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 Budget Favors Defense

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I wonder if the new defense budget is made to cover the possibility of military action in Iran.

The budget in itself is troublesome.

While the congress has asked the president to cut on spending it seems that he is making the defense budget a priority even over all the other services that will be hit even more by this new budget.

Medicare Takes Biggest Hit in $2.7 Trillion Plan




The spending plan Bush is to recommend to Congress will call for the elimination or reduction of 141 programs -- for a savings of $14.5 billion --

In contrast, the president plans to recommend for the Department of Homeland Security an increase of at least 5 percent from this year's funding of $30.8 billion


Now will this means that Bush is actually making room and having the necessary funds for the possible conflict with Iran?



the budget will contain an increase of nearly 5 percent in the Pentagon's funding for next year, defense officials said. The $439.3 billion includes $84.2 billion for weapons systems, an 8 percent increase in weapons spending.



www.washingtonpost.com...


I wonder.




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Although I tend to lean Conservative in my political viewpoints, I am neither a Repub or a Democ...but this new budget worries me.
Not because anything is cut (the more that's cut the better, I am all for the privitization of EVERYTHING) but because so much is spent.

On the one hand, yes the US is in a very serious strategic situation right now. Something like 75% of our deployable force is already in the Middle East, which makes us very vulnerable elsewhere.
Thanks to defense budget cuts and criminally lax security procedures during the Clinton administration (not entirely Bill's fault, there was an attitude of "Who can touch us?" in the military during the 90's, so security on secret projects like those in Los Alamos were not what they should have been) our most potent projector of strength, the US Navy has been woefully reduced from it's mighty state during the Reagen , Bush Daddy regimes.
Chinese spies took alot of defense secrets back to China, and in corroboration with their new friend Putin's Russia, have developed new weaponry that is alarmingly up to par with our own.
(The shooting down of a US F-117 Nighthawk Stealth fighter over Serbia by a Russian Missile prototype comes to mind)
Bush sees things from a strategic perspective, and even though we could argue all day over how the "war on terror" got started (As in was it really a conspiracy for oil or not), that is honestly irrelevant.
Even during the so called golden years of the Clinton admin, the US was and always will be the target of those nations who have the most to gain by our downfall.
The recent (last several years) defense treaty between Russia and China opens a new era of unparralelled military and scientific cooperation between the two nations.
And although China is moving towards a capitalistic free market society, they still maintain the trappings of a totalitarian regime much like Nazi Germany did in 1933. Not that China is Nazi Germany, but any American Pres worth his own Presidential seal must look with a certain amount of guardedness to the new Chinese superpower.
The new budget reflects that. It does not allow for a war with Iran. Iran does not need the massive build up in Ships, subs, fighter jets, tanks and the extra funding to recruit more soldiers, that slot is reserved for a nation with the potential to actually hurt the US in a real war, China and Russia.
To be honest, the "War" in Iraq isn't really a war at all.
I know, I know, tell that to the families who have lost loved ones. Beleive me, with a best friend as a US Marine who has seen MUCH combat, I sympathize. But realistically this is merely a police action. Our casualties are extremely light compared to previous wars such as Korea, VietNam and WWII and although the expenditure in funds is massive, it is nothing compared to what a real war would be like.
Remember, the war in Iraq was fought to remove Hussein from power so as a Saudi freindly regime could be installed in Iraq. Never underestimate the Machievellian trappings of the Royal House of Saud.
This budget refelcts the very real fear by many in the highest echelons of power in our government (and I mean higher than our pres, the pres is just a figurehead really, he has no real power) of the possibillity of armed conflict with the new power bloc of Russia and China.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW
Chinese spies took alot of defense secrets back to China, and in corroboration with their new friend Putin's Russia, have developed new weaponry that is alarmingly up to par with our own.

