Another 633 Billion for Defense....

phobicsquirrel

Obama signed a 633 billion dollar defense bill amid concerns...

http://triblive.com/news/editorspicks/3232678-74/bill-obama-billion#axzz2GwCvfOLV

It is truly amazing that with all the squaking about how this country can't afford health care insurance reforms, medicare, medicaid, SS, or anything that will help out "people" but we sure can afford huge tax cuts, and defense spending. Let us not even mention getting our infrastructure up to the 21st century and fix 60 plus year old stuff. I to this day do not know why there isn't huge public outcry to cut the defense budget and move our money into actually preparing for the future and helping this country make investments in itself.

Amos_Umwhat

Maybe people are concerned that the only job that might be their for their kids is the military.?

Vulchor

Well we gotta keep pumping billions in the F-35 and projects like it.....of course we still use the F-4 and even the Harrier for 40 years now and they are still more advanced than 95% of other aircraft or missles on the planet------but hey, who not right? What a joke.

kuzi16

why spend more money on new machines to kill people when we dont make enough use of the ones we already have?

webmost

Got to spend on warfare ... because we can't afford Sandy relief.

webmost

I liked it better when they called it the Department of War. Straight to the point.

Vulchor

Kuzi, Web------well said both.

jgibv

Vulchor:

Kuzi, Web------well said both.

+1

And you'll be hard pressed to find an elected official who wants to cut defense spending --- since nearly every district has some type of defense contractor/parts manufacturer/military base --- and defense cuts = job cuts.
....and who would vote for that?? Can't risk upsetting their constituents (or give ammo to their opponents to run political ads saying you cut jobs) -- can't risk losing re-election.

Amos_Umwhat

Vulchor:

Kuzi, Web------well said both.

+1 more

phobicsquirrel

webmost:

I liked it better when they called it the Department of War. Straight to the point.

Well that would be more appropriate these days, I don't really see us really DEFENDING ourselves. I mean isn't that what the CIA and FBI are for, not the military? (talking about taking on a militant group).

phobicsquirrel

Vulchor:

Well we gotta keep pumping billions in the F-35 and projects like it.....of course we still use the F-4 and even the Harrier for 40 years now and they are still more advanced than 95% of other aircraft or missles on the planet------but hey, who not right? What a joke.

I heard that funding was cut for the f-35, though that might have changed or maybe something else was put in its place. There was a cool 2 hour program on fighters of the future on the history channel. Talked about how the 35 is the most advanced in the world and probably will be for the next 10 or 20. I highly recommend if you can watch it. I learned stuff, and I even was stationed at a base that had a 35 squadron and I got to know two of the pilots.

JDH

phobicsquirrel:

Vulchor:

Well we gotta keep pumping billions in the F-35 and projects like it.....of course we still use the F-4 and even the Harrier for 40 years now and they are still more advanced than 95% of other aircraft or missles on the planet------but hey, who not right? What a joke.

I heard that funding was cut for the f-35, though that might have changed or maybe something else was put in its place. There was a cool 2 hour program on fighters of the future on the history channel. Talked about how the 35 is the most advanced in the world and probably will be for the next 10 or 20. I highly recommend if you can watch it. I learned stuff, and I even was stationed at a base that had a 35 squadron and I got to know two of the pilots.

At $135 million per plane...that's right...per plane, you have to ask yourself if we can affford it.

beatnic

JDH:

phobicsquirrel:

Vulchor:

Well we gotta keep pumping billions in the F-35 and projects like it.....of course we still use the F-4 and even the Harrier for 40 years now and they are still more advanced than 95% of other aircraft or missles on the planet------but hey, who not right? What a joke.

I heard that funding was cut for the f-35, though that might have changed or maybe something else was put in its place. There was a cool 2 hour program on fighters of the future on the history channel. Talked about how the 35 is the most advanced in the world and probably will be for the next 10 or 20. I highly recommend if you can watch it. I learned stuff, and I even was stationed at a base that had a 35 squadron and I got to know two of the pilots.

At $135 million per plane...that's right...per plane, you have to ask yourself if we can affford it.

I'd rather see $135 million go to an awesome jet fighter than $20 million go to a Hawaiian vacation.

Vulchor

Sometime Beat, we lose the forest for the trees.

xmacro

$600 billion for defense, which covers salaries as well as acquisitions of our rapidly aging and outdated hardware (which hasn't been updated since the Reagan/Clinton years), when medicare/medicaid/SS are projected to cost about $60 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

beatnic

Now that's a forest with a lot of trees.

webmost

xmacro:

$600 billion for defense, which covers salaries as well as acquisitions of our rapidly aging and outdated hardware (which hasn't been updated since the Reagan/Clinton years), when medicare/medicaid/SS are projected to cost about $60 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

1) Here you are comparing a one year expenditure with a ten year projection.

2) 60 tril over 10 years divides out to about five times what Medicare and SS combined cost last year

Your comparison and your numbers both need better accuracy.

Vulchor

May I say additionally the medicare/medicaid/ss....while the certainly need reform....go to help americans, they do not simply feed our Masters of War, desires of Imperialism, and pay for the military industrial complex to continue unabated.

Rain

...do I still get paid?

phobicsquirrel

SS is not part of the debt, it is funded by us and we pay into it. The govt borrowed some 2 tril or so from the fund and even made some loophole for doing so. SS is doing just fine though with massive numbers out of work that will effect it. Also the cap should be lifted and all income no matter how much one makes should pay into it. Anything can happen. If the private sector gets SS you'll have to pay much more for the same thing and who knows what that will be and what it will cover.

Hell imagine if we as a country spent 1 tril on infrastructure, that would really help us out and fix a lot of problems though it was estimated, what 3 years or more ago that just to get a B rating it would cost some 800 bil or 1.7 tril dollars.

webmost

phobicsquirrel:

SS is not part of the debt, it is funded by us and we pay into it. The govt borrowed some 2 tril or so from the fund and even made some loophole for doing so.

... and that doesn't sound self contradictory to you?

Tell you what, I'm going to go swipe the coins out of grandma's piggy bank and put an IOU in there. That's not debt cause grandma put the money in there.

huh?

xmacro

webmost:

xmacro:

$600 billion for defense, which covers salaries as well as acquisitions of our rapidly aging and outdated hardware (which hasn't been updated since the Reagan/Clinton years), when medicare/medicaid/SS are projected to cost about $60 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

1) Here you are comparing a one year expenditure with a ten year projection.

2) 60 tril over 10 years divides out to about five times what Medicare and SS combined cost last year

Your comparison and your numbers both need better accuracy.

1) Then multiply the $600 billion by 10 years - $6 trillion, one-tenth of entitlements

2) You're correct, but you missed one crucial point - Medicare/SS/Medicaid aren't static. If payments stayed the same as they are now, there'd be no problem and the programs wouldn't need much more than the most minor of tweaks. The baby boomer retirement is whats going to turn the linear spending into exponential spending in a few years time. The $60 trillion is what's estimated to be needed over the next 10 yrs as more and more baby boomers retire - it's a future projection, not current

Amos_Umwhat

webmost:

phobicsquirrel:

SS is not part of the debt, it is funded by us and we pay into it. The govt borrowed some 2 tril or so from the fund and even made some loophole for doing so.

... and that doesn't sound self contradictory to you?

Tell you what, I'm going to go swipe the coins out of grandma's piggy bank and put an IOU in there. That's not debt cause grandma put the money in there.

huh?

Congressional logic. We buy into it all the time.