Defense spending coming down...

[BrianFromWA]

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15921

President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $526.6 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund defense programs in the base budget for fiscal year (FY) 2014.

The budget continues the department's commitment to good stewardship of taxpayer dollars by seeking further consolidation of defense infrastructure, instituting a study of possible efficiencies in military treatment facilities, and terminating and restructuring lower-priority and poorly performing weapons programs. The budget slows the growth of military pay and benefits while continuing to support the All-Volunteer Force.

There still needs to be the Overseas Contingency Operations budget (which will be submitted after the Afghanistan drawdown is announced and implemented, reducing troop count in-country by ~half or more), but in 2012 it was at 110B and dropped to 88B this year. So the combined DoD/OCO budget will be somewhere between 550B and 610B (very likely on the lower end).

In 2011 the combined budget was $712B, 2012 was $688B and in 2013 it was $672B (further cut by sequestration).

More detail is available at the link.

 

[Further]

It is your duty to do the best with what you have. Right now, that's more than every military on earth combined. I think a reduction is in order. I don't study this, so understand I am the uneducated and what I am saying is gut feeling, I could very well be wrong. But my gut says we could cut 50% and still have the best military on earth.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It is your duty to do the best with what you have. Right now, that's more than every military on earth combined. I think a reduction is in order. I don't study this, so understand I am the uneducated and what I am saying is gut feeling, I could very well be wrong. But my gut says we could cut 50% and still have the best military on earth.

what the fgures you use do not disclose is the size of standing armies other countries have..China for one scares the hell out of me,Russia has been modernizing for about a decade..both of these are not seconed rate..

 

[Run BJM]

It is your duty to do the best with what you have. Right now, that's more than every military on earth combined. I think a reduction is in order. I don't study this, so understand I am the uneducated and what I am saying is gut feeling, I could very well be wrong. But my gut says we could cut 50% and still have the best military on earth.

This. Good book about this called the Power Problem. Biggest thing that bugs me about it is that many countries that know we will back them in a conflict will barely spend on their own military. We're essentially footing the bill to "defend" not just ourselves but a host of other nations.

 

[huevonkiller]

No Liar, it isn't.

"


Yet Obama and outgoing defense secretary Leon Panetta foresee great danger. Nonsense. As Mercatus Center analyst Veronique de Rugy writes, “Defense spending has almost doubled in the past decade in current dollar terms and will continue to grow in spite of automatic cuts.” Summarizing Rugy’s findings, Gillespie writes, “Assuming maximum sequestration, Defense would increase only 16 percent in current dollars over the next decade, rather than 23 percent without sequestration.” Some cut.

Of course, much could and should be cut from the military by ending the U.S. government’s imperial foreign policy—which makes enemies for the American people—and moving to a policy of strict noninterventionism. This would not only save money; it would be the right thing to do. The U.S. government should not be policing the world."

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/24/the-american-people-need-real-spending-c

 

[huevonkiller]

This. Good book about this called the Power Problem. Biggest thing that bugs me about it is that many countries that know we will back them in a conflict will barely spend on their own military. We're essentially footing the bill to "defend" not just ourselves but a host of other nations.

Yes it is pure welfare, and entitlement.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is your duty to do the best with what you have. Right now, that's more than every military on earth combined. I think a reduction is in order. I don't study this, so understand I am the uneducated and what I am saying is gut feeling, I could very well be wrong. But my gut says we could cut 50% and still have the best military on earth.

I think reduction is in order, too. But I also think cutting the budget will mean a cut in the quality of the military.

Because of all the overspending we've done over the years, we've developed things like smart weapons and bunker buster bombs. The former don't eliminate collateral damage, but significantly reduce it. The latter eliminates the need for using tactical nukes.

On the other hand, I don't want us bombing anyone or using the bunker busters, so...

 

[BrianFromWA]

No Liar, it isn't.

Personal attacks aside, you might want to learn to apply some critical thinking to your analyses.
Please look at the chart you posted, and explain the following:
1) Why the blue "war funding" line that is solely for Overseas Contingency Operations is constant at ~100B a year until 2020, when it's already gone down to $88B this year (that's a fact) and the President has mandated that 34,000 more troops will be sent home by January 2014, with a significantly reduced presence post-2015? Does your critical analysis of these facts support the blue area staying at ~100B until 2020?
2) The 2014 data point for the purple "base defense budget projection" shows an increase in 2014 up to ~$560-570B. I don't know where Veronique is getting her OMB projection from, but in the OP the fact that the President sent a $526B budget to Congress was presented. Do you think that it's going to increase 15% from $526B this year to ~$590B in 2015, as your chart shows?
3) How do you explain the continued projected increase in base defense budget when the Army's drawdown of 80,000 troops over the next 6 years and the Marines' drawdown of 20,000 through 2016 (over 10% of their force, both below Clinton Administration manning figures) seems to indicate that personnel costs will be significantly reduced?
4) Why are you trusting projection over fact? That this chart has already been invalidated seems to suggest to me that you either need to choose your sources more carefully and apply some analysis when doing so, and especially when rehashing an old argument. Part of research is understand what you can trust, what makes you wrong when you put faith into it and what new research has come out that validates or invalidates your hypothesis and testing methods.

Your passion is commendable. Your skills need some work. I'm happy to help educate you, but I can do without the invective.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Brian iyo, what are the advantages of having our db be higher than the next 10 or so combined? Disadvantages?

