Military Spending Is Already Bankrupting America

Except you can't do this:

1) The size, strength and weapons systems of the U.S. military are influenced to an immense degree by our commitments both at home and abroad. Elected politicians are the ones who make treaties and determine where U.S. interests are. Members of the military no matter how high the rank have no input in that.

Nor should they as I would assume most people (including you) don't want a huge part of this nations policies determined by professional soldiers?

2) Contrary to common belief, "waste" is not a line item in a budget that you can simply eliminate. If "eliminating waste" were that easy it would've been done years ago.

3) "Redundancies" cannot be easily eliminated because of the history between the armed forces. The army does not trust the USAF to provide close air support for it (with justification) so they maintain their own fleet of attack helicopters. The U.S. Navy does not trust the Air Force to provide air cover for their surface ships so they'll always insist on having their carrier air wings. The USAF (as the youngest branch) and the decline of the heavy bomber and ICBM forces is convinced that the other branches want to absorb it and plunder its budget.

 

Did you even read the report?

You seem to just be shouting a rehearsed answer about how important EVERY SINGLE THING THE MILITARY DOES is and the military themselves just said otherwise.

I don't think you did, especially the conclusion part, I should have typed the whole thing out instead of summarizing as it answers your question/statement for you.

You can't copy and paste from the report, but here, let me write EXACTLY what option the military themselves seems to put the most faith in.

-----------------

"Another option is to improve the efficiency with which the Department spends its budget. Management efficiencies can include eliminating unnecessary activities and staff, closing excess bases and facilities and combining redundant organizations and functions. DoD could also slow the growth in compensation costs by re balancing military and civilian compensation to spend relatively more on the forms of compensations employees value most and pay for this by cutting the forms of compensation they value least.

DoD could also improve the efficiency of military readiness funding by optimizing the allocation of resources for personnel, training, equipment maintenance, and supplies according to measures of unit performance. The challenge with achieving such efficiencies is that some of the inefficiency within the military are by design-units, activities and organizations are sometimes structured to be redundant to mitigate odds of operational failure. Even when an inefficiency is not by design, it can be politically difficult to eliminate because it often means cutting jobs in someones's congressional district."

-------------------

So to your points:

1) So you are trying to say that politicians know better what weapon systems or bases are needed? The military claims there are, yet (you) say you are more qualified to tell them what they need? Even funnier, you trust our politicians to tell the truth and do what is good for our military, over "getting jobs" from defense contracts? This is a pretty well known problem and please don't try to justify this with one random program you say we need. I am claiming nothing of the sort and the military themselves says there is plenty of waste.


2) As I just showed you from the budget document itself, yes, "waste" is a budget item that can be gotten rid of. Politicians are causing us all to pay for things we don't need, both Republicans and Democrats.

3) You are talking about overall strategy including the Triad which is silly. We are not talking about nuclear or armament redundancies, we are talking about staffing and facilitation that is nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork. Every single person in the military will agree with this.

It seems like overall you are trying the same old tactic of "nuh uh, look how important this one is!"

That is simply foolish, as I have said (and shown) several times now, the military themselves say there are redundancies (likely contributed to by politics) that can be cut.

Whether it was Obama lying through his teeth about "going through the budget with a razor" or Trump talking about how China is going to destroy us unless we get the debt in control, it doesn't matter.

Both parties are lying out of their teeth about the debt and if you think every dollar spent in the military is a sacred cow you are sorely mistaken

 

Why do you believe that our professional soldiers are less corrupt and/or more competent than our elected politicians? Why make that assumption?

 

The politician has FAR more to gain and has in the last several decades given what seems infinite examples of their untrustworthy character.

Meanwhile, a politician is advising something that clearly helps him by getting "more stuff".

The military is advising something that reduces the amount of "stuff" they get.

Then top it all off with the insane amount of over spending we have and whamo! This is pretty clearly and obviously the correct path.


So, you really don't think there are ANY redundancies or wastes in the military? Really? Not any?

Every ... single ... base ... and ... facility ... we ... have, is non negotiable?

If that is your stance, I find it to be incredibly short sided.

 

Except I never said that.

By the way, don't believe for a moment that the career military officers involved in pointing out what they see as "waste" "inefficiencies", and "redundancies" are not promoting their own career agendas as well.

Elected politicians are generally more accountable than career military personnel.

 

THEN ANSWER!

You have only said:

"contrary to common belief, "waste" is not a line item in a budget that you can simply eliminate. If "eliminating waste" were that easy it would've been done years ago."

""Redundancies" cannot be easily eliminated because of the history between the armed forces. "

So unless you want to have an actual conversation, I am going to assume you do not think there are any cuts despite the military saying otherwise.

 

There are lots of places you can cut waste and inefficiency in the U.S. military. But I wouldn't cut the budget overall. I would simply reallocate the money saved to other portions of the defense budget that need it more.

