Or is it? What is presented is only half the picture. One trillion is a more accurate number. The Department of Veteran Affairs is not included in this number...which has gone up 50% over the past 4 years. This annual tab to the taxpayer is now more than twice the tab for our entire education department budget. Think about it.

A recent Rasmussen Poll showed that 51% of ALL Americans want ALL of our troops out of Eurasia. China spends less than 1/5th on their military and their related defense departments. And we wonder why China owns 2 trillion of our debt.

If Americans en masse want austerity, where's the accountability from the so called liberal media on this subject?

Some shocking numbers indeed....


http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175545/

Isn't the Dept of Veterans affairs basically pension and medical? In that regard, no different than other federal pensions & benefits. And, yes, it's too large. But only because of the size of our military and the recent campaigns. I don't begrudge them that at all. Unlike other govt workers, who now earn salary & wages above private sector counterparts (ignoring generous pensions and benefits), the military is comparatively underpaid - by good margin - vs. other dangerous/risky jobs such as oil rigs and crab fishing, heck even high-rise construction. Perhaps not if you factor in other benefits such as education and so forth.

But $530B is an otherwise healthy cut. Still a very generous budget. They'll just have to adjust. We probably can't imagine the amount of fat, waste and excess in the military budget. Contractors have been living high on the hog for 10+ years - screw it, time for a recession there.

Spend less money = more US soldiers die. So go to war less. I can live with that outcome. At some point, you have to put pencil to paper. If we spend $10M per soldier, then the decision is probably spend less and send them into battle less. It's either that or deeper cuts to SS, Medicare and other entitlements. I don't think this is a difficult trade-off to make.

Footwedge;1180303 wrote:A recent Rasmussen Poll showed that 51% of ALL Americans want ALL of our troops out of Eurasia.

While this may make sense because it "saves money." I doubt that those countries would allow us to leave.

Having troops spread all over the world does WONDERS with helping other countries' budgets. Think about the amount of people we give other countries. That's what many Americans don't think about. These other countries are helped by us being stationed there...without conflicts.

Yes the DOD budget is more than $530 Billion, but most of that 530 is O&M, and payment and such for the troops. A larger portion is DOD Tricare, separate than the VA, but deals with things like head trauma. The Office of the VA, yes, has increased 4 fold over the past couple years. That is due to all the research of PTSD and brain injuries.
Those costs will continue to rise. It is the reality of the wars the past decade.

Yet, we do need bases overseas, for a few reasons. 1. Strategic deterrent and show of force. For places like Asia, where U.S. forces are there to keep the Chinese and North Koreans in check. Bases in the Middle East are needed for Counter terrorism raids and to check Iran.
2. Top reassure allies. If the U.S. leaves Asia, or all out of Europe, allies will start to get pretty nervous and may start acting irrational or against the U.S. U.S. forces ,and Naval presences in ports worldwide keep the world economy calm. There is no worry that a strait may close or a shipping lane may be cut off. The U.S. is the only country that can provide that assurance.
It is the reality of the world we live in. Ignoring it, is ignoring the way the global economy and international relations function.


That said, can the DOD be cut. Hell yeah,. There are so many stupid programs that are overpriced or not needed. The Joint Strike Fighter is a huge mess. The Littoral Combat Ship is a huge drain. There are other numerous examples of waste, redundancy, overhead, bureaucracy, and Iran Triangle thinking that keeps the DOD budget high.

Also, the DOD budget for Congress is a lovefest for Pork. Buck McKeon of CA. loves to prop up programs that aren't needed. One example is the Marine Landing Craft, which the Marines themselves say they do not want. But, it is being funded.
Another one is the recent call for a study, by House R's, for the DOD to put in Ground Based Missile defense Interceptors on the east coast to defend against an Iranian ICBM threat. That makes no sense, as 1. Iran is no where close to an ICBM. They don't even have a Medium range missile. And, the Groundbased system is still in the testing phase. It has not actually even had a full test to intercept an ICBM yet. Only medium range. So, it is a waste of a couple 100 million.

Things like that could be scrapped.
But, a more streamlined way to procure DOD items, as well as cleaning up the Congressional budget process could help reduce costs.

