The House on Thursday passed the massive $858 billion 2023 National Defense Authorization Act

The House on Thursday passed the massive $858 billion 2023 National Defense Authorization Act

Didn't see if this was posted, I apologize if so..

The Pelosi's the Biden's and many others including the RINOS are making bank with this kind of budget. 17 of the 63 aerospace and defense stocks have a buy recommendation and that will likely increase once the orders or placed and divided up.

I mean I get we need a robust defense budget but damn don't we have some major infrastructure projects that need to be taken care of too? Does Jackson and Flint have decent drinking water yet?

Knowing the military's fondness for $800 hammers and $1500 toilet seats, I do wish they were perhaps a bit more frugal with their purchases. All this massive military spending from the peacenik Democrats.

news.antiwar.com...

House Passes Record $858 Billion NDAA
The Senate is expected to vote on the spending bill next week
by Dave DeCamp Posted onDecember 8, 2022CategoriesNewsTagsndaa
The House on Thursday passed the massive $858 billion 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in a vote of 350-80, sending the bill to the Senate, where a vote is expected to be held next week.

The $858 billion NDAA is $45 billion more than President Biden asked for, marking the second year in a row that Congress made the military budget higher than what the White House requested. The amount represents an 8% increase from the 2022 NDAA, which was finalized at $782 billion.

According to Defense News, the 2023 NDAA dropped amendments added to the House version that would have restricted weapons sales to countries accused of human rights abuses. Such provisions were included in the House version of the NDAA but didn’t make it past into the final version that was negotiated with the Senate.

Notable amendments packed into the NDAA include a measure that will give the Pentagon wartime purchasing powers by allowing non-competitive, multi-year contracts for certain arms. The authority could be used to refill US stockpiles, arm Ukraine, and assist foreign governments that have provided support for Ukraine.

The list of munitions the Pentagon is allowed to procure using the purchasing powers is extensive and includes HIMARS rocket launch systems, 155mm ammunition, Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and much more.

US weapons manufacturers will benefit greatly from the new authority, especially Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, as many of their systems are on the list. The multi-year contracts will incentivize the arms makers to significantly ramp up production.

“I mean I get we need a robust defense budget but damn don't we have some major infrastructure projects that need to be taken care of too?”

I guess you missed the “bridges to nowhere” part of the bill!

a reply to: putnam6

a reply to: putnam6


The budget always goes up no matter whose administration it is.
I agree it is way to high when as you said we have many things that need attention at home.

originally posted by: Narvasis
“I mean I get we need a robust defense budget but damn don't we have some major infrastructure projects that need to be taken care of too?”

I guess you missed the “bridges to nowhere” part of the bill!

a reply to: putnam6

LOL, I hear you but #1 wasn't that in the 90's and #2 its cost was minuscule compared to this boondoggle and #3 as an 80's kid I heard we need a huge defense budget for so long I'm beginning to think it's all nothing but a crock.

It crosses party lines too the Republicans did this obviously in Iraq and Afghanistan, just more an more I am having a hard time believing the US is under such a huge threat that the extra 50 billion given by congress couldn't have been better spent in another area.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: putnam6


The budget always goes up no matter whose administration it is.
I agree it is way to high when as you said we have many things that need attention at home.

Yes I know it goes up, but damn AAY, Congress gave Biden 70 billion more than he asked for these last 2 years.

That's way too high.

a reply to: putnam6

Some of those hammers and toilet seats are that expensive for good reasons.

a reply to: putnam6

Fleets of Stealth Bombers and Fighters don't pay for themselves , 12 + Naval Carrier Fleets don't pay for themselves , Nuclear Submarines and massive grids of Tactical Reconnaissance satellites don't pay for themselves.

$858billion is just what the public see's , there is a black budget of equal amount for things that technically don't even exist.

I think the majority will find it's way to Ukraine.

I can't help but wonder how our defense capabilities for our own country are looking now.

Wow

a reply to: Narvasis

The democrats already looted the tax payer for that in June, remember the 1.7 trillion dollars of "infrastructure" the money was mostly given to the democrats political "green benefactors" to be laundered back to the DNC in the name of campaign donations.

