Will Congress cut US Military Budget in 2011?

[Nemeses2011]

Cut's? Thats a big NO.

The Bill passed today.

This years budget is $725 Billion, which is more then last year.


The budget, excluding re-investment, will be a modest growth of 3% per year to 2015

 

[RubiconNZ]

Cut's? That's a big NO.

The Bill passed today.

This years budget is $725 Billion, which is more then last year.


The budget, excluding re-investment, will be a modest growth of 3% per year to 2015

Cuts no budget reprogramming yes, interesting about the 12 F-22's I thought that production line was already done, can anyone comment on the status of the line as it is now.

 

[tphuang]

This is what I've been telling people. America is at the point where it has to dramatically cut all facets of the gov't. That means department of energy, department of education, get rid of half of the intelligence agencies that do pretty much the same thing, stop bailing out the banks, cut down health care, cut down the pension packages of all public sector workers. And more than anything, it needs to adopt a significantly more humble foreign policy. There is no reason for America to have military bases all over the world, maintain that a huge navy and fight 2 wars at the same time.

America is currently on path to complete default and you are worried about how the military will deal with J-20 and PAK-FA? Neither China or Russia are threatening or have any reason to threaten America's homeland. These are only valid arguments if you consider it necessary for America to continue to be the policeman of the world and need to get involved in conflicts around the world. I don't want to pay extra taxes so they can continue to station that many troops abroad.

It's counter-intuitive, but you need to keep defense spending (and other gov't services) at a low level in order to maintain strong defense. Soviet basically ignored its economy, spent too much on defense and got involved in war. And look what happened to it. America will face default (although at a less catastrophic level) if it does not contain its spending. Along the same line, the worst thing China can do now is to spend too much on defense, get involved in too many foreign entanglements and build up debts.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

There is no reason for America to have military bases all over the world, maintain that a huge navy and fight 2 wars at the same time.

While there are some bases that can be shut down I still think their are places we should keep bases like in South Korea, Germany etc....

But the US Navy is already down to 285 ships, it says they need at least 313 preferably more ships to maintain our navel combat power. How small do you want the US Navy to be?

These are only valid arguments if you consider it necessary for America to continue to be the policeman of the world and need to get involved in conflicts around the world.

Well I don't think the US should be the policeman of the world, but I do think it should remain a military superpower and maintain its combat advantage over its adversaries, its foolish to want a level playing ground and not try to say ahead of your enemies.

But then again if the US is not the world policeman, someone else will take its place and that question is who?

I don't want to pay extra taxes so they can continue to station that many troops abroad.

LOL I don't want to pay taxes on many things but I have to.

You know what they say there are two things certain in life and thats death and taxes.

 

[Belesari]

"Neither China or Russia are threatening or have any reason to threaten America's homeland. "

Right now? No not really in the future possibly. But they still have arms sales its a big buisness. So say they begin saling 4th gen fighters and subs and ships to others. Pretty soon we are in 1939 again.

 

[tphuang]

While there are some bases that can be shut down I still think their are places we should keep bases like in South Korea, Germany etc....

But the US Navy is already down to 285 ships, it says they need at least 313 preferably more ships to maintain our navel combat power. How small do you want the US Navy to be?

Well I don't think the US should be the policeman of the world, but I do think it should remain a military superpower and maintain its combat advantage over its adversaries, its foolish to want a level playing ground and not try to say ahead of your enemies.

But then again if the US is not the world policeman, someone else will take its place and that question is who?

LOL I don't want to pay taxes on many things but I have to.

You know what they say there are two things certain in life and thats death and taxes.

it's pretty bad, there is the nominal income tax in America + the hidden inflation tax. When things are supposed to get much cheaper with like a economic downturn, food and services around me are getting more expensive in spite of what the government CPI might be saying.