Where would be the best place to make drastic cuts? What are the most important expenditures?

If you were forced to cut the budget by 50%, what would you cut, and what would you keep? 75%?

Thanks in advance, was wanting a knowledgeable view on these

 

[BrianFromWA]

This'll be quicker than I like and not comprehensive, but it's a rough start...

Personally, I don't see defense cuts as being bad. Coupled with a national security strategy that supports it, I don't even have a problem with the idea that we can get back to a Clinton-level defense budget (which I've heard is ~400-450B in today's dollars, but I haven't studied that). I am almost positive that defense projections do NOT have a sustained increase over the next decade. It'd be political suicide for Joint Chiefs to demand it.

There are two main issues (as I see it) that the public doesn't get enough info about.

The first is that our military is (and has to be) built based upon the directives of the President and the SecDef, and then down through the services. For at least since I've been old enough to understand, it's been based on manning and equipment required to fight two major regional wars. That was tested when Iraq started, and was found to not be enough. Hence the rapid increase in size, upgrades to equipment (HMMWVs were no longer mission capable and multi-million dollar MRAPs had to be designed and purchased, for example) and use of what I call mercenaries (but who are generally called contractors)--people paid by the DoD to provide security or another military service who aren't responsible to the military chain of command. These people are generally paid at a much higher rate than a normal soldier. It's also why 6000 reservists are on yearlong recall orders taking them away from their jobs and families. But that's why we signed up for. Just not for multiple times because you're burning out the regular forces. The budget's dropped about 20% in the last few years...but the National Security Strategy hasn't changed. The military doesn't come up with that. It's not like the Chairman can come together with the other services and say "Mr. President, we are building our forces only for isolationist/non-intervention purposes--don't send us anywhere anymore". The President and SecDef state what the military needs to be ready to accomplish (including mission sets), and the services say what that'll cost in their opinion, it gets vetted by SecDef and the President and then submitted to Congress for approval in the budget.

The second is that our reliance on high technology, which imho is a manifestation of a collective societal impression of the cost of a life which is higher than just about anyone's, anywhere, anytime in history. There were roughly 5000 killed in the last decade of two wars, and people were screaming to "let the slaughter stop". That's 1/10th of Vietnam, 1/80th World War II, 1/20th WWI, 1/120th Civil War. Why was that possible? Our training and technology is second-to-none. We have pumped a lot of money into R&D that has trickled out into the civilian world. We protect our troops in ways unheard of in past conflicts. (When I go outside the fenceline, I have to have a waiver to NOT wear a 40# vest, kevlar helmet and full gloves/eye/ear protection. 10 years ago, it would've been in cammies and a backpack.) Some of the old-school grunts on here can probably elaborate better.

There's a problem with that, though. Most of our technological advantages are now entering their second or third decade of use and nearing end of life, with few replacements in the queue. The planes that are dropping bombs are starting to fall out of the sky because they've been overworked for the last 10-15 years and their replacements have been de-funded (or late, depending on which defense contractor you're looking at). The submarines that placed us on the cutting edge with precision strikes into Baghdad and Tripoli and others are entering their third decade, and not being replaced on a 1-for-1 basis. The ballistic missile boats are supposed to be retired at the end of this decade, but Congress still hasn't started funding construction of the new ones. The Air Force's ICBM program has been de-funded so far that some missiles are rotting in their silos and the companies that build rockets have shut down. We physically do not have the capability to build (for instance) as many nuclear weapons a year as Pakistan does, or about 1/50th as many as China IS making each year. There is supposed to be a wave of new construction/new systems coming in the next 15 years, but I don't know where that's going to come from.

If I was forced to cut the budget drastically, I might think of going back to pre-WWII time and doing away with a large part of the US Army. Keep the National Guard, Keep the Marines in their (basically perfected) role as a 911/Force-in-Readiness and a show-the-flag force. Though I may be biased, I think that the Navy's role has already been stripped too far and would keep their levels at or near present just because protection of trade is a huge component not only of our national security but our national ethos and they are already proficient in working with the Marines to have forward presence around the world.

At some point, though, it's strategically harmful to back out of world politics. I'm of the opinion that there will always be bad people doing bad things. It's not generally good for American policy to have to rely on other people for our security--be it militarily, financial or otherwise. There are also societal impacts. If you strip down the army to a highly professional cadre that will expand if needed, you have to have a draft/militia program that ensures that there are a lot of people to fill those slots when needed. I'm not sure that a draft or compulsory reserve/National Guard training or service will ever make a comeback in the US, but this may be a catalyst for it.

 

[Further]

This'll be quicker than I like and not comprehensive, but it's a rough start...

Personally, I don't see defense cuts as being bad. Coupled with a national security strategy that supports it, I don't even have a problem with the idea that we can get back to a Clinton-level defense budget (which I've heard is ~400-450B in today's dollars, but I haven't studied that). I am almost positive that defense projections do NOT have a sustained increase over the next decade. It'd be political suicide for Joint Chiefs to demand it.

There are two main issues (as I see it) that the public doesn't get enough info about.

