What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

This latest budget deal (1 Viewer)

NCCommish

Footballguy
Is ridiculous. The Pentagon gets almost 1.5 trillion over the next 2 years. The entire rest of the government gets 1.3 trillion. So the military commands more discretionary spending than the entire rest of the government combined including the VA by the way. Its completely out of control. It's even more than the Pentagon asked for. When does it stop? With the black budget we are already over a trillion a year. How much do we need to spend? But we couldn't possibly find a way to fund public college tuition. We can't afford universal health care like every other developed country. We can't afford to expand Social Security so that people don't have to work until they die. But boy we can always afford more bombs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is ridiculous. The Pentagon gets almost 1.5 trillion over the next 2 years. The entire rest of the government gets 1.3 trillion. So the military commands more discretionary spending than the entire rest of the government combined including the VA by the way. Its completely out of control. It's even more than the Pentagon asked for. When does it stop? With the black budget we are already over a trillion a year. How much do we need to spend? But we couldn't possibly find a way to fund public college tuition. We can't afford universal health care like every other developed country. We can't afford to expand Social Security so that people don't have to work until they die. But boy we can always afford more bombs.
Spoken like a true whacko liberal...   if you don't like it then go back where you came from.

 
Is ridiculous. The Pentagon gets almost 1.5 trillion over the next 2 years. The entire rest of the government gets 1.3 trillion. So the military commands more discretionary spending than the entire rest of the government combined including the VA by the way. Its completely out of control. It's even more than the Pentagon asked for. When does it stop? With the black budget we are already over a trillion a year. How much do we need to spend? But we couldn't possibly find a way to fund public college tuition. We can't afford universal health care like every other developed country. We can't afford to expand Social Security so that people don't have to work until they die. But boy we can always afford more bombs.
100% this...and don't dare talk about cutting it or you hate the military.

Its absolutely ridiculous...and nothing about this is fiscally conservative or conservative in any means.

Just keep driving the deficit up...the old notion of tax and spend democrats has been replaced by borrow and spend republicans.

 
Maybe we need to talk about the military as an entitlement. Why is the military entitled to the newest bombs that explode a little bit more? Why is the military still paying the soldiers a paltry wage compared to the actual budget. Don't think any campaign is proposing it, but why don't we audit the military and see where every cent goes?

#auditthemilitary

 
100% this...and don't dare talk about cutting it or you hate the military.

Its absolutely ridiculous...and nothing about this is fiscally conservative or conservative in any means.

Just keep driving the deficit up...the old notion of tax and spend democrats has been replaced by borrow and spend republicans.
To be fair, didn't most Republicans vote against this?

 
What really stinks is that neither party has any interest in bringing defense spending down.

As per usual, Democrats are too scared of backlash to do what's right.

 
To be fair, didn't most Republicans vote against this?
Yes to be fair I think it was around 130 Congressional Republicans voted against while most Democrats voted for it. The Democrats cited more money for social spending and raising the debt ceiling.  Of course the rise in nonmilitary spending wasn't all that significant and interesting enough the debt ceiling comes up again just in time to strangle a Democratic admins plans in 2021.

 
To be fair, didn't most Republicans vote against this?
In the house?  Sure...and Id love to see some of them who voted knowing it would pass but so they could say they were against it.  And its expected to clear the senate easily.  The reason I say the House R no vote may have been symbolic?  Not only will it clear the senate...it had Trump support...and Mitch will even consider bringing it to the floor.  They knew it was going to pass no matter what they did.

Im not suggesting the democrats aren't part of it too.  And they should have pushed for less military and more to social programs.   Shame on them.

 
Maybe we need to talk about the military as an entitlement. Why is the military entitled to the newest bombs that explode a little bit more? Why is the military still paying the soldiers a paltry wage compared to the actual budget. Don't think any campaign is proposing it, but why don't we audit the military and see where every cent goes?

#auditthemilitary
Is the bold really the case?

 
Please note I didn't make this a Republican thing. The Democrats are equally guilty. In this particular case more so in the Congress. But then they get lots of money to make sure we keep funding the military industrial complex. 