Hardware wise things like strategic airlift and both offensive and defensive mine warfare.

 

There are lots of places you can cut waste and inefficiency in the U.S. military. But I wouldn't cut the budget overall. I would simply reallocate the money saved to other portions of the defense budget that need it more.

Hardware wise things like strategic airlift and both offensive and defensive mine warfare.

 

I would cut the budget in half

 

We know. We know. You believe the world won't slip into chaos if the U.S. leaves a huge power vacuum. Life doesn't work that way.

If the U.S. defense budget was cut in half we would be lucky to maintain a military ONE FIFTH the size it is now. And we couldn't defend anything.

 

I am fine with that. Reduce our military to Russia and China levels. Stop being the worlds policeman.

You must make your money off military contracts

 

This is such typical liberal BS. Defense is necessary to keep the really scary psychopaths like Kim Jong In, Putin, Xi and all the nutjobs in the Middle East from bombing America off the planet.

What isn't necessary however, is the ever growing deficit from entitlements particularly the funds paid to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS which keeps growing due to liberals loving wide open borders.

That's what you should be biitching about.

Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens

Expenditures on Illegal Aliens

Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens

Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

 

Firstly we need to compare apples with apples. Mr Sixties Sears was presumably a full-time employee in order to be able to support his family. The Average full-time wage is $50,900. This is significantly higher than the $31,000 average salary because of the proportion of people in part time employment and/or with more than one job.

Regarding the cost of food, whilst it's easy to cherry pick certain things, the proportion of household income spent on food is currently around 12% for the middle quintile - and a half of that is spent eating out and/or buying in. Back in the 1960's the proportion was closer to 18% of household income. This clearly shows that food is cheaper.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produ...ting-the-essentials/food-prices-and-spending/

In large parts of the country, if you earn the average full time wage and live a 60s lifestyle then you would be able to get by on a single income. The difficulty would be restricting your lifestyle to 60s levels and in some cases like healthcare, it would be impossible.

 

That we did. Instead of spending on the future we have gone down the path of spending on the past - spending on the basis that realities that existed decades ago are the way things are now. We are wasting our future.

 

Not even close. Nor does anyone in my immediate family. Don't know about extended family.

So you think only a person with a financial stake in it would argue in favor of a strong military.?

If the U.S. isn't the worlds policeman who will be? I guarantee that the U.S. would not like the alternative in the long run.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Especially a power vacuum.

 

No one will be. That is the point. Each country protects its own interests. We will be safer and richer for it. If we only have three carriers ….who would take over? No one …...and that is the point

 

It doesn't work that way. Give me a sustained period of modern world history where each country has done no more than "protect its own interests".

And about that "protect its own interests" do you deny the United States has vital economic interests around most of the world? You would I suppose be against protecting those interest. Likewise, IIRC there are some 20 million American citizens living abroad at any one time. Are there lives not worth protecting just because they live or work outside the 50 states?

 

Most of the history of this country we have done no more than protect our interests. Our job is to protect americans at home. Those that go abroad can seek assistance from an embassy. Every country has people living abroad....it is ridiculous to have a massive military to try to protect them. We protect our country....you want protection.....then stay here

 

For about 120 years (1820-1940) the United States was under the unofficial protection of the British Empire via the Royal Navy.

Don't believe for a moment that the U.S. has "protected itself" for most of its history.

 

America embassy's and consulates are legally U.S. territory. Should the U.S. maintain the forces to protect its diplomatic facilities.

IIRC at the time of the failed U.S. attempt to rescue the hostages taken by Iranians when they seized our embassy (1979-1981) so called "Desert One" in 1980, the U.S. had four carrier battle groups deployed to the Indian Ocean.

To deploy four carriers overseas at once, the U.S. has to have 12 in service. As a man with extensive knowledge of naval operations you know this to be true.

 

It should maintain no more forces than any other country does. You see this is my point. We need to balance what everyone else is doing. They manage just fine. So can we. If we can not do it with four carrier groups we can not do it with ten

 

I assure you....we can protect ourselves now. That is what we should be doing and only what we should be doing

 

With what? You've provided no specifics other than

1) We should have only three aircraft carriers (or one, don't remember what kick you are on).
2) The military budget should be cut in half.
3) Bring all our troops "home" and close all overseas bases.

A) How many active duty ground troops should the U.S. Army and Marines have?
B) How many fighters and bombers should the U.S. Air Force have in service?
C) How many nuclear weapons should the U.S. have deployed and what should be their delivery methods?
D) How many warships should the U.S. Navy have?

I don't suppose I should bother asking you what happens to our relationships with other countries when the U.S. abandons a whole series of international treaties and agreements.

 

What makes you think those other nations "manage just fine"?

 

Half of all those things would be just fine. If other countries are not happy about it too bad. Time for them to step up