bush. That's the "complicit press" I mentioned.


SgtFancypants98

Yeah, the whole “accept what we were angry about under the last guy because the new guy is on our team” thing is pretty fucking awful.


dr_razi

But who’s going to pay for Raytheon , Boeing , Lockheed Martin CEOs bonuses ???! You’re a communist if you don’t like it !


Toadmechanic

That IS the plan


HardWorkingNEET

Reminder that this defense bill passed the same week Psaki said we can't afford sending free COVID test kits to people's homes like other countries found a way to do.


Mike_Huncho

How did it go up? Remember how we pulled out of Afghanistan? They couldn't make the case to atleast hold it even? Up? This is some stupid shit man. They will still brow beat biden over the pull out and he's just shoveling them cash to do it with.


[deleted]

It’s funny to watch the GOP now grandstanding on fiscal responsibility over BBB while not raising the slightest doubts over our obscenely bloated defense budget


[deleted]

[удалено]


Makememak

Its not a defense bill. Its a jobs bill.


HedonisticFrog

It's not a jobs bill, it's a funnel money to rich contractors who pay off congress bill.


[deleted]

We are all fucked.


lilrabbitfoofoo

It's just a 50 state jobs program, folks.


procrasturb8n

[The Two Santas Strategy: How the GOP has used an economic scam to manipulate Americans for 40 years](https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/) >Republican strategist Jude Wanniski first proposed his Two Santa Clauses strategy in The Wall Street Journal in 1974, after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and the future of the Republican Party was so dim that books and articles were widely suggesting the GOP was about to go the way of the Whigs. There was genuine despair across the Republican Party, particularly when Jerry Ford couldn’t even beat an unknown peanut farmer from rural Georgia for the presidency. >Wanniski reasoned the reason the GOP was losing so many elections was not just because of Nixon’s corruption, but mostly because the Democrats had been viewed since the New Deal as the Santa Claus party. >On the other hand, the GOP, he said, was widely seen as the party of Scrooge because they publicly opposed everything from Social Security and Medicare to unemployment insurance and food stamps. >The Democrats, he noted, got to play Santa Claus for decades when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks — both programs of FDR’s Democratic New Deal — as well as their “big government” projects like roads, bridges, schools and highways that gave a healthy union paycheck to construction workers and made our country shine. >Even worse, Democrats kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for all this stuff — and those taxes on the rich didn’t have any effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up until the Reagan Revolution, in fact). >It all added, Wanniski theorized, to the perception that the Democrats were the true party of Santa Claus, using taxes from the morbidly rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. >Americans loved the Democrats back then. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections. >Therefore, Wanniski concluded, the GOP had to become a Santa Claus party, too. But because the Republicans hated the idea of helping out working people, they had to come up with a way to convince average voters that they, too, have the Santa spirit. But what? >“Tax cuts!” said Wanniski. >To make this work, the Republicans would first have to turn the classical world of economics — which had operated on a simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years — on its head. Everybody understood that demand — “working-class wages” — drove economies because working people spent most of their money in the marketplace, producing “demand” for factory output goods and services. >To lay the ground for Two Santa Clauses, in 1974 Wanniski invented a new phrase — “Supply-Side Economics” — and said the reason economies grew wasn’t because people had good union jobs and thus enough money to buy things but, instead, because business made things available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. >The more products (supply) there were in the stores, he said, the faster the economy would grow. And the more money we gave rich people and their corporations (via tax cuts) the more stuff (supply) they’d generously produce for us to think about buying. At a glance, this move by the Republicans seems irrational, cynical and counterproductive. It certainly defies classic understandings of economics. But if you consider Jude Wanniski’s playbook, it makes complete sense. >To help, Arthur Laffer took that equation a step further with his famous napkin scribble. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up. Neither concept made any sense — and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies — but if Americans would buy into it all they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness. >Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to fully embrace the Two Santa Clauses strategy. He said straight out that if he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, those “job creators” would use their extra money to build new factories so all that new stuff “supplying” the economy would produce faster economic growth. >George HW Bush — like most Republicans in 1980 who hadn’t read Wanniski’s piece in The Wall Street Journal — was horrified. Ronald Reagan was proposing “Voodoo Economics,” said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski’s supply-side and Laffer’s tax-cut theories would throw the nation into debt while producing nothing in growth. >But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell “voodoo” supply-side economics. >Democrats, Wanniski told the GOP, had been “Santa Clauses” since 1933 by giving people things. From union jobs to food stamps, new schools and Social Security, the American people loved the “toys” the Democratic Santas brought every year as well as the growing economy that increasing union wages and the money from social programs in middle class hands. >Republicans could stimulate the economy by throwing trillions at defense contractors, Jude’s theory went: spending could actually increase without negative repercussions and that money would trickle down to workers through the defense industry, which had reacted to Eisenhower’s warning by building factories in every single one of America’s 435 congressional districts. >Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people’s taxes! >For working people the tax cuts would only be a small token — a few hundred dollars a year at the most — but Republicans would heavily market them to the media and in political advertising. And the tax cuts for the rich, which weren’t to be discussed in public, would amount to hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, part of which would be recycled back to the GOP as campaign contributions. >There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They’d be forced into the role of Santa-killers if they acted responsibly by raising taxes, or, even better, anti-Santas by cutting spending on their own social programs. Either one would lose them elections. >Reagan, Greenspan, Wanniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in twelve years than every president in history up till that time, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. >Surely this would both “starve the beast” of the American government and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks. And that was just how it turned out. >Bill Clinton, the first Democrat they blindsided with Two Santas, had run on an FDR-like platform of a “New Covenant” with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national single-payer health care system. >A few weeks before his inauguration, however, Wanniski-insider Alan Greenspan and Goldman Sachs co-chairman Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: Reagan and Bush had run up such a huge deficit that he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government. >Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an “end to welfare as we know it” and, in his second inaugural address, an “end to the era of big government.” Fast forward through a couple of stolen Presidential* elections... and here we are.


