Author Topic: Military Spending  (Read 7767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2010, 01:39:58 PM »

So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?

Well, we could start by not providing a defense for Japan. We could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2010, 01:54:43 PM »

So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?

Well, we could start by not providing a defense for Japan. We could end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

And you're out of office in a heart beat because you've just given in to China and the terrorists. No soccer mom in the world is going to vote for you.

Japan might be politically possible. And ending the war in Afghanistan would take about a year if we just brought back the troops and left all the equipment. The war in Iraq is currently winding down. It's taking time because we're pulling billions of dollars of equipment out in addition to the troop drawdown.

And of those three, Japan is really only a small sliver of the $600 billion-plus in defense spending that doesn't include the wars. That total doesn't include things like the CIA, Homeland Security or the FBI either. So you've managed to kick a few grains of sand off the mountain, which is a start.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #27 on: July 20, 2010, 02:41:00 PM »
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.

Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.





Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.

So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?

This isn't about you  . . . you're trying to defend the indefensible. 

In addition such a weak argument reduces war to nothing more than just another policy issue . . . war is now akin to promising not to raise taxes or promising to be transparent??  Come on, that's pathetic.  The last time war on this scope was reduced to just another policy issue, they built a monument and engraved 52,000 names into it. 

Also lets come back to that, "not that much more than Bush" . . . well, if somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 BILLION more than any of Bush's total annual expenditures on defense and all related sub components is "Not that much more" . . . than I suppose you have a point.

If we all go to the Paul Krugman school of economics, all that means is, we just buy another printing press.








Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2010, 03:42:21 PM »
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.

Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.





Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.

So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?

This isn't about you  . . . you're trying to defend the indefensible. 

In addition such a weak argument reduces war to nothing more than just another policy issue . . . war is now akin to promising not to raise taxes or promising to be transparent??  Come on, that's pathetic.  The last time war on this scope was reduced to just another policy issue, they built a monument and engraved 52,000 names into it. 

Also lets come back to that, "not that much more than Bush" . . . well, if somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 BILLION more than any of Bush's total annual expenditures on defense and all related sub components is "Not that much more" . . . than I suppose you have a point.

If we all go to the Paul Krugman school of economics, all that means is, we just buy another printing press.









So no proposals other than to complain about the spending. I may have to double down on you being a tea tard.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2010, 04:32:09 PM »

How do you figure that the military spending has a positive effect on the economy? Is it because part of the spending is outsourced to the private sector? Any positive effect on the economy is offset in the long term by the deaths of thousands of 18-22 year olds fighting a war that the United States will see no real benefit from winning. The money would be better spent domestically or better yet, not at all.

To answer your second question:  Yes.  I believe this takes care of the first question as well.

To respond to your poorly thought out retort:  pffffft.  Let's see, we've got the value of 18-22 year old lives (apparently their efforts save none, and the cost of protecting those fighting is too much), a war "with no real benefit" (please inform our leaders, this is breaking news), a claim that domestic spending would do better (enormous LOL considering the current administration's efforts).  Stop driveling, TIA.

I think the government should spend less money across the board, but skimping on Military spending during a war is a bad idea.  If we're going to send a bunch of "18-22 year olds" into battle by executive order, it would be extremely unfair to not give them the full resources of our nation.  Not to mention, full support gives them a better chance at success (the end game of war).

If you want to end the war, I'm probably cool with that.  However, I'm a little surprised by some of the comments from the left leaning members of this board.  Don't you fools know Democrats love war (see WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Croatia, Middle East(Dax covered this above))?  They also love nuclear weapons (see FDR, Truman, Kennedy, etc.). 

You guys need to get your rhetoric straight, you can't just be the party of NO.  Also, please check with your union homeboys on the whole amnesty thing, I'm pretty sure you're against that as well.

TIA,

Sugar Dick

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2010, 05:04:22 PM »

To answer your second question:  Yes.  I believe this takes care of the first question as well.


How much positive impact do you think this spending has? Do you think we get a good return on our $500 billion+ investment?


To respond to your poorly thought out retort:  pffffft.  Let's see, we've got the value of 18-22 year old lives (apparently their efforts save none, and the cost of protecting those fighting is too much), a war "with no real benefit" (please inform our leaders, this is breaking news), a claim that domestic spending would do better (enormous LOL considering the current administration's efforts).  Stop driveling, TIA.