As for maintaining military superiority, that's not a matter of personal desire, but rather of economic reality. I'm sure the British empire did not wish to loose its military superiority, but it lost it to US, which had far stronger economic power and manufacturing capability. The Soviets tried to maintain military parity with US in spite of much inferior economic power. It ended up falling apart and loosing everything. It's fiscal insanity for US to think that it can maintain complete military superiority over China and India over the next 50 years once those countries become much larger economies.

Right now? No not really in the future possibly. But they still have arms sales its a big buisness. So say they begin saling 4th gen fighters and subs and ships to others. Pretty soon we are in 1939 again.

Can you think of any reason for China or Russia to threaten continental US? China is only interested in selling you cheap products and relocating your manufacturing and R&D base. In the same sense, Russia is interested in having hegemony around its surrounding countries (the former Soviet republics + maybe some of Europe) while achieving economic prosperity for its people.

 

[eryck]

it's pretty bad, there is the nominal income tax in America + the hidden inflation tax. When things are supposed to get much cheaper with like a economic downturn, food and services around me are getting more expensive in spite of what the government CPI might be saying.

As for maintaining military superiority, that's not a matter of personal desire, but rather of economic reality. I'm sure the British empire did not wish to loose its military superiority, but it lost it to US, which had far stronger economic power and manufacturing capability. The Soviets tried to maintain military parity with US in spite of much inferior economic power. It ended up falling apart and loosing everything. It's fiscal insanity for US to think that it can maintain complete military superiority over China and India over the next 50 years once those countries become much larger economies.


Can you think of any reason for China or Russia to threaten continental US? China is only interested in selling you cheap products and relocating your manufacturing and R&D base. In the same sense, Russia is interested in having hegemony around its surrounding countries (the former Soviet republics + maybe some of Europe) while achieving economic prosperity for its people.

Are you kidding me? or you try to make a joke out of it?? China has much bigger ambitions that you and I have thought, gotta trust me on this. i agree some of you guys that the U.S Gov should cut some useless agencies which practically doing the same thing and cut everything but defense. As a maritime country, the U.S should keep expand its military might in order to gain its interest. Without military might, nobody gives a fuck about the U.S. People seem to forget about the basic things that existed in the first civilization that winner takes all. It's not a time to let history repeats itself, the U.S gotta do whatever it take to prevent a growing China. I know we are deeply in debt, but we've been in debt since this nation was built.As simply as : No military might, no nothing. who gives a fuck that we owe a lot of money? As long as we have the biggest military power in the world, nobody dare to touch us. Don't tell me that i'm a bully, but we americans are bullies.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

As for maintaining military superiority, that's not a matter of personal desire, but rather of economic reality. I'm sure the British empire did not wish to loose its military superiority, but it lost it to US, which had far stronger economic power and manufacturing capability. The Soviets tried to maintain military parity with US in spite of much inferior economic power. It ended up falling apart and loosing everything. It's fiscal insanity for US to think that it can maintain complete military superiority over China and India over the next 50 years once those countries become much larger economies.

So what are you saying China and India should replace the US as the world superpower? If so that would just blow my frigging mind! I see another Cold War but this time with China not with Russia.

Its that kind of mindset that kills great nations.

Can you think of any reason for China or Russia to threaten continental US?

Both are building stealth fighters and China has its new "carrier killer" missile. Not a threat to the continental US not yet anyway but a threat to US navel power.

Luck fully the US Navy is not going to sit by and do nothing like what some people would want to do but it will counter the Chinese threat, how it will its still classified.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Are you kidding me? or you try to make a joke out of it?? China has much bigger ambitions that you and I have thought, gotta trust me on this. i agree some of you guys that the U.S Gov should cut some useless agencies which practically doing the same thing and cut everything but defense. As a maritime country, the U.S should keep expand its military might in order to gain its interest. Without military might, nobody gives a fuck about the U.S. People seem to forget about the basic things that existed in the first civilization that winner takes all. It's not a time to let history repeats itself, the U.S gotta do whatever it take to prevent a growing China. I know we are deeply in debt, but we've been in debt since this nation was built.As simply as : No military might, no nothing. who gives a fuck that we owe a lot of money? As long as we have the biggest military power in the world, nobody dare to touch us. Don't tell me that i'm a bully, but we americans are bullies.

