We Are Spending $7 Trillion A Decade On Defense

[Yavin4]

The current defense budget for Fiscal Year 2010 is $680 billion. That's on a pace to reach close to $7 trillion a decade. Think about the opportunity cost of spending this much money on defense per decade. Think about all of the long term projects in education, energy, the enviorment, transportation, healthcare, technology, etc.

If you want to know why our economy is in the shitter, why other nations are surpassing us in overall quality of life, why developing nations like China, Brazil, India, and Russia are becoming economic powerhouses, look no further than the $7 trillion a decade in defense expenditures.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Yavin.

[Andy823]

2. It's absurd!

I just wonder how many of the new members of congress are "real" tea party people who are going to "WANT" to cut the military budget? Rand Paul has already said on TV that it needs to be cut. I know a lot of the so called "tea party" candidates that won are nothing more than the same old republican neo-cons who used the tea party to get elected, but it will be interesting to see if they push this idea of cutting military spending. All I know is the neo cons aren't going to like it at all! If we are lucky maybe we can get enough democrats and maybe a few republicans to also push this and something can be done about all this "wasted" money!

[court jester]

37. visualize a trillion dollars, it isn't hard to do (thanks to a bloke)

$1 BILLION dollars... now we're really getting somewhere...



Ladies and gentlemen... I give you $1 trillion dollars...



that red thing on the lower left is a person to scale

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

Man the Printing Presses! Paper grows on trees!

[Blue Owl]

3. Insane.

All this to to wage optional wars on a handful of countries whose militaries are a fraction the size of our own.

[SlimJimmy]

4. Some other numbers to consider ...

$519 billion in 2010 Medicare
$290 billion in 2010 Medicaid
$678 billion in 2010 Social Security

It might very well be time for some means testing in all of the above programs. For example, why does a millionaire need to draw 1,300 a month in Social Security payments? Why does a millionaire need to be enrolled in Medicare?

[Yavin4]

6. The Big Difference, and It's A Huge Difference, Is That People Paid Into Those Funds

with the knowledge that they would be receiving the services once they age. I'm totally against means testing Medicare and SS (Millionaires don't qualify for Medicaid) for the simple reason that if you make SS and Medicare "poverty" programs, then they will lose political protection. Given our nation's character, we don't politically support economic programs only for the poor.

[SlimJimmy]

13. I disagree. Means testing does not make it a "poverty" program, it

simply weeds out those that will not be financially impacted by the cuts. If I'm drawing $4k a month from a 401K or defined retirement plan, why do I need to draw additional Social Security? Even if I paid into it, that doesn't mean I MUST draw the money back out.

[Yavin4]

18. It's A Slippery Slope

If you don't receive the benefit, then the political protection for the benefit evaporates as well. Why do you think that we don't have single payer? Because most Americans have some sort of insurance, and they don't care about those that do not.

Americans have an in-bred hatred for anyone that gets government assistance, including the elderly.

[SlimJimmy]

20. That's a really bitter statement. I don't believe it for a second.

I think the vast majority of Americans are hard-working honest people who care very much about their fellow citizens. And that is proven nearly every day right here on DU.

Americans have an in-bred hatred for anyone that gets government assistance, including the elderly

[Yavin4]

22. Then Why Was Welfare Ended

Why don't we have national healthcare? Why? Americans don't politically support government programs that only help the poor. If you don't know this, then you have not been paying attention for the past 30 years.

[SlimJimmy]

32. Your insipid remarks noted. Welfare wasn't ended in this country -

it was reformed by President Clinton. And as such was very successful in moving Americans from welfare to work. That is a good - not bad thing.

[Yavin4]

35. Please Read This Article

This ignorance is on full display at your average Tea Party gathering, which is full of people who will proudly insist that they're entirely self-made. "I did it all myself," they'll snarl, quivering in spittle-flecked outrage. "I didn't get any government handouts. Nobody ever did anything for me -- so why are all my tax dollars going to support those shiftless welfare cheats who aren't willing to work like I did?"

Suzanne Mettler, a professor at Cornell, actually documented this effect in a 2008 study. She asked people who'd been the beneficiaries of 19 specific government programs -- including some of the most popular and widespread programs in the country -- whether or not they'd ever used a government social program...A big part of the problem, says Mettler, is that some government programs are simply more visible to the average voter than others. The visible ones tend to be the ones that are administered directly by a government agency, and show up in the budgets as clear line items. In particular, the programs that benefit the poor are often right out there on the table, where voters can see them and activists can ignite them into political issues: welfare, food stamps, government subsidized housing, education, Head Start.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104329/myth-self-made-american-why-progressives-get-no-respect

There it is. If you means test SS and Medicare, you make them "visible" government programs for the poor, and that makes them vulnerable.

