[treawittelf]

ahoy mateys!

i have read, time and time again, that our government's spendin' must be slashed. deficit hawks proclaim that our entitlement promises have to be rescinded, aye?

the folks on the left fill thar cannons and fire back, "we'd like to see some cuts in the military".

the mighty denizens on the right claim that big budget cuts to our military are happenin' and more are on the way.

i've thought about this claim and read up on it a bit, yarrrr!

The Pentagon released its budget for fiscal year 2011 this afternoon, and it is enormous—much larger, even adjusting for inflation, than any budget since World War II. What's more, some numbers buried within the budget suggest that it's set to grow larger still in the coming years—to a greater extent than the White House or the Defense Department acknowledges.

One bit of good news: Defense Secretary Robert Gates is more honest than his recent predecessors about how much money he's really requesting. The figure for FY 2011 is $708.2 billion—consisting of $548.9 billion for the "baseline" budget plus $159.3 billion to pay for "overseas contingency operations," mainly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, by the way, he says, tack on another $33 billion to the current year's budget, to pay for the 30,000 extra troops (and all their supplies, weapons, and so forth) that President Obama is sending to Afghanistan.

All told, that's $741.2 billion in new money—and Gates is upfront about it. President Obama*has proposed*the largest defense budget since World War II. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

can any of ye swabby's show me some links that prove that there have been serious cuts in our amazing and enthusiastic dumpin' 'o funds into our military? i asks because, well...so many of ye say that cuts are happenin'.

prove it, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

[steevytraunse]

This is entirely intentional to make the Pentagon out to be the bad guy.

The irony is that we've attained a generation of technological superiority, we just need to deploy it in suffient numbers. We need more boots, more transports, more of the state of the art stuff developed and deployed in the 80's and 90's that no one has managed to match. And thats a lot cheaper that designing new stuff.

[chodeasyday]

ahoy mateys!

i have read, time and time again, that our government's spendin' must be slashed. deficit hawks proclaim that our entitlement promises have to be rescinded, aye?

the folks on the left fill thar cannons and fire back, "we'd like to see some cuts in the military".

the mighty denizens on the right claim that big budget cuts to our military are happenin' and more are on the way.

i've thought about this claim and read up on it a bit, yarrrr!



President Obama*has proposed*the largest defense budget since World War II. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

can any of ye swabby's show me some links that prove that there have been serious cuts in our amazing and enthusiastic dumpin' 'o funds into our military? i asks because, well...so many of ye say that cuts are happenin'.

prove it, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Instead of looking at absolute numbers look at the spending as a percentage of GDP. This chart will give you a good idea of how military spending has trended since before WWII.

[OShellszz]

This is entirely intentional to make the Pentagon out to be the bad guy.

The irony is that we've attained a generation of technological superiority, we just need to deploy it in suffient numbers. We need more boots, more transports, more of the state of the art stuff developed and deployed in the 80's and 90's that no one has managed to match. And thats a lot cheaper that designing new stuff.

hail Commodore!

i hear what yer sayin' mate....but whar be the cuts we so desperately need? folks on the right have said, to paraphrase, "but we ARE cutting the military!", as if were fact.

be it a fact or just a claim?

- MeadHallPirate

[NumsAmenniams]

ahoy mateys!

i have read, time and time again, that our government's spendin' must be slashed. deficit hawks proclaim that our entitlement promises have to be rescinded, aye?

the folks on the left fill thar cannons and fire back, "we'd like to see some cuts in the military".

the mighty denizens on the right claim that big budget cuts to our military are happenin' and more are on the way.

i've thought about this claim and read up on it a bit, yarrrr!



President Obama*has proposed*the largest defense budget since World War II. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

can any of ye swabby's show me some links that prove that there have been serious cuts in our amazing and enthusiastic dumpin' 'o funds into our military? i asks because, well...so many of ye say that cuts are happenin'.

prove it, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Be ye noticin' that the same folks tellin ye that the military budget has been goin' down are also tellin' ya that taxes have done nothing but go up?
Are ye familiar with the Superman comic books and Bizarro World?

[Trissinas]

Be ye noticin' that the same folks tellin ye that the military budget has been goin' down are also tellin' ya that taxes have done nothing but go up?
Are ye familiar with the Superman comic books and Bizarro World?