As a military dependent, having free healthcare(tricare) is awesome. But I have no problem at all paying a little bit to have it. I'm shocked it isn't that way. Though I'll say this, the army hospital here.... Scary. I don't go unless I have to!!

gut;1180335 wrote:Isn't the Dept of Veterans affairs basically pension and medical?

Both are way too high. Especially medical. But that's what happens when your philosophy is empire building through military occupation. The cost to take care of the physically mained and mentally ruined vets has caused the 50% increase...50 billion or so over the past 5 years.

Spend less money = more US soldiers die.

Wrong...end the empire insanity and 1/10th the number of soliers die...and the associated cost would decrease right along with it.

US foreign policy is morally wrong, criminally wrong, has proven to make us more vulnerable. and without question, is leading us to financial suicide.

And the knuckleheads from both sides of the aisle are too stupid to figure it out.

Footwedge;1181555 wrote:Both are way too high. Especially medical. But that's what happens when your philosophy is empire building through military occupation.

It's basically another form of welfare. It probably hurts Oprah's ratings, but otherwise I'm surprised you're so opposed to it.

ptown_trojans_1;1181284 wrote:Yet, we do need bases overseas, for a few reasons. 1. Strategic deterrent and show of force. For places like Asia, where U.S. forces are there to keep the Chinese and North Koreans in check.

I think it's odd, however, that we are borrowing money from the Chicoms to help finance our ability to keep them in check in Asia. I wonder how we would react if the Chicoms were borrowing money from us to help finance their military ventures in - say - Belize to keep us from dominating Central America?

Frankly I'm OK with staying in South Korea to keep the Hyundai and Kia plants humming.

ptown_trojans_1;1181284 wrote:Bases in the Middle East are needed for Counter terrorism raids and to check Iran.

That and it helps insure free flow of cheap foreign oil. Even the environmentalists are on board with that one.

ptown_trojans_1;1181284 wrote:2. To reassure allies. If the U.S. leaves Asia, or all out of Europe, allies will start to get pretty nervous and may start acting irrational or against the U.S.

You mean they'll bitch because they'll have to pick-up their own defense costs leaving little money available to keep funding their socialist utopias?

ptown_trojans_1;1181284 wrote:U.S. forces ,and Naval presences in ports worldwide keep the world economy calm. There is no worry that a strait may close or a shipping lane may be cut off. The U.S. is the only country that can provide that assurance.
It is the reality of the world we live in. Ignoring it, is ignoring the way the global economy and international relations function.

Perhaps but don't you think it's a bit odd to think that while the American taxpayer and the American military are keeping the world economy "calm" it's bankrupting us in the process? Besides relatively secure shipping lanes, where's the ROI? Seems that while the rest of the world benefits from our presence we get nothing but the grief and are left holding the tab. What a deal.

Well here's to hoping all the European bases stay open for about 6 more years. That's where we hope to go after Hawaii. But My wife has been part of briefings that they have said specifically that they plan to close European bases. Other then rammstein, that base will always be needed.

Interesting dynamic opening up with the sequester coming in the Republican party.

Harry Reid has said the only way he is changing the sequester to avoid hitting the Pentagon so hard is to have Republicans agree to raise taxes.

This is really pitting Grover Norquist against the defense hawks who are screaming that these cuts will cripple the military and have to be stopped.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as no one ever figured that the cuts would be sustained when it was initially done. It seems that dingey harry is finally trying to use some new found leverage to get something else he wants in exchange for trimming back the size of the cuts.

Midstate01;1181376 wrote:Though I'll say this, the army hospital here.... Scary. I don't go unless I have to!!

You are one of the lucky ones.

gut;1181580 wrote:It's basically another form of welfare. It probably hurts Oprah's ratings, but otherwise I'm surprised you're so opposed to it.

Then you don't know me very well.

IggyPride00;1182047 wrote:Interesting dynamic opening up with the sequester coming in the Republican party.

Harry Reid has said the only way he is changing the sequester to avoid hitting the Pentagon so hard is to have Republicans agree to raise taxes.

This is really pitting Grover Norquist against the defense hawks who are screaming that these cuts will cripple the military and have to be stopped.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as no one ever figured that the cuts would be sustained when it was initially done. It seems that dingey harry is finally trying to use some new found leverage to get something else he wants in exchange for trimming back the size of the cuts.

