Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Agree or Disagree? healthcare vs. defense spending

Posted by on Jan. 8, 2013 at 8:17 PM
  • 63 Replies

by on Jan. 8, 2013 at 8:17 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Kmary
by Bronze Member on Jan. 8, 2013 at 8:20 PM
8 moms liked this

Agree completely.  I think the amount we spend on defense is absolutely sickening.  There I said it.  An extremely unpopular opinion.  The percentage of our total budget that goes to defense is absolutely shameful.

blues_pagan
by on Jan. 8, 2013 at 8:21 PM
2 moms liked this

OIF/OEF vet here and I agree with you.

Quoting Kmary:

Agree completely.  I think the amount we spend on defense is absolutely sickening.  There I said it.  An extremely unpopular opinion.  The percentage of our total budget that goes to defense is absolutely shameful.


rccmom
by Gold Member on Jan. 8, 2013 at 8:43 PM
1 mom liked this
How much of the Defense budget goes to active duty and vets, and how much goes to contractors? We could save lots by looking closely at what we spend on contrators.


Quoting blues_pagan:

OIF/OEF vet here and I agree with you.

Quoting Kmary:

Agree completely.  I think the amount we spend on defense is absolutely sickening.  There I said it.  An extremely unpopular opinion.  The percentage of our total budget that goes to defense is absolutely shameful.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
blues_pagan
by on Jan. 8, 2013 at 9:39 PM

I can honestly say not much.  Most of the money goes into special pet projects and contracts.  There is so much waste here but no one wants to say that because they would be deemed "unpatriotic".

Quoting rccmom:

How much of the Defense budget goes to active duty and vets, and how much goes to contractors? We could save lots by looking closely at what we spend on contrators.


Quoting blues_pagan:

OIF/OEF vet here and I agree with you.

Quoting Kmary:

Agree completely.  I think the amount we spend on defense is absolutely sickening.  There I said it.  An extremely unpopular opinion.  The percentage of our total budget that goes to defense is absolutely shameful.




musicmaker
by Member on Jan. 8, 2013 at 9:56 PM
5 moms liked this

 Bomber Bake Sale Vinyl Sticker it will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air

29again
by Gold Member on Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:08 PM
9 moms liked this

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to defend this country.  It is MY responsibility to take care of my health (pay for the doc, specialist, pay for the meds, etc).    But I do agree that there is more than likely way too much waste in the "defense" of this country.

stringtheory
by Bronze Member on Jan. 8, 2013 at 10:15 PM
What republicans love to do (oh yeah, I got partisan on this one), is concede to defense cuts as long as the first cuts are in personnel. Defense cuts, when proposed, try to target waste in equipment (we are talking million dollar planes that get trashed before they ever fly); but to place democrats in a bad light for proposing such cuts, they go directly for pay checks for soldiers when there are extremely costly other options.

Quoting rccmom:

How much of the Defense budget goes to active duty and vets, and how much goes to contractors? We could save lots by looking closely at what we spend on contrators.




Quoting blues_pagan:

OIF/OEF vet here and I agree with you.

Quoting Kmary:

Agree completely.  I think the amount we spend on defense is absolutely sickening.  There I said it.  An extremely unpopular opinion.  The percentage of our total budget that goes to defense is absolutely shameful.



Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
timeforprogress
by Bronze Member on Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM
1 mom liked this
War is a racket. There is far too much waste in the defense budget. We spend way too much on crap that had no real value in terms of national security.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:16 PM
3 moms liked this

ACA isn't universal healthcare.

It is a universal nightmare.

It needs to be redone as a single payer program if it is to have any hope of survival...and of us surviving it...

Mrs.Kubalabuku
by on Jan. 8, 2013 at 11:39 PM
1 mom liked this

A Jet Even the Military Doesn’t Want

The F-22 isn't useful in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would Congress order more?

SOURCE: AP/J. Scott Applewhite

    PRINT: 
  • print icon
  •  SHARE: 
  • Facebook icon
  •  
  • Twitter icon
  •  
  • Share on Google+
  •  
  • Email icon

Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22 Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009 supplemental war budget last month. But the very next day, the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an additional 12 F-22s. The Senate Armed Services Committee went a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s without clearly identifying the source of funds.

