Fear Mongering Over Defense Budget Cuts

So where the heck is nearly a TRILLION dollars going??

Defense company executives, where else?

Considering there is really no chance of any country in the world invading us, yes we can cut a hell of a lot of the military budget.

reply to post by neo96


So you must not understand the definition then. How can you be on ATS for so long and not know?

Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex[1], is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle.

The term is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors

en.wikipedia.org...

Defense contractors have been lobbying against the cuts, clear proof it exists bro. www.defensenews.com...

And watch the documentary I posted, clear poof it exists on an international level, it does not matter where the products are made.

reply to post by neo96


How does having military bases in Germany protect or defends the USA?

According to the Constitution the federal government is charged with providing for the defense of the US.

How does invading other countries that have never attacked us, defend the US?


You would rather our tax monies go to other countries than to our own people, yet you complain about tax money being used on food stamps, when we just gave Israel $60 billion in military aid.

How does having military bases in the UK defend us?

How does giving Billions to Columbia protect us? Has it ever stopped the flow of drugs into this country? Nope!! so we continue to send them money, doing the same thing and expecting a different result make any since to you?

How does arming other countries make us safer? Did it work in Afghanistan? Iraq?

Who owns the media where you get your indoctrination everyday, could it be defense contractors?

reply to post by RealSpoke


Actually the people who throw the word around so often doesn't understand the definition of what the words mean.

Go to the source Eisenhower.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

That was then the rest of the world was not industrialized and globalization was not even close to what we know to day. Everyone knew what the next war was going to be Communist Russia but never went hot.

Unlike today where there is a threat everyone one looks.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Only one way to keep peace harsh words don't.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Hostilie ideology never goes away and it is global and it is monotheistic and athestic and it is ruthless and insidious etc.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Only one way to achieve that gutting the military isn't going to cut it.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

Here is where it gets interesting and it was a warning

The conjuction of an immense welfare establishment is an old American expierence where that influence, economic,political and spiritual is felt in every city and every state house.

But corporate products-healthcare,birth control pills.,solar panels etc. but the biggest corporate influence in this country is the Federal Government it's power and control has eclipsed the private sector.

After all the largest healthcare provider in the country is the Federal Govenrment,largest banker the federal government, the largest retirement fun the federal government.

I really do have to laugh at all the anti corporatism on this site the Government makes them look like saints.

Esienhower warned of consolidation of power but seems everyone turns a blind eye to the welfare industrial complex that overshadows the MIC.

coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

I'm a little surprised that people think the military is huge and can do with some big cuts.

The defense cuts are too big and have no rationale. At stake are nearly $500 billion in cuts from the defense portion of the sequestration (automatic cuts over 10 years from the Budget Control Act [BCA] that will hit in January 2013). These cuts are alarmingly disproportionate: 43 percent of the sequestration cuts would come from defense, though it is only 11 percent of total spending. This would mean a cut of nearly 10 percent of the already reduced defense budget. On the other hand, entitlements, which comprise over half of all federal spending and are the fastest growing part of the budget, would remain essentially untouched, receiving only 15 percent of the cuts. But this would be a reduction of less than 1 percent of all entitlement spending.

Defense sequestration cuts are even more absurd when considering the cuts to defense that have already occurred. First, since 2009, the Department of Defense has absorbed huge cuts of $400 billion (called “efficiencies”) under former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.[1] Next, current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acceded to the first tranche of spending cuts under the BCA of over $400 billion. Forcing another half-trillion dollars in cuts onto defense with no strategic analysis is an arbitrary disregard for the defense of the nation. Allowing this to occur would badly damage the readiness of the U.S. military and unnecessarily tempt our enemies.

www.heritage.org...
Some things I took from that: Defense is 11% of spending compared to over 50% for entitlements, sequestration will take 10% of defense's budget and less than 1% of entitlement's, and this will result in $1.3 trillion dollars in cuts approved under this administration.

I further understand that this will give us the smallest navy since 1916. I don't know if there should be "fear-mongering," but there should be a lot of heavy duty worry-mongering.

It makes me wonder about our priorities.

reply to post by neo96


What are you even going on about? All you do is deflect the argument when proven wrong.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Not even going to bother if people can't make the distinction of the military and the civilians who are in charge of them.

Has the military ever started a war?