I truly believe that not one American life has been saved by the war in Iraq. Honestly, taking $100 billion from the defense budget annually to upgrade affordable mass transit would save more American lives due to reduced traffic accidents than what would be lost if terrorist attacks in America were to increase ten fold. This money would also create private sector jobs.

There also is an economic loss associated with every soldier who dies and especially those who get wounded.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost

Why is ending war a partisan issue? If you look at the policies of both parties, both should be in favor of cutting the defense budget. If our defense budget continues to grow, and it will, we will outspend every nation in the world combined. It just seems like overkill to me.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2010, 05:19:40 PM »
I truly believe that not one American life has been saved by the war in Iraq. Honestly, taking $100 billion from the defense budget annually to upgrade affordable mass transit would save more American lives due to reduced traffic accidents than what would be lost if terrorist attacks in America were to increase ten fold. This money would also create private sector jobs.

Cooky.  Also not sure why you've separated Iraq, UNLESS your politicizing the war effort (see below)  :runaway:

Quote
There also is an economic loss associated with every soldier who dies and especially those who get wounded.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost

Why can't you think of all government policies this way?  I'm normally like contrarian thinking, but this line of thinking is absurd and you know it.

Quote
Why is ending war a partisan issue? If you look at the policies of both parties, both should be in favor of cutting the defense budget. If our defense budget continues to grow, and it will, we will outspend every nation in the world combined. It just seems like overkill to me.
Quote

Because our leaders, particularly democrats, have made it one. 

The defense budget is "a sparrows belch" in the world of government spending as compared to entitlement spending like SS and Medicare, and soon Obamacare.  Entitlement spending is enemy number one re:  government spending.  Everything else is chump change.


Other than that, I think we're probably in agreement.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2010, 05:32:50 PM »
I truly believe that not one American life has been saved by the war in Iraq. Honestly, taking $100 billion from the defense budget annually to upgrade affordable mass transit would save more American lives due to reduced traffic accidents than what would be lost if terrorist attacks in America were to increase ten fold. This money would also create private sector jobs.

Cooky.  Also not sure why you've separated Iraq, UNLESS your politicizing the war effort (see below)  :runaway:

I separated Iraq because I think the war in Afghanistan actually has merit, or at least it used to.

Quote
There also is an economic loss associated with every soldier who dies and especially those who get wounded.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2007/03/iraq-war-wounded-bilmes-cost

Why can't you think of all government policies this way?  I'm normally like contrarian thinking, but this line of thinking is absurd and you know it.

I actually do think of all government policies this way. I don't typically read the New Statesman, but it was the first source I could find that mentions the cost of taking care of all the injured veterans for the next 60-70 years.

Quote
Why is ending war a partisan issue? If you look at the policies of both parties, both should be in favor of cutting the defense budget. If our defense budget continues to grow, and it will, we will outspend every nation in the world combined. It just seems like overkill to me.
Quote

Because our leaders, particularly democrats, have made it one. 

The defense budget is "a sparrows belch" in the world of government spending as compared to entitlement spending like SS and Medicare, and soon Obamacare.  Entitlement spending is enemy number one re:  government spending.  Everything else is chump change.

Entitlement spending sucks, but there is no fair way to eliminate it. I think that spending as much as we do on the elderly is especially terrible when compared to how little we spend on education.

Other than that, I think we're probably in agreement.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2010, 06:20:07 PM »
If the baseline is, "Gosh, it's not that much more than Bush" . . . then it's a perfect talking point and frankly only lends more credence as to how a significant portion of the population drank from the vat of Kool-Aid Obama was selling.

Which in essence is yet another perfect example of the left/right paradigm fraud.





Yeah, it's like no one ever warned the American public that presidential precedents would be abused by later presidents. I think in regards to military spending a certain president might have even warned of the current situation. Could just be that ultra-liberal public education I received though. Please provide the link where I've stated I thought Obama was going to reign in defense/war/intelligence spending.

So we've got this problem. Let's call it the military industrial complex to dress it up a little bit. How do you propose we fix this? What reforms do you want to see? Where are the actual cuts going to come from?

This isn't about you  . . . you're trying to defend the indefensible. 

In addition such a weak argument reduces war to nothing more than just another policy issue . . . war is now akin to promising not to raise taxes or promising to be transparent??  Come on, that's pathetic.  The last time war on this scope was reduced to just another policy issue, they built a monument and engraved 52,000 names into it. 

Also lets come back to that, "not that much more than Bush" . . . well, if somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 BILLION more than any of Bush's total annual expenditures on defense and all related sub components is "Not that much more" . . . than I suppose you have a point.

