Obama's spending and the National Debt

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

the same comfortable six figure range demanded by private contractors who work in the same conditions.

What contractors are those - I'd like to talk to them about a job.

I know three different guys working as contractors in Iraq, and all of them make more than 100k dollars per year.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,998]

>I know three different guys working as contractors in Iraq, and all of them make
>more than 100k dollars per year.

Yep. Of the friends I have who have worked privately in Iraq, salaries seemed to _start_ there. Sadly, one didn't come back.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

What they did was a drop in the bucket.

You are good with numbers, please explain how Obama is helping all of us.

You voted for him, I guess you are happy with the results?

I am not in favor of debt now, nor during Reagan's reign, nor during Bush's.

However, since you are a johnny-come-lately to fiscal responsibility you might consider that even now RR and GWB are responsible for most of the debt.

I dont believe you!! If you really believed what you posted here then you would not post double speak insulting type comments.

Talk about negative to a thread WAFJ....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

That would give us no air craft carriers, one marine amphibious ship 10 cruisers/destroyers/frigates, 6 submarines, half a SEAL team and 23 people to support them, 1 USMC infantry brigade, no aviation program for them, Air Force's air defence would be too spotty to even need to exist. Coastal defence would be enough to cover the whole coastline of South Carolina. Ect, ect. Actual combatants in the Service are heavily outnumbered by their support. There's no way around that. There wouldn't be enough to protect us at our borders and coasts(which are many times larger)

Many of those european countries have very agreeable terrain and geographically located in which they don't need much of a military, especially with this community protection under the politically friendly. The U. S. contributes greatly (with the wars removed out of the equasion)If we are to scale down, they all will need to pitch in and contribute to the huge hole left with our presence not being there. (good luck in the Sea Lanes) I believe if they had to do that, they would not be able to have their perks they enjoy, like their free health care and others.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And in just one term in office Obama will outspend them both.

In eight years he will make that number seem trivial

It's ok - he's a Dem, and Dems can do no wrong

Well, they've certainly been outspent by the GOP up to this point.

So your response to all of this is "well the GOP spent money too?"

Isnt he cute.......

At least he is using his orignal (I think) ID.

John Kallend and John Lott must be buddies.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Who cares who's fault it is?

Let's stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem (instead of making it worse).

Since 1980, the best we've been able to do is "go into debt slower" with Clinton. The last time we actually paid down federal debt, Harry Truman was in the white house.

Despite one party or the other trying to claim the issue, or blame the opposition, this isn't a party-specific issue.

That was my point. I don't understand why Kallend feels it necessary to keep bringing up Reagan.

To remind you Johnny Come Lately Republican disciples of fiscal responsibility that your great hero was the biggest borrow and spender we've seen in generations.

If you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now.

That is all.

Most of those you call Johny come latey's did not like the spending during the Bush years and the posts are on this site to prove it. As for your other limp kneed points. Warped has nailed it. And I also remember (maybe one of your heros) stating his budget was "dead on arrival". Care to name the owner of those words related to budgets during those Reagan years?

Oh, and I dont care what ID you use to respond.

Ask John Lott what ID you should use

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

+1.

Good post. Do you have a solid source for the expenditure and military personnel figures? Or, better yet, one that shows similar data for a range of countries?

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

Canada is my favorite comparable example because it's a first world country with similar labor costs, land mass, and allies.

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

World wide cost:

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

My spending proposal with $5,000,000,000,000 10-year savings means we're still #1, outspending China at #2 by a factor of 2.

People counts are here, where it's interesting to note that we're right up there with countries where people are expendable and equipment is out of reach.

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

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

That would give us no air craft carriers, one marine amphibious ship 10 cruisers/destroyers/frigates, 6 submarines, half a SEAL team and 23 people to support them, 1 USMC infantry brigade, no aviation program for them, Air Force's air defence would be too spotty to even need to exist.

Coastal defence would be enough to cover the whole coastline of South Carolina. Ect, ect. Actual combatants in the Service are heavily outnumbered by their support. There's no way around that. There wouldn't be enough to protect us at our borders and coasts(which are many times larger)

We don't need our own aircraft carriers. We can carrier-pool with the rest of NATO (especially) and our neighbors to the North and South.

Canada has ten times our coastline at 202,080 km versus a mere 19,924 in America. They have 9,984,670 km^2 of air space to protect versus 9,629,091 km^2 in the US. They're even bigger but do fine on far less.

Quote

The U. S. contributes greatly (with the wars removed out of the equasion)If we are to scale down, they all will need to pitch in and contribute to the huge hole left with our presence not being there. (good luck in the Sea Lanes) I believe if they had to do that, they would not be able to have their perks they enjoy, like their free health care and others.

Sounds good to me. Each country should be supporting itself, with some of that coming from foreign investments in natural resources and/or their labor pool.

[billvon 2,998]

>There wouldn't be enough to protect us at our borders and coasts(which
>are many times larger)

When's the last time we needed our military to protect the Montana border?

