U.S. military budget inches closer to $1 trillion mark, as concerns over federal deficit grow

Despite an already un-payable federal budget deficit, Senate have again voted to increase the Pentagon budget to $716 billion for 2019, an increase of $82 billion over 2017.

The current federal debt (in real time) is presently $21,167, 296, 868, 345 trillion. In fact, the debt is increasing so fast, it jumped over $1 million in the time it took to write this paragraph (HERE).

The $...296... is now $...299... An increase of $3 million in under 1 minute. Check back tomorrow and it'll be much higher.

Spending at this phenomenal rate is, we are told, designed to ensure the US can continue to be the indispensable nation in the world and maintain it's hegemony.

But the dizzying debt spiral virtually ensures that dollar hegemony is not only doomed, but that doom is fast approaching.

It's madness. Or is it more cynical?

When the former Soviet Union imploded in 1990/91 it's treasury was plundered by insiders (who became oligarchs in a short few years) and senior members of the then KGB stole Russia's entire gold reserves and stashed them offshore in Switzerland, London and the US --- and then they fled to safety overseas, mostly to the US, where they settled in luxury.

All I can say is that I won't personally be in hock to this massive debt, as I'm not an American. But American tax-payers are in line to do this - even though they have zero control over the spending.

Cynics (like me), believe that by and large, American's supposedly democratically elected representatives vote only according to the weight of the cash in the brown envelopes stuffed in their back pockets.

http://theguardianusa.com/u-s-milit...n-mark-as-concerns-over-federal-deficit-grow/

NOTE: the above article was originally published by the NYT's but is locked behind a paywall.

 

Well the liberals won't let us cut it.

Every time we offer an idea they shoot it down then they proceed to whine that we spend too much on the military.

Its laughable.

 

I think the real question is why we need a large military a quarter century after the Cold War ended.

 

how much is that going to ai, if its a lot then we know are days are numbered for extinction in the us and for the whole planet.
proficiency is being for filled new edition coming out to warn us

 

Inflation sucks, eh? Do you know the costs of the welfare state and entitlements?...or do you not care about anything but disarming the USA in a hostile world?

Here, let me help educate you: https://www.aaas.org/news/guide-presidents-budget-research-and-development-fy-2018

 

Our military is only about 60% of the size it was at the end of the Cold War.

 

darpas new toy detect target interest with out human control
video time 0:53 or ai terminator weapon

 

All the growth in the economy since 9/11 has been on borrowed money. Trump, Obama and Bush have borrowed their way to better numbers. Both Republicans and Democrats are involved. We really need a viable third party.

 

Most of the money we spend is on tech, not boots on the ground. Tech is a lot more expensive than just putting young men in uniform and handing them rifles.

 

Actually the largest items in the U.S. defense budget far and away is for personnel directly or indirectly.

 

Of course, but that's technical training, not just teaching them to march, shoot and shine their boots.

In 1976 Lieutenant Viktor Belenko defected from the USSR to the West in his MiG-25. George H.W. Bush was the CIA director that time. In 1980 Belenko published his biography of life in the USSR, why he defected and his experiences since then. One passage that stuck with me (among several) is that his CIA handlers showed him around the US, but Belenko thought it was BS, the American equivalent of Potemkin villages. It was only when he was taken out on a US aircraft carrier and saw how it operated that he believed what he was seeing: people motivated by a true desire to be there, not because they were required to do so by the government.

The US military is the finest in the world for several reasons; the people serving, the technical support and the training. All fo that requires money, money we can afford. It doesn't matter if we spend 20 Gazillion dollars since it's a matter of perspective, a matter of GDP percentage, affordability and economic interests. With a balanced perspective, it's easy to see that Russia outspends the US.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/#2048e8bd4c47

 

We should cut it down to 350 trillion like we had in the 90s. It was the Republicans who hiked up the military budget and taking the responsibility of poorly protecting the world on our shoulders rather than asking our allies to pitch in.

 

I assume you meant "billion" and not "trillion"

What specifically would you cut? And U.S. allies already "pitch in".

 

Why do we need it at anything remotely the size it is? Who are they protecting us against? Trump seemed to realize this during the campaign, when he suggested reducing the US military footprint, but abandoned this after getting elected. If the US military was half the size it is, particularly the navy and airforce we would be just as safe because no one is trying to attack us.

 

I'd cut whatever was increased since the 90s. US allies haven't been pitching in much since WWII and the US have supplied almost all the manpower in every major war since then.

 

I see you have the President and a majority in both houses and still blame the liberals - democrats. What a pathetic bunch you are. Completely unable to do anything even when you have all the power.

 

While they use the term "defense department" the vast bulk of the U.S. military is not used to defend the actual United States. It is used to defend and advance U.S. overseas interests. To this end most of the U.S. military consists of expeditionary forces which cost 5-7 times per man than regular forces.

 

Almost nothing has been increased since the 1990s. Not manpower. Not ground force vehicles. Not naval vessels. Not combat aircraft.

 

I find that very very hard to believe.

 

Sorry, but that's a biased perspective. When people only report total spending, I'm always curious about learning if they are doing it with the intention to deceive or out of ignorance.

Would it really surprise anyone to learn a company worth $20M spends more on security than most individuals on this forum? Is it really a mystery why that is?

Here's a clue for those who don't know: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022415/worlds-top-10-economies.asp
United States
The U.S. economy remains the largest in the world in terms of nominal GDP. The $19.42 trillion U.S. economy is 25% of the gross world product. The United States is an economic superpower that is highly advanced in terms of technology and infrastructure and has abundant natural resources. However, the U.S. economy loses its spot as the number one economy to China when measured in terms of GDP based on PPP. In these terms, China’s GDP is $23.19 trillion exceeds the U.S. GDP of $19.42 trillion. However, the U.S. is way ahead of China in terms of GDP per capita in nominal terms as well as PPP; GDP per capita (PPP) for the U.S. economy is approximately $59,609 versus $16,676 in China. In nominal terms, China’s GDP per capita further falls to $8,480.

 

So expenditures have dropped to less than 1985 levels. Thanks!

 

1985 was a buildup by another Republican which was also a waste of money. We need to cut back and demand our allies pitch in. That will reduce our deficit by 350 billion.

 

Results count. In the case of Reagan, it led to the end of the Cold War. I'm pleased with that result although I can see why Russian sympathizes would not be...in fact, Russians are still suffering from the results of over seven decades of communism.

Agreed 100% on demanding our allies carry their share of the load so American taxpayers don't have to carry them.

 

Unless you can link that spending increase to the Soviet Union collapse then results don't count and even then our allies should have pitched in and we wouldn't need to increase spending. Its kind of like if you did all the housework and then demand people help out. They aren't going to since you are already doing the work anyway and there are no consequences for them putting their efforts to help themselves. In order to get them to do their part you need to cut back your part, let the problems happen, and then demand they pitch in more.

 

Yes, we outspent the Russians. Socialism doesn't work as an economic system and the Russian economy had been teetering for years. Reagan gave it the shove off the edge needed to collapse it. No, he didn't win the Cold War all by himself, but he certainly provided the end game.

Interesting that you are focusing on that part and not the more important aspect: me agreeing with you that we can reduce our military budget by demanding our allies carry their fair share.