The Defense industry, ie. Lockheed, Boeing, SAIC, etc, are starting to get nervous about the cuts. They want to know what will happen just in case the DOD decides to axe a lot of contacts, forcing layoffs.

Although, most shifted some assets around last year, knowing how screwed up Congress is. But, still, industry is getting a little nervous around here.
I know my company is starting to hear some rumbles.

believer;1181589 wrote:I think it's odd, however, that we are borrowing money from the Chicoms to help finance our ability to keep them in check in Asia. I wonder how we would react if the Chicoms were borrowing money from us to help finance their military ventures in - say - Belize to keep us from dominating Central America?

Frankly I'm OK with staying in South Korea to keep the Hyundai and Kia plants humming.



That and it helps insure free flow of cheap foreign oil. Even the environmentalists are on board with that one.



You mean they'll bitch because they'll have to pick-up their own defense costs leaving little money available to keep funding their socialist utopias?



Perhaps but don't you think it's a bit odd to think that while the American taxpayer and the American military are keeping the world economy "calm" it's bankrupting us in the process? Besides relatively secure shipping lanes, where's the ROI? Seems that while the rest of the world benefits from our presence we get nothing but the grief and are left holding the tab. What a deal.

Agree with you on the first portions.
On Asia, yeah, countries like Japan, South Korea, Vietnam (yeah, Vietnam), Philippines, and Thailand are pretty nervous about Chinese power. My old boss went over the Japan last year, before the quake, and said all the Japanese talked about was the Chinese, and they wanted U.S. forces in the area to act as a buffer.

On Europe, it is the Eastern Europeans that are wanting us to stay there, not the crazies. Countries like Poland, Georgia, and Romania want the U.S./ NATO there as a buffer against the Ruskies.

On the last point. I agree, but that is the way the world works. If the U.S. starts to pull back from their responsibilities, the world economy, mainly Asia, may react in a negative way. I get what you are saying, and yeah, it sucks the rest of the world can;t pull their weight. They are trying, as more countries obtain a Navy, but still as long as the U.S. is the world'sNavy, it is a role it must continue to play.

If they want the "buffer" they can pay us royalties for being over there.

ptown_trojans_1;1182112 wrote:The Defense industry, ie. Lockheed, Boeing, SAIC, etc, are starting to get nervous about the cuts. They want to know what will happen just in case the DOD decides to axe a lot of contacts, forcing layoffs.

Although, most shifted some assets around last year, knowing how screwed up Congress is. But, still, industry is getting a little nervous around here.
I know my company is starting to hear some rumbles.

From what I have been reading they should be worried.

As long as Harry Reid sticks to his guns on having taxes raised in return for shifting defense cuts I don't see how that works itself out.

Republicans are between a rock and a hard place in that the defense cuts are unacceptable to them, and so are tax increases. To get one they are going to have to trade the other, and in the nuclear scenario they are getting neither the tax cut extension or saving defense if they can't find a way to compromise with Reid.

In that case the defense and financial services lobby are going to have the battle of a lifetime against eachother to curry favor with GOP lawmakers.

I am surprised we aren't hearing more about the uncertainty with the tax cut expiration at the end of the year as well as the huge defense cuts. It is like the elephant in the room the media hasn't picked up yet.

Lord Grover has already made it clear though that there is no wiggle room on his pledge, which is considerably complicating matters because it makes compromising to get a resolution everyone can live with nearly impossible.

sleeper;1182123 wrote:If they want the "buffer" they can pay us royalties for being over there.

This. They want our service, they can pay for it.

"But they'll be mad!!!" Who gives a shit?

^^^Exactly. If our "allies" want our Navy to keep their shipping lanes open then we ought to tax them for it. Put up or shut up.

The global economy is a bit more complicated. The US subsidizes and exports drugs, medical devices and its military. And in return we get to import subsidized oil and interest rates. I don't know if we're a net winner or loser there, but my suspicion is we're getting a good deal.

OSH;1180463 wrote: Having troops spread all over the world does WONDERS with helping other countries' budgets. Think about the amount of people we give other countries.

This.

Germany would be considered a 3rd world country if not for all the US military bases and money from the Americans stationed there.