[SlimJimmy]

40. You really are a one note musician, aren't you?

Means testing will not have any effect on the poor at all. In fact, it will most likely free up more money for that purpose.

There it is. If you means test SS and Medicare, you make them "visible" government programs for the poor, and that makes them vulnerable.

[Yavin4]

44. I Offer You Facts

You counter with nothing. Once you make SS and Medicare poverty based programs, the majority won't support them. I offer you strong evidence of this statement. I offer you a link to an article which contains a study done by a Cornell professor which shows the political disconnect and explains that "visible" government programs for the poor like Head Start and Welfare lack political support.

If you cannot offer any substantive counter to my argument, then you've lost the argument.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

53. actually you are, & the note is from the wings.

[JackRiddler]

29. Social Security and Medicare both run at a surplus.

That surplus goes into T-bills, which finance the deficit, which pays for the useless war machine. Currently $2.6 trillion in the case of Social Security is deposited in T-bills.

[TBF]

33. Social Security is a stand-alone program that folks have paid into -

it should not be part of the discussion. It has a surplus.

Defense is where they need to cut. BTW, 7 trillion is a much bigger number than 519B, or 290B.

[SlimJimmy]

39. Social Security is no longer running a surplus, and won't in the out years as the

baby boomers come aboard. It will run about even in 2010, and run a deficit starting in 2011 forward. BTW, 519 billion plus 290 billion times ten years is about 8 trillion dollars.

[TBF]

47. Where is your cite showing that the program will run a deficit -

and try not to draw from a right wing think tank please.

Is it a "deficit" in your mind because the money has been taken out and used for other things? Those are IOU's and need to be paid back in - and I expect defense to be cut to do it.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

52. I'm ok with a taxpayer bailout -

why shouldn't we be? After all, the banks got their bail-out.

[SlimJimmy]

60. The problem with a taxpayer bailout is that it would have to come

from other outlays. Even if we "gutted" defense, it would still not be enough in the out years. The only other way to cover it would be to borrow more money from China. Do you want to do that?

[TBF]

62. I think you and I have a different definition of gutted -

(as you stated you are a blue dog and I am at the other end of the left spectrum). I have no problem with closing every base overseas and 90% cut in defense.

[SlimJimmy]

65. We are truly different in that respect. I am okay with serious (20-30% cuts) in overall

defense spending. But what you are advocating is beyond what I would consider reasonable. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Hannah Bell]

54. yes, it is still running a surplus.

[SlimJimmy]

59. No, it isn't. Read my link.

[Hannah Bell]

61. your link negliges to mention the interest payments that keep it in surplus, as do all

the media reports hyping the phoney crisis.

[SlimJimmy]

63. Read the article again. This year (according to the CBO) they break even, next year a deficit.

And, you can't count the interest as an income stream because there isn't any money there. You read the entire article, correct? The interest payments were addressed.

[Hannah Bell]

66. funny how the interest payments keep going into the SS fund, then.

I read the SS Trustees Report, which is the source of ALL legitimate information about SS.

And which the media misreports more than half the time. As you are now.

Let me just say: Your article is full of shit & lies.

[SlimJimmy]

67. The report statistics come from the CBO. If you have a problem with that

I suggest that you take it up with them. BUt this administration has used them as an unbiased source many times. And with CNN, hardly a RW source. And, as reported by CBO, those interest payments won't keep them in the black next year and beyond.

[Hannah Bell]

71. the cbo gets the data from the yearly ss reports; they are currently in the black.

& in case you don't know the history, since 1983 being in the red for part of the boomers' retirement years has been the express plan, & was originally sold as A GOOD THING.

now the shills are calling it a big crisis.

fuck that propaganda.

[SlimJimmy]

72. Once again you agree with my facts yet insist on saying they are wrong or lies.

The CBO report says that they will about break even in 2010 and then start running deficits in 2011 and the out years. If you have other data, cite it with a link and I'll consider it. This is what I have stated in at least three replies so far. I have also addressed the interest issue and why it is not added in the calculations. And, of course, the interest won't matter after this year anyway as it won't help keep the fund in the black. So, what part of this are you not understanding?