>Air Force's air defence would be too spotty to even need to exist.

Nonsense. Maintain UAV squadrons in key locations. They become our first wave of air defense.

>If we are to scale down, they all will need to pitch in and contribute to the
>huge hole left with our presence not being there.

Sounds good to me.

>I believe if they had to do that, they would not be able to have their perks
>they enjoy, like their free health care and others.

Right - we'd have them! (Or more accurately the money to do that if we so chose.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Air Force's air defence would be too spotty to even need to exist.

Nonsense. Maintain UAV squadrons in key locations. They become our first wave of air defense.

Yeah, that's nonsense, all right. UAV's are recon assets, not interceptors.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

For all the faux-outraged GOPers, I think this kind of says it all.

Just like bill likes to do he stops the datat point when it suits his religious beliefs.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

>Air Force's air defence would be too spotty to even need to exist.

Nonsense. Maintain UAV squadrons in key locations. They become our first wave of air defense.

Yeah, that's nonsense, all right. UAV's are recon assets, not interceptors.

Now. UAV interceptors have superior performance potential since no pilot to pass out leads to better maneuverability, computer control of one takes human reaction time out of the equation, and multiples can coordinate.

UAVs moving from recon + ground attack to aerial interception is a big marketing hurdle but reasonable technically.

For that matter, great stuff has been done with robotic submarines. The pollution monitoring artificial fish project could be re-factored into finding ships+subs that shouldn't be there. Larger armed versions could intercept or call for reinforcement. With a $29K per unit CAPEX and low TCO due to staff multiplexed among multiples on an as-needed you can put a LOT in the water compared to manned vessels.

More forces at lower cost are just the thing to keep terrorists at bay and the budget balanced (for the sake of argument I'll ignore that they'd be tasked with drug interdiction in that lost war)

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

So? Does that make it ok to quadrouple the deficit in one year?

First off, the debt hasn't quadrupled - it hit a trillion this month in a year that ends in October. But that's rather irrelevant - either we need this spending to recover, or we don't. The real concern is what about 2 years from now.

I said deficit, not debt. The deficit has quadroupled. 2 years from now, even if the economy does recover by then, inflation from billions in "stimulus" will be around to deal with.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Air Force's air defence would be too spotty to even need to exist.

Nonsense. Maintain UAV squadrons in key locations. They become our first wave of air defense.

Yeah, that's nonsense, all right. UAV's are recon assets, not interceptors.

Now. UAV interceptors have superior performance potential since no pilot to pass out leads to better maneuverability, computer control of one takes human reaction time out of the equation, and multiples can coordinate.

UAVs moving from recon + ground attack to aerial interception is a big marketing hurdle but reasonable technically.

You think we have fully automated UAV's capable of aerial intercepts and fights?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[nanook 1]

Quote

We don't need our own aircraft carriers. We can carrier-pool with the rest of NATO (especially) and our neighbors to the North and South.

Interesting concept. If we go that route, we would have a lot of barriers to overcome. Though we play with NATO, there are security clearance barriers. If countries share assets equally, one country couldn't be restricted from a certain area. Granting a blanket Top Secret for all participating nations is definitely a big negative. We have enough security issues as it is. This would mean that some country would have to completely own it and as far as I know, we would definitely be the country that supplies the most, which means that the cost isn't decreased. It will probably increase.

Quote

Canada has ten times our coastline at 202,080 km versus a mere 19,924 in America. They have 9,984,670 km^2 of air space to protect versus 9,629,091 km^2 in the US. They're even bigger but do fine on far less.

Canada is bracketed by Alaska, G-I-UK, and the U. S. They use U. S. torpedoes and other major weapons and sensors and has major partnerships with the U. S. Military (example, CASR)

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,998]

> UAV's are recon assets . . . .

So they are not equipped to fire missiles? You should read up on them! They can do far more than you think they can. And they're cheaper, can loiter longer, turn harder and operate out of more places than manned aircraft can.

[nanook 1]

Quote

When's the last time we needed our military to protect the Montana border?

Yeah, you are right. What the hell would Canada want with montana?

Quote

Nonsense. Maintain UAV squadrons in key locations. They become our first wave of air defense.

That sounds good on paper, but you still need the manning, and a considerable amount of it. As of right now, the total of personnel required per vehicle (maintenance, pilots, TOC personnel, transportation types, ect.) would be lost in the proposed crunch. There is a lot more behind-the-scenes with these vehicles than a person can read about. Also I haven't heard of any of them shooting down fast flyers and missiles yet.

Quote

>If we are to scale down, they all will need to pitch in and contribute to the
>huge hole left with our presence not being there.

Sounds good to me.

>I believe if they had to do that, they would not be able to have their perks
>they enjoy, like their free health care and others.

Right - we'd have them! (Or more accurately the money to do that if we so chose.)

Don't get me wrong here. This is a fine idea for me. I get to stay home more. But my thinking here is the fact that maybe political pressure from these other countries may get in the way. The move will hurt them some. Maybe they really want their programs. They may make an economic issue with it since they have enough of a leverage nowadays.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>I know three different guys working as contractors in Iraq, and all of them make
>more than 100k dollars per year.