Screw the nation, who cares, Politicians are getting wealthier and wealthier with the taxpayer dollars.

Yep no a single fixing in the infrastructure has gone to fix anything and nobody know where the money is.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: putnam6

Some of those hammers and toilet seats are that expensive for good reasons.

I knew Nance and Paul hand their fingerprints all over this!!


Ok, ok, I'll see myself out.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: putnam6

Some of those hammers and toilet seats are that expensive for good reasons.

I hear you Zaphod I really do, but who exactly decides where the "some" of the hammer budget actually goes?

I'm speaking of the politicians that perhaps have insider knowledge and a financial interest in prolonged conflict and supplying the free world with weapons. Are we really sure we couldn't have been fine with 25 billion or 50 billion less?

Don't get me wrong we got enough defense contractors here in Georgia that it helped our state's economy and the southeast in general.

FWIW I don't know about you but Russia's performance has made me less concerned about Russia's military except for its nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, we have the Chinese, North Koreans, and probably sooner or later ISIS or ISIL. I doubt the Russians will mop that mess up the next time it pops up.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: putnam6

Fleets of Stealth Bombers and Fighters don't pay for themselves , 12 + Naval Carrier Fleets don't pay for themselves , Nuclear Submarines and massive grids of Tactical Reconnaissance satellites don't pay for themselves.

$858billion is just what the public see's , there is a black budget of equal amount for things that technically don't even exist.

Yea well Ive been hearing that stuff for decades, I guess what I am saying is when you black budget this stuff, it becomes a convenient and un auditable reason. It's no different than the trillions spent since WWII in the Cold War and in the end Russia definitely isn't the mighty bear it was sold to my generation to be. Could be the same for China? though I suspect they are the real concern though they are less belligerent.

a reply to: putnam6

The budget goes up over time because of inflation, if nothing else.

"During the observation period from 1960 to 2021, the average inflation rate was 3.8% per year. Overall, the price increase was 829.57%. An item that cost 100 dollars in 1960 costs 929.57 dollars at the beginning of 2022."

www.worlddata.info...

Military expenditures as a percentage of the GDP reached a peak of about 9.4% in 1967, when the Cold War was at or near its peak. Today, military expenditures as a fraction of GDP are about 3.7%

data.worldbank.org...

One year ago, on a bipartisan basis, Congress passed the biggest infrastructure bill since the New Deal--about 1.2 trillion over 10 years.

www.brookings.edu...

Even though that doubles federal spending of infrastructure, it only goes from about 0.75% of GDP to 1.5%.

Why don't people here on ATS ever try to get factual answers to the questions they ask?

a reply to: 1947boomer

Why don't people here on ATS ever try to get factual answers to the questions they ask?

Some have question.
Some don't trust the answers
Some have questions to the answers.
And some just take the answers as all the proof they need and hug the boot that's on their neck.

/shrug

ATS is weird like that.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: putnam6

Some of those hammers and toilet seats are that expensive for good reasons.

I knew Nance and Paul hand their fingerprints all over this!!


Ok, ok, I'll see myself out.

LOL no no that's okay, you got to laugh sometimes, especially when it's that kind of number.

If we are black budgeting that much it seriously makes me think no one country is a real security threat to the US. I mean no telling what Nasa and now the Space Force have in orbit or elsewhere, I would not be surprised if TPTB's largest known threat is something completely different.

and it's just as likely it isn't a threat but TPTB doesn't know how to break the news to the public without admitting they have been not only stealing money out of our cookie jar and where did it all go.

a reply to: putnam6

Upkeep on everything gets more expensive when inflation is running like a wildfire driven by hurricane force winds.

Then toss the usual corruption in...

lastly add in every unit must spend 100% of their budget every year no matter what or they lose whatever is not spent in the following year (if memory serves congress made that decision), and add in the inflation, then they add in what ever extra they think they might need to keep training and readiness where it needs to be.

