Jump to content


Photo

Military Expenditures


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 SCFalken

SCFalken

    Eagerly awaiting the return of Feudalism

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,166 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 0838 AM

Posted Image

Slackers. Even our budget is too low.



Falken
  • 0

#2 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 0915 AM

If you want comparability, you should bump up some of them. China, especially - certainly doesn't include everything. Also Russia, to a lesser extent. And allowing for lower internal prices of manpower, etc., would also bump up China & India.
  • 0

#3 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 2056 PM

What, you thought the money was spent on defense???


Silly man.

$25,000,000 for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, added by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).

$23,000,000 for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), added by Rep. John “Jack” Murtha (D-Pa.). This is the project over which Rep. Murtha threatened a colleague for challenging in the spring. Since 1992, more than $509 million has been used to fund NDIC, which is administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ.). Ironically, DOJ does not want the NDIC and has asked Congress to shut the agency down because the department believes the operations are duplicative.

*$20,000,000 for historically black colleges and universities, added by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

$5,000,000 for Project SOAR, added by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), and Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

*$5,000,000 for the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Paralympic Military Program, added by Reps. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) and Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.).

$4,800,000 for the Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area added by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). The Gateway National Recreation Area’s website describes the Jamaica Bay Unit as “a wealth of history, nature and recreation, from New York City's first major airport and coastal fortifications to a wildlife refuge and pristine beaches.”

*$3,000,000 for “The First Tee,” added by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) The program’s mission, according to its website, is “To impact the lives of young people by providing learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf.” First Tee won CAGW’s “The Taxpayers Get Teed Off” Oinker Award in 2004 for receiving $3 million in two separate appropriations bills.

$2,400,000 for the Lewis Center for Education Research, added by its namesake, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.). The center is described on its website as “a unique educational facility designed to improve educational effectiveness and scientific literacy among American schoolchildren.”

$2,400,000 for the Vertical Lift Center of Excellence-Institute of Maintenance, Science and Technology, added by Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.).

$2,000,000 for brown tree snakes, added by Sen. Inouye, which has been a staple in the Congressional Pig Book since 1996.

$1,600,000 for the New York Structural Biology Center, added by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), and Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The center’s mission, according to its website, is to “increase our understanding of the role that proteins play in disease pathways and enhance the ability of scientists to carry out advanced biomedical research in a number of areas including the new fields of structural genomics, and proteomics.”

$1,600,000 for the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program (PRISP), added by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kans.) himself.

$1,600,000 for the Allen Telescope Array, added by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.). This project first appeared in the 2005 Congressional Pig Book and has received a total of $5.6 million. It is part of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), which describes the telescope as “dedicated to astronomical and simultaneous search for extra-terrestrial intelligence observations.”

$1,600,000 for the development of enabling chemical technologies for power from green sources, added by Rep. John Olver (D-Mass.).

$1,200,000 for the National Bureau for Asian Research, “a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution dedicated to informing and strengthening policy in the Asia-Pacific,” according to its website, added by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.).

$1,000,000 for transforming waste plastics into alterative fuels, added by Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio).

$800,000 for extended shelf life produce for remotely deployed forces, added by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). This sounds suspiciously like a 2007 Congressional Pig Book project: $1,650,000 added by Senate appropriator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to improve the shelf life of vegetables.

*$500,000 for the Maine Institute for Human Genetics, described on its website as “blending inventive research with emerging concepts in clinical care in rural communities,” added by Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Maine).


  • 0

#4 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 1905 PM

Next time someone decides to bitch about not having enough funding for mine resistant vehicles, direct them to this article.

It's a pity we can't invest in congressional spending bill futures. The water bill grew by 64% between May and Sept, what a return!


http://article.natio...WUyMTNmNDg1MGM=

...that’s what has happened to Congress’s Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007. The Senate passed a $14 billion version of this spending bill in May, which funds federal water projects, and sent it to conference with the House. The same bill emerged from conference last week, and passed the Senate overwhelmingly yesterday, as a $23 billion spending bill. That’s a 64-percent increase in just four months — sounds like a wildly successful hedge fund’s return, not the growth of a bill that authorizes spending for the federal government.

Where did all the extra money come from? Much of it is earmarks. But some of it — between $1 billion and $2 billion — comes from new “earmarks” that were not voted on in the original House or Senate versions of the bill. These were added quietly in conference committee, when the two houses negotiated the final bill they would both pass. There were at least 20 such earmarks added in conference to WRDA, which authorizes spending on projects for the Army Corps of Engineers. Because they were added in conference, neither the House nor the Senate has any chance to debate or amend them.


  • 0

#5 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 2117 PM

Oh, but despite $25 million for health care in Hawaii and other spending VITAL to our national security, Democrats yanked the $3 billion dollar border security amendment from the defense bill.
  • 0

#6 Kding

Kding

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1009 AM

Hm...

Active troops (1000s) : Military Budget (millions) : $ per troop : Country

2,250 : _45,000 : _20,000 : People's Republic of China
1,426 : 553,000 : 387,798 : United States


Chinese troops work pretty cheap. They're getting ~20 times the number of troops per dollar as we are.