The first is that our military is (and has to be) built based upon the directives of the President and the SecDef, and then down through the services. For at least since I've been old enough to understand, it's been based on manning and equipment required to fight two major regional wars. That was tested when Iraq started, and was found to not be enough. Hence the rapid increase in size, upgrades to equipment (HMMWVs were no longer mission capable and multi-million dollar MRAPs had to be designed and purchased, for example) and use of what I call mercenaries (but who are generally called contractors)--people paid by the DoD to provide security or another military service who aren't responsible to the military chain of command. These people are generally paid at a much higher rate than a normal soldier. It's also why 6000 reservists are on yearlong recall orders taking them away from their jobs and families. But that's why we signed up for. Just not for multiple times because you're burning out the regular forces. The budget's dropped about 20% in the last few years...but the National Security Strategy hasn't changed. The military doesn't come up with that. It's not like the Chairman can come together with the other services and say "Mr. President, we are building our forces only for isolationist/non-intervention purposes--don't send us anywhere anymore". The President and SecDef state what the military needs to be ready to accomplish (including mission sets), and the services say what that'll cost in their opinion, it gets vetted by SecDef and the President and then submitted to Congress for approval in the budget.

The second is that our reliance on high technology, which imho is a manifestation of a collective societal impression of the cost of a life which is higher than just about anyone's, anywhere, anytime in history. There were roughly 5000 killed in the last decade of two wars, and people were screaming to "let the slaughter stop". That's 1/10th of Vietnam, 1/80th World War II, 1/20th WWI, 1/120th Civil War. Why was that possible? Our training and technology is second-to-none. We have pumped a lot of money into R&D that has trickled out into the civilian world. We protect our troops in ways unheard of in past conflicts. (When I go outside the fenceline, I have to have a waiver to NOT wear a 40# vest, kevlar helmet and full gloves/eye/ear protection. 10 years ago, it would've been in cammies and a backpack.) Some of the old-school grunts on here can probably elaborate better.

There's a problem with that, though. Most of our technological advantages are now entering their second or third decade of use and nearing end of life, with few replacements in the queue. The planes that are dropping bombs are starting to fall out of the sky because they've been overworked for the last 10-15 years and their replacements have been de-funded (or late, depending on which defense contractor you're looking at). The submarines that placed us on the cutting edge with precision strikes into Baghdad and Tripoli and others are entering their third decade, and not being replaced on a 1-for-1 basis. The ballistic missile boats are supposed to be retired at the end of this decade, but Congress still hasn't started funding construction of the new ones. The Air Force's ICBM program has been de-funded so far that some missiles are rotting in their silos and the companies that build rockets have shut down. We physically do not have the capability to build (for instance) as many nuclear weapons a year as Pakistan does, or about 1/50th as many as China IS making each year. There is supposed to be a wave of new construction/new systems coming in the next 15 years, but I don't know where that's going to come from.

If I was forced to cut the budget drastically, I might think of going back to pre-WWII time and doing away with a large part of the US Army. Keep the National Guard, Keep the Marines in their (basically perfected) role as a 911/Force-in-Readiness and a show-the-flag force. Though I may be biased, I think that the Navy's role has already been stripped too far and would keep their levels at or near present just because protection of trade is a huge component not only of our national security but our national ethos and they are already proficient in working with the Marines to have forward presence around the world.

At some point, though, it's strategically harmful to back out of world politics. I'm of the opinion that there will always be bad people doing bad things. It's not generally good for American policy to have to rely on other people for our security--be it militarily, financial or otherwise. There are also societal impacts. If you strip down the army to a highly professional cadre that will expand if needed, you have to have a draft/militia program that ensures that there are a lot of people to fill those slots when needed. I'm not sure that a draft or compulsory reserve/National Guard training or service will ever make a comeback in the US, but this may be a catalyst for it.

Very interesting post with lots to chew on. Thanks (Both for the education and the service).

Personally, I am for "cutting the fat" but not for stripping away readiness capabilities of the services. I am interested in your opinions on a couple follow up points.

With the drones and generally more automated or unmanned methods of reconosince and warfare, do you feel it is more important to maintain funding in R&D then in having a large standing army? Shouldn't we be able to do more with drastically fewer soldiers than in the past?

The mercenaries are paid drastically more, do you believe that they are used because they don't have to abide by the same codes as the military (operate outside the law)? Can they be gotten rid of and replaced with our military? How do you think this issue should be handeled in the future?

 

[Denny Crane]

The reason the surge worked is that more boots on the ground were required to hold positions once taken. Drones might soften those positions before we take them, but as soon as the drones go elsewhere, the enemy comes back.

 

[huevonkiller]

Good for you, the next step is PASSING a budget. Nice try.

Personal attacks aside, you might want to learn to apply some critical thinking to your analyses.
Please look at the chart you posted, and explain the following:
1) Why the blue "war funding" line that is solely for Overseas Contingency Operations is constant at ~100B a year until 2020, when it's already gone down to $88B this year (that's a fact) and the President has mandated that 34,000 more troops will be sent home by January 2014, with a significantly reduced presence post-2015? Does your critical analysis of these facts support the blue area staying at ~100B until 2020?

Let's ignore the fact the graph is a few months old, add plus or minus 10% to the prediction for your sake, I don't think you understand what the problem is.

The problem is we should be making cuts (serious EVERY year cuts), not future decreases in spending I want to make you unemployed, I want you to file a job application in guam as a very experienced McDonalds employee.

