PDA

View Full Version : Military Blew $1 Trillion on Weapons



Qtec
11-02-2011, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Report: Military Blew <span style='font-size: 14pt'>$1 Trillion on Weapons Since 9/11 </span>


Capitol Hill conservatives and Pentagon brass fighting cuts to defense spending have argued that the military is limping off the battlefield with decrepit hardware. It's quite the sob story: At a hearing last week, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the chair of the House armed services committee, cut his remarks short to literally sob for "these young men that are going outside the wire over in Afghanistan, every day on patrol."

But a new report shows the US defense establishment is in much better shape than it claims: The DOD has blown roughly $1 trillion on shiny new tanks, ships, and jets since the 9/11 attacksó<span style='font-size: 14pt'>and it's often done so with dollars that were supposed to be spent on those troops on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.</span> </div></div>

link (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/military-trillion-dollar-weapons-spending)

America has plenty of money, they just spend it on the wrong things.

Q

Soflasnapper
11-02-2011, 08:23 AM
When Reagan doubled the level of spending for defense from the Carter first term levels,* the Pentagon went wild with their wish list, adding in their 3rd and 4th level priorities to their real priorities, in order to pad up the baseline from which the inflation + 5% extra (= +15% in nominal terms) was going to be based. Complete Christmas/Disneyland party-time, anything they even vaguely wanted, but incredibly wasteful, precious, and a bad use of the country's money.

*To be most accurate, Carter would have increased it more in his second term according to what HE'D committed to and put into projected future budgets, and it wasn't doubled in real terms, given the high inflation rate-- more like up 60% in real terms and not really up 100% in real terms. Same reason the claim that 'revenues DOUBLED' during the Reagan years is also false. First, it was up about 83% nominally, not 100% up, and given the inflation, IT was up about 60% in real terms, mostly from the 6 years' 13 tax increases.

It is not surprising when the spending actually DID TRIPLE (or more) in real terms (far lower inflation during the 00's), that the Pentagon once again scammed the public by going deep into their wishlists another time. We 'needed' the 4th generation Cold War style F-22s to assure continuing air dominance over al-Qaeda, evidently. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif Very important, as they were getting close to challenging our earlier front line fighter jets. Not.

Qtec
11-02-2011, 08:50 AM
Its just a matter of priorities. This IMO is the difference between the two parties.

The GOP.
Trillions in tax cuts for the top earners and corporations, no problem. 7.6 Billion for medical costs for 9/11 first responders? No way. Too much. Some illegals might get some of that money and we can't have that.

M Bachmann has just announced that she will make everyone pay income tax.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BACHMANN: My tax plan is unique in that, unlike any of the other plans, my plan calls for every American to pay something when it comes to federal income taxes, because today 51 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This needs to change. We're at a tipping point now. Everyone needs to pay something. </span> </div></div>

IMO, a total disconnect from reality. She should take the challenge.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), other members of Congress, and national religious leaders are participating in a week-long national Fighting Poverty with Faith Food Stamp Challenge to raise awareness about the challenges for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients and the realities of hunger in America. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>For a week Rep. Schakowsky has lived on $31.50 worth of food (about $4.50 a day), the average weekly benefit for a food stamp recipient.</span> </div></div>

Q

Gayle in MD
11-02-2011, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Reagan doubled the level of spending for defense from the Carter first term levels,* the Pentagon went wild with their wish list, adding in their 3rd and 4th level priorities to their real priorities, in order to pad up the baseline from which the inflation + 5% extra (= +15% in nominal terms) was going to be based. Complete Christmas/Disneyland party-time, anything they even vaguely wanted, but incredibly wasteful, precious, and a bad use of the country's money.

*To be most accurate, Carter would have increased it more in his second term according to what HE'D committed to and put into projected future budgets, and it wasn't doubled in real terms, given the high inflation rate-- more like up 60% in real terms and not really up 100% in real terms. Same reason the claim that 'revenues DOUBLED' during the Reagan years is also false. First, it was up about 83% nominally, not 100% up, and given the inflation, IT was up about 60% in real terms, mostly from the 6 years' 13 tax increases.

It is not surprising when the spending actually DID TRIPLE (or more) in real terms (far lower inflation during the 00's), that the Pentagon once again scammed the public by going deep into their wishlists another time. We 'needed' the 4th generation Cold War style F-22s to assure continuing air dominance over al-Qaeda, evidently. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif Very important, as they were getting close to challenging our earlier front line fighter jets. Not. </div></div>

If Romney get in there, the defense spending will go through the roof, and more Americans, will go hungry.

Defense spending, for what? More wars, to make more enemies.

And the right calls it apologizing for America, when we have a president who is willing to acknowledge that American foreign policy hasn't always been fair or rational?

Neocons don't like it when we point out that Bush's Axis Of Evil, was partly a result of Repiglicans, doing business behind the scenes, with dictators, and thugs, like Saddam, the Contra's and Iran.

It goes all the way back to Preston Bush....and his dealings with Hitler.

Repigs work overtime, to reverse the damages directly from their corrupt foreign policies, pretending to be strong on foreign policy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. they're disastrous.

G.