backtop

Print 66 comment(s) - last by TSS.. on Feb 17 at 6:57 AM

Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II
The budget has significant funds for modernization of military forces

The DoD is set to ask Congress to approve its official budget for 2013 this week. The budget includes requests for multiple branches of the military and for research and development.
 
The budget has $47.6 billion earmarked for new jet fighters, helicopters, and cargo planes reports Defense News. The overall budget for obtaining new aircraft, ships, vehicles, missiles, and satellites is $179 billion. The budget has contingencies for modernization of the military with $109 billion set-aside for procurement and $69.7 billion set aside for research and development work. The overall budget is $25 billion under what Pentagon asked for originally for a savings of 12%. Even though the budget is less than what the DOD asked for, there is still no guarantee that it will be approved.
 
The entire Pentagon budget for 2013 requests $525 billion plus an additional $80 million for overseas contingency. The DoD is offering details about $259 billion in cuts to planned spending over the next five years, a portion of the $487 billion Washington wants to trim from the budget.
 
The largest chunk of money for the modernization program will be allotted to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II with $9.2 billion earmarked to purchase 29 aircraft. The Air Force will see 19 of those fighters and the Navy will receive 10 of those fighters. Money will also be spent on new drones with the DOD seeking $1.9 billion from Congress for 43 General Atomics Predator and Reaper drones. Another $1.2 billion will be spent on six RQ-4 surveillance drones with three earmarked for the Navy in three more going to NATO forces.
 

Boeing V-22 Osprey [Source: U.S. Navy]
 
$835 million will be spent on Lockheed Martin HC/MC-130J and 21 V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft will be purchased under the new budget with 17 for the Marine Corps and four for the Air Force. There's also a significant amount of funds allocated for new helicopters for the Army, who has been left out of modernization plan in a much more significant way than other branches of the military.
 
The overall budget for ground systems is $10.9 billion with Army getting the lion's share of those funds for new vehicles. The ballistic missile defense program is also seeking $9.7 billion for continued integration of the system into Navy ships. The budget has many more billions of dollars allocated for new missile systems, new ships, and new submarines.
 
The budget also has $8 billion requested for space programs.

Source: Defense News


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Biased much?
By Marlin1975 on 2/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Biased much?
By TSS on 2/13/2012 6:23:26 PM , Rating: 3
Considering you can buy your entire militairy again with social security spending, again if you count medicare, and again if you count the rest of the social programs. Compared to your entire budget, it is a small portion. Though not a tiny portion, either.

Compared to everybody else's militairy in the world, yes, it's frickin huge.

Yknow what it doesn't really matter at this point. You guys are headed for fiscal doom anyway and there isn't a damn thing either obama or the next guy can do about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_fe...
In the proposed budget, mandatory spending is higher then last years tax revenue . This doesn't even include DoD spending .

And before you get smart on me, the 2011 budget projected $2,56 trillion in revenue and got $2,34 trillion. For next year they project $2,63 trillion. rrriiiggghhhttt.....

Even in the new proposed budget, which has more cuts then will ever be enacted, you add $7.2 trillion in debt over the next 9 years. Meaning that if interest rates stay at historical lows for a decade , in 9 years time you'll be paying $680 billion a year on interest on the national debt. Basically you'll be spending the same as you spend on social security each year . And interest rates have to go up sooner or later.

There aren't enough caps, bold and underscored letters in the world to truely express how monumentally FUCKED you are. So i'd say, enjoy it while it lasts and go down partying!


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 6:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL Obama submitted a Federal Budget that was 107% of our GDP, and Democrats and Liberals are still bitching about military spending?

quote:
Yknow what it doesn't really matter at this point. You guys are headed for fiscal doom anyway and there isn't a damn thing either obama or the next guy can do about it.


Sigh...I know. The truth hurts.

We could always have another revolution I guess? Maybe this time we could make big government and socialism absolutely illegal. I don't know.

quote:
For next year they project $2,63 trillion. rrriiiggghhhttt.....


LOL well see, in Obamaland, they're going to get all that from a tax increase on the rich. Makes sense right?


RE: Biased much?
By MechanicalTechie on 2/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 8:02:56 PM , Rating: 3
You're saying military spending got us here? That's patently not true.


RE: Biased much?
By MechanicalTechie on 2/13/2012 8:08:01 PM , Rating: 1
No your Medicare system is also a massive burden... but this is about the military budget and how obscenely enormous it is... I mean does the US really need so many aircraft carriers? Or must they have preference to nuclear subs over diesel electric which are much cheaper and yet still very effective?

Believe it or not.. but without this massive burden your country would be in a much better place finically..


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 8:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Okay if $500B is too much, please tell me what realistic amount do you think we should be spending on it?

quote:
Or must they have preference to nuclear subs over diesel electric...


Are you fucking serious? Hey we could save a lot of money by switching to Sopwith Camels over the F-35's while we're at it.


RE: Biased much?
By MechanicalTechie on 2/13/2012 8:29:43 PM , Rating: 1
Hehe.. calm down.. it seems your too emotion to look at this without a bias option.

The US Military budget takes up an estimated 43% of the worlds combine amount... you don’t think that’s silly??? And Yes $500B is a stupid amount!

Also why would compare an electric diesel sub to a Sopwith Camel?

I think you should do some reading up on them... save yourself from embarrassing comments like that.

Think of it like this.. the Tiger tank was awesome.. but in the end it was the t-34 that won... why because it was easier to make and was cheaper... same analogy applies.. all subs are restricted by the amount of food they can hold...electric or nuclear...

Ohh and fyi the chinese make 3 electric diseal for every 1 nuclear sub america makes


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 9:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Are you in the Navy? Do me a favor and walk up to a submariner and tell him he should switch to diesel electric subs because the new ones are much better and his nuke boat just costs too much money. China's doing it, so should we! I think he would give you an education. You're embarrassing yourself here, not me.

This is armchair quarterbacking of the most asinine order.

quote:
Also why would compare an electric diesel sub to a Sopwith Camel?


Because they are both absolutely inferior in every way.

quote:
And Yes $500B is a stupid amount!