I don't like interventionism from an economic, strategic, and efficiency standpoint. Your social contract nonsense does not sway me, I'm a natural rights Libertarian. I don't think you've ever met anyone as capitalist as me, but either way many of your peers agree with me. That fact soothes me.

88 billion over the next decade would still be a nice little increase. Anything over a dollar is ludicrous to me.

2) The 2014 data point for the purple "base defense budget projection" shows an increase in 2014 up to ~$560-570B. I don't know where Veronique is getting her OMB projection from, but in the OP the fact that the President sent a $526B budget to Congress was presented. Do you think that it's going to increase 15% from $526B this year to ~$590B in 2015, as your chart shows?

Yawn, again I want to cut your budget in half, then cut it in half again. Not slow down increases in the future.

Let's put it this way, a real cut of 20% does nothing for me.

3) How do you explain the continued projected increase in base defense budget when the Army's drawdown of 80,000 troops over the next 6 years and the Marines' drawdown of 20,000 through 2016 (over 10% of their force, both below Clinton Administration manning figures) seems to indicate that personnel costs will be significantly reduced?

4) Why are you trusting projection over fact? That this chart has already been invalidated seems to suggest to me that you either need to choose your sources more carefully and apply some analysis when doing so, and especially when rehashing an old argument. Part of research is understand what you can trust, what makes you wrong when you put faith into it and what new research has come out that validates or invalidates your hypothesis and testing methods.

Your passion is commendable. Your skills need some work. I'm happy to help educate you, but I can do without the invective.

Let's summarize your opinion: The military will decrease its budget by even more than my chart predicts. Good, but I doubt it. Withdrawing troops isn't much of a cut, they'll just get transferred around or we'll build more bases somewhere. Oh and Obama still has to suck up to the pro-war right.


Your criticism is pointless, you can argue about 100 billion or whatever it is completely insignificant to my point. I'm not a Chicago School economist.

And its nothing personal, I'm like that with all jingoists. I have a great distaste for what you represent, I will not let up.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You called me a liar because I presented a fact, and used incorrect information as a basis. Chicago School, Milwaukee School, Berlin School, whatever--you were wrong.

You want to cut the budget multiple times---that's fine. The premise of this thread is that that's happening. Cuts today ARE HAPPENING. Not "projected" cuts. Not "cuts to increases". Having your head in the sand because it doesn't fit with your narrative isn't analysis.

I want to make you unemployed, I want you to file a job application in guam as a very experienced McDonalds employee.

That's nice. Unrealistic, but nice. You don't want to be competing with me for a job, though. And it's funny that as a non-interventionist you bring up Guam.

I don't like interventionism from an economic, strategic, and efficiency standpoint. Your social contract nonsense does not sway me, I'm a natural rights Libertarian

You can start a thread about that. This one is that the DoD has cut spending by almost 20% over the last 3 years. Contrary to your charts; contrary to your opinions; contrary to your analysis--cuts have happened and are continuing to.

And its nothing personal, I'm like that with all jingoists.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[huevonkiller]

Clearly you don't want to make the connection. I never said this year wasn't going to see a decrease in spending, your points so far are redundant.

The Prez's proposed budget is hated by the war-mongering neocons who control a part of Congress, think about that before you go helter skelter on defense cuts.

You called me a liar because I presented a fact, and used incorrect information as a basis. Chicago School, Milwaukee School, Berlin School, whatever--you were wrong.

Not very savvy on the schools eh?

I was referring to the long-run which is probably closer to what the CBO originally predicted. The long-run is what any legitimate economist cares about.

You are a liar. And not a very good one. Just last year the prez told military officials to act like the sequester was not going to occur through the first half of the year, making them go over their official budget. Obama's current budget has little chance to get passed buddy.

You want to cut the budget multiple times---that's fine. The premise of this thread is that that's happening. Cuts today ARE HAPPENING. Not "projected" cuts. Not "cuts to increases". Having your head in the sand because it doesn't fit with your narrative isn't analysis.

Uh-huh, not the best track record there.

"Head in the sand" bullshit, let's see a budget get passed first. Oh and the government can just print (secretly tax) as much money as it needs for war time efforts at any time, look up some of our world's prior leaders. In the long run this makes it more palatable to pass big budgets.

That's nice. Unrealistic, but nice. You don't want to be competing with me for a job, though. And it's funny that as a non-interventionist you bring up Guam.

Dude the last thing I need is to waste my time in the military, not accomplishing anything for ten years in some country we occupied, that hates us, with a weird haircut.

Your wars against statistically unlikely events, that require trillions of dollars, are illogical.

You can start a thread about that. This one is that the DoD has cut spending by almost 20% over the last 3 years. Contrary to your charts; contrary to your opinions; contrary to your analysis--cuts have happened and are continuing to.

Who cares? You're still a misrepresentative liar, one budget that can't get passed means squat in the long-run for budget projections.

If you can't see how that other statement is related you have no understanding of ethics then. Your source of revenue is utter nonsense, your buddys even often agree.

 

[jlprk]

I barely escaped being drafted, but I must say this:

When Nixon ended the draft, he increased payroll to attract volunteers. Returning to a draft would greatly cut personnel costs and benefits.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Clearly you don't want to make the connection. I never said this year wasn't going to see a decrease in spending, your points so far are redundant.