 
So Florida?
I’ve been there and my impression is that it is a different country. So...yes. 

I agree with most of your criticisms. But even so I’m glad they got it done and raised the debt ceiling. For things to change Democrats have got to win back the Presidency and the Senate. Until then we have to compromise. Holding out does no good. 

 
Please note I didn't make this a Republican thing. The Democrats are equally guilty. In this particular case more so in the Congress. But then they get lots of money to make sure we keep funding the military industrial complex. 
Yeah, I mean, this is really a bi-partisan issue.  They all suck.  

 
I’ve been there and my impression is that it is a different country. So...yes. 

I agree with most of your criticisms. But even so I’m glad they got it done and raised the debt ceiling. For things to change Democrats have got to win back the Presidency and the Senate. Until then we have to compromise. Holding out does no good. 
Except it does Tim. Fighting for what's right is always the right thing to do. The Republicans needed this as bad as Democrats. Now is the time to get concessions. And the fact the deal expires just in time to hamstring the next admin if needed is no accident. 

 
 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure.  it got 219 Democratic votes.
On bipartisan bills like the budget and raising the debt ceiling, the actual vote is deceptive, because after its ascertained that the bill will pass, leadership on both sides will release a number of people to vote against so that they can campaign on it. Welcome to sausage making 101. 

 
https://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money/basic-pay-active-duty-soldiers.html

:shrug: Granted, soldiers get housing and food paid for, mostly. So, a solider can save money if they are diligent but the money in the budget ain't going to them. Tony Stark is rolling in his grave at the waste here.
Yeah. I was playing around with this.  Compared to the rest of the population (especially without college on the enlisted side), that looks pretty good.  Other benefits and pay for being certain places overseas helps too.  Just saying.

 
Except it does Tim. Fighting for what's right is always the right thing to do. The Republicans needed this as bad as Democrats. Now is the time to get concessions. And the fact the deal expires just in time to hamstring the next admin if needed is no accident. 
This was the exact same rhetoric used by Ted Cruz when he shut down the government over Obamacare in 2013, and by President Trump when he shut down the government this last January: fighting for what’s right is always the right thing to do. 

I just fundamentally disagree. Being for what’s right is always the right thing to do, but as to fighting for it- pick your battles. Don’t engage in battles you’re not. going to win. 

 
And I didn't mean to sound like it was the Republicans fault...bad wording.  Just the era of any fiscal conservative behavior is long gone.  Its just one of the reasons I have turned away from the national party.  

 
This was the exact same rhetoric used by Ted Cruz when he shut down the government over Obamacare in 2013, and by President Trump when he shut down the government this last January: fighting for what’s right is always the right thing to do. 

I just fundamentally disagree. Being for what’s right is always the right thing to do, but as to fighting for it- pick your battles. Don’t engage in battles you’re not. going to win. 
The only race you can win is one you run.

 
Yeah. I was playing around with this.  Compared to the rest of the population (especially without college on the enlisted side), that looks pretty good.  Other benefits and pay for being certain places overseas helps too.  Just saying.
Compared to the rest of the population, the risk of getting maimed or killed is somewhat higher. Just saying.

 
Yeah. I was playing around with this.  Compared to the rest of the population (especially without college on the enlisted side), that looks pretty good.  Other benefits and pay for being certain places overseas helps too.  Just saying.
All things considered, the salary is good. Plus, free/reduced college after time of service so the French benefits do up the overall value. As per the budget though, I don't think much, if any, is going to the soldiers other than, possibly, into the other French benefits. But, yes, overall, pay can not be scoffed at, imo. Thank you for looking further into it.

 
Sure.  And they get payed more for being in combat as they should.  
I would agree that the DoD generally can't be immune to figuring out how to scale back. Take the pain like everyone else if we're to get this thing under control. However, soldier's pay is crucial to maintaining the "volunteer" aspect of a voluntary military.