Although I agree your view no military=no nothing thats true but the debt is a huge problem and they will need to cut back spending somewhere.

Now I'm defiantly against just slashing the military outright like some people would want to do just out of pure emotion because they think its wrong for the US to be the policeman of the world but some military programs have to be cut that are too costly and that are irrelevant like the EFV program for example.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Republican Congress says every dollar should be on the table...including defense.

UPDATE 1-US House leader: debt limit hike must be tied to cuts | Reuters

Tea Party: Defense Spending Not Exempt From Cuts - CBS News

So the question is, if Congress pursues cuts in defense, how big and what will be cut? Will it be more than the $78 billion by secretary of defense Robert Gates?

 

[tphuang]

Are you kidding me? or you try to make a joke out of it?? China has much bigger ambitions that you and I have thought, gotta trust me on this. i agree some of you guys that the U.S Gov should cut some useless agencies which practically doing the same thing and cut everything but defense. As a maritime country, the U.S should keep expand its military might in order to gain its interest. Without military might, nobody gives a fuck about the U.S. People seem to forget about the basic things that existed in the first civilization that winner takes all. It's not a time to let history repeats itself, the U.S gotta do whatever it take to prevent a growing China. I know we are deeply in debt, but we've been in debt since this nation was built.As simply as : No military might, no nothing. who gives a fuck that we owe a lot of money? As long as we have the biggest military power in the world, nobody dare to touch us. Don't tell me that i'm a bully, but we americans are bullies.

I'm not kidding at all and I also don't expect all the military buffs out here to agree with my views toward military spending.

Despite this so called Chinese military threat, the largest threat that China poses to America is through the financial/economical realm. You see what's happening in Europe right now with the sovereign debt crisis? State governments like California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are next on their list. If you don't have money, you can't fight war. Unless you propose that US just puts a gun to Saudi Arabia's head and demand free oil. I don't think that's something you want to do in long term.

And as I said before, the Chinese economy is on pace to match the American economy in total GDP in the not too distant future. Consider what US defense budget have to deal with (war cost, weapon procurement, maintaining a vast nuclear arsenal, maintaining oversea bases, maintaining weapon + top notch training, salary/benefits for servicemen, lifetime pension for everyone who got injured in Iraq/Afghanistan) and compare that with what the Chinese defense budget have to deal with (weapon procurement, maintaining weapon + training, salary for servicemen). And now, when you consider that the salary+benefits for 1 million PLA officers is much lower than that of 1 million American servicemen. How many times more does US have to spend on its defense than China to maintain an absolute advantage that right wing hawks advocate? Do you want to pick up that kind of burden?

So what are you saying China and India should replace the US as the world superpower? If so that would just blow my frigging mind! I see another Cold War but this time with China not with Russia.

Its that kind of mindset that kills great nations.

Both are building stealth fighters and China has its new "carrier killer" missile. Not a threat to the continental US not yet anyway but a threat to US navel power.

Luck fully the US Navy is not going to sit by and do nothing like what some people would want to do but it will counter the Chinese threat, how it will its still classified.

How about this then. Let's say that by 2025, China reaches parity with US when it comes to GDP, but is in much better position in terms of debt burden. At the same time, India goes from 1/10 of US's GDP to 1/4. If US wants to maintain absolute military superiority over these 2 emerging powers, how much extra it would need to spend on defense over these 2 countries? Let's just both China/India spend around 2.5% of its GDP on military. While looking at this, consider that personnel cost will be much lower in India/China, because American soldiers are much better compensated (+think about these monstrous pension bills that the Pentagon would have to deal with post Iraq+Afghanistan).