Uh, you called me a liar when I posted that defense spending was coming down in 2014, and the chart you posted showed an increase. I don't think it's me who's unwilling or unable to see the connection

The Prez's proposed budget is hated by the war-mongering neocons who control a part of Congress, think about that before you go helter skelter on defense cuts.

Please do some research on how the last 4 years of the Dept of Defense were funded, specifically looking at the funding proposals that were sent by the President to Congress (and how much was cut or added from those recommendations). I'll wait.

Not very savvy on the schools eh?

I'm not impressed with someone throwing out philosophy learned on wikipedia as trumping facts.

I was referring to the long-run which is probably closer to what the CBO originally predicted. The long-run is what any legitimate economist cares about.

A) I'm not a legitimate economist, and you've failed to provide any manner of credential or experience suggesting that you are, either. However, the premise of this thread is that "defense spending is coming down." In the words of May MacKenzie, "that's a fact!" B) If you don't care about it, more power to you. If you want to debate that it's not coming down enough, go for it. If you don't like the facts, I can't really help you there, and no name-calling is going to make it better.

You are a liar. And not a very good one. Just last year the president told military officials to act like the sequester was not going to occur through the first half of the year, making them go over their official budget. Obama's current budget has little chance to get passed buddy.

Does a legitimate economist think that, since a budget wasn't passed, the military is unfunded? Or that the Defense Department can spend willy-nilly to meet their perceived requirements? Do you understand what a Continuing Resolution is?

As for the sequester, the part about the President not telling the truth about the sequester timing did ensure that O&M budgets were not going to be funded as given by the CR. That's why you see training exercises being cancelled, Tuition Assistance being stopped, etc. There's not enough cash after sequester and spending on the first half of the FY to do what the missions called for. Going back to post #10, it seems that no one is making the connection that, while spending is coming down, strategic requirements aren't.

"Head in the sand" bullshit, let's see a budget get passed first. Oh and the government can just print (secretly tax) as much money as it needs for war time efforts at any time, look up some of our world's prior leaders. In the long run this makes it more palatable to pass big budgets.

A budget hasn't been passed since 2007, yet somehow the DoD has spend a couple of trillion dollars. And they're spending less this year. Which was the point of the thread. Because there are still some people (who will go unnamed) who think that defense spending is continuing to rise unchecked in these austere times, when the facts are that, printed money or not, secretly taxed or not, the amount the military has been spending has decreased almost 20% over the last 4 years, and next year's funding recommendation from the President continues that trend.

Dude the last thing I need is to waste my time in the military, not accomplishing anything for ten years in some country we occupied, that hates us, with a weird haircut.

Your analysis of me and of the results of the work in Afghanistan are as faulty as your understanding of the DoD budget. I've spent roughly 1 year in the past 7 in uniform. Amazingly enough, it's when I've been ordered by your government to go to places in order to help with the Libya operation, when they need someone with language, culture, engineering and leadership skills to go to West Africa, and when more of those skills are needed in Afghanistan. Usually, I do "real" work for Fortune 50 companies.

Who cares? You're still a misrepresentative liar, one budget that can't get passed means squat in the long-run for budget projections.

Nope, it doesn't mean squat for long-run budget projections. However, it does mean that those budget projections are already wrong. And the facts are that DoD spending has been going down for 3 years and will go down for a 4th. A chart you whistle up from who-knows-where that is statistically incorrect already, with projections that you don't understand and errors that you still haven't been able to refute (see again the questions I posed to you in Post 8) doesn't do much, coupled with name-calling, to make your case.

If you can't see how that other statement is related you have no understanding of ethics then. Your source of revenue is utter nonsense, your buddys even often agree.

I'm not high enough to even pretend to understand what you mean here.

 

[huevonkiller]

Sorry, my chart shows a dip in defense spending for 2013.

Try again man. Read my specific point before you "counter" it.

Uh, you called me a liar when I posted that defense spending was coming down in 2014, and the chart you posted showed an increase. I don't think it's me who's unwilling or unable to see the connection

Yes if you blatantly bitch about the short-term with no regard for the upward trend in defense spending, I think you're an entitled liar.

What did the CBO say about defense spending in the long-run?

Please do some research on how the last 4 years of the Dept of Defense were funded, specifically looking at the funding proposals that were sent by the President to Congress (and how much was cut or added from those recommendations). I'll wait.

What did the CBO predict for 2023? That's what I thought.

And sure, I know exactly how much money we wasted the past few years.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/235207-Defense-spending-coming-down...?p=3002351&viewfull=1#post3002351

I'm not impressed with someone throwing out philosophy learned on wikipedia as trumping facts.

It isn't about you being "impressed" you're simply uneducated about economics. You can't have a massive interventionist state and capitalism. A world police state comes with certain neoclassical elements, and unsound fiduciary media.

A) I'm not a legitimate economist, and you've failed to provide any manner of credential or experience suggesting that you are, either. However, the premise of this thread is that "defense spending is coming down." In the words of May MacKenzie, "that's a fact!" B) If you don't care about it, more power to you. If you want to debate that it's not coming down enough, go for it. If you don't like the facts, I can't really help you there, and no name-calling is going to make it better.

That may be your premise, certainly. My post, and my premise was about the long-run according to various long-term projections.

Does a legitimate economist think that, since a budget wasn't passed, the military is unfunded? Or that the Defense Department can spend willy-nilly to meet their perceived requirements? Do you understand what a Continuing Resolution is?

