Get your defense contractor hot buy tips here:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...sp?special=war

Iraq war or no, D.C. is gearing up for the biggest spending since the "defense spending bonanza of Reagan."

How much is enough and how much is too much where defense spending is concerned? Does it anger anyone else (I mean other taxpayers) when there is unnecessary defense spending just as much as it angers you when there is other big gov gluttony? What about our defense-budget and other money program dollars that are going to Pakistan and other nations to buy weapons? Will that bite us in the ass one day the way the stingers we sent to Afghanistan almost did?

[edit] One further note. The article points out that, short term, defense contractor stocks will drop once the war begins. As well, the Iraq war will not use enough equipment to really boost the economy (the stock picks are based on long term budget plans). I've pointed out the cure for this problem already: We should drop tanks and helicopters on Baghdad rather than bombs. :D [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 10-23-2002, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

$500 hammers and $2000 toilet lids really tick me off ;) , but I believe the recent 11% increase in the defense budget is justified.

With everything that's going on in the world it doesn't seem unreasonable, although I can't argue it on a "line for line" basis.

I was especially glad to hear that the defense increase actually includes a 4 plus percent salary increase for the men and women of the armed services.

[ 10-23-2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Are you sure you've said that before?

I don't think I remember you saying that before.

Are you really sure you've said this more than once?

:D LOL ;) :D

<font color="#6699cc">Just out of curiosity, where did you get the wisdom and knowledge of what is and is not necessary defense spending. I don't recall you having claimed any great knowledge of how the military works or even exactly what they do. (You do know they don't just sit there and wait for war to break out...don't you?)</font>

<font color="#6699cc">Ron as I pointed out to him before, those $500 hammers were from the 70's era defense appropriations procedures that had government beauraucrats writing specs and having it illegal for the military to buy Commercial Off the shelf parts. Those issues have been mostly dead for more than 20 years (thanks to Reagan). I wish people would quit bitching about something that has been fixed for a nearly a quarter century.</font>

[ 10-23-2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

A. I only asked if unneccesary spending bothered anyone - I didn't point to any specific spending I saw as unneccesary. I will say that the DoD should not simply be given a blank check. Do you think there has ever been unneccesary spending? Would it bother you if there was?

B. I represent lots of government contractors. You've accused me of not knowing didly about defense spending before, and it's time I point this out. I know a lot more than you think I do about the Federal Acquisition Regulations and how strict the government is regarding its contractors. Quit attacking me and stick to the topic, if you don't mind.

<font color="#6699cc">Ron as I pointed out to him before, those $500 hammers were from the 70's era defense appropriations procedures that had government beauraucrats writing specs and having it illegal for the military to buy Commercial Off the shelf parts. Those issues have been mostly dead for more than 20 years (thanks to Reagan). I wish people would quit bitching about something that has been fixed for a nearly a quarter century.</font></font>[/QUOTE]thank you for saving me the time of pointing that out Magik [img]smile.gif[/img]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: <font color="#6699cc">Ron as I pointed out to him before, those $500 hammers were from the 70's era defense appropriations procedures that had government beauraucrats writing specs and having it illegal for the military to buy Commercial Off the shelf parts. Those issues have been mostly dead for more than 20 years (thanks to Reagan). I wish people would quit bitching about something that has been fixed for a nearly a quarter century.</font>

They may be "mostly" dead, but not completely, because government spending is full of waste. The examples I used were those people easily identify with and, for that reason alone, will always be valid benchmarks/reminders of governmental waste.

The bureaucracy that is our government is wasteful from the city level on up. I didn't imply the current spending was riddled with this type excess, I simply made a point. I believe defense spending needed to be increased, but I'd like it done "without the fat". Just as I'd like everything else our government does to be "low fat".

Now if politicians could learn those hard learned lessons apply to all aspects of governmental spending(pork barrel anyone?), and that defense isn't a "whipping boy".... ;)

[ 10-23-2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Amen, Ronn. Some folks (no names mentioned) hate government taxation for gluttonous spending but then go freakishly defensive when you mention military spending. My wife is in government work and I work closely with the government a lot. I must say that I have not seen it be business-world efficient on any one thing ever. It is especially frustrating to watch people get paid to shuffle my tax money from one place to another, making little difference, and losing all the dollars to waste along the way. The only grim consolation I find is that at least there are jobs created: someone has to do the useless shuffling, you know.