 
I would agree that the DoD generally can't be immune to figuring out how to scale back. Take the pain like everyone else if we're to get this thing under control. However, soldier's pay is crucial to maintaining the "volunteer" aspect of a voluntary military.
I wasn't really advocating we reduce military pay, more just questioning whether it should be described as paltry.  There is a lot of upside for some. 

I had a lot of friends that lasted a semester, if at all, in college that enlisted.  One is going on 10 years and is some type of air traffic controller. When he retires/gets out, he will have a good private career ahead of him (always a smart dude, but lacked discipline for school).  Others lasted only a couple of years and have PTSD from being over in Iraq/Afghanistan.  So it is important to pay to attract volunteers, but also to make sure they are taken care of.  Particularly after poorly planned wars.

 
I wasn't really advocating we reduce military pay, more just questioning whether it should be described as paltry.  There is a lot of upside for some. 

I had a lot of friends that lasted a semester, if at all, in college that enlisted.  One is going on 10 years and is some type of air traffic controller. When he retires/gets out, he will have a good private career ahead of him (always a smart dude, but lacked discipline for school).  Others lasted only a couple of years and have PTSD from being over in Iraq/Afghanistan.  So it is important to pay to attract volunteers, but also to make sure they are taken care of.  Particularly after poorly planned wars.
No doubt. My only goal is to point out that any comparison of civilian vs. military pay needs take into account additional factors including physical/mental health risks.

As well as the general loss of freedoms civilians take for granted (e.g. you can't just walk away after a semester unless you're walking away to Leavenworth).

 
On bipartisan bills like the budget and raising the debt ceiling, the actual vote is deceptive, because after its ascertained that the bill will pass, leadership on both sides will release a number of people to vote against so that they can campaign on it. Welcome to sausage making 101. 
no, I get it.  Its incredibly pathetic.

 
So on the pay front when I was an E1 I got 500 a month. Today an E1 gets 1550. Which when you consider that is very entry level, free food and board it isn't bad.

 
In 1983, Chuck Spinney, a thirty-seven-year-old analyst in the Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, testified to Congress that the cost of the ever-more complex weapons that the military insisted on buying always grew many times faster than the overall defense budget. In consequence, planes, ships, and tanks were never replaced on a one-to-one basis, which in turn ensured that the armed forces got smaller and older. Planes, for instance, were kept in service for longer periods of time and were maintained in poor states of repair owing to their increasing complexity. As to be expected, the high command did not react favorably to these home truths. They allowed Spinney to keep his job but stopped assigning him anything of importance. He spent the rest of his career ensconced in a Pentagon office at the heart of the military-­industrial machine, pondering and probing its institutional personality. Retiring in 2003, he maintained a steady output of pungent analyses of its workings. In a 2011 essay, “The Domestic Roots of Perpetual War,” he discussed the pattern of “military belief systems and distorted financial incentives” that produced “a voracious appetite for money that is sustained by a self-­serving flood of ideological propaganda.” Delving deep into the historical details of Pentagon spending, Spinney illustrated his analyses in the form of intricate charts that not only tracked the actual dollar amounts expended but also showed how the projected budgets for various ambitious weapons-­buying plans had never materialized, at least never to the degree necessary to buy the projected number of weapons systems—­hence the shrinking forces.

Late in 2018, Spinney’s longtime friend Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon “whiz kid” revered for codesigning the highly successful A-10 and F-16 warplanes, and a trenchant critic of defense orthodoxy, suggested to Spinney that he add a novel tweak to his work by depicting budget changes from year to year in terms of percentages rather than dollar amounts. The analysis that Spinney produced at Sprey’s suggestion revealed something intriguing: although the U.S. defense budget clearly increased and decreased over the sixty years following the end of the Korean War, the decreases never dipped below where the budget would have been if it had simply grown at 5 percent per year from 1954 on (with one minor exception in the 1960s). “Amazingly,” emphasized Spinney,

this behavior even held true for the large budget reductions that occurred after the end of the Vietnam War and, more significantly, after the end of the Cold War. It is as if there is a rising floor of resistance, below which the defense budget does not penetrate.