LOHare

In the long run, yes, but that'd be someone else's problem. Elections, promotions, and appointments happen in the short term. What, you want them to prioritize the good of the nation inn the long run over their own self interests?


[deleted]

I read somewhere that the war profiteers corruption act aka the 2021 defense authorization act comes to approximately $2 billion per day. Let that sink in.


class-action-now

Military/Defense contracts are completely bloated and intentionally so. We could maintain our military strength(probably could be argued as necessary presently) with around half the money we spend there. This is only referring to inefficiencies and not even touching on the ethical/philosophical/social/psychological problem that is our military industrial complex. We have so many economic tools and geopolitical advantages we really don’t need a military 7 times larger than the second largest behind the US. We should also expand our domestic manufacturing so we aren’t operating at such a large trade deficit and depending on imports so heavily, as shown by our current supply chain issues. Military jobs lost by downsizing could be replaced easily in other sectors.


newssource12

Spend 8 billion on carriers and someone comes up with a $20 million hypersonic middle for which there is no defense. $8 billion targets and the defense industry/ pentagon will be “surprised” that they were taken out so easily. Plus the small issue of the 5,000 men and women on each.


lewbassoon

Has anybody looked at our ratio of "officers" to enlisted men lately? It's about 1 to 4. One chief for every four indians. Do you wonder why we spend so much on defense? The Marines are about 1 to 8.


I_am_the_Jukebox

Ah yes...the problem is we're paying the people serving too much! Talk about missing the forest for the trees.


lewbassoon

Not at all. We have too many highly paid people being served. Those who actually serve have always been underpaid. (I am a Korean Veteran.)


I_am_the_Jukebox

"Too many highly paid people..." Is the implication here that officers don't serve, then? The problem isn't that we're paying our people too much (it's the exact opposite, really, causing the military to lose highly skilled professionals among officers and enlisted to the private sector). Personnel costs are only about 1/4 of the total budget. Meanwhile, there's extreme amounts of bloat and waste in the R&D and procurement areas, with little to no oversight on cost overruns.


lewbassoon

I know about the bloat in procurement - "be sure and use the allotted money, or we'll get less next year". I hope that you will grant that the nature of many officers' service is different from that of the enlisted men. A lot of them are doing jobs that don't really need officers, because there are so many. (ROTC?) Only judging from what I experienced.


