Military Spending Is Already Bankrupting America

One carrier defends all of russia. One carrier defends all of china.

You have just bought into the hype

 

Neither the Russians nor the Chinese use their carriers to "defend" their countries. "Defense" is not what carriers are for. They are weapons for power projection.

You seem to know nothing about military matters. Not to mention that Russia is a traditional land power which doesn't need a Navy at all.

You do know that the United States is the only major world power with long coastlines on three of the worlds oceans don't you?

 

I spent ten years in the navy so why dont you tell me all about carrier strike groups.

We dont need them. Stop projecting power. Protect the homeland

 

You being in the Navy for 10 years doesn't necessarily make you an expert on carriers.

What about Hawaii and Alaska? Aren't they part of the homeland too? What about Guam? Legally part of the United States as much as California.

Now your "three carriers" one on the west coast, one on the east coast (guess the Gulf coast is SOL). and one in port has just gone up to six. East, West, port, Hawaii, Alaska, port.

 

Oh no no. Lets hear about your personal expertise on carrier strike groups.

China has one carrier and Russia has one. I changed my mind. We only need one

 

Again please look at a map. Russia doesn't even need a navy.

China has one and only coast on a major ocean.

I've never claimed to have any personal expertise on carrier strike groups.
But I can read books by those who do nothing but that.

Try the book "CVX" that addresses future carrier needs in reference to future carrier designs.

https://www.amazon.com/CVX-Carrier-...r_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1543976557&sr=1-20

 

That's right you don't have any expertise in this area.

One carrier. Close half of overseas bases. Bring the troops home

 

We do not need to reduce Military spending to provide Americans with free healthcare. We already spend nearly double what other nations that have free healthcare spend. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

I would be great to go back to the 1960's standard of living. A fellow working at Sears could afford a car, a house and his wife did not have to work.

Not sure who you were talking to but I would not be dejected by that and neither would 95% of Americans.

Anyone can have an opinion but ... Is it informed ?

 

How many carriers did Russia have in WWII?

 

Why? This is not 1941

 

Maybe that is a reason then that Sears went bankrupt.

 

This post is beyond moronic. Sears was thriving in the 60's. When it recently went bankrupt - Sears employees were making squat by comparison.

 

I was only kidding.

 

One never knows with you as you often come up with the darndest things.

 

A 1960's lifestyle is much cheaper than a 2010's one. Think of all the things that you wouldn't have to pay for. You wouldn't have to pay for cable or mobile phones and you'd have a very basic phone plan. Those alone could save a family a couple of grand a year (or more). Then factor in all the stuff that you wouldn't have to buy, after all back then furniture was rarely replaced and often inherited, a "regular" person's wardrobe would be much smaller and a greater proportion would have been home made.

You'd likely be eating out less and going out less, so much more happened at home.

I have a very devout colleague who in effect does live that kind of lifestyle and he, his wife and his four kids seem to live comfortably (but frugally) on a salary that other colleagues complain about.

 

2008-2017
US defense spending: $6,308.5B
US entitlement spending $23,375.6B
/ topic

 

• In 1960 a new house cost $12,700.00 and by 1969 was $15,500.00.
• In 1960 the average income per year was $5,315.00 and by 1969 was $8,540.00.

​

https://www.google.ca/search?biw=12.......1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i22i30.za7BWr7SKxc

So in 1969 the cost of a new house was roughly 2 years salary - for someone earning an average salary.

Today the average income is 31,099. Good luck buying a house for 62,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

 

The good news is that many other things, especially, appliances, food and clothing are much, much cheaper in real terms than back in the 1960s so the increased cost of housing can be offset.

What I don't know is whether someone on average income, and being the sole earner for a family, could reasonably expect to own their own home in the US back in the 1960s, or would they be likely to be renting.

 

Depends entirely where they live and their minimum acceptable standard of living.

 

Given the fact that the cost of a house was 2 x annual income vs 7-8 .. the answer should be self explanatory.