???

We spent $400+ billion on Welfare alone in 2011! Barely spending more than Welfare to defend the country "stupid"??

Defense is actually a Constitutional mandate at least. We're spending trillions on things we're not even supposed to be paying for.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 9:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
Also there is a huge difference you aren't looking at. The U.S Navy, whether you agree with the policy or not, is called on to project power anywhere in the world. China's Navy is required to rattle it's saber and intimidate it's less advanced neighbors. Huge difference.

Nuclear subs mean never revealing yourself from start to finish of the mission. Diesels have to go shallow several times to recharge their batteries. Running a diesel motor is noisy. Blowing ballast to surface to snorkeling depth and back down again is noisy. You'll be detected by SOSUS and even satellite based methods. Even just being shallow is higher risk because you're not in a salinity layer where sound travels slower and less far.

There's no way we could rely on diesel/electric submarines unless we go to a strict isolationist policy on defense. And there's just no way China's diesel submarines could cross the ocean undetected as our nuclear boats routinely do.


RE: Biased much?
By MechanicalTechie on 2/13/2012 10:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
But if that was true how was it possible for a Chinese (a crappy, cheap and outdated) sub able to surface only a few hundred meters from a carrier group at the end of 2011? Simple it just sat like a stone and waited for the fleet to arrive... Billion dollars worth of assets and none were able to detect it... or maybe it was incompetence of the crews?? who knows??? either way not really value for money

And actually yes I have two family members in the navy and it’s from conservations with them that has told me about why nuclear subs are a waste of resources...

And no nuclear sub is quieter than a sub on batteries... plus nukes also have the snail trail (thermal wake)... everything has its pros and cons.. But that’s not the point... when does it become too much... I mean hell.. why not spend a trillion then?

Fair enough that the US wants to protect its interests all countries do.. but at what cost? The world police like it or not are steadily losing influence and the sooner they realize this.. the better for their own citizens... The US infrastructure is becoming heavily outdated and requires massive funding... i wonder how much work could be done with just half of the military budget?


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 10:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i wonder how much work could be done with just half of the military budget?


It would just get thrown into Welfare probably. Might as well blast it into space for all the good it does the country.

quote:
But if that was true how was it possible for a Chinese (a crappy, cheap and outdated) sub able to surface only a few hundred meters from a carrier group at the end of 2011?


It was during an announced military excercize. The Chinese knew we would be there, and they also knew the exercise would cause so much noise pollution a 1980's boombox playing Paradise City wouldn't have been noticed until it was too late.

Basically you're saying that diesel/electrics are better because as long as you KNOW where an enemy will be, you can sit there and wait for them in silent running. Two can play at that game. A nuclear sub can sit on the bottom for months if it has to. Try that with an electric.

quote:
And no nuclear sub is quieter than a sub on batteries...


Which is a moot point because you're absolutely insane if you're now going to claim these diesel/electrics have sonar and electronics advanced enough to detect up a modern nuclear sub out of the background noise. Please, I DARE you to claim this.

I'll tell you what, let's have an all out naval war against the Chinese. Then you'll see how awesome those diesel/electrics are.

This is the dumbest discussion I've had all day. There are times when a low tech solution can be argued for. But submarines are one area where the case has been closed. Why in the hell do you think EVERY modernized country that could afford nuclear submarines developed them instead of diesels? U.S, Russia, England, France, even India. And yes, CHINA built nuclear submarines. Even Argentina and Brazil of all people have ongoing plans to develop nuclear submarines. Don't you think it would be cheaper for them to buy some diesels/electrics instead? Hmmmm I wonder why they want nuke boats?

quote:
And actually yes I have two family members in the navy and it’s from conservations with them that has told me about why nuclear subs are a waste of resources...


Rank? Post? While you're at it, ask them what's the daily special at the commissary for me. Thanks!


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 10:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I left out North and South Korea.

Why the hell do you think North Korea want's a nuclear missile boat? They want to scare the West with the threat of N.Korean built nuclear weapons being loaded onto a N.Korean made nuclear submarine. Diesels would simply get detected FAR before the launch point and they know this!


RE: Biased much?
By MechanicalTechie on 2/13/2012 11:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would just get thrown into Welfare probably

Thats just a sad indictment of the US political system if that was the case.

Mising the point also with the chinese sub... its irrelatent that the chinese knew where they were.. its more about the lack of awareness on the (multi billion)US fleet. Plus all sub have to return to a base... you gotta feed your men so any sub could wait at a US base and do the same thing... and of course vice versa.

As for the being able to detect modern nuclear subs? Who could know? That information would be classified so this is merely your opinion.. nothing more... no Navy would admit to such things as it would remove an advantage...

quote:
I'll tell you what, let's have an all out naval war against the Chinese
Oh please.. your soooooo missing the point of the article. Your nationalism is blinding you

As far as i could care... spend all your money on nuclear subs... waste your tax dollars... igorne your social issues at home, keep piling up your debt and forget about public infrastructure projects and another million other projects that help the average US citizen... your mentality is as long as your armeed to the teeth then everything else comes in second?

A fleet of diseal subs(just an example) can be just as effect as a smaller fleet of nuclear ones IF deployed correctly.. THAT is the point I was trying to make.

The world isnt so black and white sunshine..


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 12:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats just a sad indictment of the US political system if that was the case.


That's the way it is. Look at the budget JUST proposed. There HAVE been military cuts, but guess what? They are dwarfed by spending INCREASES.

If you want to cut the military, okay. But you're fooling yourself if you think that money will be "savings". It will just get put into something else far more wasteful.

I can't put it any more simple than that.


RE: Biased much?
By MechanicalTechie on 2/14/2012 12:16:06 AM , Rating: 3
As I read it the theme of the budget was to stimulate the economy rather than take the austerity route...

I'm not an economist so I can't say if that’s good or bad... but taking money out of a bloated military has potential for a positive outcome... it all depends on how competent the decision makers are.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 7:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
lol Mechanical, sorry okay, I'm not laughing at you. I'm just laughing at people who believe it's possible.

