It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Congressmen call for $1 trillion dollars in US military cuts

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:12 AM

US congressmen Barney Frank (D-Mass) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) are urging their fellow lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to push for cuts in military spending.

The congressmen drafted a letter to US President Barack Obama’s Commission on Deficit Reduction calling for a $1 trillion dollar reduction in US military spending. Currently the letter has ten co-signatories, but they are seeking more.

One area of cuts targeted is contract spending. Wolff argued that it is very realistic to cut contract spending and the government should consider doing so. Contract spending is often lavish and unneeded. Some expenses in military essential, but not all, he argued.

In addition to contractor cuts, cutting old Cold War era policies and programs would also save money. The US government still spends millions every year to get ready for "mythical war" in Eastern Europe that is no longer necessary to prepare for.

1 trillion is an extremely high number, and I dont think Washington will go for it. Hopefully there will be cuts, Im thinking a fraction of that trillion though.

I think Paul and Frank are trying to throw out an extremely high number, knowing Washington wont cut that much, but hope they cut atleast some of the spending. I forgot the name of that strategy. Ask for alot in hopes of getting aleast a fraction of the original amount asked.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:30 AM
$1 trillion cuts in the Military.

How and where would that come from. Obviously besides all the silly bombings of civilians for target practice. Maybe it will come in the form of reduced pensions for Military personnel. Instead of soldiers being able to live on the streets when they return to the US they may be forced to live in the warzones they are currently posted to reduce the trillion dollars.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by buni11687

Paul tries hard but the paid off pollies will never go for it...

Maybe they could save many billions by NOT arming Israel...

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:52 AM
They could save tons of money by ending the wars, pulling back to our own borders, stop arming other countries (to include Israel), stop over-paying for unneeded and often useless weapons, and cut contracts for services that could be provided by the military itself.

These are pretty self-explanatory, though I'll explain a couple.

As far as overpaying on useless weapons, the Pentagon will often order weapons only because it benefits the corporation. The general in charge of acquisition's will be promised a job or kickbacks if the Pentagon accepts the weapon,then they over-charge for that weapon because hey, it isn't really their money so they aren't worried about a "bottom line". Pretty much all contractors overcharge for their sales to the military, not just weapons. For instance, the Army will pay 2-3 times as much for boots, sunglasses, gloves, pencils, etc...

As far as contracting services, the military is paying for services that it could otherwise use service-members to do, such as cooking, paper-work and security.

In most of these instances where the military is over-paying, it is solely due to kick-backs and corruption in the mil-industry-complex. It's sickening but there is so much fat in the system, it's disgusting and the American people are paying for it, while only a few benefit.


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:00 AM
Frank and Paul clearly hate our troops. Why else would they propose this? They want to admit defeat in the face of the enemy clearly. I say triple military spending and don't stop till we kill every last bad guy. After all, they hate our freedoms. USA!!

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:02 AM
Yes, why don't we save money by a new method!

Stop murdering people!

Oh, I forgot, that is what governments love to do.

Sorry, no money saved.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:28 AM
They must have saw this...


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:30 AM
An average human being can barely comprehend one million dollars. One billion dollars is "really big" just as one million, to most of us. One trillion dollars is maybe "really really big"

If you were to ask a random person on the street "would you rather have a million times a million dollars or a trillion dollars?" what do you think they would answer? i think 99% would choose a million million dollars.

The spending and debt numbers have rolled totally of the chart, and i would call this treason. How can the government justify the fact that they are putting coming generations in so much debt that it is impossible to pay back and the interest will ruin the country?

It should be written in the constitution that taking national loans should never be allowed. Currently politicians only worry about keeping the boat afloat as long as they are in charge. What could be easier then just spend spend spend borrowed money?

[edit on 8/19/2010 by above]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
Frank and Paul clearly hate our troops. Why else would they propose this? They want to admit defeat in the face of the enemy clearly. I say triple military spending and don't stop till we kill every last bad guy. After all, they hate our freedoms. USA!!

Among economists spending at levels that you proposed is considered financial suicide.

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25–29% of budgeted expenditures and 38–44% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009.[18]

Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs in accordance with the law, outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays.[19] Military spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.[20]

For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP.[21] Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[22][23]), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.[21] Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor".[24] This calculation does not take into account some other defense-related non-DOD spending, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars, which has increased even as a percentage of the national GDP.