If we all go to the Paul Krugman school of economics, all that means is, we just buy another printing press.









So no proposals other than to complain about the spending. I may have to double down on you being a tea tard.

Your father isn't by chance on the faculty at K-State is he??

The latest ploy of the defenders of the current policy, now that they realize it's exactly the same as the old policies is to tap out with the "what are your solutions" tactic. 

1.  Closure of hundreds of un-needed military bases world wide.   (Will never happen, the U.S. is an empire, Obama is the latest CEO of the empire). 

2.  Massive review of current weapons systems and weapons systems development.   There is massive redundancy which cost billions.   (Will never happen until the day the line item veto is made available to the executive branch). 

3.  Consolidation and reduction of force within the intelligence community.  (will never happen until the perpetual pissing contest ends,  like most countries with large intelligence operations, they spend more time fighting with each other than they do the bad guys). 

4.   A multi-year probation period for military officers and DOD civilian personnel that prevents them from leaving the DOD and going to work directly with military contractors.  (a pipe dream I know, but millions are wasted because somebody with to much information is able to work the system from the private sector using knowledge ganered while on active military/DOD duty). 

Don't say extraction from the wars . . . because that ain't happening anytime soon.


Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2010, 06:47:20 PM »
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.

Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?

Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.

Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.

There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2010, 07:34:52 PM »
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.

Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?

Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.

Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.

There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.

The market dictates military pay. They don't exactly turn people away. If you wanted to get that military pay, I'm sure they'd more than happy to have you enlist. The military sets a quota on the number of recruits they want and sets wages to meet that quota. The problem is that the quota is too high. Lowering the quota would reduce the pay.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2010, 07:39:18 PM »
Yeah, why save Billions on true military reform, when you can get those janitors.


Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2010, 08:39:45 PM »
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.

Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?

Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.

Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.

There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.

The market dictates military pay. They don't exactly turn people away. If you wanted to get that military pay, I'm sure they'd more than happy to have you enlist. The military sets a quota on the number of recruits they want and sets wages to meet that quota. The problem is that the quota is too high. Lowering the quota would reduce the pay.

Don't talk about things you know nothing about. Regular military pay has no relation to quotas. The military did use incentives (bonuses) during the height of both wars to retain and attract new enlistments, but those have been greatly reduced because of the current economy. All branches of the military met or exceeded their quotas last year but amazingly base pay didn't go down.

Military pay and BHAs are based on rank and years of service. Again, base pay has zero to do with recruitment of new enlistments. About 20 years ago military pay was 23 percent below private sector wages, which prompted what is now an almost annual outsized pay raise that has shot well past the original goal of parity to the current 17 percent surplus. Essentially a high-school graduate entering the Army can expect to earn 17-percent more than his peers entering the civilian labor force. Same goes for college graduates entering officer school etc.

Dax,
You said all of your ideas were politically impossible. Good job there of identifying those true reforms that can't be done. So sorry for focusing on things that can be done and still save a good deal of money. More money than you were complaining about Obama's "slight increase" earlier. So you know, not much at all.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2010, 09:40:51 PM »
Nope, I'm by far the most liberal member of my family and I'm not all that liberal.

Since you admit all of your plans are politically untenable, any idea of what might be feasible?

Things like building more on-post housing/taking a percentage of any BHAs that soldiers use to buy housing. I'm not talking about housing everyone on post, just raising what the standard 1/3 on 2/3 off to an even 50-50. Also with newer post housing, all utilities should be metered at the residence and give those living there a basic utility allowance. More than that comes out of regular pay.

Reduce the reliance on contractors. A janitor at Fort Riley starts at $15/hour, about double what PFCs make disregarding the housing allowance. This is also true to a greater extent of private contractors in war zones. Everything from truck drivers to the people training Iraqi police. Often times being paid up to 10 times more money than an Army truck driver or MP would be paid. If you think these contracting costs are going away when the wars are done, they're not.

There are hundreds of other similar things that can be done, including the difficult but not impossible feat of halting pay raises for the military until parity with the private sector is achieved.

The market dictates military pay. They don't exactly turn people away. If you wanted to get that military pay, I'm sure they'd more than happy to have you enlist. The military sets a quota on the number of recruits they want and sets wages to meet that quota. The problem is that the quota is too high. Lowering the quota would reduce the pay.