[treestar]

55. I'm not good at math, but those figures are a small fraction

of 7 trillion

[SlimJimmy]

58. Those figures are for 2010 only. Not for ten years like the OP.

If you want to compare 2010 only, then the defense outlay will be $680 billion. Apples to apples if you insist.

[Ron Green]

5. Let's call it what it is: the War Department.

I'm sick of euphemism.

[Yavin4]

8. Or Imperial Budget

We can wipe out any nation on planet earth within hours using conventional weapons, let alone our nuclear arsenal. Our "defense" budget is more for occupying nations rather than defending our own nation.

[Soral]

7. can you source this $7t claim so I can use it in political battle?

[Yavin4]

9. Here's a Chart

Source:

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.<3> An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.<4><5> Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.<6>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Actually, it's far more than $7 trillion when you factor in the interest on the debt that we used to pay for defense.

[w8liftinglady]

10. and it does NOT include Veteran care.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. *

[The2ndWheel]

11. The US military is basically the developed world's military

The US Government was the last power left from the 20th century, so we've ended up having to pay for it ourselves by default. It's not fair, but there isn't a global institution with the ability or authority to do it. Which is why the US Government can bomb whoever it wants to, wherever it wants to, whenever it wants to, and nothing will be done about it. We won't be attacked in retaliation. Or even economically sanctioned, for many reasons.

It would be interesting to see what the world might look like if the US slashed the defense budget, brought troop after troop home from country after country, got rid of or sold the bases in those countries, and then focused more on domestic spending.

The main issue in my mind is that we have two competing forces trying to co-exist. A global force, and a regional force. We want more international agreement, but we still live in a world of borders and nations acting in their own interests. It's the same battle as in the US, with federal and state power, just on a larger scale. There is no equivalent to the federal government on the world stage though. There is an idea of it, but no actual infrastructure. Then there are the wild cards in the form of corporations, which are able to play each government against the other.

[Yavin4]

45. If We Are The "developed world's military"

Then they need to kick in some money for the cause. Germany uses the money not spent on defense to pay for single payer health care, bolster their industrial exports, and educate their people which results in a much higher standard of living for their citizens.

We cannot afford to spend $7 trillion a decade in perpetuity on defense. Cannot be done.

[alanquatermass]

74. My Dad (a Rethug) says it is only the U.S. military that...

-- allows Europe to in essence "be Europe". That is, to happily disengage itself from all things military and to just spend its money on piffle like entitlements and socialized medicine and vacations.

Like I said, Dad's a RepubliCON.

And he'd probably say that if the U.S Military ever withdrew itself from the world stage, we'd be giving dictators and tyrants everywhere a free run at expansion.

[Supersedeas]

12. Repigs will cut benefits to regular troops, and slash domestic items before they touch Defense

Contractors.

[Yavin4]

17. Out of the $680 Billion, only $3.1 Billion Go To Military Families

Which is criminal.

[Angleae]

19. Where did you get that number?

The military personnel budget was $154 billion for 2010.

[Yavin4]

36. Sorry Read The Chart Wrong

The $3.1 billion is for military housing.

[lovemydog]

14. K & R

Diving for dear life
When we could be diving for pearls

- Elvis Costello
Shipbuilding

[Winterblues]

15. Without even counting the "Black" funding

There is much that isn't even listed or known which is also Defense funding...

[Historic NY]

16. Meanwhile ourt infrastructure is failing rapidly in some cases has completely collasped.

[Greyhound]

21. And that $680B doesn't include the hundreds of billions in off-book expenditures for the

mass-murder spree we've spent a decade engaged in.
:kick: & R

[Pavulon]

23. Having once worked a contract for a defense contractor

whose name would be quickly recognized much of this money funds programs that employee lots of Americans.

Boeing, Lockheed, are just a few. High paid union jobs. not mcbullshit.

[Yavin4]

24. Yes, But That Money Is Being Spent on Contractors for Non-Productive, Non-Growth Projects

Take some of that money and fund new industries in energy, transportation, and infrastructure.

Wasting money because it employs a small percentage of the population is pure folly.

[Pavulon]

25. You know how many people work for GE?

lots. It (contract, not ge) paid me a nice salary after college and the military and the work would be applicable to energy in the form of modular reactor work. Westinghouse , even though owned by a japanese holding company, does all its gov and reactor work here.