Any time the government touches money a percentage of it is wasted - let's just call it "shrinkage" of our national inventory. ;) Unfortunately, someone has to take care of society's little externalities. If we didn't allocate money to buy public goods, they would never be procured.

Perhaps of further interest on this topic, NYTimes today:

Bush Signs $355 Billion Military Spending Bill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:44 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With strokes of his pen Wednesday, President Bush signed into law a bill he touted as giving the military ``every advantage required'' to wage an expensive, no-end-in-sight global fight against terror and possibly Saddam Hussein.

``Since September 11, Americans have been reminded that the safety of many depends on the courage and skill of a few,'' Bush said before signing legislation providing a hefty increase in defense spending and financing for military construction projects in 2003.

``The bill today says America is determined and resolute to not only defend our freedom but to defend freedom around the world, that we're determined and resolute to answer the call to history and that we will defeat terror,'' Bush told a Rose Garden audience of mostly uniformed military personnel, along with a handful of lawmakers.

The measures were the first federal spending bills to become law -- three weeks after the start of the 2003 budget year.

Lawmakers who were deadlocked over spending decisions and anxious about midterm elections left Capitol Hill last week to campaign. They plan to finish the other 11 required spending bills in a lame-duck session after the Nov. 5 voting.

The $355.4 billion defense bill, approved with overwhelming support to provide most of what Bush requested, increases spending by more than $34 billion over the previous fiscal year. Bush sought $367 billion, but ran into bipartisan resistance to his proposal for a $10 billion fund he could tap without congressional input for combating terrorists overseas.

Bush noted the many tasks being placed on the military's shoulders: ``bring justice to agents of terror ... liberate a captive people on the other side of the Earth ... prepare for conflict in Iraq if necessary ... serve in many places far from home and at great risk.''

``We owe them every resource, every weapon and every tool they need to fulfill their missions,'' the president said. ``The best military in the world must have every advantage required to defend the peace of the world.''

With a day of work in Washington sandwiched between campaign swings and other travel, Bush was urging the Senate later Wednesday to follow the House's lead and approve legislation to bypass a Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban of computer simulations of child pornography. Bush was hosting a private forum on the sexual solicitation and exploitation of children over the Internet, followed by the public address.

The events are a follow-up to the Oct. 2 White House Conference on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. Bush focused most of his attention and remarks at the time on kidnapped children but noted that during a single year one in five children between the ages of 10 and 17 are sexually propositioned online.

On Wednesday, he was also encouraging parents to teach their children about online safety.

``The threats to our children are found not just on our streets, but they're found in the technology which we use in our homes,'' Bush told the conference. ``With expanding use of the Internet and the heightened activity of predators searching for underage victims, more children are being lured into harmful and even tragic situations.''

In April, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional and too broad part of a 1996 law intended primarily to stop pornography produced through computer wizardry that was not available when the court placed child pornography outside First Amendment protection in 1982.

Free-speech advocates and pornographers challenged the ban on material that appears to be a child in a sexually explicit situation or that is advertised to convey the impression that someone under age 18 is involved.

The bill Bush was promoting would prohibit the production, distribution and possession of any visual depiction, real or electronic, of prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

With the military moving toward a war footing with Iraq, the defense measure increases spending in almost every area, from weapons procurement to payroll. It includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel and almost all the $7.4 billion Bush requested to keep developing a national missile defense system.

------

The defense bill is H.R. 5010; the military construction bill is H.R. 5011.

On the Net: White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Bill texts, Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Don't blame DoD for all the wasted money in military buying. Sometimes the President or Congress mandate weapon systems or buying procedures that the military don't want or need. An example would be the Ospry. This is a plane that has no military mission, has been in development for 20+ years, and still suffers from mysterious crashes that kill our own troops. Another example is the use of pork barrel procrument practices. If the Navy want 4 new destroyers they get built in 4 different ports. Tooling up costs double what the Navy pays and actually makes it longer (timewise) before all 4 ships are finished. The result is 4 happy congressmen and constituants and wasted tax dollars (unless you are one of the people that got a job using the most ineffecient method). Remember: Government spending is only wasteful when it doesn't line your own pocket. As it says over the entrance to the law school at SMU Carpe Dinaro. (Sieze the Money)

<font color="#6699cc">I don't see a problemw ith 355 Billion dollars on defense. Especially since its such a small percentage of the entire budget. Of course some people will disagree and say we don't need a military at all. But the article you posted withthis number doesnt prove any waste or even what the break down on where the money is being allocated.