Don't talk about things you know nothing about. Regular military pay has no relation to quotas. The military did use incentives (bonuses) during the height of both wars to retain and attract new enlistments, but those have been greatly reduced because of the current economy. All branches of the military met or exceeded their quotas last year but amazingly base pay didn't go down.

Military pay and BHAs are based on rank and years of service. Again, base pay has zero to do with recruitment of new enlistments. About 20 years ago military pay was 23 percent below private sector wages, which prompted what is now an almost annual outsized pay raise that has shot well past the original goal of parity to the current 17 percent surplus. Essentially a high-school graduate entering the Army can expect to earn 17-percent more than his peers entering the civilian labor force. Same goes for college graduates entering officer school etc.

Dax,
You said all of your ideas were politically impossible. Good job there of identifying those true reforms that can't be done. So sorry for focusing on things that can be done and still save a good deal of money. More money than you were complaining about Obama's "slight increase" earlier. So you know, not much at all.

Simply reducing pay without reducing military operations will leave our troops undermanned, as less people will enlist. I don't know about you, but base pay has a hell of a lot to do with whether or not I apply for a job. We can reduce pay, but we must also reduce the total number of personnel to accomplish this without a draft.

I'm also not sure where the comparison to the private sector pay is coming from. What private sector jobs are similar to military service?

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2010, 10:49:39 PM »
You do realize military personnel don't just carry 80-pound packs and shoot guns all day right? They do spend some time training for things like that, but they also have mechanics, truck drivers, journalists, support staff (office staff), pilots, engineers etc. Think of each individual Army installation as it's own country. Each one has virtually all the parts it would need to function as a country. Until recently when a good portion of the service side of things were privatized to "save money".

So someone entering the Army with only a high school as a mechanic starts at an E1 while in training. That's about $17,000/year after boot camp plus housing and other smaller allowances for uniforms etc. Well the Army is going to pay that E1 his base pay, put a roof over his head, provide full benefits etc. while training him to be a mechanic. His friend that didn't join up but still wants to be a mechanic might make a little more as an apprentice but won't get tax free housing, will probably have to pay some part of the benefits premiums if they're even offered and will also have to pay for school.

Also, that E1 will get to retire with his full benefits and 80 percent of his ending base pay when he's 38. Coincidentally, that's a much, much bigger attraction than base pay is the early retirement offered through the Army. At 38 he's free to either stay in or "retire" go find another job in the private sector or, what usually happens, be hired by a military contractor to do the same job at the same post for more money.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that at some point this soldier might get married and qualify for off-post housing, receiving a nice monthly check that can easily pay a mortgage and all utilities and then keep everything when his time is up. FWIW, a E1-E4 soldiers at Fort Riley receive between $950-$1400/ month for housing allowances if they live off post. That's tax free and in addition to their base pay. Fort Riley is also on the bottom rung of installations for allowances. On the coasts, those allowances can start at $2,000-plus. And that's the lowest level enlisted soldiers. No sergeants, SFCs or officers.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2010, 11:32:35 PM »
You do realize military personnel don't just carry 80-pound packs and shoot guns all day right? They do spend some time training for things like that, but they also have mechanics, truck drivers, journalists, support staff (office staff), pilots, engineers etc. Think of each individual Army installation as it's own country. Each one has virtually all the parts it would need to function as a country. Until recently when a good portion of the service side of things were privatized to "save money".

So someone entering the Army with only a high school as a mechanic starts at an E1 while in training. That's about $17,000/year after boot camp plus housing and other smaller allowances for uniforms etc. Well the Army is going to pay that E1 his base pay, put a roof over his head, provide full benefits etc. while training him to be a mechanic. His friend that didn't join up but still wants to be a mechanic might make a little more as an apprentice but won't get tax free housing, will probably have to pay some part of the benefits premiums if they're even offered and will also have to pay for school.

Also, that E1 will get to retire with his full benefits and 80 percent of his ending base pay when he's 38. Coincidentally, that's a much, much bigger attraction than base pay is the early retirement offered through the Army. At 38 he's free to either stay in or "retire" go find another job in the private sector or, what usually happens, be hired by a military contractor to do the same job at the same post for more money.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that at some point this soldier might get married and qualify for off-post housing, receiving a nice monthly check that can easily pay a mortgage and all utilities and then keep everything when his time is up. FWIW, a E1-E4 soldiers at Fort Riley receive between $950-$1400/ month for housing allowances if they live off post. That's tax free and in addition to their base pay. Fort Riley is also on the bottom rung of installations for allowances. On the coasts, those allowances can start at $2,000-plus. And that's the lowest level enlisted soldiers. No sergeants, SFCs or officers.