As swerve said, it might have something to do with the fact that China's per capita GDP is ~ 1/20th what the US's is. Not only do the troops themselves work cheap compared to US ones, but so everyone associated with supporting and equipping them does too.
  • 0

#7 SCFalken

SCFalken

    Eagerly awaiting the return of Feudalism

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,166 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1022 AM

Hm...

Active troops (1000s) : Military Budget (millions) : $ per troop : Country

2,250 : _45,000 : _20,000 : People's Republic of China
1,426 : 553,000 : 387,798 : United States
Chinese troops work pretty cheap. They're getting ~20 times the number of troops per dollar as we are.


Doesn't the PRC's troop count include paramilitary formations and local militias?


Falken
  • 0

#8 Guest_aevans_*

Guest_aevans_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1023 AM

Hm...

Active troops (1000s) : Military Budget (millions) : $ per troop : Country

2,250 : _45,000 : _20,000 : People's Republic of China
1,426 : 553,000 : 387,798 : United States
Chinese troops work pretty cheap. They're getting ~20 times the number of troops per dollar as we are.

As swerve said, it might have something to do with the fact that China's per capita GDP is ~ 1/20th what the US's is. Not only do the troops themselves work cheap compared to US ones, but so everyone associated with supporting and equipping them does too.


You have to look at the force mix, too. A lot of Chinese troops are still in 1950s style infantry divisions with maybe a few semi-modern tanks and artillery pieces.
  • 0

#9 BP

BP

    Kulak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,841 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1145 AM

Hm...

Active troops (1000s) : Military Budget (millions) : $ per troop : Country

2,250 : _45,000 : _20,000 : People's Republic of China
1,426 : 553,000 : 387,798 : United States
Chinese troops work pretty cheap. They're getting ~20 times the number of troops per dollar as we are.

As swerve said, it might have something to do with the fact that China's per capita GDP is ~ 1/20th what the US's is. Not only do the troops themselves work cheap compared to US ones, but so everyone associated with supporting and equipping them does too.


Gawd, don't let the government see those numbers. They'll want to outsource the Army to them next.
  • 0

#10 Stevely

Stevely

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,535 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1149 AM

Gawd, don't let the government see those numbers. They'll want to outsource the Army to them next.


:lol:

It will never happen though, because it would actually save money. Everything else we've outsourced has ended up costing us more than when the government did it itself.
  • 0

#11 SCFalken

SCFalken

    Eagerly awaiting the return of Feudalism

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,166 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1219 PM

If we increased the Army up to ~800,000 personnel, how much of a raise in the budget would that require?

I've heard ~$1.5Billion/10,000 personnel.



Falken
  • 0

#12 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,160 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1302 PM

Chinese troops work pretty cheap. They're getting ~20 times the number of troops per dollar as we are.


Apples and oranges. The proper metric for assessing the US military budget is $billions/Congressman.
  • 0

#13 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 1921 PM

More "military expenditures"

3 Billion flushed down the sh!tter.
  • 0

#14 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,615 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 0400 AM

I'm actually surprised that EU as whole is spending quite decent amount.
  • 0

#15 Archie Pellagio

Archie Pellagio

    Now flouridating a water source near YOU!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,224 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 0404 AM

We spend more on defence than israel?
Wow...

I'm assuming that doesn't include US defence aid?
  • 0

#16 Xavier

Xavier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,153 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 0755 AM

I'm actually surprised that EU as whole is spending quite decent amount.

methinks the figures are giving a wrong impression due to the ridiculously weak USD
  • 0

#17 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 1028 AM

Just think about what the EU could do with all the money if they adopted a coherent defense spending strategy, instead of wasting it on national single-handed efforts?

Ah well, a man can dream, right? ;)
  • 0

#18 BP

BP

    Kulak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,841 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 1128 AM

Just think about what the EU could do with all the money if they adopted a coherent defense spending strategy, instead of wasting it on national single-handed efforts?

Ah well, a man can dream, right? ;)


Why you'd have a defense budget the size of the US! Which you could then proceed to spend on internal pork barrel politics and inter-service squabbling and duplication of efforts. . .
  • 0

#19 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 1405 PM

Why you'd have a defense budget the size of the US! Which you could then proceed to spend on internal pork barrel politics and inter-service squabbling and duplication of efforts. . .


Still be less duplication of effort than we already have. For example, how many classes of LHD, LPD, AAW destroyer, fighter, MBT, attack helicopter etc. do we need? I don't think the navies of W. Europe would have 3 classes of STOVL aircraft carrier with a fourth working up, more types of anti-ship missile than you could shake a stick at, or the armies 4 different tracked IFVs & 5 wheeled IFVs in production. We might even reduce the pork-barrel politics, in which we need no lessons from the USA. Even with the same overall budget, we'd be a lot better off.
  • 0

#20 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 1825 PM

Still be less duplication of effort than we already have. For example, how many classes of LHD, LPD, AAW destroyer, fighter, MBT, attack helicopter etc. do we need? I don't think the navies of W. Europe would have 3 classes of STOVL aircraft carrier with a fourth working up, more types of anti-ship missile than you could shake a stick at, or the armies 4 different tracked IFVs & 5 wheeled IFVs in production. We might even reduce the pork-barrel politics, in which we need no lessons from the USA. Even with the same overall budget, we'd be a lot better off.


Exactly!

The European Defence Agency EDA still has got a lot of work to do! ;)
  • 0