First off, I see your pretty new to ATS, and in reading your post...Your a welcome addition, Since its a conspiracy board...its pulls in a lot of crazies.


back to topic:
What weapons are you referring to?
Neither have any good new bombers or fighters...or ships either...I dont see what they have that impresses you.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Missiles, missiles that can take out Stealth Aircraft like the S-300 we belive took out that Stealth over Bosnia a few years ago. The Chinese are developing a fighter with Israeli defense firms that is easily compatible with the F-16 and 18. The Russians are streamlining there forces, moving away from heavier armored units to medium sized units that are faster yet still very lethal.
I wasn't so much referring to the line items of the budget in general, just the fact that the different heads of the branches of the military prefer what people in the military call "Legacy Systems"
A "Legacy" is a weapon based upon the pretext that we will have to fight the last war, hence the Air Force's near orgasmic lust after the F-22. Sure it's a sweet plane, stealthy, fast, agile...and totally useless to the kinds of wars we face in the future.
The Navy has always been pressing for more ships, frankly we need more. But so much more warships as we need transports and merchant marines. Bush mentioned in a speech I watched on both MSNBC and Fox NEws that eh intended to build more cruisers and subs for the navy....what the hell for?
Every system we have now can defeat anything Iran, Russia or China have. True, within ten to fifteen years that may change and the Russians and Chinese are spending more per capita on R&D then we are. But the F-14 and F-16 are far more superior then anything in the Russian/Chinese arsenal save for the small numbers of working Su-27, Su-31 and Mig-29's they haven't sold to despots like North Korea. (Or Iran.)
We do need a bigger military, but one that's more streamlined and conducive to fighting wars then driving around the Mojave desert with giant tanks that are too heavy to be shipped anywhere before the year of the Zurn invasions of 2077.
I wasn't inferring that this new expenditure on "Legacy" weapons systems is what I wanted, It's what the Pentagon historicaly throws it's money away after.
Although not in the military myself (pre-diabetic, they can't take me, hard to stop a firefight every two hours so I can injest thirty grams of protein) I have a sort of passion for this strategic policy stuff. I would love ot see a larger military built around more combat units that are smaller, more easily deployable and able to hold off the baddies until the slow heavy battalions can get there.
As it is I think the Pentagon is going to waste the budget Bush is handing them on sexy looking but useless projects such as the Crusader howitzer system and the F-22 and stealth battleships. (For Christ sakes our aircraft carriers do the work of any battle fleet.)
Look at Kosovo, (it was there the Serbs brought down a Stealth aircraft) we went in beleiving that air power would save the day. Instead we learned that without adequate forces on the ground, our air power was worthless. Sure our laser guided bombs could take out any T-55 ever made...but you had to find the damn things first. Air power couldn't detect or stop a massacre in a wooded ravine, and in one occasion that I remember it caused many civillian casualties.
I do beleive that the Russkies, Chinese etc.... are scurrying to build new systems to combat our own. But that's almost a decade off, in the meantime we need to reorganize the military to fight the small unit wars like we have in Iraq.
Sorry if I went off topic.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by SpecAgentDW]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
While the congress has asked the president to cut on spending it seems that he is making the defense budget a priority even over all the other services that will be hit even more by this new budget.


Defense, at least since Reagan, has always been a priority. Reagan spent trillions to fight a cold war. Now we spend billions for what? $450 billion is a lot of money, why can't we make college/university education free? We could if we spent half that towards the goal. But who wants that? Free education? That's liberal left wing propaganda right there and them's fightin' words!



Medicare Takes Biggest Hit in $2.7 Trillion Plan


No surprise there.
You must remember that Republicans are fiscally responsible, and that $2.7 trill is a drop in the bucket.





I wonder.


From what I have heard, the US fed budget for FY 1995 (the year Rep. took control) was $1.5~ billion. Crast, is inflation really that bad or are Rep. just some of the biggest hippocrates, not to begin to mention the numerous Dem. who support the worthless spending.

Look at the distribution of money for DHS, insane! We hava an FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, NORAD, Army, Navy, and an Air Force, and all that isn't enough? Politicians are morons. 'Yes, the more we spend and the more beurocratic nonsense we create, the safer we are.' What? Hahaha, c'mon, that is a a lot of money, especially for someone like the CIA who PASSED ON Vasili Mitrokhin, 'Sorry, sir, we do not want your thousands of pages of sensitive intellegence information from the former Soviet Union, some of which may hold information about current spies at the CIA! It might "offend" the Russians.' Crap, we are all doomed!

The research for science looks bleak, most the science funds are 'weapon sciences'. Woo hoo, more nukes! Yeaaah! I guess we need to start some wars in order to justify the spending. Will the public tolerate $500 billion a year for defense if we aren't at war with somebody? No!



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I would love to see more money spent on science in order to brighten up the morons of my generation who will take over this country and have to deal with the superpower of China.
The DHS is a huge waste of money, we could have easily got a better co-ordinated intelligence apparatus without the need for another department just so one of Bush's friends could have another job and to ensure that another Pres gets to have one more of his friends have a job too.
By the way Frosty, is that Jimmy Paige in your avatar?