The truth is you cannot stimulate the economy of this country with massive Government deficit spending. It's an impossibility. It just doesn't work. This isn't a "conservative" talking point, but economic fact.

Small targeted stimulus, short term, is possible. But what we have now is massive amounts of money being taken out of the private sector, where true stimulus happens, to rack up unprecedented debt levels across the board. Normally debt and quantitative easing (printing out money) of this magnitude would cause hyper inflation. But we're artificially fighting that by forcing the interest rates lower. They've been too low, for too long. We're headed for serious pain later on down the road.

Obama is not interested in stimulating the economy. He's not an idiot. He knows exactly what the result of his budget would be if passed. This is also why he didn't let the Bush Tax Cuts expire 3 years ago despite his rhetoric against them and the fact that he could have killed them with no opposition. He's not stupid, he knows what that would have done to the economy and his reelection chances.

quote:
but taking money out of a bloated military has potential for a positive outcome...


Of course but only if that money is permanently cut from the budget. If we're just sloshing it around in the Government to another department, it's probably worst spent than if it had just stayed in the military.


RE: Biased much?
By Paj on 2/14/2012 7:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
You could always raise taxes? That's proven to be quite effective historically during times of austerity.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 10:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what the tax rate is when the budget is 107% of our GDP lol. I mean, we're talking trillions of extra tax dollars that are needed to bridge the gap. NOT going to happen.


RE: Biased much?
By rlandess on 2/13/2012 11:49:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Defense is actually a Constitutional mandate at least. We're spending trillions on things we're not even supposed to be paying for.


It's a good thing for you that there's constitutional right to be a raging imbecile.

500 billion is a stupid amount for defense. DEFENSE shouldn't cost anywhere near 500 billion. When is the last time our military had a purely defensive mission? We spend 500 billion because we're out stomping around in other people back yards and it's insanely cheaper to be the other guy.

We constantly fund the military as if we were being attacked by a competent adversary. We didn't succeed in WW2 because we had a large bloated military. We were successful because we had the industrial strength to scale our lean, efficient military quickly, to meet the challenge presented.

Why shouldn't we make cuts to the military as well as make investments into our military future. Just like we should make cuts to social programs, but not without making investments in education. The paradigm is going to shift in the near future. If we don't make careful investments along with all the needed cuts then our future budgets will be dictated purely by mere necessity.

500 billion is too much because we're borrowing money to maintain a military that assumes we're heading to war on two fronts with no allies. In what situation does that kind of spending ever make sense? If it was ever the case that we were left to defend ourselves without a friend in the world, then we would have f'd up in a profound way.

Everyone has a notion of what the budget should look like and which part shouldn't be cut. Your clutching to military spending is just as irrational as anyone else holding on to welfare or medicare or any other social program that is not essential to the day to day operation of the government.

quote:
We spent $400+ billion on Welfare alone in 2011! Barely spending more than Welfare to defend the country "stupid"??


How can you claim to be a rational, intelligent, thinking person when you justify military spending by comparing it to welfare? The comparison bears no fruit, do you understand that? Is there a mandate buried in the constitution that says military spending should be two times that of welfare? No? It's because in the best case scenario we shouldn't need to spend much in either.

You can try to blame liberals and social programs for our economic problems but you're dead wrong. Our problems are just symptoms of the erosion our society's values and ability to mend it's own problems. Bottom to top we're being led by idiots and whoever is not too dumb to understand it is too apathetic to do anything about it.


RE: Biased much?
By MechanicalTechie on 2/14/2012 12:08:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well said!

I was trying to portray a similar theme.. but got sidetracked with the blind arrogance of only nuclear will do.

It's about working within your means and adjusting to a dynamic environment without being stuck on one course of massive arms procurement.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 10:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear arrogance?

Okay I'm done with you. Our submarine fleet, and entire Navy, is the smallest it's been in modern times. You act as if we're engaging in a massive nuclear submarine buildup or something!

quote:
It's about working within your means and adjusting to a dynamic environment without being stuck on one course of massive arms procurement.


That's what we're doing! For the fifth time.

You know what, go write your Congressman or something that instead of investing in a slimmer more efficient military, we should just buy Chinese diesel subs. I'm sure he'll love that idea. Move over Tom Clancy, you're a real genius kid.

You guys just hate the military and are ignorant. Sorry but this is the problem. When the President tuns in a budget of 107% of our GDP, and you're harping on 500 billion and refusing to acknowledge the rest of our spending, that's all there is to it. Typical leftist anti-military bullcrap.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Biased much?
By rlandess on 2/14/2012 10:59:40 AM , Rating: 2
You missed the point. We didn't spend 53% of our GDP before WW2. When you're in a war it would make sense to have a bloated military and extreme military expenditures. The issue is that when we're not at war we should lower military spending.

quote:
This is the smallest the military budget has been in decades


It's not the smallest budget in decades. The 2013 budget would be the smallest budget in less than a decade. 525 billion is still a chunk of change when the world economy shows signs of further impending meltdown. You can't reasonably justify the amount of military spending based on what was spent on the past any more than you can justify it based on how much is spent on welfare.

quote:
And we ARE investing into a leaner better future military. What the hell are you talking about?


What I'm saying is that leaning the military down is a good thing. YOU seem to be justifying the existing budget. You seem to be against cutting military funding.

quote:
You're saying military spending got us here? That's patently not true.


Are you saying military spending doesn't contribute to our debt problem?

quote:
We spent $400+ billion on Welfare alone in 2011! Barely spending more than Welfare to defend the country "stupid"??


I would acknowledge your point if we weren't in the midst of an economic downturn as well as less publicized social meltdown. 400 billion of welfare, I can understand why the number is so high considering the fact that we've reached a point in time where people don't expect to be held accountable for their actions. Once there was a time when if you made a bad gamble you would starve to death over a cold winter.

We're in a bad place economically and we have a welfare system that's being heavily burdened by unchecked social issues and a bad economy. In what world does that mean 500 billion dollars is a reasonable amount to spend on defense?


