Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama spending more on defense than Reagan had at peak

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:51 PM
Original message
Obama spending more on defense than Reagan had at peak
The Department of Defense's new proposed budget would dwarf military spending sought during President Ronald Reagan's time in office.

According to a new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the money sought by the Defense department as well as President Barack Obama's 2010 budget -- which excludes money for ongoing war efforts -- would outpace Reagan's defense spending at its peak.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a blog post that the Defense department's proposed budget would require some $573 billion in spending per year between 2011 and 2028. That request is seven percent more than what Obama requested in his administration's regular 2010 budget.

"The projection also exceeds the peak of about $500 billion (in 2010 dollars) during the height of the Reagan Administrations military buildup in the mid-1980s," Elmendorf explained. "During that period, for example, DoD was pursuing a Navy fleet of 600 battle force ships, more than twice the size of the current fleet of 287."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77859-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why was Reagan spending $500 billion?
Obama inherited two wars.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. "which excludes money for ongoing war efforts" - spin, baby, spin!
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 07:59 PM by Bluebear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Missed that, but the CBO explains this is a result of increased costs.
The departments resource requirements to execute the same plans could be even greater. CBO has also estimated some unbudgeted costs that reflect the likelihood that weapon systems would cost more than initially estimated; that medical costs and fuel prices would grow at rates faster than DoD has anticipated; and that pay raises the Congress enacts for military personnel and DoDs civilian employees might exceed the percentages in the departments plans. Furthermore, additional appropriations may be necessary to fund overseas contingency operations.

link


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. "Which excludes ongoing war efforts"
Meaning that, the defense budget is bigger than Reagan's WITHOUT taking in to consideration the cost of 2 wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. No one said he had to raise them as if they were his own
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. in part because of Vietnam
Vietnam caused the military to miss a modernization cycle, for example, a large chunk of the destroyer and escort force were based on ships and hulls built during World War II.

Additionally the increasing costs of the weapon systems (mostly in the electronics), SDI and the need to match the perceived threat of the Warsaw Pact are some other reasons Reagan spent so much. I've read several books that state that the military of the 70's was woefully unprepared and that if the Warsaw Pact had chosen to invade Europe, the only way we could have stopped them would have been first use of tactical nukes. Of course, as it turns out, the Warsaw Pact military was in even worse shape. (Major intelligence failure by the various intelligence services in NATO, not just ours)

Here is a list of Army and Air Force weapon systems introduced in the 1970's & early 1980's: F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10, B-1, C-5, AH-64, UH-60, Humvee, M-1 Abrams, M-2 Bradley. While they have upgraded the electronics, the basic design is 25-30 years old. The YOUNGEST Air Force KC-135 is 44 years old and the plane is in desperate need of replacement.

The Navy generally plans on a 30 year life span for major vessels and a 50 year life span for aircraft carriers.

Every service plans a certain life span into the equipment and since the equipment is being used at higher then peacetime rates, it is wearing out sooner. For example the F-16 is designed with a life span of 25,000 flying hours (may not be the exact number). During peacetime they fly maybe 750-1000 flight hours per year. Now they are flying 2000-3000 flight hours per year.

The best analogy I can think of is this:
American military equipment can best be compared to a person owning a car for daily driving, no matter how well you take care of the car, no matter how well it was made in the first place, soon or later the cost of keeping the car in good running order becomes prohibitive.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
31. You know what? You're REALLY bad at this! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, I guess that's something the proposed budget commission can look at to cut spending. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
invictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. Great sound byte for the GOP, but total bullshit otherwise.
What were the two wars Reagan was waging? Why was Reagan spending so much with no wars going on? Sounds like a bullshit story served up for Morning Joe and Fox fodder.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. "which excludes money for ongoing war efforts"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Well, we know who loves the troops more now, don't we? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
9. As proportion of GDP? I doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. True, for Reagan it was about 6% of GDP, and about 4% for Obama. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bamacrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. Some how the right wing still says he is weak?
Seems to be doing everything the right wing wants. Anyone else think the right wing is just bashing him over everything to hopefully get him out in 2012 and have a puke take over then take credit for everything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. Jimmy Carter did not leave Reagan with 2 wars
just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. "which excludes money for ongoing war efforts"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well there you go again - Obama = Bush AND Reagan!!111
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I seem to recall
that this kind of war funding, the off the budget kind, was looked on poorly with the last administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #16
37. Yeah but it became a good
thing as soon as our President started doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Ohh.
I did not get the memo since I dropped out of the team. So we are supposed to like this now huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. Adjusted for inflation I would hope?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. Reagan wasted a lot of the defense budget
Starting with the infamous SGT York air defense gun. They spent a billion dollars developing this piece of shit and discontinued it when they couldn't get it to work.

They also spent billions on Star Wars, billions on the 600-ship Navy, etc. etc. etc.

Obama is faced with having to replace most of the equipment Reagan bought--years and years of desert operations will destroy a piece of equipment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. And the Army has been increased by tens of thousands of soldiers recently
That salary cost is huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. The Army is a third smaller than it was during Reagan's tenure
They get paid a lot more, though. And their equipment is a LOT more expensive today than it was in, say, 1985. Humvees back then were about $40,000 each; today they buy uparmored ones that cost $140,000 each. Ammo is more expensive and they're buying more of it to ensure troops get the training they need before they head to war. Food is more. They're actually building barracks rather than having Repair and Utilities sergeants try to keep the old ones from falling apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
20. Everyone who voted for him knew this was going to be the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
21. Guess what? Everything is more expensive than in the 1980s. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. From the article: "in 2010 dollars"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. You really expect people to *READ* things before responding to them?
Get with the program--stamping out dissent allows no time for niceties like reading!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
34. That's strange, it doesn't say in 2010 dollars adjusted for inflation
But don't let that get in the way of ripping a Democratic President.

All quibbling aside, look at it pragmatically; What would happen to any President who cut military spending while troops were fighting wars in two countries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. when the article says in 2010 dollars one assumes "adjusted
for inflation" is implied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. "Article" implies a little more than "blog post" delivers. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #21
32. Not workers' wages. They've decreased when adjusted for inflation.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
22. Well, we wouldn't want him wasting it on anything useful...like health care or education. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. And, as it says, it "excludes" Obama's two wars.
Priorties.

Hey, those 100 Al-Quadea in Pakistan must be worth it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
28. Per capita spending is near it's highs
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 10:06 AM by HughMoran
...though homeland security is part of the reason why.

(note this chart includes the cost of the 2 wars)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
33. Regan couldn't have gotten away with funneling trillions to banksters, foreign war profiteers
while pleading poverty to the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yeah, it would have been hard for Regan to do that since he was the Treasury Secretary.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
39. This is DOD's proposed defense budget
How does that become "Obama's" defense spending? Looks like some jiggery-pokery to me, but what do I know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
41. small quibble
The two inherited occupations would keep spending higher than Reagan's, no matter if escalated in Afghanistan or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. "which excludes money for ongoing war efforts"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 28th 2014, 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC