It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2007 DoD Budget

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Some good news everyone, President Bush is expected to request 439.3 Billon $ for the 2007 DOD budget. That's about a 21.9 Billion or 5 percent increase over last year. Funds will go toward R&D and the Army is expected to get a substantial increase to.


WASHINGTON - President Bush next week will request a $439.3 billion Defense Department budget for 2007, a nearly 5 percent increase over this year, according to senior Pentagon officials and documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

The spending plan would include $84.2 billion for weapons programs, a nearly 8 percent increase, including billions of dollars for fighter jets, Navy ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. The total includes a substantial increase in weapons spending for the Army, which will get $16.8 billion in the 2007 budget, compared with $11 billion this year.

2007 DoD Budget




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Honestly West Point I really don't see that as good news
The military budget is outrageous we spend just about the same amount that the rest of the world spends combined. That is incredibly excessive at the least. The budget is completely out of control and its beginning to have real consequences for our economy. My generations future is being mortgage to the chinese so our military can have all of these new toys. Know I agree completely that the army needs more funding. It is obsolutely disgraceful that our troops are still under equipt and not properly trained. Especially with the stagering amount of funding DOD gets.

I know what your thinking. That your talking to another left-wing commie. But your not, my brother and his unit went to Iraq and alot of his buddies got blown up. I voted for Bush twice(not because of his policies but because their was really no other alternative). But some sanity has to be brought back to the Congress and that should include cuts in all programs and to every government department with the exception of education.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Looking at US tax spending on the whole, the US outruns the world for spending on military. Oh and if you "voted" for bush because of no alternative why even vote at all? There is a point to those who simply refuse because they dont want to but then there is those who know that there is no point in it and dont cast a vote for that reason. Some will say if you dont participate what happens is out of your hands.... well its WAY out of the publics hand and always has been sooooo I dont see how "casting a vote" will change anything. Dont vote for the lesser of 2 evils, thats a death trap and brings about the end of democracy.... oh wait were fascist not democratic..... oh well you get the point.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I heard they are at $70 Billion now for military R&D. Almost to the $72 Billion that Bush and the Republicans want. I also read that the new chief of the Navy says they will aim for a 313 ship fleet. And that there will be no cuts in the number of planned F-35s, for now.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
*sigh* I miss the gold ole days when they were going for the 600 ship fleet. Now they make like 313 is big.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I don't think this is good news at all.


A better solution would be to spend half as much, twice as efficiently. There is such waste it's shocking, at all levels of the government and military. Billions and billions find their way into the accounts of defense contractors and ghost consultants, and yet soldiers on the ground can't get proper armor, or 3 meals a day, or clean water.

Obviously the solution is NOT to throw money at the problem. The solution is to demand accountability and efficiency.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Right on WyrdeOne. If we halved the budget we would still be spending more than the next three countries combined. Everyone keeps talking about the great tech the military develops. Well I would like to see some if that tech sold to american firms so it can then be sold to the general public. If we did that kiss that trade deficit good-bye. We could put the Japanese out of business.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
If you divide across all the US military personal (~2 million) that is an average spend of $220,000 per person.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

*sigh* I miss the gold ole days when they were going for the 600 ship fleet. Now they make like 313 is big.


I agree with that, but still 313 isn’t bad considering that some of today's ships are as lethal as 3 ships form the good ole days.


Obviously the solution is NOT to throw money at the problem. The solution is to demand accountability and efficiency.


I agree to a certain extent, accountability and efficiency is absolutely necessary for a business to remain competent. The DoD due to its sheer size and politics is sometimes horrible at both. However I don't see why we cant demand efficiency and accountability with the current budget that we have.


Well I would like to see some if that tech sold to american firms so it can then be sold to the general public. If we did that kiss that trade deficit good-bye. We could put the Japanese out of business.


Well if we sold that high tech to the public then it wouldn’t be high tech anymore, anyone with $$$ could buy it. You really think we should sell the Raptor’s computer system on the open market?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Lets break this down people:

Assumptions:
350,000,000 Americans
200,000,000 tax paying Americans
$50,000 Average income (15-25% Federal tax bracket depending on exemptions, call it 20%)
Average taxes paid per tax paying American: $10,000

Ok, the math:
$440,000,000,000/200,000,000 = $2,200 Per tax paying American
$2,200/$10,000 = 22% of taxes paid by tax paying Americans goes to national security.