RE: Biased much?
By Steve1981 on 2/14/2012 1:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you're in a war it would make sense to have a bloated military and extreme military expenditures.


Not to get too involved in this little spat, but its worth noting that we are in the midst of a war: Afghanistan. And of course until recently, US forces were also occupying Iraq.

What's worse, we've got one ally bordering a highly unstable regime (South and North Korea respectively), we've got Taiwan that we've pledged to defend should China decide to start something, and Iran is busy sabre rattling with the US and Israel.

Suffice it to say, there are reasons why the US is spending as much as it is on its military.


RE: Biased much?
By Nfarce on 2/14/2012 1:44:09 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you. But since these people want to whine about $500B being spent ( wasted in their mindset) on the US military, where is their whining about WASTING $860B on a failed "stimulus" bill that was rammed through Congress in 2009? The one that was supposed to "stimulate" this economy below 8% unemployment? Billions wasted on failed Big Green energy companies like Solyndra (I think the number is up to six failed companies now after taxpayer dollars were thrown at them).

All those "shovel ready jobs" that Obama later admitted "weren't so shovel ready." Cronyism. Porkulus. You name it. We have just witnessed how the government can waste nearly a trillion on so-called domestic stimulation. Again, as RC said, the government CANNOT artificially stimulate the economy. Yes, we've heard the Democrats state that that "stimulus" bill saved America from another Great Depression (biggest unsubstantiated cockamamie excuse of government waste to date). After all we've been through, what kind of idiot out there STILL thinks we can deficit spend our way into prosperity and restored jobs?


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 1:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Billions wasted on failed Big Green energy companies like Solyndra (I think the number is up to six failed companies now after taxpayer dollars were thrown at them).


Billions is a word that means at least 2 Billion and implies many more

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite...

Seems like Fox news couldn't even find .75 Billion in Sept. 2011 on 5. I'd be curious to see the 1.25 Billion since then?


RE: Biased much?
By Nfarce on 2/14/2012 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 1
Meant m illions, not b illions. My bad. All that waste and I got lost in the digits. But what's the difference at this level of government spending incompetence, eh? Solyndra alone got over half a b illion.

Here's the latest failure worth $118M: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/27/parent-...

It probably will be up over a billion before it's over and we root out all the cronyism for "Green Energy." Anyway, is a B vs. an M the only bone you have to pick over?


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 4:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway, is a B vs. an M the only bone you have to pick over?


Thats the kind of slip I expect from the government. 1,000,000,000,000 is much much greater than 1,000,000,00, Its 1,000 times greater!

But the point remains, the "failed" companies, right now, amount of less than .7 Billion (or 700 Million) of which some was wasted and some was not wasted. Out of how much? What's an acceptable failure rate? Do you expect anyone to be 100% perfect? Those are far more important questions. (You qouted original the stimilus as 800 Billion. .7 Billion is 0.087%. That seems acceptable to me. But I don't think it was 800 billion lent out.. nor was only .7 Billion wasted.)


RE: Biased much?
By rlandess on 2/14/2012 2:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mean to be contrary but I'd argue that Afghanistan ceased to be a war a few weeks after we got there and became a post war occupation thereafter. Iraq was essentially the same. We occupy hostile territory and take casualties as such but the enemy was defeated fairly early. Bush was essentially right (shudder) when the stupid "mission accomplished" BS happened.

The instability in the middle east and asia are serious threats but I think they are for the most part diplomatic issues. China is a real threat in that they are the next most competent military in theory. But our entangled economies would make it costly on both sides to fight a war with each other. Iran is a real issue as well as North Korea but they are on not threats that justify the spending laid out for the next decade in the proposed budget.

I just don't think we need to sustain the funding to keep the military ready to fight wars unilaterally. If we have an issue with Iran or North Korea we should go in when our allies are ready make equal investments into it.


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 2:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China is a real threat in that they are the next most competent military in theory. But our entangled economies would make it costly on both sides to fight a war with each other.


When a government is led by a small group of people, strange behaviours can result. Look at China's Cultural Revolution. I don't think we can assume China will follow a logical or sensical course until/unless they have a democratic or republican government that is held accountable to their people outside of revolt.

quote:
I just don't think we need to sustain the funding to keep the military ready to fight wars unilaterally.


For the past ~60 years, the World has been free of major wars. This is unprecendented. Something fundamentally changed in 1945 it seems that has kept the world from engaging in significant wars since then... or maybe something hasn't. If nothing fundamentally changed, the world is due for a major war any day now...

If something has... maybe its the emergence of a true world leader in military affairs?


RE: Biased much?
By Steve1981 on 2/14/2012 4:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't mean to be contrary but I'd argue that Afghanistan ceased to be a war a few weeks after we got there and became a post war occupation thereafter.


The semantics of it doesn't matter much; be it an all out war or an occupation of hostile territory, it's costly, both to maintain the troops on the ground and to develop the tools needed for that kind of mission. Unfortunately, its also politically infeasible for a variety of reasons to just withdraw tomorrow.

quote:
The instability in the middle east and asia are serious threats but I think they are for the most part diplomatic issues.


One can only hope they remain diplomatic issues. Nonetheless, diplomatic negotiations are traditionally easier when done from a position of overwhelming strength. If Iran is belligerent now, how much worse would they be if the US didn't have the ability to project overwhelming power onto their front door? Same goes for North Korea.

quote:
But our entangled economies would make it costly on both sides to fight a war with each other.


I agree it is in no one's best interest to engage in such a war, but stranger things have happened.

quote:
If we have an issue with Iran or North Korea we should go in when our allies are ready make equal investments into it.


It would be nice to expect support. Nonetheless, wisdom generally holds that you shouldn't rely on others.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 1:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
By that logic every dollar contributes to our debt problem. So let's cut the entire Government's budget.

quote:
What I'm saying is that leaning the military down is a good thing. YOU seem to be justifying the existing budget. You seem to be against cutting military funding.