Only during Obama’s second term did it first dip below this level with any degree of significance. Even more interestingly, every single time the growth rate had bumped against that floor, there had been an immediate and forceful reaction in the form of high-­volume public outcry regarding a supposedly imminent military threat. Such bouts of threat inflation invariably induced a prompt remedial increase in budget growth, regardless of whether the proclaimed threat actually existed. As General Douglas MacArthur remarked, as far back as 1957: “Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters never seem to have happened, never seem to have been quite real.”

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/06/the-pentagon-syndrome/

 
Maybe we need to talk about the military as an entitlement. Why is the military entitled to the newest bombs that explode a little bit more? Why is the military still paying the soldiers a paltry wage compared to the actual budget. Don't think any campaign is proposing it, but why don't we audit the military and see where every cent goes?

#auditthemilitary
Agreed.  It's like every other entity that needs an audit/review/overhaul periodically.  Find the waste, eliminate the redundancies that have built up, build in new efficiencies (such as new technologies for the administrative systems).  Just commit to getting it done ..with no effect (and probably improvements) in the core functions.  Too simple; too logical.

 
In 1983, Chuck Spinney, a thirty-seven-year-old analyst in the Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, testified to Congress that the cost of the ever-more complex weapons that the military insisted on buying always grew many times faster than the overall defense budget. In consequence, planes, ships, and tanks were never replaced on a one-to-one basis, which in turn ensured that the armed forces got smaller and older. Planes, for instance, were kept in service for longer periods of time and were maintained in poor states of repair owing to their increasing complexity. As to be expected, the high command did not react favorably to these home truths. They allowed Spinney to keep his job but stopped assigning him anything of importance. He spent the rest of his career ensconced in a Pentagon office at the heart of the military-­industrial machine, pondering and probing its institutional personality. Retiring in 2003, he maintained a steady output of pungent analyses of its workings. In a 2011 essay, “The Domestic Roots of Perpetual War,” he discussed the pattern of “military belief systems and distorted financial incentives” that produced “a voracious appetite for money that is sustained by a self-­serving flood of ideological propaganda.” Delving deep into the historical details of Pentagon spending, Spinney illustrated his analyses in the form of intricate charts that not only tracked the actual dollar amounts expended but also showed how the projected budgets for various ambitious weapons-­buying plans had never materialized, at least never to the degree necessary to buy the projected number of weapons systems—­hence the shrinking forces.

Late in 2018, Spinney’s longtime friend Pierre Sprey, a former Pentagon “whiz kid” revered for codesigning the highly successful A-10 and F-16 warplanes, and a trenchant critic of defense orthodoxy, suggested to Spinney that he add a novel tweak to his work by depicting budget changes from year to year in terms of percentages rather than dollar amounts. The analysis that Spinney produced at Sprey’s suggestion revealed something intriguing: although the U.S. defense budget clearly increased and decreased over the sixty years following the end of the Korean War, the decreases never dipped below where the budget would have been if it had simply grown at 5 percent per year from 1954 on (with one minor exception in the 1960s). “Amazingly,” emphasized Spinney,

this behavior even held true for the large budget reductions that occurred after the end of the Vietnam War and, more significantly, after the end of the Cold War. It is as if there is a rising floor of resistance, below which the defense budget does not penetrate.

Only during Obama’s second term did it first dip below this level with any degree of significance. Even more interestingly, every single time the growth rate had bumped against that floor, there had been an immediate and forceful reaction in the form of high-­volume public outcry regarding a supposedly imminent military threat. Such bouts of threat inflation invariably induced a prompt remedial increase in budget growth, regardless of whether the proclaimed threat actually existed. As General Douglas MacArthur remarked, as far back as 1957: “Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters never seem to have happened, never seem to have been quite real.”

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/06/the-pentagon-syndrome/
That’s an outstanding article Ren. You see? Every once in a while we can agree on something. 

 
Just be honest with the people. Raise Taxes and take it to the people or cut spending.

This is a massive debt bomb and I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes off the next administration term or the term right after. It’s so irresponsible, it will be due in our old age or the next generation’s. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just be honest with the people. Raise Taxes and take it to thepeople or cut spending.