OR

$440,000,000,000/350,000,000 = $1,257 per American per year for security.

SO?

It costs $1,257 per year to maintain this level of security and protection per American citizen, at the cost of $2,200 per year for each tax paying American (me).

Sounds like a bargain to me.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Honestly West Point I really don't see that as good news
The military budget is outrageous we spend just about the same amount that the rest of the world spends combined. That is incredibly excessive at the least. The budget is completely out of control and its beginning to have real consequences for our economy.



Geez, get a clue. The US devotes less than %5 of her GDP to defense.

The US economy did %3+ growth last year and today’s (2/3/06) numbers put unemployment at %4.7!

In the last five years the US economy has weathered stock market crashes, terrorist attacks, war, oil shocks, hurricanes and more and it’s still the strongest, most efficient on earth.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
What the military need are protective vests for every soldier. Instead of the soldier's parents searching oniline for them and sending them over.

Then these vests need plates in them. Instead of sending a soldier to war with a protective vest with no protective plates in them.

Then the Humvees need armour. Instead of soldiers driving around in "soft tops".

I'm only scraping the surface here. I could go into army vets and the family of soldiers and the rehabilitation available for injured men.

Will all this extra money go to good use? We'll have to see.


And another thing. Why the sudden increase AFTER the wars. That amount of money wasnt spent on either the Afghanistan or Iraq war (to my knowledge).

Is the U.S. preparing itself for a bigger war? Did someone mention Iran?




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yossarian
Is the U.S. preparing itself for a bigger war? Did someone mention Iran?



Absent some NBC attack by Iran, the US will not invade Iran; make book on it. However, America may attack Iran’s nuke facilities, but I think diplomacy will win the day with this one.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
In the last five years the US economy has weathered stock market crashes, terrorist attacks, war, oil shocks, hurricanes and more and it’s still the strongest, most efficient on earth.



american currency is propped up by oil trading becuase its done in dollars also lets not forget the almost 1+ trillion dollars of money which is stored in american banks by arab shieks from the middle east.

this "efficency" you mention today could disapear tommorow if arabs decide to withdraw there money and start trading in euros or gold dinar. i was watching a documenry about the middle east and an arab leader in saudi arabi said they could destroy the american economy just by withdrawing all there money which they keep in american bank accounts let alone changing there oil trade into euros.

dont get too cocky about americas efficency becuase it could disapear tommorow if the arabs dont like what your doing in there back garden.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

dont get too cocky about americas efficency becuase it could disapear tommorow if the arabs dont like what your doing in there back garden.


Yeah right, whose the biggest customer to those Arab states? Besides, we have more then enough assets in their neighborhood to kindly remind them why such a move is a bad idea.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah right, whose the biggest customer to those Arab states?


india and china are rapidly getting more and more hungry for oil saudi arabia just made a huge energy deal with india a few days ago. oil is oil and people need to buy oil and thats a fact it doesnt matter if america is there biggest customer fact if the world runs on oil and if you dont want it there is a line of people that do.




Originally posted by WestPoint23
Besides, we have more then enough assets in their neighborhood to kindly remind them why such a move is a bad idea.


the same reminder that you are giving to the insurgents in iraq? you guys overplay americas power way to much and think america as untouchable go against a nation with modern anti-tank missiles and shoulder launched sams and try to remind them of your power and you will be surprised as to how "powerfull" america is. fact is iraq had crap all in defensive capabilities no wire guided anti-tank missiles and outdated 80mm rpgs meant that american armour could roll freely in iraq without problems and no shouder launched sams equals american helicopters flying freely over iraqi airspace try and do this in a country that can defend itself becuase you wont most arab countries are very well armed with modern systems both AT(HOT/millan/tow/kornet etc..) and SAM(stingers/mistral/star streak/sa-18 etc..). fact is some countries in the middle east have so much money stored in america if they where to pull it out it could cause serious financial problems for america.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I cant think of any OTHER country that even attempts to provide body armor for the average G.I.

Waste and corruption can be a problem, but you should not suggest even for a second that our soldiers arent getting what they need. They have more at their fingertips than any other nation, from new weapons to body armor, to airstrikes.

I dont particularlly like the vast budget of some programs, but others are worthwhile and I dont believe many people "know better" on how to use the money when we buy weapons from companies. Maybe if arms industries were nationalized.....but heck thats not American...