Ingalls and BIW employ huge numbers of people at pay rates far exceeding the guy holding the slow/stop sign on the side of the road. We need that guy, but we also need Engineers, and the high end manufacturing sector.

Anybody can make plastic dog shit, making a pressure vessel and control systems for next gen reactors will be US labor and will have roots in the defense industry.

[Yavin4]

46. All Fine and Good

Instead of GE getting defense contracts, they'd get Energy contracts, and they'd have to share whatever they developed with all Americans.

Does that work for you?

[Pavulon]

69. Sure more money to domestic energy is important

but there will always be projects that are not public. Missile guidance systems, and signal intelligence, and similar requirements will not be public domain until long after they are obsolete.

[dreamnightwind]

73. People with real values and principles shouldn't work for defense

since our defense is pretty much entirely offense.

It's always been easier to make money in defense-related work, that's where most of the money goes in this country. Some people don't care where their money comes from or what their labor does in the world. Other people, the ones I admire, do care.

We don't need jobs making death and destruction, and we don't need reactors either.

Our military and related spending is beyond obscene, yet we're not supposed to notice. And if we do notice, we're not supposed to say anything because it supplies jobs. Why not just employ people to build elaborate mechanisms for human sacrificial rites and torture? Altars to Satan could be erected, we could build them real high so maybe they would pierce the heavens. The argument is tru;y that absurd to me.

The military binge we've been on has to end, now.

[sarcasmo]

26. The #1 problem this Country has the money the fat cats make off the Military Industrial Complex.

[lovuian]

27. if we cut defense by 7 trillion we would pay our debt

pay pensions and medical to everybody and build our infrastructure

[fascisthunter]

28. yes... crazy.... and yet we are talking about cutting social security

[David Zephyr]

30. K&R.

Best post of the day. Something that goes under reported decade after decade.

Gore Vidal: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

K&R.

[mistertrickster]

31. Actually, when you include VA spending and interest on the debt due to military spending,

and military spending called "homeland security," it's probably closer to 1 Trillion dollars a year.

It's been unsustainable since Reagan kicked military spending into high gear.

[uponit7771]

49. Yeapers

[Bigmack]

38. $3247 ...

for every man, woman, and child in the country.

All those billions and trillions are abstractions. Murikans need to know how much comes out of their pockets for "defense".

[Catherina]

41. $7 Trillion A Decade and yet the American worker is utterly defenseless n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. The "defense" budget is the real 3rd Rail of American politicds and it's most Sacred Cow.

[FlyByNight]

43. The empire maintenance budget...

is unsustainable but the Pentagon doesn't care. They have to ensure "safe" shipping routes for all of the oil they use and make sure they have jobs. The kind of money being poured into the Pentagon isn't "defense", it's FORCE PROJECTION and very narrowly targeted, inefficient stimulus.

I doubt Obama will do much to upset the budget bloat. And don't forget the cost to maintain the nukes and the alphabet soup of "intelligence" agencies currently spying on us (and everyone else for that matter). The US isn't a republic anymore.

:grr:

[uponit7771]

48. We spend 10 trillion in total defense "related" projects

[treestar]

56. It's not even defense, it's being world cop

That's why we don't have a national health care plan while other countries can afford it. And we are "defending" some of them (due to our own interests).

[dkofos]

57. And all we have to show for it is a $14 trillion deficit.

[arbusto_baboso]

64. And what are we "defending ourselves" from?

Lest we forget, the damage done to us on 9/11 was done by wackos with BOX CUTTERS for fuck's sake. ICBMs, interceptors, aircraft carriers and digital pattern BDUs won't do fuck-all about that...

[Yavin4]

70. All It Took To Thwart 9/11

was better airport screening and locks on the cockpit doors. Not A380 airplanes.

[arbusto_baboso]

75. Precisely. But you know Americans and "overkill".

If a little beefed up airport security is good, then dropping a shitload of cluster bombs on a completely unrelated country must be better!

[walldude]

68. Well if you count the 2 TRILLION the Pentagon can't account for

then we only spent 5 Trillion. They are missing 2 Trillion. They should find it any day now though :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[arbusto_baboso]

76. I'm guessing we'd find it in the accounts of the merc companies like Blackwater/Xe, Triple Canopy

and the like.

"Black budget items", I'm guessing.