Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year

[brentspeak]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_obama_war_funding

By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers Anne Gearan And Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writers – Wed Jan 13, 11:05 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned — a request that could be an especially hard sell to some of the administration's Democratic allies.

The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.

Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700 billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public.

The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations...

[Forkboy]

1. If we don't start funding schools the kids we send off to die won't even know how to fire a gun.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Which is, taken in context, most excellent news!!!

You see, it's Freepers and Fox News that like to take things out of context.

This graph indicates a flatening in the growth of the defense budget.

Pretty encouraging, actually.



:patriot:

NB, Thanks to DUer Robb for his post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7453738

[Yavin4]

12. Actually, It Is Ridiculous To Spend $700 Billion Annually on Defense

There is no cold war, and AL Qaeda does not warrant that much spending. This is overkill and stupid.

[NYC_SKP]

18. You're looking at the total, look at the trend, it's decelerating.

Let's see what happens next year. Under Obama, unforeseen events notwithstanding, it may actually fall in the first time since I don't know when.

Look at the change from year to year, it's almost flat with the last two columns.

[Oregone]

21. Looking at it as an isolated trend line is also dishonest

Military spending, historically speaking, has some relational dependence on national GDP. A rapid drop in military spending, or at least the deceleration of its growth, could be more attributable to economic conditions than policy. After a single brutal year with an assortment of budget problems, it is silly to cite any numbers as representative of a trend (even considering a more accurate measurement of spending as a percent of GDP).

What we do know is that the percent of spending per GDP had an increase of ~4% in 2009 under Obama from Bush's budget in 2008 (this was less than the increase the year before, but 75% higher than the increase under Bush from 2006 to 2007).

I guess you can prove anything with statistics, but just don't think you are walking on some moral highground because you have a colorful graph. If you look at the big picture and GDP, it spells a very different story in the last year (the spending as a % of GDP actually increased under Obama when it should of remained relatively constant). The reality is that when military spending goes up when the GDP actually drops, then it points to no positive trends and spells big trouble for a nation.

(Note: I roughly estimated the 4th quarter on the optimistic side for statistics sake)

[phleshdef]

3. Dishonest headline. 708 for the Defense Department. Not all of that is spent on war.

Actually, most of it isn't. Though I totally agree we need to end the wars and shrink our defense spending considerably, this is a very, very dishonest headline.

[Lord Helmet]

5. + 1

[msongs]

6. the "defense" department is actually the 'war" department and that's what the $$ is for nt

[phleshdef]

10. Ok I see. So 9/11 actually never happened. We have no need for a national defense infrastructure.

The world is full of nothing but puppy dogs and smiling children, surrounded by rainbows and cotton candy.

[winyanstaz]

19. We have a national defense infrastructure....

someone ordered a stand down that day....
No other explanation would explain how the most heavily guarded air space on the planet would have so many high jacked planes wondering around for so long.

[smalll]

30. Yep, there's no danger in this world --

except that which the United States brings upon itself through its own bumbling and misguided foreign policy. :shrug:





:sarcasm:

[dionysus]

7. i'm shocked, shocked i tell you, that the OP would blatantly pimp a lie! no wait.. i'm not...

[harkadog]

8. How much of DOD is spent for peace?

Every dime of DOD is spent for war, preparing for war, and dealing with the results of war.

[phleshdef]

9. "Every dime of DOD is spent for war", complete and utter, ignorant bullshit.

Contrary to what those of you in imaginary faery land Kucinich world want to think, we actually do need to spend money on national defense and a lot of it has nothing to do with war at all. We spend money on this in times of peace. We actually do need to protect ourselves by having a national security infrastructure in place and despite the perverted way the right wing used it to their advantage, 9/11 and other attacks did in fact happen.

[harkadog]

13. Sorry but every budgetary line in the DOD budget is war related.

Either ongoing war, preparing for war, and dealing with the results of war. I will ask again how much is spent for peace? In the late 1940s the War Department changed their name to the Defense Department. The purpose of this was so Congress would not question the budget for this department -- afterall how can you not spend for "defense"? It is much easier to increase the budget for "defense" instead of increasing the budget for "war". The con worked and the DOD budget has been on fire ever since.

[phleshdef]

17. Our massive military response in Haiti RIGHT NOW is DOD related.

And every similar military response to nonwar related activities is the same. Domestic security measures, the coast guard, the national guard responders, all of it unrelated to wars and very vital.

[harkadog]

23. National Guard is a state related expense

Of course we have seen the national guard called up to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Domestic security is not a DOD budget item. People in the Coast Guard would strongly disagree their mission is unrelated to war or being prepared for war. Our mission in Haiti is not "massive" compared to the overall DOD budget. Also everyone and everything in Haiti related to the military would be getting paid out of a war related budget item whether Haiti had happened or not.

[phleshdef]

24. All complete horse shit.

Whenever the President federalizes the National Guard for a national emergency purpose, they are no longer a state related expense during that time, which is exactly what I was talking about. States also get federal funding when needed to help fund their national guard. I'm 100% correct in using the national guard as an example. I'm sure you will live over it.