They also do not get to pick where they have to work, are at risk of being bombed or shot at, and are not allowed to quit. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an Army mechanic if the pay and benefits were not better than what they could get in the private sector?

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2010, 11:47:33 PM »
You do realize military personnel don't just carry 80-pound packs and shoot guns all day right? They do spend some time training for things like that, but they also have mechanics, truck drivers, journalists, support staff (office staff), pilots, engineers etc. Think of each individual Army installation as it's own country. Each one has virtually all the parts it would need to function as a country. Until recently when a good portion of the service side of things were privatized to "save money".

So someone entering the Army with only a high school as a mechanic starts at an E1 while in training. That's about $17,000/year after boot camp plus housing and other smaller allowances for uniforms etc. Well the Army is going to pay that E1 his base pay, put a roof over his head, provide full benefits etc. while training him to be a mechanic. His friend that didn't join up but still wants to be a mechanic might make a little more as an apprentice but won't get tax free housing, will probably have to pay some part of the benefits premiums if they're even offered and will also have to pay for school.

Also, that E1 will get to retire with his full benefits and 80 percent of his ending base pay when he's 38. Coincidentally, that's a much, much bigger attraction than base pay is the early retirement offered through the Army. At 38 he's free to either stay in or "retire" go find another job in the private sector or, what usually happens, be hired by a military contractor to do the same job at the same post for more money.

This isn't even taking into account the fact that at some point this soldier might get married and qualify for off-post housing, receiving a nice monthly check that can easily pay a mortgage and all utilities and then keep everything when his time is up. FWIW, a E1-E4 soldiers at Fort Riley receive between $950-$1400/ month for housing allowances if they live off post. That's tax free and in addition to their base pay. Fort Riley is also on the bottom rung of installations for allowances. On the coasts, those allowances can start at $2,000-plus. And that's the lowest level enlisted soldiers. No sergeants, SFCs or officers.

They also do not get to pick where they have to work, are at risk of being bombed or shot at, and are not allowed to quit. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an Army mechanic if the pay and benefits were not better than what they could get in the private sector?

I see you've never been around a bunch of E1-E4s before.

All kidding aside, military service isn't for everyone. It has been and still is a way out for a lot of people. Up until 9/11 there had been several million people serve the full 20 years having spent a week or less in actual field TRAINING.

Don't forget, people entering as E1s generally only have a high school education. They usually never held a full-time job before and their recruiter is making all sorts of promises about what they'll be doing. Factor in the early retirement, GI Bill and a few other things it's not that difficult of a choice, especially for someone that knows college isn't an option either through grades or finances or whatever.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2010, 08:38:46 AM »
The reforms I spoke of can be done with the right political will to do them . . . quit being so literal.


Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2010, 10:24:40 AM »
The reforms I spoke of can be done with the right political will to do them . . . quit being so literal.



The the Pentagon has asked for no pay increase for troops this year. How long til that political will is there?

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2010, 08:56:08 PM »
This is a fantastic (and brief) paper on the relationship between military spending and economic growth.

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/4/7/9/pages84798/p84798-1.php

Offline Benja

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6268
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2010, 06:02:12 PM »
This is an issue tied into broader issues that are so far above most people's heads and knowledge scope it's amazing. (Not referring to people in this thread just people in general.)

By the way, there is nothing wrong with Dax's post listing the things he'd like to see happen while admitting that they won't, and/or can't, happen. That's actually a useful and fairly advanced form of observation.

There's some very interesting reading out there on things like the Military/Industrial Complex and the basic strategies and reasonings behind the way the United States has positioned itself militarily over the years.

Where would America be today without it's military spending?

The US has spent trillions of dollars to insure it's place as the military superpower of the world. Is it in America's interest to give up this advantage? What are the implications of doing so? How big of an advantage is does this really provide us?

And as far as the current war (occupation); Why are we really over there? What American interests may this serve? What could be the implications of losing our presence there?

And if you really want to dig deep; Why did the US establish an Israeli puppet government in the most unstable environment possible and one that will surely lead to more conflict? How could this of been seen to be in America's benefit? How did this effect American's military strategy and options in the middle east going forward from that point?






Offline skycat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2010, 08:28:48 PM »
The military spending is the only thing the current admin spends money on that has any positive affect on the economy.  Be careful what you wish for.