I'm just trying to look at things realistically while also looking at the mounting health care cost, social security cost + unfunded liabilities from all the retiring gov't workers.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

If thats the case than the US will be locked in another arms race like what happened from 1947-1991 with the Soviet Union. Two military superpowers seeing who can build better weapons.

Hell maybe some competition from China will actually be good for the US, as in the past it could accelerate weapons/technology development, hell maybe a new arms race would start another space race and get us to go to Mars this time who knows.

 

[rip]

I'm not kidding at all and I also don't expect all the military buffs out here to agree with my views toward military spending.

Despite this so called Chinese military threat, the largest threat that China poses to America is through the financial/economical realm. You see what's happening in Europe right now with the sovereign debt crisis? State governments like California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are next on their list. If you don't have money, you can't fight war. Unless you propose that US just puts a gun to Saudi Arabia's head and demand free oil. I don't think that's something you want to do in long term.

And as I said before, the Chinese economy is on pace to match the American economy in total GDP in the not too distant future. Consider what US defense budget have to deal with (war cost, weapon procurement, maintaining a vast nuclear arsenal, maintaining oversea bases, maintaining weapon + top notch training, salary/benefits for servicemen, lifetime pension for everyone who got injured in Iraq/Afghanistan) and compare that with what the Chinese defense budget have to deal with (weapon procurement, maintaining weapon + training, salary for servicemen). And now, when you consider that the salary+benefits for 1 million PLA officers is much lower than that of 1 million American servicemen. How many times more does US have to spend on its defense than China to maintain an absolute advantage that right wing hawks advocate? Do you want to pick up that kind of burden?


How about this then. Let's say that by 2025, China reaches parity with US when it comes to GDP, but is in much better position in terms of debt burden. At the same time, India goes from 1/10 of US's GDP to 1/4. If US wants to maintain absolute military superiority over these 2 emerging powers, how much extra it would need to spend on defense over these 2 countries? Let's just both China/India spend around 2.5% of its GDP on military. While looking at this, consider that personnel cost will be much lower in India/China, because American soldiers are much better compensated (+think about these monstrous pension bills that the Pentagon would have to deal with post Iraq+Afghanistan).

I'm just trying to look at things realistically while also looking at the mounting health care cost, social security cost + unfunded liabilities from all the retiring gov't workers.

The idea that the US needs or wants absolute military supremacy over anybody is way off the target unless it is an over an enemy that cannot be reconciled to our existence in any other way. The military priory of the US is twofold. One is the same as that of any other country, and that is to have a military of such strength that no one can force us to do or act in any way that we don't want to.

The second goal is harder to put into words. And that is what kind of world do we wish to live in? Is it acceptable to live in a world where terror, privation, poverty, hopelessness, and despair are rampant even though you are doing OK while othere are suffering? And if that situation is OK to live in that kind of wourld(to your way of thinking), can your preferred way of life ever be safe and secure in such a world like that?

The first part of the question is we could have a much smaller military structure than we currently do and satisfy the first condition and for the second part, is that we could never afford the cost nor have the absolute power to do the second without having good strong partners to share the burden.

The issue in the future that is unknown at this time is what kind of partners will these new emerging powers be? Or will they be partners at all. China and other emerging powers, (powers that are only emerging in the first place because of a world order that the US has striven to achieve which allows for other nations to rise uo to and acheave success),will they nether respect that world order? They do not at this point seem interested in doing much to preserve it. But of course that might change in time if they see that in the long run when they face the question it is the king of world they want to live in?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think Gates $78 billion in cuts is fine and I'm sure there is more that can be cut and better spent on other weapons through efficiency savings but reducing the size of the American military below 1.4 million active which is already the smallest since before WWII would put America's national security at risk.

