How much the Pentagon costs

[CherryPanda]

Yes, we all know that the money we spend on the Department of Defense is the money that protects us. But isn’t our protection costing us too much? I just made some simple research and got extremely surprised.
The annual budget of the Pentagon varies from $500 billion to $700 billion a year. At the same time, it’s the only department that doesn’t execute the law on annual state audition. So no one even checks what all that money is spent on.
At the same time, we have this incredibly expensive F-35 project. It has never come to my mind that this project has been developing for 18 years now, and the total cost is around 395 billion. And still the fighter isn’t able to fly.
I personally feel like the money that could feed lots of people, or support our health care system, or help find Ebola vaccine are just flushed down the drain.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The DOD protects us? That's news to me.

 

[CherryPanda]

The DOD protects us? That's news to me.

Well, isn't it supposed to? Like, from the outside threat and stuff like that? It's what we pay our tax money for, isn't it?
Otherwise, it's just a big expensive joke... Or a money laundering machine... Or I don't know what...

 

[waltky]

Defense spending caps raised...

Pentagon Wins in Budget Deal with Higher Defense Spending Caps
Oct 27, 2015 | The White House and Congress late Monday agreed to a budget deal that would provide financial relief to the Defense Department over two years by increasing defense spending caps.

The agreement calls for raising the national debt ceiling until March 2017, as well as automatic, across-the-board spending caps set forth by previous deficit-reduction legislation. The deal would boost the spending restrictions on the base defense budget by $25 billion to $548 billion in fiscal 2016 and by $15 billion to $551 billion in fiscal 2017, according to a summary of the legislation. In addition, it would provide some $59 billion for the war budget in each of the next two fiscal years, resulting in an overall defense budget of $607 billion and $610 billion, respectively. “They should be popping champagne at the Pentagon with this budget deal, which is better to defense than Ryan-Murray & close to Prez request,” tweeted Mackenzie Eaglen, a national-security analyst at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

Eaglen was referring in part to the 2013 deal brokered by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, and Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington, to lift some of the defense spending restrictions of the 2011 Budget Control Act. She was also referring to the fact that the deal more closely resembles President Obama’s defense budget request than what Republicans recently approved. Todd Harrison, a senior fellow and defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, agreed. “Proposed deal is closer to President’s request than Republican budget, especially on non-defense side,” he wrote on Twitter. Harrison also pointed out that the deal amounts to about $5 billion less than recent legislation that Republicans approved and President Obama vetoed last week.

In a letter to lawmakers, Obama said he rejected the $612 billion measure in part because it fails to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and seeks to skirt federal spending caps by including $38 billion for base-budget activities into the war budget -- known in military parlance as overseas contingency operations, or OCO -- which is exempt from the spending restrictions. The bill “fails to authorize funding for our national defense in a fiscally responsible manner,” he wrote. “It underfunds our military in the base budget, and instead relies on an irresponsible budget gimmick that has been criticized by members of both parties ... The decision reflected in this bill to circumvent rather than reverse sequestration further harms our national security.”

MORE

 

[August West]

I`m old school and I don`t always accept this PC stuff. It`s still the War Department in my view and I think these people are hooked on their entitlements. You can expect that we`ll be blowing up some small country before too long. Use it or lose it.

 

[my2¢]

Sure would be nice for all of the government to go back when $5,000 was something to get steamed about.

​

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If we held DoD and every other government drain of resources to the same standards we do Big Business as with accountability, being audited, etc. costs would be much less. Would get either more with the same expenditure, or save money not paying ridiculous amounts for mundane items and redundant technologies.

 

[pwjohn]

God willing & the creek don't rise, our military might get that f-35 in the air. No guarantees. None whatsoever.

 

[shadow355]

This country needs a sound and well staffed Military.

Thank God for the funding. Replace old ships , put new equipment on the battlefield , staff the Military to acceptable levels, have monies for research and development, prevent Military bases from closing, financial strength for new weapons.

Downsizing the US Military is never a good idea.

Shadow 355

 

[pwjohn]

To much money is just as bad as not enough.

 

[August West]

This country needs a sound and well staffed Military.

Thank God for the funding. Replace old ships , put new equipment on the battlefield , staff the Military to acceptable levels, have monies for research and development, prevent Military bases from closing, financial strength for new weapons.

Downsizing the US Military is never a good idea.

Shadow 355

What a useful tool you are.

 

[shadow355]

You cannot have a dilapidated Military.

I spent about 11 years in the Military. My career give me jobs in Transportation - Communications - Security . I served in the reserve and active duty.

I am a Desert Storm vet.

Even in the late 1980s and 1990s I worked with Vietnam era equipment. I was with units that did not get upgraded equipment because the best of the best went to Special Operations or the 82nd Airborne . At times some stuff did make it to all the rapid deplorable units - but it was awhile down the road .

Budget constraints ; laws from Congress, and other promises made it hard to complete tasks.

Then came Bill Clinton. Downsize the Military and deactivate units .

Working with bad , and / or unreliable equipment that is constantly being thrown away , or finds itself frequently in the 3rd shop.

Vietnam era trucks spending most of their time in the garage.

So I know what I am talking about.

It takes a well staffed and well equipped Military to defend a nation .

Shadow 355

 

[shadow355]

To much money is just as bad as not enough.

We have to stay ahead of China and Japan .

Russia , as I have said before, is at our heels .

Shadow 355

 

[pwjohn]

To much money is just as bad as not enough.

We have to stay ahead of China and Japan .

Russia , as I have said before, is at our heels .

Shadow 355

Calm down. Nobody is nipping at our heels At this point in time we are so far ahead of China and Russia, we've lapped em a couple of times. Plus we have all of western Europe to back us up when needed. Russia & China have only themselves. They pretty much stand alone.
You know that 10 billion dollar out of control blimp on the news yesterday is a perfect example of what I was saying & does absolutely nothing to advance our military, yet countless billions of dollars are wasted on crap like that.

To much money is just as bad as not enough.