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Will the public tolerate $500 billion a year for defense if we aren't at war with somebody? No!

Yes.

But if ya wanna think technical...the war on terrorism seemingly has no end.

The problem is that every branch of the military is doing there BIG programs, at the same time. Like the USAF want F-22's & F-35's, and they want a new bomber, the Army is pushing is hugely expensive FCS program, and the Navy has the DD(X) and the future stealthy carriers.

Frosty, are you trying to give Dems a good name by bashing Reps? Clinton was a pretty poor president...People look back at the stats and notice that he actually was getting us out, instead of further in debt...but at what price? Since he sold top secret info to China.


I've never been a big fan of homeland security...I'de rather have a Border Security, which in turn helps the homeland. If I had the choice I'd make border patrol/ security a sizable chunk of the DoD money.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I too would like to see more put into the Border Patrol. A lot of the problems we face now are due to the Border Patrol not having all of the equipment they need in the quantity needed to do a better job. If I were President I would definately up spending on our borders at least 10-15 bln. for more personnel, training, and equipment.

On topic, does this surprise anyone really? I bet your jaws would really drop if we knew what the total was with the "black budget" included. My bet is it would be damn close to a trillion, if not more.

[edit on 2/20/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
double post


[edit on 2/20/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Great thread marg. Thanks


...The social services cuts are miniscule compared to the defense budget - but huge in terms of basic humanity. Especially with bird flu looming.

...Looks like the administration is positioning for another pre-emptive war. Maybe Iran, maybe Venezuela, whatever's easiest to sell I guess.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Thanks everybody for you responses,


I agree that the US need for defense is of top priority after the mess that was left from the Clinton years in which the military suffered a lot.

Also China is becoming a big problem with like SpecAgentDW said they are becoming more friendly to free markets, although their people is still under oppressive rule, but they are to benefit their own ruling class.

Also, at least I can say that when it comes to the private sector involve with big defense spending on government contracts is lots and lots of money that is involve.

I understand that all these are needed with the fight on terror but also the government is just getting bigger and with new agencies is more budgets to be add.

But one thing that worries me the most like sofi said is that we may be heading for an epidemic in the future and what good will it do if we have all out spending budget in defense while the health care is suffering.

Unless part of the budget in defense include the possibilities of a brake of any viruses in our soul.

After all looks like homeland security is broader that we can imagine.

Still we are heading for a big group of people the baby boomers that are readying for retirement and many will not have enough money to cover for health care in their golden years.

I can not wait and see what the congress is going to approve or not from the budget.

But still I wonder if the future budget will have something to do with a possibility of another conflict perhaps with Iran in the future.

BTW the dealings of China with Iran of the possibility of drilling for oil is not a welcome news for the US I bet on that one.


[edit on 20-2-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
marg brings up a great point that I forgot about: the retirement of the baby boomers. I'm only 26, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that this retirement of the largest generation in American history is gonna break the Social Security administration.
Quite, honestly, I can't see how this can be fixed, especially in the very few years left before it happens.
As far as the defense budget goes, yes we need a large one, we're at war after all. But if you know anything about high echelon level military thinking (Military brat I am) you know that alot of political infighting goes into the planning for the budget proposals of the different branches. And quite honestly, 99% of what they want is useless legacy system crap anyway. We don't need the damned F-22, even if we go to war with China, it'll be small localized conflicts across the globe for strategic points, not some grand offensive by one side or the other.
And no one has an air force right now that can tango with ours in the air to air department.
Stealth ships? Again, useless legacy system crap, we need arsenal ships not more damned technological wonders that never perform like their advertised.
And for God's sake, the Army needs to stop demanding bigger, slower, more heavily armed tanks and worry about instead, smaller, faster yet still lethal combat vehicles and for Christ's sake can we spend some money and get more protection (body armor) for our boys and girls overseas?
It's not too much ask, it really isn't.
As far as the bird flu thing, personally I admit I don't follow up onit (I'm not a bird) but I think it's a ploy by the media news agencies to ratchet up ratings. Everyone likes to be scared, and diseases are scary, and frightening stories sell advertisers which equal money which equal ratings which equal yet more money. There may be something to it, but I don't really know.




top topics



 
0

log in

join