This is a massive debt bomb and I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes off the next administration term or the term right after. It’s so irresponsible, it will be due in our old age or the next generation’s. 
Jokes on you, I'll be dead by then. 

 
Just be honest with the people. Raise Taxes and take it to the people or cut spending.

This is a massive debt bomb and I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes off the next administration term or the term right after. It’s so irresponsible, it will be due in our old age or the next generation’s. 
Completely agree. However, I would go even further.

Put a moratorium on all new programs, cut the military budget by 15-20 percent and earmark the first few trillion of new taxes specifically to debt reduction. Part of this is just to prove there exists even a modicum of discipline in the budgeting process.

The economy will predictably take a hit...but better to be proactive and have some sort of control vs. reactive to a larger problem with our hands completely tied.

 
Just be honest with the people.
I'm usually a democrat, but let me just say that this is a particularly bad idea given what their reaction will be, which won't include but a minute of self-examination.

I'm rarely a pessimist, but the people have been wanting to abdicate responsibility for so long that any unpleasant truth has possibly grown too large for a fully honest rendering at this point in time unless we're really looking for the system to grind to an abrupt halt.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This really doesn't have anything to do with the thread but I got into the cooking sherry early..... 

I was enrolled in ROTC when in college. After one particular instruction the CO asked me to stay after. This was the late 80's so well before the world went insane. Anyhow, he said something like "You're a smart young man. Big and strong. A natural leader. A crack shot.. but you know what, this isn't the life for you".  Wow. At the time I was devastated. 

All of these years later, I think he was right. That was pretty cool of him to do. 

 
I'm usually a democrat, but let me just say that this is a particularly bad idea given what their reaction will be, which won't include but a minute of self-examination.

I'm rarely a pessimist, but the people have been wanting to abdicate responsibility for so long that any unpleasant truth has possibly grown too large for a fully honest rendering at this point in time unless we're really looking for the system to grind to an abrupt halt.  
Don’t tell em now, fine, but they’ll have to tell em later and it will be much worse. Options won’t be discretionary at that point.

 
I'm usually a democrat, but let me just say that this is a particularly bad idea given what their reaction will be, which won't include but a minute of self-examination.

I'm rarely a pessimist, but the people have been wanting to abdicate responsibility for so long that any unpleasant truth has possibly grown too large for a fully honest rendering at this point in time unless we're really looking for the system to grind to an abrupt halt.  
"Honesty is the best policy" is a rule best applied to other people. 

 
Don’t tell em now, fine, but they’ll have to tell em later and it will be much worse. Options won’t be discretionary at that point.
I should not have been so much in disagreement; I'm just looking for the softest landing here. Confidence is now baked into the monetary pie as an active participant. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Completely agree. However, I would go even further.

Put a moratorium on all new programs, cut the military budget by 15-20 percent and earmark the first few trillion of new taxes specifically to debt reduction. Part of this is just to prove there exists even a modicum of discipline in the budgeting process.

The economy will predictably take a hit...but better to be proactive and have some sort of control vs. reactive to a larger problem with our hands completely tied.
I disagree with all of this, though not your intent. 

You cant put a moratorium on new programs because they might be better or more efficient than the old ones they replace. You can’t cut spending on the military or anything else by percentage without hurting the good along with the bad. Far better to spend the time looking at each individual program and deciding what needs to be cut. Problem is though that when Obama did it the Republicans just demagogued it, and if Trump tries it the Dems will do the same. 

But most important of all: climate change is going to force us to reassess everything anyhow. We’re going to have to spend hundreds of trillions before we’re done. 

 
I'm usually a democrat, but let me just say that this is a particularly bad idea given what their reaction will be, which won't include but a minute of self-examination.

I'm rarely a pessimist, but the people have been wanting to abdicate responsibility for so long that any unpleasant truth has possibly grown too large for a fully honest rendering at this point in time unless we're really looking for the system to grind to an abrupt halt.  
This is all true but it’s even worse: as we have seen both sides will demagogue any cuts at all and panic the public as a means to gain power. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top