With over 300 million people the US has to maintain a huge military in order to defend its interests. Its not a matter of choice like "oh we tired of being the world police lets let someone else take over." or "America's military is too big and its unfair to other nations so lets play fair" mentally is way more dangerous than Russia's entire nuclear arsenal IMHO. That kind of mentality will kill more Americans than just the number that died on 9/11/01....

 

[rip]

I think Gates $78 billion in cuts is fine and I'm sure there is more that can be cut and better spent on other weapons through efficiency savings but reducing the size of the American military below 1.4 million active which is already the smallest since before WWII would put America's national security at risk.

With over 300 million people the US has to maintain a huge military in order to defend its interests. Its not a matter of choice like "oh we tired of being the world police lets let someone else take over." or "America's military is too big and its unfair to other nations so lets play fair" mentally is way more dangerous than Russia's entire nuclear arsenal IMHO. That kind of mentality will kill more Americans than just the number that died on 9/11/01....

Efficiency and the military never go together. Why? Because you cannot predict the future and the military must be ready to just about do anything and to handle all that can possibly be predicted to happen. From an economic point of view, ever bullet and every missile that is not used to kill someone or blow somthing up is by definition a waste of money! The accountants’ do not know how to count the value of deterrence and do not even try to.

If you can come up with some way of predicting the future then you can have just enough of the right kind of military power that you need without having any waste. Good luck with that. Until then it is always a matter of how much RISK you are willing to tolerate in the future that you think is most likely to come to pass.

But on a larger scale it is about something else entirely. If we were to take the traditionalist foreign policy of the USA, which is the one of Isolationism, the one we practiced very successfully before before WW I then we could have a much smaller but very different military establishment than we have today. It would have more nuclear weapons and a much bigger Navy and a much smaller Army without the huge logistical supply train necessary to forward conduct and project global power that we have today. It would be smaller, it would be cheaper and it would less flexible but it would be far far deadlier.

But that begs the question could we successfully avoid WW III? Personally I believe that another World War, one that will be much worse than the last one even if WMB weapons are somehow avoided, is inevitable no matter what the US does or doesn’t do for many very real and definable reasons that go way beyond the topic of this thread and even beyond the interests of this forum. Because of that I will not try to delineate them here for your inspection. But my personal feelings are completely irrelevant in the end, because the American people have collectively decided differently. They have decided that one, we will be involved in the world and in its, problems, injustices, miseries, struggles for human dignity and for its over all progress, if those struggles directly affect or concern us or not. And two, we can somehow succeed in building some kind of like-minded coalition with other peoples that will allow the world to progress foward without making the same stupid mistakes that it has always made before yet once again.

This goal defies all lines of logic or reason but it is best explained by the American proverb “Where there is life there is hope.”

 

[HKP]

I'm not kidding at all and I also don't expect all the military buffs out here to agree with my views toward military spending.

Despite this so called Chinese military threat, the largest threat that China poses to America is through the financial/economical realm. You see what's happening in Europe right now with the sovereign debt crisis? State governments like California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are next on their list. If you don't have money, you can't fight war. Unless you propose that US just puts a gun to Saudi Arabia's head and demand free oil. I don't think that's something you want to do in long term.

And as I said before, the Chinese economy is on pace to match the American economy in total GDP in the not too distant future. Consider what US defense budget have to deal with (war cost, weapon procurement, maintaining a vast nuclear arsenal, maintaining oversea bases, maintaining weapon + top notch training, salary/benefits for servicemen, lifetime pension for everyone who got injured in Iraq/Afghanistan) and compare that with what the Chinese defense budget have to deal with (weapon procurement, maintaining weapon + training, salary for servicemen). And now, when you consider that the salary+benefits for 1 million PLA officers is much lower than that of 1 million American servicemen. How many times more does US have to spend on its defense than China to maintain an absolute advantage that right wing hawks advocate? Do you want to pick up that kind of burden?


