The Coming Defense Fallout

[Doc91678]

By Adam Kredo
Feb 8, 2013

The United States Army is projecting that a series of severe defense cuts could cause 251,000 Army civilians to be furloughed, lead to an Army-wide hiring freeze, and significantly reduce funding for critical social service programs that provide care to troops and their families. The nearly $500 billion in looming defense cuts, otherwise known as sequestration, has led the Army to project widespread shortfalls that will impact troop readiness and defer post-combat equipment repairs for up to four years, according to detailed estimates issued by the Army and obtained by the Free Beacon. Sequestration is set to kick in on...

**snip**

Continue reading: -->
Defense cuts would lead to layoffs, cut programs for Army | Washington Free Beacon

 

[Lakhota]

Cut defense budget in HALF.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I like being a superpower. Feed the military please.

 

[uscitizen]

But government spending does not create jobs does it?

 

[Lakhota]

But government spending does not create jobs does it?

Right-wingers are selectively flexible as to whether government spending creates jobs...

 

[uscitizen]

Should the military be full of contractors or military people?

 

[Katzndogz]

Disband the military. We don't need one. If we are just nice enough the world will love us. I would love to see obama step in a big pile of shit with only gays and his women to protect him.

 

[Zander]

We spend too much on Defense. Sorry. It's undeniable. We need make some cuts. But they need to be prioritized and targeted. We need to do that with, every department, every program, for every government expenditure. Stupid cuts are , well, stupid.

 

[waltky]

Granny says dat's 5.4% a year...

Real Defense Department Spending Up 54 Percent in 10 Years
February 26, 2013 - Over the past ten fiscal years, inflation-adjusted Defense Department spending has increased by approximately 54 percent, according to Treasury Department data.

Real Defense Department spending increased not only under President George W. Bush--in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and during the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--but also under President Barack Obama a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks and after the Iraq war had ended.

In fiscal 2002, which started on Oct. 1, 2001--three weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—Defense Department spending was $423,856,810,000 in constant 2012 dollars. Ten years later, in fiscal 2012, Defense Department spending was $650,869,000,000 in 2012 dollars. Thus, from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2012, Defense Department spending increased by $227,012,190,000 in constant 2012 dollars—or by 53.558 percent.

In fiscal 2008, the last full fiscal year before President Obama took office, Defense Department spending was $634,152,610,000 in constant 2012 dollars. In fiscal 2012, it was $650,869,000,000—an increase of $16,716,390,000. That is a real increase of 2.568 percent.

(The Defense Department spending numbers cited in this article were taken from the U.S. Treasury Department's Monthly Treasury Statements and adjusted to 2012 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics online inflation calculator.)

See more at: Real Defense Department Spending Up 54 Percent in 10 Years | CNS News

See also:

Top General: Protecting U.S. from 'Catastrophic Attack' is Lower Priority than Protecting 'Global Economic System'
February 25, 2013 – The nation’s top general says “contributing to the stability of the global economy” is a higher priority national security interest for the U.S. military than “protecting the country from catastrophic attack.”

In a Jan. 31 speech, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn., that the unpredictability of the dangers facing the nation will require in years to come that the military have “a very clear understanding of our national interests.” “We haven’t had a knock-down drag out debate, even internal to the military, about our national security interests in a long time,” Dempsey said. “Let me suggest to you that there are at least four and they ought to be prioritized. Number one is the survival of the nation. Where does that take you? Well it takes you to things like our nuclear capability. It takes you – things that could actually alter our way of life. The survival of the nation, and that’s a set of national security interests,” Dempsey told the Coast Guard cadets.

“The second one is, we have a requirement because we are a global superpower, to lend to the stability of the global economic system. What does that mean to you? Freedom of navigation, maritime awareness. “So, the second-tier, in my view of national security interests, is our contribution to the stability of the global economic system. Because it’s through that global economic system that we derive the prosperity that we enjoy as Americans. So that’s clearly a national security interest.

“The third one is to protect the country from a catastrophic attack. Again, this is one of those places where we will dance on the head of a pin about what climbs to the level of a catastrophe. You only really will answer that question looking back at it, not looking forward to it.” Dempsey included “other” weapons of mass destruction (beyond nuclear weapons), chemical weapons, gun trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking on the list. The fourth priority for the military, Dempsey said, is promoting American values abroad.

See more at: Top General: Protecting U.S. from 'Catastrophic Attack' is Lower Priority than Protecting 'Global Economic System' | CNS News

 

[g5000]

By Adam Kredo
Feb 8, 2013

The United States Army is projecting that a series of severe defense cuts could cause 251,000 Army civilians to be furloughed, lead to an Army-wide hiring freeze, and significantly reduce funding for critical social service programs that provide care to troops and their families. The nearly $500 billion in looming defense cuts, otherwise known as sequestration, has led the Army to project widespread shortfalls that will impact troop readiness and defer post-combat equipment repairs for up to four years, according to detailed estimates issued by the Army and obtained by the Free Beacon. Sequestration is set to kick in on...

**snip**

Continue reading: -->
Defense cuts would lead to layoffs, cut programs for Army | Washington Free Beacon

So let me understand this correctly...

A bunch of overpaid government employee union thugs with fat pension plans are going to suffer?

And this is bad...why?