Its an ugly revolving door that nobody wants to fix so they can keep claiming they are brining things back to their home state. (see murkowski as an example)

a reply to: putnam6

Our gov't is missing/can't account for/has a black budget should be enough impetus to cease all taxation until they figure it out.

The fact that inflation has F A R outmatched wages is yet another issue (the lefty in me coming out).

The absolute core function of gov't is not only seemingly beyond repair, its also above reproach.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

The budget goes up over time because of inflation, if nothing else.

"During the observation period from 1960 to 2021, the average inflation rate was 3.8% per year. Overall, the price increase was 829.57%. An item that cost 100 dollars in 1960 costs 929.57 dollars at the beginning of 2022."

www.worlddata.info...

Military expenditures as a percentage of the GDP reached a peak of about 9.4% in 1967, when the Cold War was at or near its peak. Today, military expenditures as a fraction of GDP are about 3.7%

data.worldbank.org...

One year ago, on a bipartisan basis, Congress passed the biggest infrastructure bill since the New Deal--about 1.2 trillion over 10 years.

www.brookings.edu...

Even though that doubles federal spending of infrastructure, it only goes from about 0.75% of GDP to 1.5%.

Why don't people here on ATS ever try to get factual answers to the questions they ask?

Just discussing this Boomer if you don't want to participate it's okay not trying to piss you off or anything. NOT TO MENTION

It isn't about just the budget amount it's about how much those government officials in the know can make with such a huge budget

If you read the post it's about the fact that Congress gave Biden 70 billion more than the old geezer asked for. Also, the original OP said some politicians are gonna make serious bank on this defense budget. We already know many politicians have huge stock portfolios in the defense sector. Which if you read the thread you should have got the gist of it.

a reply to: putnam6

Right now, no. As much as I’m all for a smaller, more efficient force, we’ve dug ourselves into an insane hole, and it’s going to take a lot to get out of it. Back in 2008 I think it was, I wrote a thread about the age of the military systems we’re using. At the time, our primary fighters were the F-15 and F-16, with the F-22 as back stop. The average age of the Eagle and Viper were in their 30s. The Eagle fleet had 90% of the fleet at or past its original life cycle, was G limited due to longeron issues. The F-16, depending on block, had cracks in either their wings, or bulkheads. That was 14 years ago.

The current fleet adds F-35s, which helps, but the F-15EX buy, which would have replaced the air defense F-15s was just slashed to 80 aircraft, meaning several squadrons are losing their mission.

Our primary bomber is still the B-52, which saw the last aircraft delivered in 1962. They’re getting new engines, power generation systems, and radar, which will go a long way, but there are no plans to retire them until 2040 at the earliest. The B-1 and B-2 are better, age wise, but their mission capable rates range from pathetic for the B-1, to bad for the B-2.

The only aircraft Congress has allowed the Air Force to retire are the aircraft that we desperately need. The KC-10 and KC-135 are retiring 48 aircraft between the two of them, by the end of the year. This is years before the KC-46 will even begin to resolve their problems with the RVS, or the boom with the A-10.

That doesn’t even touch on the trainers, Airlift, Navy ship maintenance, or some of their debacles. Our readiness rates are in the toilet, the Air Force alone has probably double digit programs just for systems they HAVE to replace, because they’re so worn out. The Navy has the new SSBN, DD(X), CG(X) if they can ever get their head out of their ass, Flight III Burkes, and other programs.

This is actually the first NDAA that I’ve seen in years that has even a little bit of sanity included. They finally allowing some retirements, but aren’t going whole hog, and have reversed some of the insane requirements they wanted initially.

Russia wouldn’t be the fight we thought they would be, but China wouldn’t exactly be a pushover, even though they use a lot of the same equipment and tactics. We would have to fight them old school, and island hop. Doing that with a force pushing 40, relying on older systems would be ugly. It’s still possible to draw down the forces we have, in to a potent force, but it isn’t going to be cheap. Building new ships and aircraft costs a lot, until you’re building them in numbers, and then the size of the force will keep costs up.