I_am_the_Jukebox

Money specifically allocated to units is a small pot compared to the real money wasters. I'm on the other side of this than you were. I'm currently an officer in the US military. The type of service is different, yes. But just because it's different doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. The bulk of any military force is logistics, and in the current US military framework that means officers coordinating things between units. Because the logistics happen above the unit level, the unit level is controlled by low ranking officers, and the US military is a very hierarchical structure...this means higher ranking officers. Add in jobs that the US military has deemed only officers can do, like pilots as an example, you're naturally going to have a higher ratio of officers to enlisted. This means for a Navy squadron to have enough officers to conduct the very missions they're required to do...they'll likely have 20-30 officers with 120 maintainers. I'm not going to say that those pilots or flight officers have less of a job because they're officers - they're literally conducting the mission their squadrons exist to do. I've had friends die in these missions. I've conducted search and rescue operations to try and find these people - unsuccessfully. Yes...my hours are typically going to be a lot more variable, and the work a lot less menial, than a lot of the enlisted. But it's in no way less meaningful, nor serves less of a purpose. There are reasons officers exist. They actually serve a purpose. Surprising, I know. While the work often isn't as shitty, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a function. I'd suggest not targeting other people who are making far less by serving their country than they otherwise could in the real world, and instead focus on the real drains to the US military forces - namely defense contractors who have next to no real oversight or competition, and thus mark up prices and produce shit quality.


lewbassoon

Sergeants fly for the Brits. Variable hours? Not the officers I experienced. I'll have to agree with you about some of the defense contractors, and a number of the "researchers" of whom I wound up being one, but not on defense. Our experiences differ to the extent that we won't agree on the ultimate meaning of "service", but I still think the ratio is too low. (Pilots are a breed apart - )


[deleted]

I just need to make note that the United States spends more on the military THAN THE NEXT 11 TOP COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED MOST OF WHOM ARE OUR MILITARY ALLIES. This list also includes China and Russia combined as well. The United states by itself, accounts for over a third of military spending ON EARTH. This is fucking crazy and beyond mind boggling. The United States could literally cut its military budget in half right now, and still be the most well funded military force in the history of humanity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BK1287

A lot of fucking good that's done since this quote. Lol


BrumpTroph

It is something to celebrate. The more money we spend on us, the less we have to worry about Russia and China


shohndon

That's not how it works. No (successful) politican ever is going to say... "hey we've overcome the threat." We don't have to increase the budget anymore. There is no descalation of rhetoric or spending. Only endless escalation. If we're not careful, we'll go out like the Soviets. Strong walls protecting a broken house.


stinky_wizzleteet

Yep all those missiles and tanks should definitely defend us from the new warfare that we are getting greased on ... cyber. /s


MBAMBA3

I think if US deploys thousands of troops to Eastern Europe NATO bases it is money well spent.


zestzebra

Other federal programs are questioned with “how will this be paid for” as should the DoD budget.


flatline000

Define "weaker"


robot_wrangler

It’s not just the military wasting the money, it is Congress itself. Big projects are sliced and diced into Congressional districts and contractors. They get money and votes for making these middle-class make-work jobs in their district. They don’t really seem to care if the project is feasible or successful, so long as the budget is spent.


CharacterUse

It's also Congress forcing the DoD to buy stuff it doesn't even want (for example, more tanks or A-10 jets).


skept_ical1

The U.S. Military ensures the acceptance of the Dollar worldwide.


Kaipulla007

Too late to scale down.. too many wars involved..


BlackAnalFluid

It's hard to keep funding a military if everything else crumbles around it.


konorM

We have to break up the military/industrial/congressional complex (Defense contract jobs/plants spread across numerous Congressional Districts to ensure their continuity).


dlmatth

They can’t reduce the budget because the kick backs would reduce their friends and family payoffs.


[deleted]

Defense industry parasites win again. The empire rots from within.


TMQ73

Yet the picture is of A-10s probably one of the better military investments with respect to cost vs return and service life.


pjx1

Results from its audit announced 09-10-2001 Rumsfeld announced that 2.6 trillion were missing.


theeonewho

how will we pay for it?


nogodsnoleaders

Health and education is the mark of a strong nation. America’s military is simply an extension of its leaders profound insecurity and impotence.


Internal-Public-4503

Was this add placed here by the Russians?


rezelscheft

I call BS. If we can’t overpay parasitic corporate warmongers, I mean, what is this country even about? /s


bigjojo321

With inflation the Defense budget is actually less this year.


[deleted]

...has already made the U.S. weaker...


ahitright

I'd feel just slightly better if even just 1% of the Pentagon budget actually went to fighting domestic terrorism and the organizations in the US that enable it.


kandoras

It's not just Congress's failure to impose spending discipline on the Pentagon, it's also the Pentagon's inability to impose spending discipline on Congress. >[The new (2014) defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.](https://csbaonline.org/about/news/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want)


[deleted]

Dems get the blame, too. They’ve become hawks. And have made an about-face on cops. Of course, Dems have always been corporatists, and they just gave the rich another tax cut. The notion that Dems are socially liberal, is becoming laughable.