Yep. Of the friends I have who have worked privately in Iraq, salaries seemed to _start_ there. Sadly, one didn't come back.

Well, the risks are a big part of the reason for the high pay.

I just wish I didn't have to foot the bill for it all.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You think we have fully automated UAV's capable of aerial intercepts and fights?

He thinks it's technically feasible to develop remotely controlled (not fully automated) UAV's as air interceptors.

SAM sites could also help with aerial interception, at a lower cost than intercept fighters.

I don't think this is a thought unique to this site. I recently visited the National Air and Space Museum, where they had a display of the USA's "last manned fighter aircraft."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now.

That is all.

Seeing as how you have spent years talking about Republican spending and now are fawning over Obama's GREATLY increased spending, we're supposed to accept your hypocritical accusations, why?

Who said I approve of the current massive spending (begun, I might add, under the previous administration).

Quote

wrote by democrats and aproved by almost every democrat. kinda like the stimulus bill and the porkulous bill.

Had to add some important information


I understand that because the GOP's denial that there was a recession had left us in a huge hole that some stimulus was necessary, but I think it's gone way too far.

Remind us how much the Bush/Paulson bailout of AIG cost us. I read just this week that the next round of bonuses to AIG execs is coming up.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you are confused that I was never concerned about fiscal responsibility.

Spending needs to occur, sometimes that number is quite high.

Reagan's spending was largely on the military which was woefully lacking in very department.

When I joined during Carter we still had equipment from the WWII era.

We had flak vests instead of kevlar.

Steel pots which were useful for wasking up or boing water.

Crappy boots.

Lousy gear, worn out weapons.

Awful vehicles.

I guess you were ok with all that.

I want a military that's sized for defense instead of empire building. We should downsize our 1,473,900 active personel and 1,458,500 reserves to the 65, 890 and 53,398 (23,401 of whom are unpaid) needed in first-world countries with our land-mass and border length like Canada.

In 2008 we spent $651,000,000,000 on budget, or $441,685 per full-time military employee.

Assuming we're content saving a mere $5,000,000,000,000 per decade (while billions are pocket change, trillions do add up), after right-sizing our military we can increase per-solider spending 540% to $2,827,821 a year. That should provide exceptional equipment. We could even boost deployed soldier salaries to the same comfortable six figure range demanded by private contractors who work in the same conditions.

We'd still be spending 750% of what a comparable country does.

The problem is that the figures you posted are not spent on each individual soldier, they are the cheapest component when you look at what the money is spent on vs. return on the investment.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So? Does that make it ok to quadrouple the deficit in one year?

First off, the debt hasn't quadrupled - it hit a trillion this month in a year that ends in October. But that's rather irrelevant - either we need this spending to recover, or we don't. The real concern is what about 2 years from now.

I said deficit, not debt. The deficit has quadroupled. 2 years from now, even if the economy does recover by then, inflation from billions in "stimulus" will be around to deal with.

The deficit hasn't quadrupled either. As I said, it just hit a trillion. You're projecting presuming all proposed gets spent - and all spent today.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

It would take 31688 years 32 days 1 hour 46 minutes 40 seconds to equal 1 Trillion seconds.

If you spent 20 billion a day for 50 years you would get to one trillion.

If you spent 20 billion a day the time it would take for you to spend the current national debt of;

$11,530,221,982,526.25 as of 23:08CST

would be 575 years.

If you take into account the proposed Obama expenditures you would easily have well over 20 trillion in the national debt.

Now won't you sleep well knowing hope and change are doing such a good thing for all of us?

Did you worry about it as much when Reagan and Bush were doubling it?

EXACTLY! Where was all the bitching and moaning and spending epiphanies when Bush was in office?!

People act like all of the sudden this debt came out of nowhere and it's all Obama's fault. Get over it.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

EXACTLY! Where was all the bitching and moaning and spending epiphanies when Bush was in office?!

People act like all of the sudden this debt came out of nowhere and it's all Obama's fault. Get over it.

Yeah! There are only two possibe sides! Either you liked Bush's spending, or you like Obama's!

It is absolutely, utterly, and in all other ways inconceivable that anyone would oppose both!

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

The problem is that the figures you posted are not spent on each individual soldier, they are the cheapest component when you look at what the money is spent on vs. return on the investment.

With given numeric relationships between equipment, head count, and roles it's a reasonable approximation. Fighters hold one pilot, take some number of mechanics to maintain, some fraction of a person to fuel, some fraction of an air-traffic controller, etc.

The point is that countries with our land mass, more coastline, same labor costs, and similar level of technology make do with 1/30th of what we do.

We outspend #2 by nearly 10X.

We won the Cold war by spending more than a communist second world economy could sustain. Now that's done we need to come to grips with reality for the future of America instead of taking out a sub-prime Chinese mortgage to support tradition.