How about this then. Let's say that by 2025, China reaches parity with US when it comes to GDP, but is in much better position in terms of debt burden. At the same time, India goes from 1/10 of US's GDP to 1/4. If US wants to maintain absolute military superiority over these 2 emerging powers, how much extra it would need to spend on defense over these 2 countries? Let's just both China/India spend around 2.5% of its GDP on military. While looking at this, consider that personnel cost will be much lower in India/China, because American soldiers are much better compensated (+think about these monstrous pension bills that the Pentagon would have to deal with post Iraq+Afghanistan).

I'm just trying to look at things realistically while also looking at the mounting health care cost, social security cost + unfunded liabilities from all the retiring gov't workers.

I agree here 100%. I think the US in the road to decline. Just like the law of physics. What comes up must come down. It could be China is to be the next superpower or maybe none, just regional powers maintaining and reducing their status like UK, France, Germany, Japan and soon the US, China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Venezuela. It remains to be seen. Its interesting to see here history here in the making. what will become of US and China. Im watching and im sure all you too.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I agree here 100%. I think the US in the road to decline. Just like the law of physics. What comes up must come down. It could be China is to be the next superpower or maybe none, just regional powers maintaining and reducing their status like UK, France, Germany, Japan and soon the US, China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Venezuela. It remains to be seen. Its interesting to see here history here in the making. what will become of US and China. Im watching and im sure all you too.

I dont think the US is in decline no one in congress wants to reduce American combat power. The US wont just sit by and let China take over and I see a new Cold War starting up. The US can still cut defense spending and still mantain its military.

 

[rip]

I agree here 100%. I think the US in the road to decline. Just like the law of physics. What comes up must come down. It could be China is to be the next superpower or maybe none, just regional powers maintaining and reducing their status like UK, France, Germany, Japan and soon the US, China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Venezuela. It remains to be seen. Its interesting to see here history here in the making. what will become of US and China. Im watching and im sure all you too.

Please define decline. Do you mean real decline (as in our ability to create wealth, invent, produce goods and adapt to change fast enough so as to meet new circumstances), or do you mean that other people are beginning to catch up?

The correct measure of these things is, not the total score or even the would percentage on or of any type of measure within any category that you think is important, (very subjective evaluations here so be careful) but dose the average output and abilities of the American population decline in comparison to other populations (output per person). Here is what is happening, some parts of the world are improving at a faster rate than we are but they are still flowing and not leading. It is much easier to follow than it is to lead and as they catch up (as they are doing at this point I grant you) their pace will slow down because from that point there is no road map or examples to follow or copy. Then we will really see what is what.

I have lived a long time and I have heard this tagline that “America is in decline” many times over the years and it would have been true, if we had not continued to change and adapt as the world around us moves on. But guess what we continue to evolve, who would have thought we could do that, wow! So if I am skeptical about your blanket statement that the US is in decline you know why.

As to the theme of the thread, will congress cut the military budget the answer is yes, Because the military is only one part of a countries strength and other parts are more important to address right now. Unless it and the American people feel they are in more danger than we think we are at this point? That will depend on outside forces we cannot predict.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

As to the theme of the thread, will congress cut the military budget the answer is yes, Because the military is only one part of a countries strength and other parts are more important to address right now. Unless it and the American people feel they are in more danger than we think we are at this point? That will depend on outside forces we cannot predict.

Yes America at the very least will have to cut the growth in military spending(Robert Gates $78 billion in cuts plus another $100 billion in savings) and maybe at the very most have to cut the overall budget by $50 billion a year annually but this does not mean the downsizing of the US military nor does it mean a decline in US military power.

 

[rip]

Yes America at the very least will have to cut the growth in military spending(Robert Gates $78 billion in cuts plus another $100 billion in savings) and maybe at the very most have to cut the overall budget by $50 billion a year annually but this does not mean the downsizing of the US military nor does it mean a decline in US military power.

Is anybody interested in just what long term decision this, possibly temporary reduction in military spending, could be most effectively done?