Nope

The civilian "commander and chief" and his elected gestapo has.

edit on 6-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Oh, I do make the distinction between the military and the civilians who are in charge. But what do you think enables those civilians to make the evil decisions they make? The HUGE FREAKIN' BUDGET we have for the military.

I have nothing against the military aside from the fact there is too much of it. Soldiers? Man, I pity those guys. I definitely don't hate them. I'm not that delusional.

Think about it as a spouse with a gambling addiction. You don't burn down the casino. No, you limit his access to the family funds that he would gamble away. Same thing.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Right Eisenhowers speech is a "deflection"

Where the hell did the term come from eh?

reply to post by Cuervo

But what do you think enables those civilians to make the evil decisions they make?

Their own stupidity.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Cuervo

 

But what do you think enables those civilians to make the evil decisions they make?

Their own stupidity.

So you think our military budget is not out of control? Do you realize who made our budget for imperialism as large as it is? The same folks you are talking about.

I would think that you, of all people, would want to decrease the budget since it is the politicians' biggest weapon to wield.

Calling for a smaller budget isn't an attack on the military; it's an attack on those who wish to abuse the military.

reply to post by Cuervo


The polticians are out of control most of that would be cheaper if it was made in the USA and our money not devalued by printing so damn much money.

Whether people like it or not defense is going to cost money there is no getting around that cheaping out only gets those people those politicians send in to harms way dead.

Classic examples:

Walter Reid
Dawood
Iraq lack of body armor
Humvees needing to be up armored
Strykers severe lack of armor.

The military budget needs to be cut.
A ludicrous amount of money is being wasted on useless gear that no one is ever going to use. I see it every day. Someone has a well positioned friend in the military who comes up with a bogus need, that can only be filled by his friend's company. Who charges 10 times the reasonable amount, and can. Because they are the only game in town to provide the gear or service that no one needs in the first place.

A cut in military spending will force the DoD to spend their money more efficiently. But yes, entitlements need to be cut down a lot also.

It is going to happen sooner or later, whether you like it or not. We can not sustain the current trend of irresponsible spending.

These politicians are murderous enemies of the people. They have the blood of many on their hands and far away hidden bank accounts full of cash made by collection of bribes from the companies that make bombs and bullets. Violence begets violence and an eye for an eye will blind the whole world. Today is the anniversary of dropping of the bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, thousands died horribly. Stalin murdered millions, Hitler millions, Mao Se Tung even more. The Turks killed 2 million Armenians and stole thier land and possesions. Soon armed drones will fly high over our heads equipt with the latest bombs and missiles. Will you sleep any safer at night? It is time to kick the murderers out of power and send them the where they may never hold positions of authority again.

Okay, how can anyone defend this anymore?



I don't understand it. Now I am for a strong military as much as the next guy. I am 100% against cutting manpower levels. If anything, we've already done too much of that in favor of gizmos and remote control toys with live weapons.

I want a military that can absolutely defend the SOIL of the United States, which includes all the territories and 'possessions' of the U.S. around the world. From McMurdo Station to Guam. I do NOT think we need a military capable of occupation level warfare in 2 nations, low level war in a couple others and gearing up or supporting locals in war in a half dozen more ALL AT THE SAME TIME. This isn't defense anymore. Nothing like it. It's also odd...

Why Eisenhower? There are some folks I try not to disagree directly with, but on this....I feel too strongly and the wars have to stop.



Whatever Eisenhower said during his term, the words he delivered shortly before leaving office are among the most powerful I think a U.S. President have given, as well as the clearest as a comment on Youtube there notes as well. I think this Military-Industrial-Complex (He said it, not me) got quite a hold during Vietnam, then died down......roared in the 80's and piddled in the 90's. Now they're totally and absolutely out of control and the numbers show it.

We don't just outspend our enemies, we outspend the next TWELVE nations ...combined....



...and that doesn't count the black budgets whose estimates are enough to choke on for combined figures across Government.

reply to post by neo96


No, you started going on about WIC which is complete deflecting to the point that you do not know what the Military Industrial Complex even means.

I've already proven that it exists, get over it. Admit you are wrong for the millionth time.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Is it that hard to understand what he is talking about? Do you pretend to play dumb or are you serious?

reply to post by RealSpoke


What i did was link Eisenhower the guy who start the phrase and someone apparently didn't even recognize the speech where the phrase came from and said it was a deflection.

Seems to me for someone who is throwing the phrase around so much would know where it came from.