Your purpose was to mislead the public by mentioning the "budget", I simply responded with reality, which is that the budget is irrelevant. You made it a point to allude to the President's "lower" budget, which was extremely misleading.

If the world ends today then of course more power to you, you're correct. Fortunately for everyone that isn't the case.

As for the sequester, the part about the President not telling the truth about the sequester timing did ensure that O&M budgets were not going to be funded as given by the CR. That's why you see training exercises being cancelled, Tuition Assistance being stopped, etc. There's not enough cash after sequester and spending on the first half of the FY to do what the missions called for. Going back to post #10, it seems that no one is making the connection that, while spending is coming down, strategic requirements aren't.

You do realize, the government can just make up all the money in one fell swoop during an emergency? Weak as shit sequester.

A budget hasn't been passed since 2007, yet somehow the DoD has spend a couple of trillion dollars. And they're spending less this year. Which was the point of the thread. Because there are still some people (who will go unnamed) who think that defense spending is continuing to rise unchecked in these austere times, when the facts are that, printed money or not, secretly taxed or not, the amount the military has been spending has decreased almost 20% over the last 4 years, and next year's funding recommendation from the President continues that trend.

Hmm this is false, lol sorry go back to the beginning of the thread and get your eyes checked. My points are nuanced and the only one that matters.

I'm much more concerned about the secretly taxed money btw, than your budget proposals. It isn't a minor thing, I wish the only thing I had to worry about was the budget as is.

Your analysis of me and of the results of the work in Afghanistan are as faulty as your understanding of the DoD budget. I've spent roughly 1 year in the past 7 in uniform. Amazingly enough, it's when I've been ordered by your government to go to places in order to help with the Libya operation, when they need someone with language, culture, engineering and leadership skills to go to West Africa, and when more of those skills are needed in Afghanistan. Usually, I do "real" work for Fortune 50 companies.

Well are you speaking for everyone? Because I was speaking for myself, I have higher standards and I don't find that lifestyle to be fruitful, statistically intelligent, or moral. If you do that's fine, I don't really mind that part.

I'm sure there are some nice humanitarian cases out there, but statistically nothing you say can ignore the fact that the state is extremely paranoid.

Nope, it doesn't mean squat for long-run budget projections. However, it does mean that those budget projections are already wrong. And the facts are that DoD spending has been going down for 3 years and will go down for a 4th. A chart you whistle up from who-knows-where that is statistically incorrect already, with projections that you don't understand and errors that you still haven't been able to refute (see again the questions I posed to you in Post 8) doesn't do much, coupled with name-calling, to make your case.

And as a basis for this assertion, you said I claimed defense spending wasn't going down recently (go back to the beginning of my post). Then you said the President's budget disproves my theory, which is crazy. Then you ignore the only thing that really matters to me, monetary policy. You haven't shown a great counter-argument at all.

The CBO predicts an increase of eventually 100 Billion, per year, over the next ten years.

I'm not high enough to even pretend to understand what you mean here.

"Why are you so entitled?" in simpler terms.

I was trying to be nice. :] Where do you get this sense of entitlement, that your views need to be funded by force? It seems illegitimate to me, fund your own lifestyle and your own beliefs.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Sorry, my chart shows a dip in defense spending for 2013.

And an increase of about 70B or so in 2014, which has no chance of happening. And a static amount of OCO spending, which has already been proven wrong.

Yes if you blatantly bitch about the short-term with no regard for the upward trend in defense spending, I think you're an entitled liar.

I didn't bitch about anything. I provided the information that the president has provided his recommendation to Congress for military spending in 2014, and it's lower than it was last year, which is lower than the year before, which was lower than the year before. As I said, just because it doesn't fit with your chart isn't my problem.

What did the CBO say about defense spending in the long-run?

If their analysis is anything like either their chart you provided or their analysis of ObamaCare spending, I'm not impressed. The facts are that spending is going down for the 4th year in a row.

What did the CBO predict for 2023? That's what I thought.

Well, since their prediction for 2014 was off by about 100B and showed a completely different trend slope, I don't care, other than to laugh at those who still try to use something that's already been proven wrong. CBO predictions for 2023 weren't part of the thread. SPending going down was.

My post, and my premise was about the long-run according to various long-term projections.

No, your post was that I was a liar, and you posted a chart that's already wrong a red-lined, underlined and bolded a quote that is patently false. I can't help that, and your backtracking and philosophical interludes aren't helping.

Your purpose was to mislead the public by mentioning the "budget", I simply responded with reality, which is that the budget is irrelevant. You made it a point to allude to the President's "lower" budget, which was extremely misleading.

I made it a point to show that spending has gone down for the last 3 years, and the President's recommendation to Congress shows a 4th year of cuts on top of sequestration. You have yet to show anything to refute that other than already-wrong CBO projections.

If the world ends today then of course more power to you, you're correct. Fortunately for everyone that isn't the case.

Sorry, I deal in truth. If you like to fantasize about the future, more power to you.

And as a basis for this assertion, you said I claimed defense spending wasn't going down recently (go back to the beginning of my post).

Correct. You called me a liar for posting the quote.

Then you said the President's budget disproves my theory, which is crazy.

No, I've shown that dollars spent on DoD has gone from 711B down to a projected 550-610B this year.

