478 billion haircut at the Pentagon.

[lonestarnot]

[FreakinDJ]

1. Is DOD still paying for the "Security Contractors" (Mercs) in Iraq

- have friends on their way to Iraq right now to service some Military Helicopters

[lonestarnot]

2. Beats me. But my guess is the contractors who have contracts are being paid per their contracts.

[FreakinDJ]

15. Contractors have the "Lion's share" of the DOD budget over there

Privatizing the Military has broken this country financially

[bigtree]

3. {fuzzy, indignant comment about contractors in Iraq}

{snarky comment about President Obama rounding up and killing U.S. citizens}

{revolutionary, reactionary sig-line with paraphrased quote from Lenin}

[lonestarnot]

4. What are you talking about bigtree?

[bigtree]

5. you first

[lonestarnot]

8. It is no secret that warmongers and war profiteering contractors of slytherine can steal without a

holdup.

[bigtree]

12. all they need is a newbie, non-experienced idealist in need of Pentagon allies

. . . who will rationalize their tactical retreat and opportunistic metamorphosis as a response to a feckless leadership.

[ProSense]

6. See

this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002229987

[lonestarnot]

9. Thank you.

[Karmadillo]

7. But, paradoxically, its hair will still be longer after the trim. Is there an

election coming up soon or something?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/us/pentagon-budget-experts/index.html

<edit>

"The bottom line is that despite all the bells and whistles, this is much ado about nothing," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under the Reagan administration.

Because of tremendous increases in defense spending the past decade, Panetta's plan to cut $487 billion in the next 10 years merely holds "the baseline defense budget near historic highs," Korb said.

The proposed cuts mean that the Pentagon will spend less than originally planned, but the military "will still spend $2.73 trillion over the next five years, more than the $2.59 trillion spent over the last five years," Korb said in his analysis for the Center for American Progress, where he is a senior fellow.

In a CNN interview, he added: "You're reducing the projected level of defense spending, so it's not a real reduction."

more...

[bigtree]

10. and it looks to be the gift that the defense industry needed

Now they have an open door for their high-tech projects which should keep their companies at the top of the investment list with their new backlogs of wonder-weapons. I'm sure the President is convinced he's making the right choice between these war machines and the lives which are so mindlessly committed to the battlefields, but he's been led right where the industry wants him. They'll have their toys; keeping spending levels pretty much where they've been.

[lonestarnot]

13. So in keeping with Barney Frank's thinking the cut should have been double at least as this $478 bil

will not even make a dent then?

[bigtree]

14. It's just housecleaning

I think the numbers presented to him by Panetta agreed with the President because he'll be able to point to this inevitable reduction in forces and bases as some sort of military reform and transition away from the past air of unbridled militarism, and, still be able to say in the election year that he's still keeping spending within historic levels. It's part of the drawdown/letdown from the past heights of military ambitions abroad, but, its also a bid for the military industry to re-tool for Rumsfeld-inspired micro-forces and micro-missions; as opposed to the scattershot of resources and humanity that characterized W's release of the pent-up Pentagon desire to blow the wad and see how far it would get them. We're at the end of the end of the borrowed money. Any more borrowing and expanding and we'll just as well ask China directly to fund our military.

[lonestarnot]

11. Disgusting isn't it. At least it is 478 billion that can be used for something better than the war

machine.