Is it that hard to understand what he is talking about? Do you pretend to play dumb or are you serious?

That is a deflection considering it has nothing to do with budget cuts or fearr mongering.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What i don't understand is that people are so concerned with spending defense spending and turn a blind eye to the biggest cost of spending this country has ever known.

n FY 2013, mandatory spending is budgeted at 60% of total Federal spending, and 2 1/2 times as much as the military budget. The mandatory budget is estimated to be $2.293 trillion, a new record. The mandatory budget was $2.252 trillion in FY 2012 and $2.073 trillion in FY 2011.

useconomy.about.com...

Entitlement spending is 2 and half times greater than defense

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit2000,

Okay, how can anyone defend this anymore?

That's the easy part of the problem. We ask our military to do tons more than any other country does. Of course it costs more. There, defended.

I am 100% against cutting manpower levels. If anything, we've already done too much of that in favor of gizmos and remote control toys with live weapons.

And yet, we've cut manpower in every branch 30%-40% since Desert Storm.

I want a military that can absolutely defend the SOIL of the United States, which includes all the territories and 'possessions' of the U.S. around the world. From McMurdo Station to Guam.

Cyber defense, overhead reconnaisance (sp?), protect our trade routes, aid the allies we've committed to, all gone? Real overseas threats, ignored until they hit US waters?

I do NOT think we need a military capable of occupation level warfare in 2 nations, low level war in a couple others and gearing up or supporting locals in war in a half dozen more ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Well, that's all decided by Washington. Obama is directing the military to reduce to where they can't perform their old missions anymore. And there's some worry that they may not even be able to perform their new missions:

The average age of major U.S. military platforms is 25 years or more, and many of their parts have become or are becoming obsolete.
The U.S. Navy has the smallest number of ships since 1916. In 1945, the number of active naval ships totaled 6,768. Today, that number is 285.
Readiness problems plague all of those who serve in uniform and most of their equipment. A few years ago, an Air Force F-15C literally broke in half during flight. Since then, two F-18s have caught fire aboard ship. The A-10C Warthogs used by the Air Force and Air National Guard and Reserves have fuselage cracks, and the UH-1N Twin Huey helicopter fleet is regularly grounded. Over half of the Navy’s deployed aircraft are not ready for combat, and as of July 2011, every single Navy cruiser hull was found to have cracks.

www.candidatebriefing.com...

Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military has operated at a far higher operational tempo than it did during the Cold War. However, while the military has been busier than ever, its size and strength have declined. The Air Force is smaller and its inventory is older than at any time since its inception in 1947. The Navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916. All three services are 30 percent to 40 percent smaller than they were during Desert Storm. As a result, the National Guard and Reserves have been constantly mobilized, and a number of Army units are on their fifth or sixth deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan

www.heritage.org...
Five or six tours? People didn't fight that long in WWII. The guys will do what they're ordered to do, but have a heart. They need supplies, modern equipment, and sadly, lots of medical care.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Well, that's all decided by Washington. Obama is directing the military to reduce to where they can't perform their old missions anymore. And there's some worry that they may not even be able to perform their new missions:

Yeah that is decided in Washington just like where bases are located and what things the military is going to have and how much they have to spend.

The miltary does not make foreign policy they are just told where and when and go fight.

reply to post by neo96

Well, you're absolutely right and that's the nice bookend of fiscal doom for our 16 trillion debt. ..and people still figure we get out without getting real hard times. lol...

Anyway. the thing with the defense for me is two fold. One, the spending by comparison to every other nation in the world is just unbelievable for the pure dollars and it's effect on the budget. However. that isn't really the main thing. I sure wouldn't complain in the midst of a major war where money actually was a factor in victory. Money wise, I'd imagine you agree that isn't true here. Whatever the problems are, money definitely isn't it.

There is a much more important thing to me though. My relatives are or have been (in different cases) members of the armed forces. I also trained a couple vets in my years trucking. From that basis, I know the troops in the field are damn sure not driving vehicles out of 'Pimp my ride' and we don't have THAT many B-2's to be spending this EVERY year, year in and year out. What this sheer mind numbing amount of money SHOULD have us just isn't what I see. We don't have Buck Rogers and Star Trek, and that isn't THAT far off of what the total dollars actually being spent should be getting us... Should be.

Heck, the real rocket scientists run their whole thing for under 18 billion, for trivia's sake. So where is it going? Oh Well...