Then you ignore the only thing that really matters to me, monetary policy. You haven't shown a great counter-argument at all.

I couldn't care less what really matters to you. The thread is about defense spending going down. It has.

The CBO predicts an increase of eventually 100 Billion, per year, over the next ten years.

And they got 2014 wrong. What does that say for the next 10 years? Are they going to suddenly reverse course and overfund the military by 180B next year to get back on track?

You do realize, the government can just make up all the money in one fell swoop during an emergency? Weak as shit sequester.

I'm sure this answers someone's question...I'm sure it wasn't mine.

Hmm this is false, lol sorry go back to the beginning of the thread and get your eyes checked. My points are nuanced and the only one that matters. I'm much more concerned about the secretly taxed money btw, than your budget proposals. It isn't a minor thing, I wish the only thing I had to worry about was the budget as is.

Again, I deal in truth. You want to fantasize, project, embellish, philosophize, etc. you're welcome to...maybe the world needs more dreamers. However, the truth is that spending went down from 2010 to 2011, again from 2011 to 2012, again from 2012 to 2013, again when the sequester cuts happened, and the President's recommendation to Congress reduced that amount again while reducing by over half the things that OCO pays for. That's all.

Your rants are welcome. They're just misplaced. And you might want to do some of the research I posted above. Like I said, you've got spunk. Just need some discipline.

I'm sure there are some nice humanitarian cases out there, but statistically nothing you say can ignore the fact that the state is extremely paranoid.

 

[Denny Crane]

Where HK's graph is misleading is that the amount of dollars we spend will increase because of inflation. Economists measure things in constant dollars to account for inflation, or they use a % of GDP.

"Neocon" Paul Ryan's budget proposal would cut $2T, or $200B a year, from the defense budget over the next 10 years.

The sequestration settlement is cutting $50B a year for the next 10 years as well.

In spite of a graph of current dollars increasing over time, the military is going to feel the real and significant cuts.

 

[huevonkiller]

Where HK's graph is misleading is that the amount of dollars we spend will increase because of inflation. Economists measure things in constant dollars to account for inflation, or they use a % of GDP.

"Neocon" Paul Ryan's budget proposal would cut $2T, or $200B a year, from the defense budget over the next 10 years.

The sequestration settlement is cutting $50B a year for the next 10 years as well.

In spite of a graph of current dollars increasing over time, the military is going to feel the real and significant cuts.

This is a valid point, but Brian from WA is going a step further and arguing that the current budget will decrease as well a decade from now, which is silly. I never denied the inflation aspect though. The government creates the inflation so it is their problem.

But it goes both ways, the government can just create the funding they need, inflation exists to take care of deficits. Edit- Inflation is a net gain for them, and a massive tax on us.

Also, you mean military offense will get cut? I'm all in.

 

[huevonkiller]

If you want to debate the "short-term" that's different.

"Part of research is understand what you can trust, what makes you wrong when you put faith into it and what new research has come out that validates or invalidates your hypothesis and testing methods."

Until you present me with some statistical data for long-run projections you don't have anything there.

The CBO is a statist institution that will try to make the government look good and efficient. The fact that they are predicting government growth anyway is bad for you.

And an increase of about 70B or so in 2014, which has no chance of happening. And a static amount of OCO spending, which has already been proven wrong.

Yes 70 more billion, if you think the Prez's budget means anything. But it doesn't and he sucks.

Assertion without evidence.

I didn't bitch about anything. I provided the information that the president has provided his recommendation to Congress for military spending in 2014, and it's lower than it was last year, which is lower than the year before, which was lower than the year before. As I said, just because it doesn't fit with your chart isn't my problem.

Let's rephrase what you said to me:

1. The president made a "lower" budget which doesn't matter, and you tried to use that as a new baseline which is weird. Then you accused me of not knowing how the government is funded, which is also not true. The projections knew at least how governments are funded going in.

2. There was a sequester, which the CBO already took into account in the last projection I saw. Your entire retort is on the rocks. You tried to double count some cuts there.

3. A bad projection will still result in growth probably, your position is pretty unlikely.

If their analysis is anything like either their chart you provided or their analysis of ObamaCare spending, I'm not impressed. The facts are that spending is going down for the 4th year in a row.

The CBO tends to underestimate, exactly thanks for helping me.

The fact that they're still predicting growth is bad for you dude.

Well, since their prediction for 2014 was off by about 100B and showed a completely different trend slope, I don't care, other than to laugh at those who still try to use something that's already been proven wrong. CBO predictions for 2023 weren't part of the thread. SPending going down was.

Let's see who's more credible, the CBO or BrianfromWa who uses imaginary budgets and short-term trends?

I guess I should sell all my gold too since it dipped recently in the market.

No, your post was that I was a liar, and you posted a chart that's already wrong a red-lined, underlined and bolded a quote that is patently false. I can't help that, and your backtracking and philosophical interludes aren't helping.

I posted a chart saying defense spending was going "down" also, going by your logic.

So then are you accusing me of calling myself a liar as well? Define "liar".

I made it a point to show that spending has gone down for the last 3 years, and the President's recommendation to Congress shows a 4th year of cuts on top of sequestration. You have yet to show anything to refute that other than already-wrong CBO projections.

The CBO also knows about this weak dip, that's not much of an argument.