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Sorry Raideur, but your info is just plain incorrect. Even Rumsfeld himself, the Secretary of Defense admitted that the army didn't have everything they need. THere are many, many soldiers without body armor and without armor on their Humvees, which makes them extremely vulnerable to bombs, guns, etc. We are putting our soldiers lives on the line far more than is necessary. Don't you remember the big flap about 2 years or so ago, there was a big scandal because our soldiers were not properly equipped.

I don't care how well-equipped any other nation may be; it still is just plain unethical to send soldiers out into battle with no protection, yes that's right, no protection. Some would call that murder.

Would you still feel they're adequately protected if it was your son or daughter out there with no armor whatsoever?

Not to mention the enormous risk of Depleted Uranium that we have exposed our soldiers to.

Second myth busted: The U.S. military budget is at least 19% and that number doesn't include discretionary spending, black budgets etc.
www.warresisters.org...

The INCREASE for 2006 is 5% (actually 4.8%)
www.whitehouse.gov...









-Forestlady



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Well on Monday the Pentagon’s QDR and Presidents request form 439.3 Billon dollars for the DoD budget will be sent to Congress. In the QDR the Pentagon highlights several key points about the future of the US military. The Pentagon has put a greater emphasis on building alliances and coalitions for future partnership in the WOT and for allowing more foreign forces to perform special tasks not well suited the US military. It also stresses the need for the US to train other forces in the world to be self efficient toward fighting terrorism, this would gradually decrease the number of US troops stationed abroad. It suggests that more US troops need to be trained in special skill such as foreign language, psychological warfare, and civil affairs. The report also states that US Special forces will increase by 15 percent from the already 45,000 strong force. The Marine’s will also start a new Special Operations force with an initial goal of 2,600 members.

The military as a whole would embed more officers in foreign militaries to help increase cooperation and understanding between the host nation and the US. The navy will also create a task force of small vessels that will be used to train and assist local forces in river and inland water operations.

No current big ongoing project will be cut; however the only thing I don’t agree with is that our ICBM fleet will be cut by 50 missiles, from an active force of 500 to 450.


Pentagon Announces Sweeping Defense Review

WASHINGTON - In a new blueprint for U.S. defense, the Pentagon proposes not only to build better weapons but to work more closely with other countries so they can do more to help win the war on terror.

The report, which takes a 20-year look into the future, will be sent to Capitol Hill on Monday with President Bush's proposed $439 billion Pentagon budget for 2007.

The budget, representing a 4.8 percent increase over this year's spending, eliminates no major weapons programs and includes an 8 percent overall increase for weapons, to $84 billion, for the budget year starting Sept. 30. It excludes the Energy Department's nuclear weapons programs.

The Pentagon report said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the importance of adopting a more indirect approach to the war on terror — "shifting emphasis from performing tasks ourselves to enabling others."

The U.S. has worked with other countries before. But the move toward cooperation contrasts with what critics say was the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 with a "go it alone" approach to defense and foreign policy.

One way the U.S. military would build new partnerships is to spend more time training other armies, navies and air forces, particularly in places like Africa where U.S. troops have not traditionally operated. That would require Americans to master more languages and learn more about foreign cultures.

It calls for expanding the ranks of special operations forces — the Army's Green Berets and the Navy's SEAL commandos, for example. They are trained in specialized warfare skills, like capturing fugitives and conducting sabotage, and they work quietly — sometimes secretly — with the armed forces of small countries.

Also, the Marines for the first time are establishing a special operations force, with an initial goal of training 2,600 Marines for that duty. The other military services have had special operations forces for decades.

Quadrennial Defense Review

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 3-2-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
Geez, get a clue. The US devotes less than %5 of her GDP to defense.


So what?

It's still like 35% of the budget, which is an absolutely insane cold war figure.


Anyway, this kind of spending is just insane - there's no other words for it.

If the DoD learned how to be efficient, they'd probably easily cope with $100Billion, maybe even less.

The worst thing is, the high military spending gives false beliefs to unintelligent people that the US military is mich better than everyone else's just because they spend the most money by far.

Well just because Bush requested this much doesn't mean he'll get it and I hope he won't.

I want to see the Pentagon budget slashed drastically and USA recovered from it's insane mutli-trillion $ debt.
Or there's no hope for the future.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join