Quote from: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/28/2114394/new-report-shows-how-government.html
Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics and former adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign, and Alan Blinder, a Princeton University economist and former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, modeled the past and what might have happened without the much-derided government responses.

Their findings: “Effects on real Gross Domestic Product, jobs and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 6.5 percent lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.”

The report notes that the bailout and federal loans had a deeper effect than stimulus spending, but that the stimulus added 2.7 million jobs to a limping economy and raised GDP by a full 2 percent.

They stated, “Maybe the country and the world were just lucky. But we take another view: The Great Recession gave way to recovery as quickly as it did largely because of the unprecedented responses by monetary and fiscal policymakers.”

Also:

Quote from: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/4/7/9/pages84798/p84798-30.php
Results show that military spending has an indirect effect on economic growth through investment. The effect of military spending on investment is found to be nonlinear: while for low levels of military spending there is a positive re- lationship, for moderate levels of spending a further increase in military spending has a negative impact on investment. Due to the positive effect of investment on economic growth, this nonlinearity is transferred to the relationship between military spending and economic growth. Apart from this indirect effect, defense spending was found to have no signi?cant direct effect on economic performance.

Offline skycat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2010, 03:29:18 AM »
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.  

Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan??  The answer . .  . they don't want to finish this thing off.   Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan.   Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.



LOLERSKATE

I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.

If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years.   Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.

The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy.  Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history. 



Steele said this though:

Quote from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009569-503544.html
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele suggested at a Connecticut fundraiser that Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing" despite the fact that it began years before the president took office.

As criticism of his comments grew Friday, Steele issued a statement saying that he supported the U.S. troops, but did not address his factual mistake.

Steele also said of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan: "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Steele's comments were caught on amateur video and posted to YouTube. (See the video below. Reporters were not allowed at the fund-raising event.) In the video, he can be heard suggesting that President Obama failed to understand that waging war in Afghanistan has been shown throughout history to be a losing proposition. Steele also suggests America should have a "background" role in the country, "sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops."

"Well if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan," Steele says of the president. "Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops."

Funny, that sounded like the opposite of "they aren't spending enough."

Offline felix rex

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8967
  • Knows what Brent did
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #48 on: August 02, 2010, 02:05:52 PM »
FWIW, I love contractors.  :dunno: Should be paid more IMO.
"How will I recruit to Manhattan? Well, distance. And the proud state of basketball. It start there, and then daily flights to Dallas, because I'm really good at going out. Like top five good. Ask my wife. She wants me to be happy."

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Military Spending
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2010, 02:14:31 PM »
The current administration, elected on an entire series of lies . . . will spend more on wars, military, and intelligence than any other administration in US History, and as stated, more than the rest of the world combined in FY 2011.  

Ask yourself why a trillion dollar war machine can't deal with a bunch of guys in caves in Afghanistan??  The answer . .  . they don't want to finish this thing off.   Plus, there's now a trillion dollars worth of minerals and other goodies in Afghanistan.   Perpetual War . . . currently brought to you by the Barrack Obama administration.



LOLERSKATE

I didn't know Dax was Michael Steele.

If you had half a freaking brain you would know that Michael Steele wouldn't make a comment like what I said in 1000 years.   Michael Steele would say they aren't spending enough and are going easy on the terra-ists.

The biggest point is . . . the Obamabots were duped by this guy.  Maybe next time they'll understand maybe they should ask and demand a few more answers from the least experienced and least vetted presidential candidate in modern U.S. history. 



Steele said this though:

Quote from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009569-503544.html
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele suggested at a Connecticut fundraiser that Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing" despite the fact that it began years before the president took office.

As criticism of his comments grew Friday, Steele issued a statement saying that he supported the U.S. troops, but did not address his factual mistake.

Steele also said of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan: "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

The United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Steele's comments were caught on amateur video and posted to YouTube. (See the video below. Reporters were not allowed at the fund-raising event.) In the video, he can be heard suggesting that President Obama failed to understand that waging war in Afghanistan has been shown throughout history to be a losing proposition. Steele also suggests America should have a "background" role in the country, "sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in Afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops."

"Well if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan," Steele says of the president. "Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops."

Funny, that sounded like the opposite of "they aren't spending enough."

When I said that Steele would say we weren't spending enough, I wasn't talking specifically about Afghanistan, I was talking about the entirety of the "war on terror".   Plus in general, most staunch Republican's are all for the perpetual war, and continually say that Obama isn't being "tough enough" . . . which is why I say they clearly aren't paying any attention to what's going on.