I even brought it up, with snazzy colors. :O

Sorry, I deal in truth. If you like to fantasize about the future, more power to you.

Define "liar".

Correct. You called me a liar for posting the quote.

You skimmed over my post then, that's not what I said.

No, I've shown that dollars spent on DoD has gone from 711B down to a projected 550-610B this year.

Sure I'm down with this.

I couldn't care less what really matters to you. The thread is about defense spending going down. It has.

Define "spending".

And they got 2014 wrong. What does that say for the next 10 years? Are they going to suddenly reverse course and overfund the military by 180B next year to get back on track?

Even with a bad projection the spending will probably still increase.

All it takes is one neocon, anything is possible with government debt.

I'm sure this answers someone's question...I'm sure it wasn't mine.

That's a shame, you should read into it.

Again, I deal in truth. You want to fantasize, project, embellish, philosophize, etc. you're welcome to...

Hmm...

maybe the world needs more dreamers. However, the truth is that spending went down from 2010 to 2011, again from 2011 to 2012, again from 2012 to 2013, again when the sequester cuts happened, and the President's recommendation to Congress reduced that amount again while reducing by over half the things that OCO pays for. That's all.

Well of course, I never contended this.

The President can recommend Wendys' to congress, I'm more interested in what happens 10-20-30 years from now.

 

[Denny Crane]

The real dollar spending is being decreased as well. By $500B over 10 years ($50B/year) due to the sequestration deal, and by $2T over 10 years if Paul Ryan's budget were to be passed. Ryan's budget likely has no chance, but the size of his cuts are likely to be realized in any budget that ultimately will pass.

If you spent a little time reading what Brian has related to us, though anecdotally, he's seeing the effects of real cuts. The military isn't able to afford to keep on as many soldiers, sailors, etc. That's from his perspective only. The amount and number of cuts to weapons programs are significant as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll add something for jlprk's benefit.

The longest and most expensive war in US history was the Cold War. The second longest is the war on poverty. We won the first. We haven't come close to winning the second. Those make a conflict like Iraq or Afghanistan (or both combined!) look puny.

The war on drugs is an expensive failure, too.

 

[huevonkiller]

The real dollar spending is being decreased as well.

Bush funded his stuff with Central banking, it is a two way street.

3% is not particularly low either. In the long-run I don't think spending has to keep up with GDP to be "larger".

By $500B over 10 years ($50B/year) due to the sequestration deal, and by $2T over 10 years if Paul Ryan's budget were to be passed. Ryan's budget likely has no chance, but the size of his cuts are likely to be realized in any budget that ultimately will pass.

Paul Ryan's budget has no shot, and I'm talking about real (unadjusted for inflation) cuts not 500 billion in future cuts which is what you're (mostly) referring to.

If you spent a little time reading what Brian has related to us, though anecdotally, he's seeing the effects of real cuts. The military isn't able to afford to keep on as many soldiers, sailors, etc. That's from his perspective only. The amount and number of cuts to weapons programs are significant as well.

I think this is fantastic, I never denied that. My problem was he made it sound like Ron Paul was the Prez, the cuts aren't quite at that level. RP would also eliminate indirect Bush taxes.

 

[Denny Crane]

$50B in real cuts from a ~$500B total budget is significant. It's real. And it's a shitload of money.

 

[huevonkiller]

Yes it was a "real" cut for this year. I think I pointed that out a while ago.

$50B in real cuts from a ~$500B total budget is significant. It's real. And it's a shitload of money.

Nah, not for a Libertarian.

For Ronald Reagan or someone like that, I imagine that would be a nice little cut.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul. I don't recall him ever saying he'd just slash military spending to get the cost down.

He was much more realistic than that. What I do remember him saying is he could cut costs by bringing the troops home, but that he'd need acts of congress (not easy or fast to do) to gut spending to levels he'd like.

I'm a fan of Brian, too. I would never call him a liar - he's anything but.

 

[huevonkiller]

This isn't anything personal, so relax Den. I'm attacking the need for forced funding, by all means go try and save the world just not on my dollar.

I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul. I don't recall him ever saying he'd just slash military spending to get the cost down.

He was much more realistic than that. What I do remember him saying is he could cut costs by bringing the troops home, but that he'd need acts of congress (not easy or fast to do) to gut spending to levels he'd like.

RP isn't the best Libertarian, and you're not entitled to my money whether it is the politically correct opinion or not.

I don't care if it is "not easy" to do, I'm in the privatizing business and that's all.

I'm a fan of Brian, too. I would never call him a liar - he's anything but.

I'm a fan of Ron Paul a lot more than you like Brian, and I'll call RP a liar when I feel it is appropriate. RP is inconsistent on some positions and has affiliations with dubious people that are dangerous.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll quote Ron Paul directly:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/a...efense-cut-military-spending-to-strengthen-us

My Plan to Restore America does not cut one penny of defense. But it helps make America more secure, and it brings our troops home to defend this country. Under my plan, America will retain the strongest national defense in the world, but we will end expensive foreign wars, overseas nation building, and foreign welfare.

Under my presidency, the United States will still spend more money on defense than President Bush did in FY 2005. America will still spend four times more on defense than China and more than all the countries of Western Europe combined. We will continue to maintain our status as the most dominant military force on the planet, but we will do so with a much more sensible and sustainable foreign policy.