Using the same 69 Statistics - income 8500 vs 31,000 today = 3.7

Gas was 32 cents x 3.7 = 1.18 Gas was way cheaper
A new car was 3200 x 3.7 = 11,800 A car was cheaper.

Not sure where you get the idea that food was cheaper.

Loaf of Bread was 23 cents x 3.7 = 85 cents cheaper
Eggs 62 cents x 3.7 = 2.30 roughly the same
Oxford shoes (1960) 13 dollars - Cheaper
Beer (1960) 99 cents for 6 pack - "more" !
Hershey bar (1960) 5 cents - way cheaper
Movie (1960) 1 dollar way cheaper
Pound of sirloin steak (1960) 89 cents - cheaper
Gerbers baby food 25 cents for 3 ! - way cheaper
Cigarettes 31 cents (1969) ... orders of magnitude cheaper
Fast food hamburger (1960) 20 cents ... cheaper

I think you are right about appliances but - as with any new technology - like Televisions at the time - stuff is more expensive

A washer in 1962 was 185 dollars x 3.7 = 684 - similar.

So much for other stuff making up for the higher cost of houses.

 

Military Spending Is Already Bankrupting America

It is overall spending and eventually it could bankrupt the country. I would be happy to fix it for them if they gave me the power to do it.

 

And in 1969 we had a real space program.

And real Star Trek to watch.

 

Nah. Military spending in general could bankrupt the American government, but the American economy is doing fine. No where near bankruptcy.

 

You might be shocked at how many living on Social Security must have food stamps to survive. Are the married allowed to enter the service as new recruits?

 

Totally agree, both military and welfare programs need to be cut fairly drastically at this point. The fact that the Left refuses to touch welfare and the Right refuses to touch military is ridiculous and will lead to our downfall.

Welfare is another day's topic, as to military, we are all confused as to how to answer EXACTLY because the details are tough to exactly come by. All of us usually say we need to eliminate redundant bases and systems, trim the fat off the bones and plenty more that seems obvious. But what does the military say, or at least, what do the numbers say?

Below is a link to the full defense budget proposal along with some of the numbers as to where money goes, and some of the more big ticket procurement items.

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/...dget2019.pdf?uUH.v7t_nXrNnkX01631tlu7IGamFIe9

The numbers are interesting, especially some of the systems we are currently introducing.

This however, was what REALLY pissed me off. Basically it looks like the military knows they are bloated, I am curious what actual dollar amount could be reduced if you took the generals aside and asked them a no BS military only answer. Seems it is the politicians who are the problem .... shocker.

Conclusion
"The overarching theme that emerges from this analysis is that force structure is increasingly expensive to build and maintain in each of the Services. As detailed in Chapter 2, the combination of rising labor costs for military and civilian personnel and the steadily increasing costs of operation and maintenance mans that MILPERS and O&M accounts would nee to grow at a rate of roughly 2-3% above inflation to maintain the same size force. These factors serve to erode the purchasing power of defense dollars over time and effectively limit the ability of DoD to grow, or even maintain, force structure in the future. moreover, much of the equipment in the inventory is aging and will need to be upgraded or replaced in the coming years, which will require an even higher level of funding."

DUH!

They then go on to speak a lot about "Force Tempo" (the rate at which soldiers have to train then be deployed) and how it has risen dramatically causing harm for soldiers and therefore defense. They give three options

1 - "More Forces" obviously costly

2 - "More Efficiency" They recommend "eliminating unnecessary activities and staff, closing excess bases and facilities, and combing redundant organizations and functions". Stated as "politically difficult to implement", so basically the government is corrupt and wasting our money. Again, shocker ....

3 - "More Innovation" Come up with something new that is awesome and cheap .... whatever that means.

I think at this point with the corruption of both parties fully complete, We The People deserve a "no BS general created investigation" about what is ACTUALLY useful/needed and what is not. This from a purely military standpoint, no civilians or politicians whatsoever be involved.

The answer is so obvious to any American who isn't an idiot, cut bases, reduce waste, eliminate redundancies. While I was sure any military figure would agree, this is the first time I have seen in writing the actual military itself state what we all think.

It is the fault of politicians