When the coast guard is patrolling the coasts, they are not being used for a purpose of war. When is the last time we had a war off our coasts that they were dealing with?

And the mission in Haiti and other missions like it are funded by DOD funds. Whenever we lend military aid to other countries to deal with such disasters, that is how it works, period.

Next time, try actually refuting my points or don't let there be a next time.

[harkadog]

27. All complete horse shit

Last war for the Coast Guard was Desert Storm and then about every war before that and after including the war on Terror which many on DU now call a war. http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/h_CGatwar.asp The Haiti type missions as I said before would be funded whether by war related DOD budget items whether there was a disaster or not. The national guard gets called up for War. Get it? Probably not. Next time, try actually refuting my points or don't let there be a next time.

[Go2Peace]

33. You do realize that "observation" is straight out of "1984"???

Our servicemen in Haiti helping are warriors first. Just because we have so many warriors all over the globe that we can spare them for these missions does not change that fact.

[Go2Peace]

31. rationalize much?

Your rationalizations are BS. There is no way we need to spend anywhere *near* this much. You are either totally propagandized and traumatized to the point where you live in fear or you are being disingenuous.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Sorry, had to unrec due to dishonest headline but....

considering our "mortal enemy" is a few thousand, spread out, poorly resourced guys with only small arms and no country it would seem that we get shitty bang for our bucks.

Then there is just the mere thought of what howling laughter would erupt if we proposed a 7 trillion dollar over 10 years program of any other description no matter how utterly crucial.

If we'd invest 7 trillion into our own nation and people we'd be back to number one in no time.

[happy_liberal]

11. this is just a handout to the military industrial complex

look how they waste taxpayer money
"We examined 2.2 million contract actions over six fiscal years, totaling $900 billion in authorized expenditures, and discovered that no-bid contracts had accounted for more than 40 percent of Pentagon contracting, $362 billion in taxpayer money to companies without competitive bidding. In other words, the multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts Halliburton had received actually weren't such an aberration, unfortunately."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7456400

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. so we are not borrowing from the Chinese again?

[ShortnFiery]

15. Welcome to the continuation of American Crusade 2001+

[PBS Poll-435]

16. Yer little baseball cards are funny

(And hotlinked)

[winyanstaz]

20. End the wars NOW....

Save lives...save billions.

[arcadian]

22. Under Bush: war = bad; Under Obama: war = Double plus good

[burning rain]

25. Greatly disappointing.

Despite his often moderate conservative ways, even Bill Clinton showed some honorable liberal priorities by cutting the defense budget, though he did have easier circumstances in that the Cold War had just ended without a huge new enemy sprouting up. Still though, nothing can justify the obscenity of current military spending.

[MadBadger]

26. I read your headline and thought, "Bullshit"

I didnt even need to click on the thread. Well I did. And I was right.

[jeanpalmer]

28. No wonder there's no money for HCR

They want to tax health care plans while they piss away $740 billion on war. What a waste.

[uponit7771]

29. *****ANOTHER ANTI OBAMA MISLEADING HEADLINE****

[Go2Peace]

32. It is not Anti-Obama", it is simply pointing out that our Military Industrial complex is not

changing.

What is it about the democratic parties' "propagandists" that they detest truth and reasonable and pretty much factual observations? Are you guys for Democratic government or do you just prefer a dictator as long as he/she is in the right party???? Part of Democracy is expressing opinion and working to make the government respond and do the will of the people. That doesn't change when there is a Democrat in the white house, unless of course you prefer the "Russian" style of democracy...

It is completely reasonable to observe, and yes express serious dissatisfaction, that we spend way too much on Defense. What is *not* reasonable, at least in a just and progressive society, is to attempt to remove the essence of democratic discourse and replace it with the politics of semi-dictatorship.

[ima_sinnic]

34. the Empire must expand, violently, no matter the cost.

We must sacrifice education, health care, infrastructure, and common decency and humanity to ensure that every resource on the planet, no matter how obscure, and every ruler of every country is within our scope of influence and readily available for exploitation--either by bribery or by force--by the greedhead capitalist war mongers and profiteers. We must ensure that our main industry, WAR, is constantly pumped up and more profitable and deadly than ever. We must have orders of magnitude more weapons and armaments than the entire remaining globe's arsenal combined--after all, Somalia or Cuba could be developing industrial-strength mega weapons that could destroy the entire planet in a matter of a few moments (nothing like our own).
We must ensure that nobody on the planet can resist our brutality, murder and mayhem. We will stop at nothing, NOTHING, to make the rest of the world conform to our needs, our greed, our way of life. We must "defend" that way of life no matter what.
RAH RAH RAH!!! USA! USA! USA! KILL KILL KILL!!!

fortunately for the rest of the world, the USA IS going bankrupt and at some point will no longer be able to afford its global killing spree. We see that bankruptcy already eating at the crumbling foundations of our infrastructure. Are you ready for war before jobs, war before health care, war before schools?