I don't know what our military budget "should" be, and neither does anyone else on here. All you people are saying is "it's too high". High compared to what? I'm not against cutting the military, but the underlined message on Daily Tech has always been we should have NO military beyond an isolationist one capable of only defending our border. I cannot abide this sentiment when we still have troops in harms way. Grow up, the world is what it is.

quote:
You missed the point.


No I didn't. He made an incorrect statement, I corrected him. Don't defend lies because you like the flavor of them or agree with his premise.

quote:
In what world does that mean 500 billion dollars is a reasonable amount to spend on defense?


Again, people keep saying this without any backed up referenced figures about what they think it should be. I don't frankly know how much it would take to cheaply run our military, and neither do you people!

And please, stop talking about 500 Billion like that's still a lot of money. Thanks to Obama, billion is the new million. The new military budget represents a 4% decrease. It's the ONLY thing besides NASA that's getting a decrease. Everything else is going up, and you guys still want to cry about the military.

Do me a favor and answer me this. If we were talking about ANY other agency or expenditure, would you honestly have this much vitriol over it? No. It's only because some people have a problem with the military.


RE: Biased much?
By rlandess on 2/14/2012 4:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By that logic every dollar contributes to our debt problem. So let's cut the entire Government's budget.


Absolutely. Every dollar not spent towards future gains should be up for cuts.

quote:
All you people are saying is "it's too high". High compared to what?


Maybe it's an arbitrary comparison but our spending is 5x that of China. We should either be getting more out of our money or we're spending too much. Probably both.

I object to the notion that Americas projection of unilateral strength has been the keeper of peace since the end of the cold war. I think it's a myth that's propagated to justify the constant military spending since the cold war ended.

quote:
And please, stop talking about 500 Billion like that's still a lot of money. Thanks to Obama, billion is the new million. The new military budget represents a 4% decrease.


That kind of talk makes you sound like a tax and spend liberal your self. 500 billion is a lot, it's too much of any agency to be spending when our debt is growing as it is. We've leveraged ourselves to the point that if growth doesn't happen the way we want it to we are going to, as a nation, loose our asses.

quote:
If we were talking about ANY other agency or expenditure, would you honestly have this much vitriol over it?


Absolutely. I pissed that so little has been done about healthcare reform. Medicaid and Medicare take a huge chunk of the budget and something needs to be done about the underlying problem with healthcare costs. Social security is another problem that is bewilderingly left ignored. Dept of Agriculture?

There isn't really a place you can cut that's going to get me upset. What I get mad about is the acceptance of the status quo if the face of what should be a transformative period in fiscal policy. I had hoped that averting a financial meltdown would lead to more responsible spending and reform in entitlements.


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 7:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe it's an arbitrary comparison but our spending is 5x that of China. We should either be getting more out of our money or we're spending too much. Probably both.


Have you ever heard of Purchasing Power Parity.

If the US is spending 5x China, in real value, the US is spending -less- than China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPP2003.svg

Keep in mind, vast amounts of military spending are directly spent of US labor, which costs 5-10 times as much as Chinese labor.

quote:
I think it's a myth that's propagated to justify the constant military spending since the cold war ended.


If its a myth, please explain why the world has gone the longest period of peace pretty much ever in recorded history.

Its just correlation, but

In periods where one nation possessed significant military advantage in a region, there has been very little warfare.

In periods where multiple nations possess the same military strength there is consistent outbreaks of warfare.

I honestly don't know the reason or even have a guess. But I think its naive to want to drastically change this dynamic.

The US government has the fundamental duty to provide national security. It is spending ~3.5% of GDP (500 Billion/14 Trillion)... which when put that way doesn't seem way too far out of line in a world where the average is 2.6% and the US has the largest mission/most diverse to maintain national security.


RE: Biased much?
By rlandess on 2/14/2012 1:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
@Relaimer77

Let me clarify.

If you support military spending at current levels the I haven't heard you articulate your argument past a irrelevant comparison to other programs or past budgets.

It doesn't make a person a liberal pinko commie bastard if you don't support keeping military spending at 5x the next closest ally. I think most people who post on DT respect the military and hope to see new military innovation in the future.

I think what people take issue to is that in the face of eminent cuts to social programs the military is essentially safe from major cuts. Politically no one can ever propose serious cuts to "defense" because of the hysterical paranoia generated after 9/11. Now we're adding fear of China's military growth. Throw in renewed tension with Russia and we're set to run the country into the ground because there's no money left after soc sec, medicare-medicaid, and defense spending. If we could just make the cuts we need in across the board and not bicker about who gets cut where then maybe we can still avert a disaster. Instead we'll probably just keep re-arranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic...

The only countries who pose a real threat to us are currently allies and even if that changed we would have allies to support us if we ever went into war. There's no reason for the US public to be burdened with debt from being the sole instrument of word-wide security.

I don't think we're as opposed as you might assume. You seem to be against big government spending in general. I'm opposed to it when it's ineffective, which it generally is. So why can't we just agree that 500 billion is a stupid amount of money and leave welfare and historical budget comparisons for another argument.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 2:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think most people who post on DT respect the military and hope to see new military innovation in the future.


You haven't been around very long. Honestly they don't. Very few things are spit on more in Daily Tech than military spending. Cause, you know, we just go around killing "brown" people. (yes, people have actually said that here)

quote:
I think what people take issue to is that in the face of eminent cuts to social programs the military is essentially safe from major cuts.


???

That's just pure ignorance. The military is one of the few departments who sees fluctuating budgets. Clinton cut the military significantly, and we just cut it by 4%. With more to come in the passing years. The military has never been safe from major cuts.

quote:
So why can't we just agree that 500 billion is a stupid amount of money and leave welfare and historical budget comparisons for another argument.


I can't agree with that until I have some frame of reference. It would take a week of solid informed research to make a conclusion like that. I have no idea what our military "should" cost, and neither do you.


RE: Biased much?
By steven975 on 2/14/2012 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
A nuclear sub can go a million miles between fueling, and can remain submerged as long as you can feed the crew.

HUGE advantage in a sub.