Interesting you should bring that up.

Individual income taxes as a % of GDP since 1940:



And corporate taxes for the same period:



Notice how taxes have, in fact, been going up?

[Zs3ZASpA]

Interesting you should bring that up.

Individual income taxes as a % of GDP since 1940:



And corporate taxes for the same period:



Notice how taxes have, in fact, been going up?

Do you know how to read a chart?

[HwoRas1]

hail Commodore!

i hear what yer sayin' mate....but whar be the cuts we so desperately need? folks on the right have said, to paraphrase, "but we ARE cutting the military!", as if were fact.

be it a fact or just a claim?

- MeadHallPirate

The only "we" with the power to do is Obama. And we know he is playing games with our national security.

If it were up to me, I would attack the biggest part of the defense budget, operations, comprising the fuel and other expendables, and contractors hired. Doing this stuff in house will save mountains in labor costs. Additionally, growing our own fuel domestically, or even close to the front with algae will also save mountains. I would actually expand the Corp of engineers to improve our ability to fortify our positions, build up the infrastructure we need , and provide a real improvement for the the people around us.

In procurement, we need systems that support our doctrine and keep us mobile. The biggest area that needs work is the Navy. Our heavy carriers are expensive custom hot rods that have become sacred cows in need of escort. A series of modified commercial container ships running on existing nuclear power plants can carry many more planes and vehicles for far less, and can be studded with far more defensive weaponry than our existing fleet. From there the rest of the fleet is freed of escort duty, and can take a more offensive role. With that, moving our armies around is far less of a chore.

[Janny2006]

Instead of looking at absolute numbers look at the spending as a percentage of GDP. This chart will give you a good idea of how military spending has trended since before WWII.

Or, you could look at it as a percentage of global military spending. We spend as much the rest of the world combined on our military activities. We spend eight times as much as our nearest competitor, China. Are we really that insecure?

This isn't about cutting waste, this is about a radical change to our foreign policy. Even worse than the damage being done to our economic future, is the fall we're setting ourselves up for when the rest of the world gets sick of being pushed around.

[dserbokim]

Instead of looking at absolute numbers look at the spending as a percentage of GDP. This chart will give you a good idea of how military spending has trended since before WWII.

hail, oh lutherf!

mate, i hears what yer sayin', and appreciate the perspective ye have given me on our spendin' in relation to our GDP.

lemme asks ye though, be it fair to view our military spendin' this way?

1) our military spendin' as it relates to our current national debt and...

2) even if our GDP has risen, what of it? i mean, if i waste 50k per year 'o me monies goin' to the casino and i make 100k per year....and my income jumps to 130K per year and increase me spendin' at the casino to 60K per year....aren't i still spendin' more?

- MeadHallPirate

[zlopikanikanz]

Be ye noticin' that the same folks tellin ye that the military budget has been goin' down are also tellin' ya that taxes have done nothing but go up?
Are ye familiar with the Superman comic books and Bizarro World?

*bows to the unstoppable Goober*

aye Goober, i have indeed kinda noticed that.

i don't wanna cast aspersions, but its hard fer me not to notice these claims bein' made (with great vigor), when the actual facts don't seem to bear this out.

i am unfamiliar with Bizarro world, though.

- MeadHallPirate

[Searmoreibe]

If it were up to me, I would attack the biggest part of the defense budget, operations, comprising the fuel and other expendables, and contractors hired. Doing this stuff in house will save mountains in labor costs.

*makes note*

*agrees with Commodore*

aye matey...i can't argue with ye there.

i read a book a while ago, i think 'twas "Imperial life in the Emerald City".

the monies spent in Iraq, post "mission accomplished", is really astoundin', in both the amount and in the haphazard way it was spent.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

[tefraxKedWere]

Do you know how to read a chart?

What about it? Are taxes not trending up as of late? Just because we've whittled things down since the 40's doesn't mean that I have any desire to go back there.

[resegooredo]

hail, oh lutherf!

mate, i hears what yer sayin', and appreciate the perspective ye have given me on our spendin' in relation to our GDP.

lemme asks ye though, be it fair to view our military spendin' this way?