The F-22 costs nearly $150 million per plane – twice what was projected at the outset of the program. Factoring in development costs, the price tag increases to about $350 million per plane for the current fleet of 187.

It may look as if the House Armed Services Committee has added "only" $369 million. But given that it would provide funds for 12 additional F-22s, each with a price tag of $150 million (excluding development costs), the real cost to American taxpayers would be about $2 billion.

The F-22 is the most capable air-to-air fighter in the Air Force inventory. Yet it has only limited air-to-ground attack capabilities, which makes it unsuitable for today’s counter-insurgency operations. In fact, the F-22 has never been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It was designed to fight next-generation Soviet fighters that never materialized, and, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted, it is nearly useless for irregular warfare.

The F-22 has no known enemy. It is the most advanced fighter plane in the world, and there are no other planes that could threaten its supremacy in air-to-air combat. The United States already has 187 F-22s on hand or on order – a silver-bullet force that is more than adequate to deal with any likely contingency. In fact, Gates said that even if he had $50 billion more to spend, he would not buy any more F-22s.

The Air Force leadership itself no longer supports continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have publicly said they would prefer to move on. The plane is not in the Defense Department’s proposed budget for fiscal 2010 (which begins in October). It’s not even on the Air Force’s list of unfunded requests, which consists of items excluded from the budget for which it would nevertheless like funding – a wish list of sorts.

Why are congressional committees willing to override the military and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the F-22? The latest in a string of arguments offered by proponents in Congress is the need to protect our industrial base – as if our technical capacity to develop and produce fighter planes is in immediate, grave danger. This argument overlooks the fact that the Obama administration’s fiscal 2010 budget includes 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters – planes better suited for air-to-ground combat.

Moreover, as has been noted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the era of producing manned aircraft is coming to an end. Mullen correctly points out that there will be a shift toward unmanned aircraft.

The F-22 is not an isolated case of unnecessary congressional equipment purchases. Congress has added $2.7 billion to the 2009 supplemental budget to buy more C-17 and C-130 aircraft – planes neither requested nor needed by the Defense Department. It also added $600 million to the 2010 budget for an unneeded alternate engine for the F-35, which will mean buying 50 fewer aircraft.

An administration policy statement issued on June 24 said the president’s senior advisers would recommend a veto of a bill containing funding for more F-22s. If the entire Congress approves either of the armed services committees’ recommendations on the F-22, President Obama should indeed veto the bill. Only then will Congress get the message that in this era of exploding national debt, we cannot waste billions on unnecessary military equipment.


I honestly don't think it is fair to compare DoD spending and budgets when CONGRESS is ORDERING the EXPERTS on what they HAVE TO BUY.  The EXPERTS wanted to invest this money in more pertinent projects and equipment.  But CONGRESS decided how the money would be spent, stripping vital missions of funding in order to do so.

These planes are one example.  This happens ALL THE TIME.

DoD also isn't allowed to budget their money for long term.  They get a set amount each year.  If they don't use every dime their funding is cut.  So if they get new computers year 1, and know they will need to upgrade that equipment in 5 years, they must spend the next 5 years using just as much money as it took to buy the original computers or they won't have funding for it come 5 years.  They can't say "Hey, our office/building/unit has $500,000 left over!  Let's save this for next year!"  They have to spend that $5,000 on whatever they possibly can so they have it in the following years.

I think we need to take the DoD budget away from the hands of Congress members who use it to "buy" donations to their campaigns or to help pet projects.  (If you look at the companies that made the F-22s you'd see they have ties to many Congressmen.)

And if they do this so freely to the Defense Budget, what will they do with the Healthcare Budget?  Imagine if you hospital desperately needed to replace their IV machines.  But they were ORDERED to spend their money on fancy new other crap.  It isn't the amount that is worrisome, it is how much power Congress has over something they don't understand or don't care to understand.

The Defense Budget needs help.  The money isn't going where it should b/c Congress has too much say in where it goes.  Not the officers watching their troop's needs.  Not the experts who spend countless hours weighing the pros and cons of new purchases and their possible applications.  Congress.

I don't want Congress in charge of healthcare funding in any way shape or form.

And, take a look at Social Security.  It didn't take long for them to move the funds to the General Fund and SPEND IT ALL.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)