RE: Biased much?
By yomamafor1 on 2/14/2012 3:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
In what regards that its patently not true? You mean the arm race against the Russians in the past 6 decades didn't get us into the hole? Or the space race against the Russians in the past 4 decades didn't get us into the hole? Or Reagan's "let's borrow to build more planes and bombs" approach to military spending didn't get us into the hole? Or Bush's "let's bomb **** up and start a war" approach to almost every diplomatic situation didn't get us into the hole? Military spending has always been a huge part of our spending, and to count that out as one of the chief contributor to our current budget crisis is naive to say the least. Not to mention in the past decades, Social Security has always never turned a deficit, and Medicare/Medicaid weren't eating the budget like it is now.

Don't get me wrong, I think all of the welfare program at this time needs to be restructured. At the same time, we really don't need to spend 20% of our budget on military so that we can always intimidate others when they don't follow our instructions.


RE: Biased much?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 2/13/2012 9:08:12 PM , Rating: 1
Pfft we'll just start a war or something. That should distract the plebs from those number budgetary...thingies. Besides what would the world do without us, besides getting along just fine? Who's gonna (yeah i used bad english because thats what we do here) keep the world safe from the boogermen out there? I like tacos...that is all.

Me for prez in 2016! I'll run on the platform of beer and bj's for all! We'll do away with taxes (no like we're our bills anyway). When other countries want to have an intellectual dialogue I'll tell to suck it, cause we're ammerikans, er, amerrikans? Ah fuck it.


RE: Biased much?
By priusone on 2/14/2012 5:47:08 AM , Rating: 2
It is sad that people actually agree with you. Personally, I don't agree with the fact that you think women should be raped, tortured and killed because they are not Sunni. Yeah, rape and murder those girls, just don't let some foreign power come in and press the reset button on their government. And before you go on some long diatribe about blah, blah, and blah, get off you butt and go there personally, instead of relying on what you are fed via the media. Oh well, another clueless person with a keyboard, mouse, and spoon fed opinion.


RE: Biased much?
By priusone on 2/13/2012 10:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
Export is big business. This research brings the US money when it translate into production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry


RE: Biased much?
By Marlin1975 on 2/14/2012 11:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
So we spend 600billion so we can "make" 8billion in exports. And by we I mean private business.


RE: Biased much?
By LordSojar on 2/14/2012 1:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
Here's the take home from the comments in this thread:

Military spending is mostly currently ok, let poor people die, don't tax the rich.

or...

Military spending is way too high, the rich are evil and poor people deserve everything to help them ever.

Did I cover it?

How about you both go back in your respective closets and come out in a few minutes with a plan that balances both needs.

IE, rich are taxed at a FLAT RATE with NO EXEMPTIONS, those under poverty aren't taxed and everyone else is taxed at a flat rate with small deductions based on life situation or occupation?

Military is reorganized to be more efficient with money and the absurd prices they pay for things is reduced. Reduce total military spending by 25% over the next 5 years via restructuring instead of reduction.

Welfare is reorganized to help those in poverty and a child limit is placed of 1-2 children for those in poverty, with free contraception being given out (cheaper than paying for more babies and increasing crime rate).

Social security is rolled back to it's 1965 status and eligibility, and additionally, those who wish to invest in private programs are allowed to do so by signing a waiver giving up all rights to claim social security later on. However, force people to either choose a public option (SS) or a private option (Roth IRA/IRAs, private pensions, stock options, MMAs, 401k's etc)

Create a competitive, single payer healthcare system that provides basic care to everyone with an opt out for more robust private insurance programs or the option to add addition coverage with a private insurer to augment the basic single payer system.

Gee, that was hard.


RE: Biased much?
By Ringold on 2/14/2012 1:59:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Gee, that was hard.


Good post, I could nitpick with a different idea of how to optimize healthcare and ask what happens if they DO have more then 1-2 kids, but small fry. The problems arent intractable by any means.. Just takes political spine. Obama formed a commission, gave them time and money to do their research, then totally ignored their reasonable plan. Instead, he drops this ridiculous budget yesterday that almost assures a Greek-style meltdown. So, he couldn't do it, so perhaps someone else will, either after he's term-limited or much sooner.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 7:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about you both go back in your respective closets and come out in a few minutes with a plan that balances both needs.


First off, it wouldn't change anything. And secondly, I would be called an "extremist".

You see the further we go down this road, the more "extreme" the solution is going to sound to the voters. And unless both parties, that means you Democrats, put the country ahead of funding every little whim and desire, we're borked. It's time to stop buying votes with promises to stick our hand in every cookie jar and problem out there. The Federal Government was never meant to do this many things at the same time. It can't, efficiently, do it.

I don't know how to do it, but to save this country we have to cut the Federal budget, and size of the Government, by 25% tomorrow. Immediately. Then another 50% over the next say, 5 years. No budget tricks, no smoke and mirrors. REAL permanent cuts.

People think that's crazy though. /shrug.


RE: Biased much?
By Just Tom on 2/14/2012 9:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
So basically what you want is moderate and reasonable and what other people want is not.

quote:
Social security is rolled back to it's 1965 status and eligibility, and additionally, those who wish to invest in private programs are allowed to do so by signing a waiver giving up all rights to claim social security later on. However, force people to either choose a public option (SS) or a private option (Roth IRA/IRAs, private pensions, stock options, MMAs, 401k's etc)


I am not sure what this even means. Are you talking about lowering the age when one can collect full SSI benefits? Cool we can all collect full benefits at 65. Or perhaps you mean that tax rates should be cut in half? Or do you mean that the income limit should be lowered to 4800?

quote:
Military is reorganized to be more efficient with money and the absurd prices they pay for things is reduced. Reduce total military spending by 25% over the next 5 years via restructuring instead of reduction.


Where exactly did you pull 25% from? Maybe a better idea would be to do a complete and total re-examination of what our missions should be, figure out what manpower and equipment is needed to perform those missions, and seek to pay for that in most efficient way possible.

quote:
Create a competitive, single payer healthcare system that provides basic care to everyone with an opt out for more robust private insurance programs or the option to add addition coverage with a private insurer to augment the basic single payer system.