1) our military spendin' as it relates to our current national debt and...

2) even if our GDP has risen, what of it? i mean, if i waste 50k per year 'o me monies goin' to the casino and i make 100k per year....and my income jumps to 130K per year and increase me spendin' at the casino to 60K per year....aren't i still spendin' more?

- MeadHallPirate

Actually, the best way to measure spending is in relation to revenue but the site I'm using doesn't offer that option so I went with % of GDP instead because it's the next best measure. Historically our tax collections have amounted to 18-20% of GDP so there is a pretty decent correlation.

[plogypeskelry]

Or, you could look at it as a percentage of global military spending. We spend as much the rest of the world combined on our military activities. We spend eight times as much as our nearest competitor, China. Are we really that insecure?

This isn't about cutting waste, this is about a radical change to our foreign policy. Even worse than the damage being done to our economic future, is the fall we're setting ourselves up for when the rest of the world gets sick of being pushed around.

You could do that but, frankly, our military goal shouldn't be parity with the rest of the world but, rather, should be "strong enough so that the others don't even think of fucking with us."

[retrahdggd]

What about it? Are taxes not trending up as of late? Just because we've whittled things down since the 40's doesn't mean that I have any desire to go back there.

Well, you posted some charts that showed taxes going down, to prove that taxes were always going up, I just wondered if you understood how to read a chart.
The point I was trying to make was that it has been said in this forum, that taxes are always going up, by many of the people who say military spending is always being cut.
And neither is true, and the charts showing that have been posted here, and yet they have been presented as proof of the opposite of what they show.

[TaxSheemaSter]

You could do that but, frankly, our military goal shouldn't be parity with the rest of the world but, rather, should be "strong enough so that the others don't even think of fucking with us."

*considers*

Lutherf, me friend...

clearly then, our current spendin' be insufficient. our country be, as ye put it, "fucked with", by many powers 'round the world.

our strength in arms did not prevent september 11th...nor does it deter North Korea from tweakin' us whenever the urge strikes thar crazed leader...nor does it keep china from "fucking with us" in many arenas.

so, that bein' the case, how much should we ramp up our military spendin' to make sure that every power on the planet dare not interfere with our own agendas?

imma just curious.

- MeadHallPirate

[ppaelkos]

You could do that but, frankly, our military goal shouldn't be parity with the rest of the world but, rather, should be "strong enough so that the others don't even think of fucking with us."

So strong it bankrupts us? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
And for all the money we spend, when push comes to shove, our mighty military doesn't deliver.

[Vodonaeva]

our strength in arms did not prevent september 11th...nor does it deter North Korea from tweakin' us whenever the urge strikes thar crazed leader...nor does it keep china from "fucking with us" in many arenas.

That's the thing we're only starting to realize. There's only so much that military supremacy will buy you. Being the toughest person on the block doesn't mean others will just acquiesce at every turn.

[stadiaKab]

That's the thing we're only starting to realize. There's only so much that military supremacy will buy you. Being the toughest person on the block doesn't mean others will just acquiesce at every turn.

It’s like being the biggest guy in a bar.

Someone always wants to pick a fight with you just to show how tough he is. You cannot respond with all the force available to you because that would be seen as an overreaction on your part.

Would it not be better to take something off the military spending and put it into other areas where some investment would be a little more productive in generating security?

For example I have heard the claim that the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan would build 20 schools. (Depending on how you go about using the numbers i.e. full cost accounting, average cost accounting, variable cost accounting or incremental cost accounting) I tend to believe that one soldier would pay for at least 1 if not a lot more schools.

What would make the US safer from an attack originating in Afghanistan, one more soldier on the ground or 20 schools turning out an educated population with the intellectual tools to actually understand the teachings of peace that is Islam or one guy to fight off a few hundred ignorant villagers who have been brainwashed by the Taliban into blaming the US and the west for all their problems.

One Soldier or 20 Schools | TPMCafe

The strength of the US military is undisputed. I believe that the point of diminishing returns has been passed long ago and more military spending will serve to make the US more vulnerable both because the extra troops will not be as effective for the cost and the troops already in service and because of the missed opportunities to win hearts and minds through non military methods.