Tripling military expenses would mean that 69% of every tax dollar earned would go to the military... Or it means that about 12% of the US GDP would be invested in military spending. Ask the Soviet Union how that worked out....

But I'm all with you, anyway. We shouldn't endanger US troops while in the field. The best way to do that is not to send them to fights we have no stake in.
You could cut a billion without endangering one soldier. But we would have to forfeit our illusion of empire that we have grown so fond of.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:27 AM
There's certainly room for budget reform in the military and how money is spent.

However, We are a global superpower and have many economic interests to protect with many other nations.

Meanwhile, we spend out our ears on programs that pay people simply to exist and not be productive.

Military spending, at least, contracts work and research to be done - something that is far better of an idea than paying people to exist.

Of course, there's always another way to look at it: Would you really want a bunch of us baby-killing and fetus-sucking soldiers running around back in the States without a job? Obviously our only talents and interests rest in killing people - so what kinds of jobs would we create when we got back and didn't have any sort of income?

Just working off of the general consensus here in the thread that seems to postulate as such.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:28 AM
reply to post by Moonsouljah

Frank and Paul clearly hate our troops. Why else would they propose this? They want to admit defeat in the face of the enemy clearly. I say triple military spending and don't stop till we kill every last bad guy. After all, they hate our freedoms. USA!!

Im going to go out on a limb here, and assume this is sarcasm....very, very, dry sarcasm.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by blood0fheroes

Tis sarcasm indeed.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by buni11687

great! destroy what little military we have left.

frank needs fired and so does paul.

guess what people troops are out of iraq- now how much money will that save.

i cant believe paul going along with thing but i expect it

frank and paul we dont need no stinking military- lets add more entitlements programs.

neither one will ever get my vote ever!

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
Frank and Paul clearly hate our troops. Why else would they propose this? They want to admit defeat in the face of the enemy clearly. I say triple military spending and don't stop till we kill every last bad guy. After all, they hate our freedoms. USA!!

Strap your boots and helmet on and go over there big guy! You talk real tough about killing. Like the usual brainwashed rookie soldier that mouths off like that until he drops turds in his drawers when he sees real action in combat.

Talk is easy arm chair soldier.

You either haven't BEEN THERE yourself, or you have been HIT on the head without your helmet being fastened securely in place while there rendering you senseless.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:30 PM

The ONLY decent Republican on this PLANET!!


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by Baloney

Don't act like you're doing troops a favor, or speaking for them.

No one on either side of the fence can really say they 'speak for the troops.' And, quite honestly, everyone seems to like to use the uniform as a sort of poker chip: "Bring our troops home! No war! We love them and want them here!"

- It's what they signed up to do. Errant or not, it's their contract. I know a fair number of them don't want the U.S. to leave over there because of the work they are doing. Sure - they all want to spend more time with their families and less time in battle rattle, but there's a give-and-take with military service.

On the other hand - I can't say: "Don't bring the soldiers home and then have our children or grand children need to deal with a mess we didn't stay to clean up." - It's still trying to use the uniform as a pawn.

Remember that our military is entirely volunteer.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:55 PM
i can cut your budget by 90% the feds stayed within the constitutional restrictions and the states will do just fine.

However that is not going to happen.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:15 PM
a trillion isnt enough.
pull all the troops home and let them train on the borders
cut the congress, senates, THE MACHINES pay by 50% and recycle all the military's waste.

sell everything thats not nailed down that has no further positive use, then pay the chinese off so we can get our country back.

and quit raping our natural resources by privateers

then let the people vote for government spending. not the congress and senate.

it will be something we all will take more interest in to protect ourselves from the government wasters

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:28 PM
Wow its kinda spooky turning the military into the whipping boy for the feds excessive spending. There are alot of other fed programs that need cut before the military. Like cutting the pay pension and healthcare of every senator and representitve. They should start by cracking down on people that abuse the food stamps and welfare programs.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:02 PM
Good. It's about damn time to do this, pull our troops home from ALL OVER so they can protect us here, regroup, retrain, re-equip, and let people breathe and heal.

Then develop a REAL strategy for fighting "terrorism." Quick strike forces and the like.

This perpetual war cannot continue. It's going nowhere good. Will jobs in the MIC suffer some? Yes. Maybe. But something's gotta hurt at some point, people.

I'm very sorry that some corporations and politicians bet their investments and our country on this. Too bad for them. Enough is enough.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in