Maybe because it is hard to square the circle of having both a single payer system AND competition. Sure, you can have expensive boutique health insurance plans for the wealthier citizens but for the vast majority of people they will be stuck with the government plan.

quote:
Gee, that was hard.


Yeah, it is hard. The problems are complex and not easily solved. People have different views on what government should provide.Running a corner bodega is hard, why should running the largest government in the world be easy?


RE: Biased much?
By The Raven on 2/14/2012 11:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Welfare is reorganized to help those in poverty and a child limit is placed of 1-2 children for those in poverty, with free contraception being given out (cheaper than paying for more babies and increasing crime rate).

You have heard of Planned Parenthood, no? And that is not the only place that you can get free birth control. So what are you proposing? That the gov't mail it out to every address in the country? I don't give a rat's ass about if someone has an extra baby. I just want them to be responsible for them. That should be contraception in and of itself. But what you propose is that have as many babies as you want (blame it on faulty contraception...what is the gov't going to do? Kill the baby?) and the gov't will be there to take care of them all. Wow that took me all of 2 seconds to crack.

What I do give a rat's ass about is if the gov't wants to limit my kid count to 1-2. Go F yourself (and thereby produce zero kids). If we had your rules I would propose that people that want to casually take liberty from Americans were limited to zero kids.

Other than this and your single payer mumbojumbo, you kinda sound like Ron Paul.

RP 2012+2016!!


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 1:23:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
LOL Obama submitted a Federal Budget that was 107% of our GDP, and Democrats and Liberals are still bitching about military spending?


The GDP of the United States is ~14 Trillion. Therefore, Obama presented a Federal Budget of roughly 28% of our GDP. This does not include state or local government spending of course. Since our overall federal tax rate is less than 20% of GDP, this is clearly fiscally irresponsible. But a budget more than our GDP is impossible from a practical standpoint. GDP is comprised of both private and public activites, it can not be less than 1 component.

But I am not sure saying the military should spend less is truely a "liberal" or "democratic" position.

The US military spends alot of money maintaining old outdated customs and equipment as well as wastes staggering amounts of money over trival product differences (One doesn't need to look further than our Air Force). I don't think for a single second the US military is immune to the problems facing any government agency and to wonder whether they are spending the money wisely is not a liberal concept.

To replace military spending with social spending, IS a Liberal concept. But I am not seeing anyone above you opinion -that-.


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 1:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the double post.


RE: Biased much?
By steven975 on 2/14/2012 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's a Progressive concept.

Liberal =/= Progressive.

Liberal actually implies giving your citizens maximum freedom in all matters of their lives. Progressivism doesn't...it forces people to give up resources under threat of force with the goal/end of helping others (though they merely subsist, unable to excel). The means sucks, though.


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 1:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hah, Steven975, Liberal=Progressive in the language of the US political landscape. I agree the strict defination doesn't match up, but "Liberal" clearly is used by all sides of US politics as a stand in for the actions you describe. Since this article is about US government spending, potentially the language set ought to match.

"Progressive" itself is a terminology from British politics, and doesn't match up with your description when looked at literal defination of the word.


RE: Biased much?
By steven975 on 2/14/2012 4:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
I know, but I'm on a crusade to take the word liberal back.


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 1:23:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
LOL Obama submitted a Federal Budget that was 107% of our GDP, and Democrats and Liberals are still bitching about military spending?


The GDP of the United States is ~14 Trillion. Therefore, Obama presented a Federal Budget of roughly 28% of our GDP. This does not include state or local government spending of course. Since our overall federal tax rate is less than 20% of GDP, this is clearly fiscally irresponsible. But a budget more than our GDP is impossible from a practical standpoint. GDP is comprised of both private and public activites, it can not be less than 1 component.

But I am not sure saying the military should spend less is truely a "liberal" or "democratic" position.

The US military spends alot of money maintaining old outdated customs and equipment as well as wastes staggering amounts of money over trival product differences (One doesn't need to look further than our Air Force). I don't think for a single second the US military is immune to the problems facing any government agency and to wonder whether they are spending the money wisely is not a liberal concept.

To replace military spending with social spending, IS a Liberal concept. But I am not seeing anyone above you opinion -that-.


RE: Biased much?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2012 1:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry bad terminology. I meant the new budget projects gross federal debt rising to $17.5 trillion. That is 107% of GDP. My bad, wish I could edit....

quote:
The US military spends alot of money maintaining old outdated customs and equipment as well as wastes staggering amounts of money over trival product differences (One doesn't need to look further than our Air Force).


Because it's cheaper than designing and contracting new equipment. Take for example the F-35. You can maintain scores of other fighters for what the F-35 development program costs. Not to mention every new fighting vehicle requires it's own parts contracts, maintenance, etc etc and other specialized equipment.

Modernizing and "streamlining" ARE expensive processes. I don't understand how people could think otherwise.

quote:
But I am not sure saying the military should spend less is truely a "liberal" or "democratic" position.


As much as you ride me about facts and proof, not a single one of these people have provided any math, links, or opinion editorials on what the costs of our military SHOULD be. They simply say "it's too high because I said so". This does lead me to believe it comes from the typical anti-military leftist dogmatic point of view. There are SO many other things we're spending money on that they could be complaining about.

quote:
I don't think for a single second the US military is immune to the problems facing any government agency and to wonder whether they are spending the money wisely is not a liberal concept.


I absolutely agree but they aren't "wondering". Look at their tone. It's hostile and anti-military. And anyone who disagrees with them gets trolled.


RE: Biased much?
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 2:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry bad terminology. I meant the new budget projects gross federal debt rising to $17.5 trillion. That is 107% of GDP. My bad, wish I could edit....


Yes, this an absolutely awful position to be in.

quote:
As much as you ride me about facts and proof, not a single one of these people have provided any math, links, or opinion editorials on what the costs of our military SHOULD be


The original post is this thread, now ranked -1, pointed to the opinions of the GAO, a non-partisan government audit agency, about the ability to assess whether DoD spending is correct or spent wisely. They concluded that its -impossible- to track this type of data. The poster concluded that its tough to swallow throwing more money down a hole without at least the Govnerment being able to asses whether it had the desired effect is bothersome.