I do know our service men and women are asking for a 4% pay increase, I think they deserve it, its not like they are lavishly over paid or have the golden retirment deals that congress gets. </font>

I agree with Magik that our servicemen and women deserve a pay raise. Like anywhere else the better the pay the better quality people will stay.

Antryg, using the DoD as a catch-all term was a faux pas on my part - what I meant was "the military." As for the Congress, they approve the blank checks - and, yes, sometimes they are particular about where and how the money will be spent. All of which can be monkeyed with by the OMB. Four destroyers being built in four separate cities (in NC) is obviously attributable to one long-term Senator who loves to eat his bag of military pork barrels every morning, if I recall correctly.

$355 billion increase too much? Dunno. I just saw a relevant article and posted it. I have no clue what it's all being spent on and if it's worth it. Check out the bill links to thomas.loc.gov at the bottom of the article if you're interested in the specifics.

Pay raises for armed services? I dunno. Look, I have tons of friends and family members who are vets, and I almost signed up at that time in my life. I have TONS of respect for the service. But, I have heard a lot of my military friends say that it *can* be the worst form of welfare in some cases. Before you flame me, check out what I mean. Good service will get you quite far in the military, but it is demanding. However, if you are predisposed to laziness and are happy being a career buck private, you can (from what I'm told) basically sit on your ass all day without fear of losing a job. Is this true? I admit, I'm not personally knowledgible on it.

However, I do note that the armed forces is one of the better middle income careers out there today, with great benefits for you and your family and a great pension. There are plenty of sectors with underpaid overworked folks. While maintaining every respect and decorum regarding our fine men and women in uniform, I would say I don't have the facts to know about the need to raise their pay.

Cheers all. [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[ 10-23-2002, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Good points all around, MagicK. I did not know the current pay grade numbers, as the last time I looked was when I was considering and testing for Navy Nuke school. 20-22K is low I admit, even for folks who have some of their living expenses absorbed. Don't they get a salary hike when doing things that are dangerous? Yes, being shot at or put at risk of life or limb is definately not a job perk. But, lots of folks qualify for that. I've got quite a few death cases regarding construction workers of one form or another. Not quite so dangerous as military, but certainly nothing to sneeze at. Of course, considering the strength of labor unions in Chicago, those folks get paid more than double the numbers you're mentioning. Hell, telephone men and plumbers get nearly triple.

WOOHOO! *does a little dance*

Seriously tho, I'm loving this defense spending, but that might be because I do voulenteer work for the government... and plan on working for it some day... but hey! who'se gonna say free money is bad? [img]tongue.gif[/img] And don't worry, sometimes real idiots are appointed to positions where 500 dollar hamemrs are bought, but usually nice, responsible, and ordinary civilians like yourselves are all put in charge of the spending on things like that [img]tongue.gif[/img] And they usually have to spend within a budget, for example, only 500 dollars to spend ON hammers, therefore you can get alot of hammers that cost 1.25 or what-not... The reality is is that everyone has a budget... well except one person... I think the only person who can use the nation's budget in excess and throw us into further trillions of debt is the president, actually... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I can second that, I'm a Seargeant with four years in the Army, and I have a friend that's an assistant manager at a Wendy's that makes more money than me in a month (of course I get all my state taxes back at the end of the year...)

before my food allowance (since there isn't a dining facility here) I make 18,500 a year before taxes, considering that I'm on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and can be called in for any reason at any time, I did some quick calculations and I make approximately $.48 an hour

[ 10-23-2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

well hun even if you look at it this way, you do a job worth what? 50-80,000 a year in the civilian market? you have the training to do something that could give us a comfy life and instead we have to scrounge for x-mas money. i think the dod budget should include raises. ppl like you sign years of your life, if not the whole thing in the case of war, away to struggle monetarily with a family. it's bull, that's what it is.

and being deployed to a hazardous/combat zone is worth exactly $150 a month, plus $3.50 a day if you are deployed, and not on a permanent assignment somewhere (I spent a year in Kuwait, and recieved the hazardous fire $$, but not teh $3.50 a day, because I was stationed there, not on a deployment). not much money to leave your family behind for 6 months at a time.