An opinion we could all agree with I think...

Not really seeing the hostile and anti-military tone in that post. Nor any lack of links to "informed" opinions.

You jumped the gun at least in this thread. Its better to wait for them to put the foot in thier mouth. Reading the entire thread I probably wouldn't have added some statements since the anti-military people obliged you by sticking their feet in their mouths anyway, but the error on the GDP hurt my brain too much to have patience to read everything...


RE: Biased much?
By TSS on 2/17/2012 6:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
If you include state and local spending, The total budget of the US is ~48% of GDP.

Yes, $6.8 trillion. Did you know total interest on total debt was about the same as the entire FY2012 federal budget, or $3,8 trillion?


RE: Biased much?
By wewter on 2/14/2012 4:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
I had a serious LOL around my office ... dude's right.


Military spending doesn't bother me
By powerwerds on 2/13/2012 11:05:55 PM , Rating: 5
About our debt accumulation...

When I see articles about military spending and procurement, I think sweet thats badass I hope me and mine will not have to worry about our safety.

When I hear about social care spending I feel disgusting. I feel like with handouts people don't have to try as hard. They work less, spend less, contribute less, and take more.




RE: Military spending doesn't bother me
By Noya on 2/14/2012 12:17:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think sweet thats badass I hope me and mine will not have to worry about our safety.

When I hear about social care spending I feel disgusting. I feel like with handouts people don't have to try as hard. They work less, spend less, contribute less, and take more.


Yeah, super badass! With two huge oceans and weak countries to the north and south, I'm terrified the Chinese are going to invade! Zomg, a brown skinned terrorist is going to blow-up an airplane and kill a whopping 300 people! Let's spend another $200,000,000,000 to save them! (and line everyone's pockets in the industrial complex)

Sure, everyone hates the welfare leaches that pump out kids like they're having a litter of feral animals and lets the little critters repeat the process. But thank the religious freaks that would NEVER allow a strict form of population control, and of course Uncle Sam needs more and more on the IRS sheets. And the poor white-owned mega-farms needed all that Mexican slave labor...thank the lord and savior of "capitalism" Mr Regan for that one.

So let me ask you a question, do you think people going to college shouldn't be allowed favorable loans, low-deductible health insurance and even food allowances? How about if they don't smoke, drink, aren't fat and don't buy junk food? Oh, and they exercise at least 3x a week.

Or that old people should get Medicare? And we all know it's the elderly's fault that we have too many of them and that the pharmaceutical and health insurance conglomerates are full of just the nicest people who want nothing more than to help them as best they can.


By Ringold on 2/14/2012 1:51:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
So let me ask you a question, do you think people going to college shouldn't be allowed favorable loans,


Depends on if their degree is useful or not to the public, ie., liberal arts vs., say, engineering or accounting. One qualifies a person to flip burgers, the other creates an excellent future taxpayer. Public funding should result in public benefits.

quote:
low-deductible health insurance and even food allowances? How about if they don't smoke, drink, aren't fat and don't buy junk food? Oh, and they exercise at least 3x a week.


The only thing there that makes that monthly deductible more than a cell phone bill is the low deductible part. If office visits are cheap (usually $35), and the only likely issue is the common flu (covered by $35 office visit plus often free flu vaccinations) or a very, very low chance of catastrophic illness due to the persons health, then why the need for a low deductible?

A quick trip to Cigna, which insures in my state, shows that a fake 21yr old in good health can get $35 office visits, ultra-cheap generics at WalMart plus decent rates on name brand meds, with dental coverage, free vaccinations and a $5k deductible for $110/month. $100, without the dental.

Start jacking up the deductible, and of course it can get eye watering. But $5k in the event of a health care catastrophe with 100% coverage (up to some million-odd dollars) thereafter sounds very reasonable to me.

How much is an unlimited-everything iPhone plan? If health care is so important to them, perhaps they should be asked to consider their priorities?


By powerwerds on 2/14/2012 10:32:47 AM , Rating: 3
WOW! No I do not think people going to college should be given food by taxpayers no matter who they are or what they do, and no I don't think old people should just be given medical care like it's their right. We are really far apart dude.


RE: Military spending doesn't bother me
By Shadowmaster625 on 2/14/2012 9:04:57 AM , Rating: 3
So you think giving half a trillion a year to a handful of defense contractors makes you safer somehow? You're not safer, because every time they do this they increase the risk that you will get robbed, shot, and/or stabbed by one of the millions of people who never got included in any of this government pork spending bullcrap crackhead drunken sailor spending sprees. But just try making the average brainwashed yuppie understand that...


By powerwerds on 2/14/2012 10:40:02 AM , Rating: 3
If you think people are going to commit more random acts of voilence because the government didn't pay them out, even they clearly felt they deserved to be paid out, then thats twisted and you are wrong.

You can put me in any demographic you want I still don't think the government should pay for you to eat or go to the doctor, but just try making the average dependent social services recipient understand that...


everything looks great
By Samus on 2/13/2012 5:09:01 PM , Rating: 3
except for that $10 billion dollar influx into a ballistic missile defense program that will probably never effectively work

happy to see the Army isn't being left out to dry like they have for the last decade. a large portion of their surface vehicle and equipment supply has been depleted.




here an idea LOL, right...
By queuetrip on 2/14/2012 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
the "army,navy,air force and marines" are there so that the usa and to a lesser degree the world can "live free"... as in freedom not cost.
the taxes you pay are what is the payment for freedom... except the usa has racked up such a high bill that they have come to use the "ignorance is bliss" method of paying the deficit/debt. SO why not for the next 14 years every person in the usa in addition to the usual tax, pay 10 dollars a day, (300 million people lets say), so if you have wife and two kids the "bread winner" pays 40 dollars a day./
now thats 3 billion a day times 365 equals approx 1 Trillion, and after 14 years 14 Trillion dollars!... AMAZING the debt is paid off.

simple huh?, except the rich get it easy and poor get shafted...




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki